Tim Bonner: Should there be a 'Right to Roam'?

You might have thought barbed wire was a fairly crucial tool in livestock farming and conservation, but according to promoters of a 'Right to Roam' in England and Wales it is: "a symbol of a sick culture that fetishises private property rights at the expense of all that is good, humane and beautiful". I would not usually highlight such overblown lunacy, but there is an increasingly difficult and complex debate about access to the countryside which is not helped by the introduction of politically motivated extremism.

The challenge is that we have a growing population and that a greater proportion of that population wants to visit the countryside. On the one hand this is something that should be welcome both by rural communities which gain financially and for visitors who benefit physically and mentally. On the other, however, large numbers of people visiting fragile ecosystems can have a devastating impact and, unfortunately, a significant minority of visitors behave in a reckless manner.

In recent weeks that has been emphasised by the continued use of disposable barbeques and other open fires in tinder dry conditions leading to wild fires, but it is not just mindless behaviour that is the problem. The sheer numbers of people visiting the countryside, and the draw of 'honeypot' sites means that in some places - even where visitors are behaving in an entirely responsible way - the sheer numbers of boots on the ground cause erosion of habitats and dispersal of wildlife.

Head for any mountain in the Lake District to Snowdon, Pen y Fan or dozens of other famous climbs and you will see obvious man-made erosion and valiant efforts to limit the damage by creating paths and encouraging walkers to use designated routes. This is not just an upland issue, however, and across many of the densely-populated areas of England and Wales there is a fundamental clash between access and conservation. Put simply, unrestrained human access and the conservation of biodiversity just do not mix.

This is a challenging reality for some environmentalists who instinctively support the long political campaign for access to the countryside which led, eventually, to the Countryside and Rights of Way (CROW) Act 2000 and a 'right to roam' over unenclosed land. For many, any suggestion that access to the countryside should be restricted is an anathema, yet they also know that a free-for-all would be disastrous for fragile habitats and declining species.

I would argue that the answer to this conundrum is already with us. England and Wales have 140,000 miles of designated footpaths. As those of us who use them regularly know, this network gives extraordinary access to the countryside and most rights of way are rarely used. From an environmental perspective the footpath network has the advantage of giving controlled access in specific areas, whilst restricting disturbance of more sensitive sites. There remain issues in the uplands and other unenclosed areas where CROW has granted rights but has not cemented responsibilities. The broad principle of managed access to the countryside has, however, to be the right one for a crowded island like ours if we are to tread the careful line between promoting and protecting the countryside.