PRESENTATION to NEW FOREST NATIONAL PARK AUTHORITY MEETING 28.01.2010

Mr. Chairman, Thank you for having the forbearance in allowing me to address the Authority members once again.

First impressions of the second draft Recreation Management Strategy are that it is very rough and ready. Is this document a fit framework to guide recreation through the next 5 years and beyond? Granted, great strides have been made to listen and respond to public ‘disquiet’. But in seeking a quiet life, it has put aspiration aside, and the Strategy is now at risk of being considered mundane.

Disturbingly, there is an increased accent on conflict between troublesome natives. I do not recognise this.

Many of these divisions have been of the NPA’s own making. An adversarial approach to decision making is not appropriate. The NPA should pay scant attention to extreme views, and start harnessing that vibrant middle-ground of goodwill and consensus so abundant in our community. It is this power that the Strategy should be promoting to lead us forward.

My dog is concerned she has been forgotten. All the text about the nasty things she dreams of doing have been edited out, and nothing remains in its place. Unless she takes up cricket, there is nothing of relevance to her in this document. It cannot be sensible to have an RMS that fails to consider dog issues, good and bad.

Not only was dog walking the subject of many responses to the original draft RMS, but it is a key aspect of recreation in the Park. The NPA must have the courage and the skills to sit NFDOG and conservationists round a table and thrash out an acceptable text that is appropriate and reflects public attitudes.

Without clear guidelines spelt out in the RMS, it is irresponsible to fob us off with an assurance that key specifics can be left to an undefined steering group in the future.

Could and should the NPA be evolving a Strategy that aims to harness the goodwill and enthusiasm of the community? My experience suggests yes.

Just last week, the National Park of the Cévennes in France sent me a review of their recreation activities and exhibitions for 2009, in which I played a very modest part. This Park, with less than half the population of the New Forest, arranged over 500 assorted outings and exhibitions, all designed to improve public understanding and enjoyment, whilst promoting conservation.

How is it that the ungovernable French manage such a vibrant a National Park? The answer is just one word. Community.

Can we not, Mr. Chairman, do better than the French?

END

SUMMARY submitted to the NEW FOREST NATIONAL PARK AUTHORITY on 03.02.2010

Formal Response to the draft revised Recreation Management Strategy

We have discussed at length my views on this document, and your willingness to do so has been much appreciated. I therefore summarise my key points below.

This response should be read in conjunction with my initial comments sent as an attachment to an email dated 14/01/10, and the presentation I made to the NPA meeting on 28/01/10. These have been supplied again as attachments to the covering email of this response, labelled ‘RMS2 V6 14 Jan 10.doc’ and ‘NPA Presentation 28-01 for Park.doc’. An additional attachment named ‘Conflict clips.doc’ has also been supplied to illustrate my comments about conflict made at the presentation.

Overview

My extensive comments should not obscure the fact that my view is that the revised strategy is a major improvement on the original draft RMS, and has gone a long way to addressing the issues that proved so controversial. Although my presentation described the document as ‘mundane’, it is appreciated that under the prevailing climate, it would have taken considerable skills to rise much above this, bearing in mind the entrenched positions that have been engendered.

Accent on Conflict

My comments about accentuating the ‘increased accent on conflict’ are not just concerns over style. Responding to the middle ground is much more likely to result in suitable policies, engender public goodwill, and marginalize extremist views.

Dog Walking

I have consistently argued that dog walkers should not be treated differently from other recreation users, hence my comments that dog issues have hardly been touched on in section 6, in sharp contrast with the other principal groups. You are aware that I have suggested an alternative text, which addresses this issue. This was my attempt to draw up a text that would be acceptable to all responsible dog walkers and conservationists as a complete text. Picking and choosing various aspects of this text would upset the balance, and would be more likely to lead to discord.

I do not claim the monopoly of wisdom in drawing up such a text. You have my good wishes if you succeed in drawing up any text that is balanced and reflects the spirit of the feedback you have from the public over the 18 months, and is recognised as such by reasonable people.

Steering Group

I have expressed my concerns that it is inappropriate to propose a Recreation Management Steering Group in this Strategy, without giving meaningful information as to its structure and guidelines for its deliberations. I understand that this is likely to be addressed. I have previously submitted some fairly detailed proposals for such a group (or ‘forum’) for discussion. Some of these ideas may be acceptable for this steering group. Certain key aspects need to be made clear in the Strategy.

Mechanics:

• Advisory to the NPA and key partners, but independent of all these bodies.
• Secretariat and funding supplied by the NPA, or joint NPA and key partners.
• Size to be small enough to be workable. Frequency of meetings not to be too burdensome.
• Summaries of all meetings, together with all documentation supplied to inform these meetings, should be easily available to the general public (this has not been the case to date with the Equine Forum, and has caused some disquiet).

Guidelines:

• Steering Group members should be chosen for their willingness and ability to address key issues, and the group should be balanced rather than strongly partisan.
• Members belonging to any organisation should not be there to promote that organisation’s agenda, but instead should be there to provide their specialist skills and knowledge to inform and guide the Steering Group in its deliberations, and provide quality recreation for all.
• Suggestions and comments made by the members should be determined by the needs of recreation in the National Park, with special reference to the Management Plan and the RMS, and of course the legal framework under which the Park operates.

Beating the French

My comments to the NPA members about aspiring to the level of recreational activities and exhibitions of the Parc national des Cévennes was not intended to suggest that such detail should be included in the current RMS. Rather, it was intended to provide hope for the future, and illustrate that with the goodwill of the public, and many years of experience, it is possible to provide an extensive programme that involves the community and adds considerable value to the national park. I lacked the time to mention the relatively low cost of such initiatives, which is crucial in today’s climate. Details of the 2010 programme are being developed at present, and will be increasingly available at http://www.cevennes-parcnational.fr/Programme-du-Festival-nature over the next few weeks. I shall be glad to discuss any of this with interested parties.

Many thanks again for your involvement in drawing up this strategy. Please do contact me at any time if you feel I could be of further help.

END