Return to North Glen or Reading List or Credo
Is
Consultation Worth the Candle?
An Essay by Ed Iglehart; Centre for Human Ecology, Spring 2000
Rather than
presenting quick answers, as technocratic culture tends to do, we
need to reflect on whether or not we are asking the right
questions...[or whether] ...people ‘participate’ in a project
without having to decide on the critical issues related to that
project."
-- Pablo
Leal
Contents
Abstract
Foreword
Centralised
Vs Localised
Consultation
Participation
Conclusion
Notes
Abstract
Massive public
consultation has been a feature of the implementation of the
devolution exercise, beginning with the referenda and the debates
preceding them. This essay is an attempt to briefly (and partially)
assess its efficacy with respect to the stated goals of
decentralisation and stakeholder empowerment at the local level.
Several recent Scottish consultative exercises are considered in the
light of their documentation, together with anecdotal evidence drawn
from the writer's 28 years as a rural resident and active participant
in consultations involving environmental, community and related
matters.
The general conclusion is that the participative
consultation model, having been adopted by the centralist
establishment, has tended to set parameters in advance, to divide and
exhaust consultees, and thus to provide more the appearance of
decentralisation than the substance. On the deeper question as to
whether it actually possible for the centre to decentralise, the
verdict is "Not Proven." For the moment, centralism is
alive and well in our devolved Scotland.
Foreword
As
a transplant from a related but different democracy, my perspective
is perhaps unusual among residents of Scotland, a difference which
first came to my notice in 1974. The occasion was the complete
reorganisation of local government. Town, Borough and County councils
were destroyed, to be replaced by Districts and Regions. "Community"
councils were to follow, their boundaries drawn to fit existing
electoral wards based in turn on parishes. I was astounded that such
a thing could be contemplated, that, according to a plan worked out
in central government, local government was being rewritten to
"increase democracy." I was also perplexed that nobody else
around me found it at all odd, or to doubt the competency of the
centre to determine the shape of things local.
The newly
re-employed Chief Executive of the new District visited Palnackie
Village Hall to present us with the new plans for Community Councils,
and to explain the new relationships in local government. The CCs
were expected to be channels of opinion when the centre wished to
know something, were to have a very small capitation, no statutory
powers, in short, a consultation channel. We were given a draft
constitution, and I asked if that meant we should have a look at it
and modify it to suit local circumstances.
To paraphrase the
reply, "We[I]'ve got [a good number] of these to deal with. You
can discuss and decide on a name, but the rest should remain as in
the draft." It was then the penny dropped a bit further. The
whole exercise was for the benefit of the centre! Can you imagine the
bother in being one tier up from a hodgepodge of parishes, villages,
towns, boroughs, etc.? Better to just divide 'em up around convenient
subcentres and give 'em a set of clones for constitutions. Simpler to
administrate and fund. I don't know how he felt about the way a
similar process had just been imposed on his tier (his salary and
grade increased). He had a reputation as an efficient and prudent
administrator, and the rates were low (pre-reorganisation). Twenty
six years later mine are up more than tenfold, central funding
accounts for fully 87% of Council income, and government work is the
largest employment sector locally.
I learned later that the
entire exercise was the result of a Royal Commission from the
sixties, the results of which had been worked up by the civil service
and promulgated through the Scottish Office. They did such a good job
that it needed doing all over again a few years ago, and we shed a
tier, but the rates continue to rise. One of the consultations
considered below is concerned with how the Scottish Parliament can do
it all over again.
Centralised Versus Localised
"By now it should be pretty obvious that central planning is of a piece with absentee ownership and does not work." -- Wendell Berry
It has long been
recognised, even by successive UK governments, that British
government structure is very highly centralised. The experiment in
'devolution', leading to the new Scottish Parliament and Welsh
Assembly is the latest response to the growing perception that,
somehow, it might be better all round to decentralise a bit. Believe
it or not, the 1974 events related above were couched in the language
of "better local democratic accountability." One of the
elements of the mantra of decentralisation is that it will enable a
diversity of local approaches, to be empowered through (Wait for it!)
participative consultation. Another obligatory phrase is "sustainable
development."
