Shooting yourself in the foot, Part 1...

The recent decision by the Environment Minister, Mark H Durkan, to shelve National Parks legislation is as disheartening as it was inevitable. Given the whipped up hysteria against the legislation, mainly by the UFU, it was only a matter of time before our politicians pandered to the least common denominator and pulled the rug from underneath the one progressive and potentially massively beneficial piece of legislation that the Executive had come up with.

The UFU were predictable in their reaction. Yet such a response is again a startlingly self-defeating one. A wilful refusal to explore or recognise any benefit in National Parks, and the potential diverse economic opportunities such legislation could bring to farmers and land owners, is in the long run a complete dis-service to the people they purport to represent.

It again underlines the fact that the UFU still have to recognise that the rural economy can only thrive if non-farming sectors are given the space to do so. Rural communities are in the main made up of people who do not own land. Sustainable job creation in such areas, which would enable young people to stay and raise families where they were born, rather than move away, can only occur if our legislators create the conditions whereby investment can be made in sustainable rural sectors of employment. National Parks would provide a framework of protections for our most beautiful countryside areas, and also the access frameworks required to encourage much needed investment into them.

Saying all that, advocates of national parks and progressive countryside legislation in general, including those in the tourism sector, need to up their game and start to be more politically savvy. Things won't change all by themselves and the message needs to be better communicated. Those who oppose national parks may be misguided, but once again they have shown that they are better organised and more motivated in their campaign of opposition and lobbying. Dismantling their arguments and getting across a positive vision for the Northern Irish countryside is the challenge before us all.

Media Interest

It's been a while since I last posted. I'm going to get back at it again, but I thought I should make a quick comment on a little article on countryside access that ran on Radio Ulster the other morning. It was about a right of way being blocked off by developers in the village of Broughshane, a village located outside Ballymena, and the fact that local people had cried foul and were attempting to have it reinstated. Good for them, hopefully it'll be open again before too long.

However, the second half of the article featured an interview with representatives. While the interviewer appeared clueless about the wider issues involved, the Ulster Ramblers rep (Alan McFarland I think, but I could be wrong - Update: turns out it was David Flinn - see comment below) did a nice job, with the limited time available, of drawing a contrast between the situation in GB and in Northern Ireland, especially in relation to activity tourism and the economic benefits that countryside access is bringing there.

By contrast, the Ulster Farmers representative didn't even attempt to engage at that level, instead listing the risks that farmers would face if people got access to their land. It was a rather depressing contribution. In an economic environment that is downright awful, especially in rural areas, the UFU guy displayed a complete lack of imagination or willingness to see any positive benefit to greater countryside access. This highlights the job of work that countryside activity advocates have to do in order to make progress with the farming and landowner types.

Again, David did nice job of arguing how a structured countryside access framework could actually minimise risk to landowners by making it clear where people can and cannot go (PRoWs do this very nicely). He also covered the recent unsuccessful attempt to reform the landowners liability legislation.