of National Parks Local and Regional Aspects Frances Rowe Ruralimpact

Transcription

1 Uplands Policy Review and the Role of National Parks Local and Regional Aspects Frances Rowe Ruralimpact

2 Introduction Some reflections on regionalism and rural Experience from last 20 years: RDA and National Parks Are there insights that might be useful? New government policy frameworks Implications for the Uplands and National Parks? Challenges? Opportunities?

3 Busting some myths? Myth no 1: National Parks are anti development and should have a third purpose p National Parks have always been concerned withsocio socio economic development. But have varied in their approach and culture On going tension between local and national interests, regulator v facilitator/enabler

4 Busting some myths? Myth no 2: Rural = remote rural/uplands Uplands are a very small part of the rural : lots of space, but not manypeople 40% of UK land, (much in Scotland, less in England) 1% of UK population Seen to embody remoteness, natural beauty, rural disadvantage, strong cultural connections Renewed political attention but other kinds of rural p haven t received much air time

5

6 The regional rural experiment Regional Policy Rural Policy EU rural policy shifting hf from Devolved administrations agriculture to wider rural Scotland, Wales, NI development New Labour focus on FMD Critical turning point rural/agricultural policies English regions Formation of DEFRA Creation of Regional Strategy for Sustainable Development Agencies: Farming and Food closing the productivity gap Haskins Review rural should be decentralised to regional and local bodies

7 The regional rural experiment Regional Policy Elected assemblies in English Regions? NE referendum Unelected regional assemblies Rural becomes increasingly i aligned to regional policy andregional delivery mechanisms Rural Policy Rural Strategy 2004; Rural Definition RDAs given responsibility for rural socio economic programmes Enhanced co ordination i and monitoring by Government offices rural proofing Rural mainstreaming

8 Did Regionalism work for rural? Strengths Investment in evidence base and analytical capacity Policy tailored to regional circumstance Delivery flexed to regional priorities i i Positive environment for rural mainstreaming rural part of the Regional offer Countrysiderecognised recognised asa a regional asset Weaknesses Policy delivery difficult in practice competing interests, urban dominance? Rural interests outside the regional mainstream Agriculture seen as not important Complex governance and delivery arrangements Rural projects suffered from onesizefits all investment appraisal. Not local enough?

9 New policy frameworks Death of regionalism, focus on functional economic geographies, LEPs Disappearance of regional and rural institutions National Planning Policy Framework : Presumption in favour of development New Localism: Neighbourhood planning and right to build More local accountability for national parks

10 New policy frameworks Push to low carbon energy energy planning policy statements Rural economies growth review Renationalisation of RDPE: Focus on public goods, agri environment Community broadband Small scale economic development largely via Leader approach

11 Opportunities Presumption in favour of development Neighbourhood planning Renewed interest in rural? Food security, climate change and natural resources Realising the value of natural capital eg land based carbon trading?

12 Opportunities Renewable energy Natural tourism Local food National Parks as facilitating organisations, engaging gg g the local, but operating at scale, joining up investment and programmes, advocates for remote rural?

13 Challenges Resolving the national/local tension Planning: Localism or parochialism? Whose national interest prevails? eg wind farms, large scaleforestry for biomass over landscapes and wildlife? New dawn for rural economies or false fl dawn? Demographics: ageing and retirement population or more working people (and jobs)?

14 Challenges Local wealth creation or exported wealth eg carbon off setters, pension funds? Public Investment: Regional Growth Fund? RDPE? Farming for the future, or the past? Innovation or preservation? Who cares? Localising the land outside the planning system? Manyvisions of what s right. Who decides?

15 Traditional v technological?

16 Enterprise v subsidy bid

17 Conclusion New era: markets and private enterprise, shrinking the state, liberalising reforms. Uplands will be affected. National Park Authorities can fill the gap, but they will need to (continue to) do things differently Make the research, available, accessible and influential: essential to engage a range of stakeholders