It is so widely accepted that "sustainable
development" is the only acceptable path that the term is fast
becoming meaningless in any practical sense. It seems to mean
whatever the speaker is talking about. The generally accepted
definitions are well known, but often wordy. I prefer to consider
something sustainable if one can keep on doing it forever. This is
stricter and less susceptible to obfuscation or equivocation, as well
as a bit easier to understand. Also, the first law of thermodynamics
as expressed by Hardin is inherent: you cannot do only one thing.
Being stricter, it defines a smaller subset of systems and activities
or practices, perhaps at strictest only the Gaian, where
sustainability is most obviously based upon interdependent diversity.
If, for the sake of comprehensibility we wish to consider smaller
subsets, we simply subdivide by defining boundaries, successive
subdivisions being available likewise by boundaries, down to
subatomic scale. Each subdivision is, of course, only an abstraction,
and depends upon the whole of the external and internal diversity.
That the subdivisions are defined by boundaries is important,
as to attempt to define by centres leaves potentially disputed
boundaries. It is also significant that any choice of what to treat
as a centre is substantially arbitrary; this must also be admitted of
boundaries, although possibly to a lesser extent. Thus there arises
the possibility of competition between would-be centres for the power
and control potentials and necessities inherent in centralist
thinking. Boundaries, on the other hand, whilst 'containing' are also
membranes, where imbalances and opportunities between subsystems are
addressed through interaction and exchange. Control in a
boundary-based system is thus distributed, rather than centralised,
emergent rather than imposed.
In centre-based systems, the
perceived need to exert control, constrained by the logical limit of
consciousness (Bateson, p. 142), tends toward simplification and loss
of diversity, whether by abstraction or design. Uniformity, being
easier to comprehend (literally get a grip on), is assumed easier to
control, and this simplifying tendency produces many familiar forms,
e.g. housing estates and other monocultures, political parties,
religious and philosophical orthodoxies, academic disciplines, etc.
Another apparent tendency of such constructs is to seek to dominate
and effectively incorporate neighbouring or related subsystems,
seeking 'economies of scale' in an increasing spiral of
centralisation and simplification, leading to the present situation
of global corporatism and "free trade."
Carrying
this tendency to its logical conclusion is analogous to seeking to
improve the health and vitality of an organism by dismantling its
cell wall structure. That this is not lost on practitioners of
centralist thinking is evidenced by the recognition of the importance
of infrastructure, albeit, mainly in aid of commerce and trade, but
also in the delivery of the services of civilisation, social and
otherwise. That such infrastructure is often constructed to the
profit of corporations and bureaucracies on the shattered remains of
the naturally emergent infrastructure of places and cultures is not
reassuring.
Consultation
Further evidence
can be found in the fact that in many cases the centralists have
co-opted the language of diversity, and in the adoption of the idea
of stakeholder participation and the mushrooming of consultative
processes in an effort to "involve" communities and local
people in sustainable development. This co-option of the consultative
process as a 'fix' has swept the culture of development, and results
in the perception of involvement as a predominately transitive verb,
i.e. something done to communities and people.
"For local people to gain real benefit from community woodlands, they need to feel part of the process. They need to be involved in developing the worth of the woodlands as an asset to the community. Involving people through community participation is fundamental to creating and managing successful community woodlands. Success will improve the environment in which people live and provide opportunities for individual and community development. The process is not always straightforward or easy to achieve, but it is rewarding."
Involving
Communities in Forestry Through Community Participation
(Forestry
Commission)18/03/98
A further result of the overwhelming volume of
consultation processes generated by such caring, consulting
government is the generation of thousands of personhours of
employment in agencies, councils, quangos, NGOs, government
departments, trade and lobby organisations and think tanks. Thus, a
process intended to distribute power may be converted to the service
of a centralised agenda, and the important decisions remain, as does
funding, centralised.
At the level of the system defined by
the boundaries of Scotland, the Scottish Parliament has the potential
to shape many of the parameters of Scottish culture, the legal codes
and the manner in which property (whether sporting estate or
tenement) is owned or held, the structure and empowerment of local
government, the manner in which revenue is raised, the operating
context for industry and commerce, the management and use of land,
questions of access to that land, and many more - in short, the
dynamic environment in which our culture continually develops. A
parliament (literally a 'talking', a discussion, a parley) is an
organ and, in ideal terms, a natural outgrowth of civil society, an
emergent faculty.
