To manage or not to manage: What next for our ‘wild’ uplands?

On 14 July 2016, the Prime Minister Theresa May announced her new Cabinet, following a significant reshuffle and re-structure of Government. In this context, researchers from all over Newcastle University express their thoughts on the challenges and opportunities for the Government in the Ideas for May’s Ministers blog series, considering how individuals, communities and societies can thrive in times of rapid, transformational change. Professor Mark Reed is the N8 Professor of Socio-Technical Innovation at Newcastle University, funded through the Agri-Food Resilience Programme, and a Professor in the Institute for Agri-Food Research & Innovation and Centre for Rural Economy at Newcastle University. Download his policy brief on this subject.

To: Andrea Leadsom, Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
From: Professor Mark Reed, Newcastle School of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development

Depending on the policy decisions made in the next weeks and months, we may be about to embark of one of the biggest ‘experiments’ our country has ever known.

It will affect the UK’s rural communities, environment, water supplies, wildlife, recreation and cultural heritage and the consequences of getting it wrong are unthinkable.

And the question? In light of Brexit and the inevitable changes to funding, do we continue to actively manage the peatlands of upland Britain?

Peatlands, UK

There are so many unknowns, how we take this forward is still up for debate. What is certain is that we can’t do nothing.

Without support, historically degraded peatlands in our uplands will continue to deteriorate, losing biodiversity as well as vast quantities of carbon to the atmosphere, degrading water quality and imposing higher water treatment costs on water companies, and subsequently on consumers.

The UK Government has argued consistently for the EU’s bloated Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) to be slimmed down but as yet there have been no indications whether farmers will receive less after the current guarantee on payments runs out in 2020.

Almost 40% of the EU’s budget is devoted to the CAP, which is designed to provide stable, sustainable and safe food supplies, whilst maintaining farm incomes.

If there is a reduction in funding, then there is a good chance that farmers in the lowlands will adapt, as long as there are favorable trade deals.

However, a small change in payments could have a significant impact on the viability of land management operations across many UK uplands, given the precarious nature of many upland enterprises that currently depend on EU subsidies.

Leaving aside the wider political arguments, the withdrawal of the UK from the EU’s Common Agricultural Policy after Brexit represents an opportunity to develop new agricultural policies that are better value for taxpayers, protect nature and support rural communities. We have a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to change the basis on which we pay farmers and others who manage our land, to reward them for the environmental benefits that we all depend on, but often take for granted.

Peatlands represent an important opportunity for this new approach, given the considerable benefits provided by these habitats to the UK.

Research into post-Brexit policy options on peatlands, a large portion of our uplands, leads me to two key conclusions:

  1. There is strong evidence that paying for restoration and active management for conservation could provide benefits for wildlife, water quality, reduced flooding and climate. Meanwhile, we know little about the effects of large-scale withdrawal of management from peatlands.
  2. There is uncertain and often-contested evidence over the potential effects of policies that lead to a large-scale, significant reduction in active management. Taking, a Precautionary Approach would retain farm incomes but provide a renewed focus on the delivery of wider public benefits.

My idea for Andrea Leadsom MP (Environment Secretary) is that refocusing increased funding on restoration and environmental management could provide multiple benefits:

  • Damaged peatlands would be restored, providing benefits for climate, water quality and wildlife that depend on healthy peat bogs;
  • Recovery of native woodlands through targeted expansion on non-peat soils (e.g. in valley bottoms between deep peat areas), to provide biodiversity and wider benefits including shelter for livestock, reduce soil erosion and flood management benefits; and
  • Many of the jobs, rural communities and cultural heritage associated with peatland management would be retained.

In this way, we can support rural communities whilst restoring and improving our largest semi-natural environment, delivering more benefits for everyone in society than we currently get from the money we spend on peatlands through the Common Agricultural Policy.

Download Professor Mark Reed’s policy brief on this subject.

To engage in the conversation, please tweet us @Social_Renewal #IdeasforMaysMinisters

 

Resilience and Wellbeing: Domesticity and Trauma in English Women’s Second World War Epistolary Correspondence

In the Newcastle University public lecture on New Voices in Social Renewal, postgraduate student Stephanie Butler presented her work on letter-writing during the Second World War. In this blog post, she challenges the overly simplistic histories of English wartime stoicism, and explores the true resilience of English women as they adjusted to living through war. In deepening our understanding of war displacement, we can let our past inform our present, with an empathy fitting for the modern age.

letter writing

Stephanie Butler, PGR, English Literature, Language and Linguistics

My doctoral thesis examines how English women used personal correspondence during WWII to create peer-support communities which promoted wartime psychological resilience. This project started as a result of letters I inherited from my grandmother, which were written by my grandmother’s great aunts to their sister (her grandmother). Each of the great aunts was in her late seventies by the end of the war, which means that they represent an age bracket often overlooked in research about WWII. They were certainly not war-working women [1], nor were they housewives [2] nor mothers of young children [3] – all of whom have been given a lot of scholarly [4] and popular [5] attention.

