This might seem a very strange question, surely we know what natural is. But the reality is certainly with respect to landscapes what many of us might consider natural (as well as beautiful) are often very artificial, managed for a particular species, in particular in the UK game species. In many cases these are also very nature sterile environments. Rebirding: Restoring Britain’s wildlife by Benedict MacDonald is a visionary book that describes this in detail. From the vast moorlands and mountain-scape of Scotland managed for deer and grouse to the pastures of Southern England with the vast dairy and beef herds. Habitats that support ever decreasing amounts of wildlife, from beetles and birds to small mammals.
Then there is the danger of good intentions doing just the opposite. How often do you see conservation groups on television programmes ably supported by volunteers, removing vast areas of scrub and bramble, tidying an area. It may appear more “beautiful” but this scrub and bramble, as Benedict describes, is key to habitat diversity. The danger is we think we know what is natural and beautiful and we risk making a damaged situation even worse.
I was struck by this as I walked out on to the marsh today. At first glance it would be easy to imagine this is a landscape unchanged over 100’s of years. Indeed the marshlands were described here as far back as Roman times, but those marshes and habitats were “lost” in the 19th and early 20th century when first a brick makers was established supplying bricks to the building of the ever expanding London and then at the turn of the 20th century the area became huge factory sites for the manufacture of gun powder. Raw materials could be easily delivered and product dispatched as a result of the presence of the deep water channel of the Swale. No longer a marsh this area was an industrial archipelago.
By the 1930’s manufacturing gunpowder so close to the European mainland was considered neither sensible or viable and the manufacturing moved north. Slowly the industrial landscape receded, buildings were removed or decayed and nature began to take back that which had been taken from it. For beneath the buildings the marshy soils remained. Bramble scrub and reedbeds have all returned. But if you look closely the ghosts of the industrial past are there. The Lee’s loved by water fowl were cut into the landscape to transport gunpowder and bricks to the estuary edge, nature rarely cuts such a straight line. When the ground is really wet, a network of paths and routes between what were clearly buildings can be seen, a gridwork of puddles revealing the industrial past.
So is this landscape natural, in someways definitely not, it has most clearly been shaped by its industrial past. But in other ways it most definitely is, because nature came back on its own terms without any “help” from us. The waders returned because the muddy, silty banks are rich with invertebrates. The water fowl love the patchwork of water ways and reedbeds. The area is not drained, regularly floods and undergoes a myriad of changes throughout the year from lake-like to bone dry, but these changes drive formations of habitats each of which will be vital nature in ways we probably don’t understand. Because if you take the time to stop and look the interconnections between land and animal will reveal themselves. Today it was the Stonechats already singing furiously as they defend their areas of scrub and bramble, the place which will be home and food source for their young in spring. Why would anyone think this would be more beautiful without these scruffy bits. So next time you grab the secateurs just ask yourself do you really, really need to?

Rebirding: Restoring Britains Wildlife by Benedict MacDonald (https://pelagicpublishing.com/products/rebirding-restoring-britains-wildlife-macdonald-pelagic-9781784272179)