This has not been overlooked by the
participants of this exercise in "devolution", and in order
to determine how best to take advantage of the new arrangements
available within the remaining higher, (more central) power of the
Westminster Parliament, a positive flood of consultations has been
unleashed, sufficient to bewilder all concerned and generate vastly
more personhours of preparation of submissions and responses, not to
mention participatory public meetings up and down the land on dozens
of aspects of our life together in this nation and its communities
and wilder places. Further, less direct, participation is possible,
of course, through membership and support of NGOs, etc. The present
orgy of consultation began shortly following the 1997 general
election, and new exercises are announced regularly.
It not
being possible to engage directly in but a small fraction of the
consultations current at any time, one would seem to be well advised
to concentrate on matters of particular personal and local concern,
as reflected in the following list.
Towards a Development
Strategy for Rural Scotland (TDSRS); July 1997
The overall aim of all our policies for rural Scotland is to foster and enable the sustainable development of rural communities. Sustainable development is the over-arching theme at the heart of all our policies,... Development is something that individuals and groups do. It is not something done to them.
The Land Reform Policy Group (LRPG) was 'devolved' out of the above exercise (implying that it is essentially a rural issue)
The Land Reform Policy Group was set up in
October 1997, with the remit:
· "to
identify and assess proposals for land reform in rural Scotland,
taking account of their cost, legislative and administrative
implications and their likely impact on the social and economic
development of rural communities and on the natural heritage."
The (McIntosh) Commission on Local Government and the Scottish Parliament (LGSP) was given the remit: (1997)
· to consider how to build the most
effective relations between local government and the Scottish
Parliament and Scottish Executive; and
· to consider how councils
can best make themselves responsive and democratically accountable to
the communities they serve.
THE UK FORESTRY STANDARD - The Government’s Approach to Sustainable Forestry; January 1998
FOREWORD by the Prime Minister
"Sustainable
development means looking after our natural heritage so that our
children, and the children of future generations, can also enjoy
it..." Tony Blair
The Sustainable Management of Forests. - A
supplementary consultation paper to Opportunities for
Change.
(Forestry Commission. July 1998)
Introduction
SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT:
OPPORTUNITIES FOR CHANGE
1. In ‘Opportunities for Change’,
published in February this year, the Government sought views and
ideas that it can build into a new Sustainable Development
Strategy...The Framework for Sustainable Forestry:
The
Government’s main aims for forestry at home
are:
· Sustainable
management of our existing woods and forests; and
· Steady
expansion of tree cover to increase the many, diverse benefits of
forestry.
Scottish Forestry Strategy (final comments on draft strategy due 6 June 2000)
The overarching principle for the Strategy is sustainability. Scottish forestry must contribute positively to sustainable rural development, and meet internationally recognised standards of sustainable forest management....
Local Forest Frameworks: (final comments on draft due 15 May 2000)
The Langholm/Lockerbie Local Forestry
Framework (LFF) and Galloway LFF are being prepared by environmental
consultants ERM on behalf of a partnership of Dumfries & Galloway
Council, Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH) and the Forestry Commission.
Combined these LFFs form one of two pilot projects being run in
Scotland, the second being in the Cairngorms.
The Galloway
area was selected as a pilot project area primarily because of
increasing conflict between the forestry industry and the local
community...
The general form taken for a consultation exercise is the publication of a paper outlining the policy area to be considered, and generally setting the agenda, e.g. from LGSP:
We have set ourselves a timetable of three
phases, as follows:
We are inviting written views and
comments, to be submitted to us by 30 June 1998. During this first
phase we shall hold meetings with individual councils, community
representatives and members of the public in each council area.
Meetings will also be held with other agencies and public bodies; as
well as with those representing professional, employee, business,
voluntary and community interests.
In the second phase we
plan to produce discussion papers which will address the key issues
arising from the first round of consultation, and we will invite
feedback on these issues, coupled with further consultation.
We
will then finalise our thinking as a result of the second round of
consultation and will prepare our comprehensive report for submission
to the First Minister of the Scottish Executive, when appointed.
Government thinking on various aspects of the subject is then outlined, and a final section usually provides a summary, highlighting specific areas upon which comment is solicited:
TDSRS: "In particular, we would welcome
comments on the following specific [9] questions which have been
raised in the discussion paper:"
LRPG: "There follows a
list of [37]key issues on which views are sought under each topic
covered by the previous Chapters."
LGSP: "We invite
responses and comments on
any and all of the following issues."