My grandmother’s great aunts’ letters are quite honestly heart-breaking at times. These letters are so full of references to shaken nerves, bombed houses, civilian war causalities, and even grief over massacred children, that the popular myths of English wartime stoicism [6] have long seemed overly simplistic to me. One of my grandmother’s great aunts lost her house in Kent after a bomb completely obliterated it and killed her neighbours. Another lost a friend and former teaching colleague who was killed (along with her three sisters) when a bomb fell on their house.

Their constant descriptions of houses, whether home repairs after bombing or concerns about potential air raid damage, led me to consider the ways war reshaped women’s relationships with their homes. Although the home is by no means a safe space for everyone, I wondered how the threat of violent death or displacement impacted women who had previously felt that their home was their own space of comfort and safety, or even accomplishment. Where could they feel safe if not even in their own homes? Private shelters such as Andersons [7] or Morrisons [8] or reinforced basements [9] were no guarantee of survival in the event of a direct hit (nor were public shelters [10]).

Perhaps unsurprisingly, I noticed that women’s descriptions of the state of the houses around them (their own, or other peoples’) often reflected the overall emotional tones in their letters. At times women even connected—practically or symbolically—the physical stabilities of houses to their own mental states. This observation holds true across a wide collection of letters I have reviewed, not just those provided to me by my family. I, therefore, examine the ways that preoccupations with houses in their letters reveal the psychological impacts of war on civilian women.

Despite popular mythologized representations of English wartime stoicism [6], the realities of people’s reactions to the war were far more complicated [11]. What I have learned is that women’s negative reactions must not be dismissed as cowardly; they are an inevitable part of the process of adjustment to wartime conditions – an entirely human reaction. Letters were an important medium of support because women often found themselves separated from family and friends due to war-work, evacuation, or military service. (The telephone was expensive, and often interrupted due to raids or service cuts to international lines, so was not as popular [12]).

Letters then let women reach out to trusted confidantes when the war was too much for them to cope with alone. In the spirit of my usual concern with contemporary human rights issues, I contend that a more complicated understanding of English women’s responses to war displacement, evacuation, and endangerment can increase our empathy for those currently seeking asylum [13]. Inspired by American [14] and Canadian allies [15] who so generously supported English friends and relatives throughout the war, we can provide aid to contemporary women fleeing conflict [16].

References

[1] Braybon, Gail, and Penny Summerfield. Out of the Cage: Women’s Experiences in the Two World Wars. Abingdon: Routledge, 1987. Print.

[2] Last, Nella. Nella Last’s War: The Second World War Diaries of ‘Housewife, 49’. Eds, Richard Broad and Suzie Fleming. London: Falling Wall Press, 1981. Print.

[3] Clouting, Laura. ‘The Evacuated Children of the Second World War.’ Imperial War Museums. 2016. Web. December 21, 2015.

[4] Jolly, Margaretta. Dear Laughing Motorbyke: Letters from Women Welders of the Second World War. London: Scarlet Press, 1997. Print.

[5] Nicholson, Virginia. Millions Like Us: Women’s Lives During the Second World War. London: Penguin, 2012. Print.

[6] Calder, Angus. The Myth of the Blitz. London: Jonathan Cape, 1991. Print.

[7] Lewis, Tony. ‘What was an Anderson Shelter?’ Biggin-Hill History. http://www.bigginhill-history.co.uk/ May 14, 2015. Web. December 21, 2015.

[8] Ministry of Information Photo Division Photographer ‘MORRISON SHELTER ON TRIAL: TESTING THE NEW INDOOR SHELTER, 1941.’ Imperial War Museums. 2016. Web. December 21, 2015.

[9] Your Home as an Air Raid Shelter. London: British Pathé, 1940. Film.

[10] Sunderland Libraries. ‘Fifty Years On: Remembering the Lodge Terrace Incident of 24th May 1943.’ BBC: WW2 People’s War. 18 January 2005. Web. January 24, 2016.

[11] Acton, Carol. Grief in Wartime: Private Pain, Public Discourse. London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2007. Print.

[12] ‘UK Telephone History.’ Bob’s Telephone File: A historical web site about United Kingdom Customer Telephone Apparatus & Systems. December 20, 2010. Web. December 21, 2015.

[13] ‘Free access to OUP resources on refugee law.’ Oxford Public International Law, Oxford University Press. 2016. Web. January 1, 2016.

[14] Statler, Jocelyn. Special Relations: Transatlantic Letters Three English Evacuees and their Families, 1940-45. London: Leo Cooper, 1990. Print.

[15] Hawes, Stanley. Children from Overseas. Montreal: National Film Board of Canada, 1940. Film.

[16] West End Refugee Service Website. January 5, 2016. Web. January 5, 2016.

Stephanie Butler is a Year three PhD Candidate in the School of English Literature, Language, and Linguistics at Newcastle University. Her publications on chronic illness peer-support and virtual autobiography have appeared in the journals Space and Culture; Continuum: Journal of Media and Cultural Studies; Disability Studies Quarterly; Information, Communication, and Society; and a/b:Auto/Biography Studies (forthcoming). She recently completed a Research Fellowship with the Saratoga Foundation for Women Worldwide, Incorporated (a United Nations Accredited NGO with Special Consultative Status with the Economic and Social Council of the UN).