We’re all familiar with politicians pulling up agencies and industries when they’re not delivering on their duties: water companies, rail operators and the BBC are but three examples from my newsfeed this week. So you’d forgive Natural England for feeling rather hard done by recently: put on the naughty step, one might argue, for being too scrupulous in going about their job.

As government's advisers on the natural environment in England, they seem to have found themselves surrounded by politicians who don’t much like their advice. Politicians that seem rather quick to intervene, should Natural England try too hard to discharge their legal duties to safeguard nature. Duties such as the consenting of activities on Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs). Or to ensure that any activity on SSSIs in unfavourable condition moves the sites towards favourable condition (not makes them worse). For example, on Dartmoor, where less than ten per cent of upland habitats are in favourable condition, and where species such as curlew and dunlin teeter on a precipice.

When Natural England last year sought to make changes to the agri-environment agreements applied to the management of Dartmoor’s commons, it did so in the context of its SSSIs being degraded and, in places, in need of urgent changes to avert irreparable damage. They were just doing their job, right? Well, not everyone agreed.

The government agreed change is needed

Fast forward a year and the government has just responded to the independent review commissioned by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra), established amidst the debris of baying MPs, broken relationships and exasperated farmers, following those fated attempts by Natural England to improve Dartmoor’s protected sites. So what does the government response say, and will it make a positive difference?

The overarching sense from Defra is that it has listened to and respected the conclusions of the earlier independent review, led by David Fursdon. He and his panel took time to thoroughly grasp the issues facing Dartmoor and its custodians. In doing so, the Fursdon panel built trust amongst all stakeholders, but without shying away from difficult issues, including the poor state of Dartmoor’s SSSIs, concluding that “the way Dartmoor is managed needs to change radically and urgently to address these issues”.

Such changes mean accelerating peatland restoration; expanding woodland; reviewing the timing, mix and density of grazing livestock; questioning the use of swaling (i.e. managed burning of moorland); and establishing a new Land Use Management Group to develop a land use plan and improve governance and relationships on Dartmoor. More on that later.

So, yes, the government appears to have agreed with and echoed most of the Fursdon Review’s recommendations which, as the ‘glass half full’ guy that I am, is a welcome and positive outcome.

Is nature restoration being deprioritised?

There is a big ‘but’ though and that lies in some of the emphases used by Defra, and particularly the Secretary of State. The government’s response signals a shift in focus away from the restoration of nature and improvements to our SSSIs – which is where this all began – and moves attention towards considering how food production and cultural heritage can be supported alongside “preserving” (not restoring) nature.

Growing up a farmer’s son and then working with countless, brilliant nature-friendly farmers throughout my career, I am the first to champion the point that nature needs farming. Without viable farm businesses and committed farmers, we lose the means to restore nature across a vast proportion of the UK, Dartmoor included. Having spent time with Dartmoor’s commoners this year, I absolutely believe there can be a future where nature, farm businesses and livestock can thrive together. I point to the three Landscape Recovery areas now sited on Dartmoor as proof of how widely that belief is shared.

But I think we must be clear: in those highly designated landscapes – our most special places for nature – we have a legal and moral duty to put nature restoration first. Especially on those sites, like many of Dartmoor’s, where nature really does need restoring. In these places, nature cannot be the footnote. Nature is the priority.

I’m just not sure, based on its response, that the government sees it that way.

Hatchets can be buried

And so to the proposed Land Use Management Group (LUMG). A chair and terms of reference for this group will emerge soon, but it’s clear that a lot will rest on the LUMG to manage these questions of priority, setting the framework for how land is managed on Dartmoor. Having been part of a stakeholder group, established last year in advance of the Fursdon Review, I have a great deal of confidence in the potential for collaborative problem solving and positive working relationships between all interested parties on Dartmoor. I’ve seen how, with the right people around the table, adopting the right attitude, common sense and a desire to move forward prevail. Disagreements can be managed. Hatchets can be buried.

If the membership of the LUMG is convened in this vein, then I am hopeful that we will indeed be turning a new page for nature on Dartmoor. But my ask of government is a simple one: support those supporting nature on Dartmoor. Whether that be commoners, Natural England or NGOs. If nature cannot thrive in our wildest landscapes, then what hope have we elsewhere?