[33 questions]
It is usual for participative workshops to be mounted at various locations, and some of these are scheduled outside of normal working hours. It is only at such workshops that 'ordinary' members of the public are likely to be able to express their views, and considerable effort is made to ensure that everyone is able to contribute and that their opinions are recorded. The workshop results are then combined with written submissions and summarised in a second consultation paper issued for further comment, e.g. TDSRS:
"In addition to those responding in writing, Rural Forum, on behalf of The Scottish Office arranged a series of five meetings in different locations in rural Scotland to give people the opportunity to comment on the discussion paper in open meetings. Over 200 attended those meetings in total and their contribution, summarised in a report by Rural Forum, have been incorporated into the analysis of the responses set out here. "
Participation
The
Government have embraced the internet and all consultation documents
are published on their various websites. Respondents can usually make
submissions by email, as well as other more traditional methods.
In
the belief that active citizenship is a good thing, and in the allied
belief that democracy is reinforced when arguments of vested
interests are examined by those whose livelihood is less directly
involved, I have been an active participant in a number of the above
consultative exercises, both as an individual and jointly with others
on behalf of voluntary organisations. When the government makes such
fine attempts to involve the people in decisions which affect their
lives, it would show poor faith and be proof of apathy not to
participate.
A number of factors have enabled me to be such a
relatively active participant. Firstly, as will already be clear, I
have an interest in democracy and the matters under consideration. I
am also relatively well educated, literate (including IT),
articulate, and self-employed. My work as an artist/designer is also
strongly seasonal, providing sufficient leisure at certain times.
Those without these, or similar, advantages are very likely to find
the process somewhat more exclusive.
Even with such an
advantaged situation, the iterative process from original discussion
paper, workshop/meetings, written submission, second draft &
discussion, possibly another round of workshops, submission followed
by consideration and comment on the final draft is exhausting, but in
good faith and with the hope that some of the fine words and
sentiments in the discussion papers may eventually come to fruition
and that the less enlightened sentiments sometimes encountered might
be ameliorated, one engages. It is also a fact that engaging in the
debate is often the best way to clarify one's own thinking, and
sometimes provides material for an essay.
Conclusion
A
full analysis of the results of the exercises listed above is well
beyond the scope of this essay, but a few examples may serve to form
an impression, e.g. from TDSRS, after two years four principles are
identified:
Rural development strategy must:
· not set rural
Scotland apart;
· reflect
the diversity of rural Scotland;
· work
through an integrated approach;
· facilitate
community involvement.
These are more or less consistent with the earliest
documents (and with remarkably similar papers produced by the
previous government), and are difficult to take issue with in any
case. The final paper goes on to list all the good things the
Government is already doing on these lines.
LRPG identified a
number of meaningful ways in which land reform might proceed, and
proposed legislation, guidance and further study (including Land
Value Taxation, "but not at present"). The 'key themes'
identified:
· increased
diversity in the way land is owned and used, as the best way of
dealing with damage to the local community or environment which can
result from monopoly ownership, and of encouraging the fullest
possible exploitation of rural development opportunities;
and
· increased
community involvement in the way land is owned and used, so as to
ensure that local people are not excluded from decisions which affect
their lives and the lives of their communities.
The legislation presently moving through the
Parliament, however, is only concerned with access and very limited
aspects of community ownership, and does not address the main issues
raised in the consultation, in particular the vastly concentrated
pattern of (often absentee) ownership. The Abolition of the feudal
system has been whipped through in the face of major concerns that
the public interest would be weakened.
Detailed critiques can
be found in Wightman (1999) and at Property,
Sovereignty, Democracy
LGSP reported with recommendations,
a key one of which was :
"5. An independent inquiry into local government finance should be instituted immediately. (57)"
and the Scottish Executive responded:
"Although finance was not included in the remit given to the McIntosh Commission, their report includes a recommendation (5) that an independent review of local government finance should be set up. Ministers do take seriously the Commission’s view that financial matters are part of the agenda for change, but they are not persuaded that an independent review at this time would be beneficial. Instead, Ministers are already taking action."
Neil McIntosh was outraged (personal
communication).The Commission also commissioned research which
revealed just how centralised the Scottish system of local government
really
is:
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/cru/documents/con-status-13.htm
The
various consultations with regard to forestry policy have arrived at
the stage where two (final) draft documents are available for
comment, The LFF until 15 May 2000, and the Scottish Forestry
Strategy until 6th June 2000. Both hope to set the context for policy
with a time horizon of fifteen years minimum. The LFF exercise has
been exemplary in the level of participative workshops, the thorough
examination of baseline data and considerations of the impacts on the
natural heritage in general. The hand of Scottish Natural Heritage is
clearly evident, and local folks' concerns have mostly been well
answered. More of this sort of fine-grained treatment with increasing
local empowerment would be a hopeful sign, but it is only a 'pilot'
exercise, and it has cost considerable money, as a senior council
official informed me.
The real concern is with the Scottish
Forestry Strategy, where, after a preamble about sustainable
development and environmental enhancement, the top priorities are
given to the needs of industrial forestry, which mostly involve
maximum mechanisation and minimisation of manpower requirements on
the grounds of "competitiveness." Costs of transport are to
be subsidised (externalised) as infrastructure, local government
being expected to build roads to take the biggest lorries allowed in
Europe. There is lots of window dressing lower down the priorities,
but with no promises or real expectations of significant funding.
Such consideration of real time horizons as is actually included
seems based on continuing expansion of short rotation conifers in
spite of very marginal economics. Needless to mention, I and others
are preparing critical comment, both as individuals and
organisations. These will be available to interested parties when
finalised. (My
response)
Whether any comments at this advanced stage can
turn the juggernauts around is very much in doubt. The strategy
document exhibits the same pattern as most consultative exercises:
Fine words and sentiments invite creative input which is 'taken on
board'. The preliminary drafts are sensitive and supportive and
further comments solicited. Then the final draft changes the order
around a bit, still with the sensitivities addressed in the preamble,
but with the 'economic realities' as they have always seen them. The
window dressing returns in the middle, but the summary of priorities
reveals the truth.
In the case of the LFF final draft,
community interests have been moved to the top of the list of
concerns from an original posting at the bottom. It was one of my
observations that it should be. Does that mean I'm empowered? (No, I
am informed the list has simply been alphabetised...)
But
there remain a lot of questions: How do/will the LFFs relate to the
Strategy? Why is there a turf war amongst the agencies of the
Scottish Executive? Is there any reason to believe that fine green
words will result in actions? Are there any promises? Why does the FC
think it can get away with sponsoring the industrial sector, with so
little regard to social needs? Why is there a lack of true grassroots
interest in forestry or public land for that matter, a lack of any
sense of owner management, even among locals? Sometimes it can be
easily stirred, but it requires constant wakefulness and focus. There
are time and commitment difficulties in maintaining local activity
combined with less local, but active participation in the
paradigmatic debate, for that is what it is or ought to be. Is
participation in the larger paradigmatic debate possible without
local activism? Not, if we wish to argue the localist viewpoint.
Practice must reflect reflection and reflection practice.
The
general conclusion is that the consultation model, having been
adopted by the centralist establishment, has tended to set
parameters, to divide and exhaust consultees, and thus to provide
more the appearance of decentralisation than the substance
(empowerment, transformation), or as Pablo Leal has it,
"Official development has largely co-opted participatory processes, reducing them to technocratic machinations, designed mostly to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of the ‘delivery’ of development packages, rather than transform the dominant power structures which perpetuate people’s marginalisation and powerlessness." --Pablo Leal
Can centralism decentralise? On
the deeper question as to whether it actually possible for the centre
to decentralise, perhaps time will tell, but for the moment,
centralism is alive and well in our devolved Scotland. The verdict on
the efforts to decentralise is "Not Proven."
References
and Notes:
Pablo Leal, Participation, Communication and
Technology in the Age of the Global Market, in Forests, Trees and
People Newsletter No. 40/41:
http://www-trees.slu.se/newsl/40/40leal.pdf
Gregory
Bateson, Steps to an Ecology of Mind, University of Chicago Press,
2000. ISBN0-226-03905-6
Andy Wightman, Scotland: Land and Power,
the agenda for land reform, Edinburgh 1999
Available from the
author: 9 Inverleith Terrace Edinburgh EH3 5NS
OR:
andywightman@caledonia.org.uk
Most
Scottish consultation documents can be found through the
Scottish
Executive Search
page:
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/search2/search.asp
A
few key papers and other background documents:
Towards a
Development Strategy for Rural Scotland, The Framework
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/library/documents-w/ruralscot-00.htm
LRPG:
Identifying the problems:
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/library/documents1/lrpg00.htm
The
McIntosh Commission report (LGSP):
http://politicsforpeople.org/business/research/pdf_res_notes/rn99-14.pdf
McIntosh
Commission research paper: THE CONSTITUTIONAL STATUS OF LOCAL
GOVERNMENT IN OTHER COUNTRIES
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/156449/0041993.pdf
Scottish
Executive Response to McIntosh Commission
Report:
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/library2/doc04/ser-02.htm
Draft Scottish Forestry Strategy,
http://www.forestry.gov.uk/fcscotland/scostrat.htm
Scottish
Executive, Competitiveness White
Paper:
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/news/releas98_3/pr2666.htm
Galloway
& Langholm/Lockerbie Local Forest Frameworks, Papers from Sue
Bennet, Dumfries and Galloway Council, Environment and
Infrastructure, Newall Terrace,
Dumfries DG1 1LW ;
Or in PDF
format from: SueB2@dumgal.gov.uk
Ed
Iglehart, Territory, Property, Sovereignty & Democracy in
Scotland, A Brief Philosophical
Examination:
property.html#CONCLUSION
Ed
Iglehart, Responses to consultations, private papers, available on
request. A number of responses appear in papers published
at:credo.html#circumstances
Return to North Glen or Reading List or Credo
The following excerpts from the various consultation papers for the exercises considered in this essay are provided as illustrative of the sort of agenda-defining material typically used to direct the consultation process along safe, non-threatening (to the established order) lines.
"Thus, at the heart of the Strategy there must be a strategic direction: - to ensure that forestry in Scotland makes a positive contribution to the environment. ...This must recognise the need to ensure that Scotland's trees, woods and forests are located and managed for long term sustainability and biodiversity in order to make the maximum contribution to the environment consistent with agreed economic objectives." [italics added] --from the draft Scottish Forestry Strategy
Towards a Development Strategy for Rural Scotland,
July 1997
The overall aim of all our policies for rural
Scotland is to foster and enable the sustainable development of rural
communities. Sustainable development is the over-arching theme at the
heart of all our policies, and both words are important: sustainable
in the sense that proper regard must be had to the longer term
consequences of development, for example in relation to the
environment; and development because we wish to see human social and
economic advances, leading to further opportunities and a higher
quality of life for rural people.
The Government believe that
rural development should be driven by the priorities of local people
to a much larger extent than in the past. Rural communities should be
able to shape their own future and take part in the decisions that
affect the economic, social, cultural and environmental well-being of
their area. The key to achieving sustainable development in all three
of its facets - economic, social and environmental - is to put local
people in the position of subjects of their own development rather
than objects of development. Development is something that
individuals and groups do. It is not something done to them. (A rare
recognition!)
Conclusion: Rural development strategy must:
· not set rural
Scotland apart;
· reflect
the diversity of rural Scotland;
· work
through an integrated approach;
· facilitate
community involvement.
Out of the above exercise was
'devolved' a consultation on
Land Reform (implying that it is
essentially a rural issue)
The Land Reform Policy Group was
set up in October 1997, with the remit:
· "to
identify and assess proposals for land reform in rural Scotland,
taking account of their cost, legislative and administrative
implications and their likely impact on the social and economic
development of rural communities and on the natural heritage."
The (McIntosh) Commission on Local Government and the
Scottish Parliament was given the remit: (1997)
· to
consider how to build the most effective relations between local
government and the Scottish Parliament and Scottish Executive;
and
· to consider
how councils can best make themselves responsive and democratically
accountable to the communities they serve.
In June 1999, the
Commission reported and recommended:
Relations with Parliament
and Ministers
1. The Parliament and the 32 councils should commit
themselves to a joint agreement - which we call a Covenant - setting
out the basis of their working relationship. (Paragraph 34)
2.
Parliament and local government should set up a standing Joint
Conference to be a place where parliamentarians and local government
representatives may hold a dialogue on a basis of equality. (34)
3.
A formal working agreement should be established between local
government and the Scottish Ministers. (45)
4. Legislation should
be introduced to provide councils with a statutory power of general
competence. (52)
5. An independent inquiry into local government
finance should be instituted immediately. (57)
6. The option of
transfer to local government should always be considered in any
review of other bodies delivering public services;
and likewise
where new services are developed, prior consideration should always
be given to whether local government should be their vehicle, subject
to consideration of efficiency and cost effectiveness. (62)
and
the government responded:
Although finance was not included in
the remit given to the McIntosh Commission, their report includes a
recommendation (5) that an independent review of local government
finance should be set up. Ministers do take seriously the
Commission’s view that financial matters are part of the agenda for
change, but they are not persuaded that an independent review at this
time would be beneficial. Instead, Ministers are already taking
action.
McIntosh also commissioned research which revealed
just how centralised the Scottish system of local government really
is in comparison to other Countries. A very revealing table is
at:
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/cru/documents/con-status-13.htm
THE
UK FORESTRY STANDARD
The Government’s Approach to Sustainable
Forestry, January 1998
FOREWORD by the Prime Minister
Sustainable
development means looking after our natural heritage so that our
children, and the children of future generations, can also enjoy it.
There is world-wide recognition that the protection and management of
forests have a vital and distinct role to play. What is at stake is
the conservation of a high proportion of the earth’s species, the
equilibrium of the atmosphere and climate, and the lives of millions
of people who depend on forests for food and shelter.....Tony Blair
The Sustainable Management of Forests.
A supplementary
consultation paper to Opportunities for Change.
(Forestry
Commission. July 1998)
Introduction
SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT:
OPPORTUNITIES FOR CHANGE
1. In ‘Opportunities for Change’,
published in February this year, the Government sought views and
ideas that it can build into a new Sustainable Development Strategy.
It explained that the Government would also be seeking views, in one
of a number of supplementary consultations, on how forestry can most
effectively make its contribution to sustainable development. This
supplementary paper has been prepared by the Forestry Commission and
the Department of Agriculture for Northern Ireland (DANI), in
consultation with the Department For International Development
(DFID), to fulfil that commitment.
The Framework for
Sustainable Forestry:
The Government’s main aims for forestry at
home are:
· Sustainable
management of our existing woods and forests; and
· Steady
expansion of tree cover to increase the many, diverse benefits of
forestry.
Scottish Forestry Strategy (from the final
Draft)
The overarching principle for the Strategy is
sustainability. Scottish forestry must contribute positively to
sustainable rural development, and meet internationally recognised
standards of sustainable forest management. The other principles
are:
· integration:
forestry should fit well with other rural activities in Scotland,
such as agriculture, conservation, deer management, fishing,
recreation and tourism;
· positive
value: forests and woodlands should contribute to the well being of
the people of Scotland;
· community
support: forests and woodlands should be managed in ways which enjoy
broad public support;
· diversity
and local distinctiveness: different types of forest will suit
different places.
This is followed by "Priorities
for Action":
(In no particular order? Or ranked by
importance?)
Maximising Value;
MV1: improve competitiveness
by developing a strong
forest industries network
MV2: Secure investment
MV3: Develop
the timber transport infrastructure
MV4: Promote more use of
timber
MV5: Develop products that meet market needs
Future
Forest Resource;
FFR1: Expand the area of well-designed
productive forest
FFR2: Improve timber quality by following good forest
practice
FFR3: Develop forests of mixed species
FFR4: Exploit
non-timber outputs and other benefits
of woods and forests
FFR5: Tackle deer problems
Positive
Contribution to the Environment
PCE1: Improve management of
semi-natural woodlands
PCE2:
Extend and enhance native woodlands by developing
Forest Habitat Networks, especially
in lowland Scotland
PCE3: Increase diversity of the farmed
landscape
PCE4: Aid recovery for acidified rivers and lochs
and improve riparian
habitat
PCE5: Encourage alternatives to clear felling
PCE6:
Contribute to a radical improvement in the quality
and setting of urban areas
Opportunities to Enjoy Trees, Woods
and Forests
ETWF1: Provide woodland recreation
opportunities near
towns
ETWF2: Improve information about availability of
opportunities
ETWF3:
Increase forestry's contribution to tourism
Community
Benefits
CB1: Create wider employment opportunities
CB2:
Increase opportunities for community consultation
CB3:
Provide opportunities for greater community
involvement in forestry
CB4: Support community ownership where
this will bring local
benefits
Local Forest Frameworks (mostly from the final
Draft):
This report is the Draft Local Forestry Framework
(LFF) for the Galloway area of Dumfries and Galloway and has been
issued for consultation. The area covered by the LFF is shown on
Figure 1.1. It has been prepared by Environmental Resources
Management (ERM) for a partnership of the Forestry Commission,
Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH)and Dumfries & Galloway Council
with the purpose of providing guidance on future forestry and
woodland planting and management according to local interpretation of
agreed national and international guidance and commitments.
The
partnership was supported by a wider Steering Group involving
representatives of the Scottish Executive Rural Affairs Department,
Scottish Environment Protection Agency, the Scottish Agricultural
College, Scottish Woodlands, Scottish Landowners Federation, Dumfries
and Galloway Enterprise, National Farmers Union, Royal Society for
the Protection of Birds, Scottish Wildlife Trust, West Galloway
Fisheries Trust, the Timber Growers Association and the forest
products industry.
The LFF is intended to inform and guide
consideration of Woodland Grant Scheme (WGS) applications. Such
applications will still be required to go through the formal
application and consultation process and every application will be
assessed on its merits. The LFF is aimed at farmers, foresters and
agents considering new planting schemes, organisations and
individuals commenting on new WGS applications and the Forestry
Commission in making a decision on an application. The issue of
grants remains at the discretion of the Forestry Commission.
...
The
Galloway area was selected as a pilot project area primarily because
of increasing conflict between the forestry industry and the local
community. This was reflected in the Cree Bank WGS, the first
application to be refused by the Forestry Commissioners on grounds of
reasonable balance.
...
The development of the LFFs has
involved a thorough process of research, consultation and amendment.
Initially as much existing information as possible on the general
characteristics of each area and known sensitivities were collated.
Preliminary workshops were held in four locations to better
understand local issues and to ensure that the baseline information
which had been collected was as comprehensive as possible.
Draft
LFFs were drawn up and circulated for consultation and a second set
of workshops held to discuss the developing frameworks. Comments from
the second workshops (and subsequent correspondence) and information
about how these have been addressed have been listed in an Addendum
Report. This is available for inspection at local SNH, Forestry
Commission and Council offices and public libraries and from Sue
Bennett by post and email (see Section 1.1 for contact details).
Community involvement and also input from the project
partners and Steering Group have been key elements of the process of
developing the LFFs.
Further information about the methodology
adopted for the study is included in Annex A.
The LFFs are
based on currently available data. New data are continually becoming
available and should be considered alongside the LFF in assessing
proposals until such time as they are reviewed, and the data can be
incorporated. The review period for the LFFs is anticipated to be
five to ten years depending on how quickly changes affect them.
(from intermediate working paper):
The aim of the LFFs
is to guide future woodland/forestry planting and management within
areas identified by the partnership as being under pressure from - or
sensitive to - new planting. The LFFs seek to resolve potential areas
of conflict by highlighting sensitivities and taking the views of
local communities and forestry stakeholders into account.
...
To
date, forestry/woodland planting and management in the Dumfries and
Galloway area has been guided by the Indicative Forestry Strategy
(IFS), prepared by Dumfries & Galloway Council in 1994, which
provides strategic guidance of land suitability for forestry at a
regional scale. LFFs take the IFS a stage further and provide more
specific guidance at the local level. The IFS was prepared under the
guidance of SDD Circular no 13/1990. This Circular has now been
superseded by Circular 9/1999 ‘Indicative Forestry Strategies’
and the Dumfries & Galloway IFS is due to be updated in line with
this new guidance.
(and again from the final draft):
The
Galloway LFF has been prepared in conjunction with an LFF for the
Langhom/Lockerbie area. Together these LFFs form one of two pilot LFF
projects in Scotland, the second being the Cairngorms Forestry and
Woodland Framework. In Dumfries and Galloway, forestry/woodland
planting and management is guided currently by Dumfries and Galloway
Structure Plan Policy D28, supported by Technical Paper No 4, which
provides strategic guidance on land suitability for forestry at a
regional scale.
Scottish Office Circular 9/99 identifies Local
Forestry Frameworks as an appropriate method for furthering forestry
policy in localities known to be especially sensitive, where there is
widespread concern amongst local people or where the issues are
complex. Public Consultation is seen as a key part of this process.
LFFs take the IFS a stage further and provide more specific guidance
at the local level.
Return to North Glen or Reading List or Credo