Download Workshop Report - National Association for Areas of Outstanding

Protected Landscape Management Plan Review Workshop
November 14th 2012
The Studio BIRMNGHAM
Workshop Report
Content:
 Speaker notes & presentations see:
http://www.landscapesforlifeconference.org.uk
o
o
o
o
Robin Toogood – Reflections on past management plan reviews
Howard Davies – Changing Context for management plan review
Stephen Preston (defra) – Advice on management plan review
Ben McCarthy (NE) – Biodiversity 2020 and AONBs


Headlines & summary of sessions from workshop
Notes and Presentations from Coastal and Marine workshop see:
http://www.europarc-ai.org/seminars/past-seminars/

NAAONB Basecamp page for sharing of Management Plan review practice:
Headlines from the Management Plan Review Workshop:
i) Embedding learning from previous rounds of Management Plan Review
specifically:
 Right data, right time right place
 Doing a job once! Sharing the strain of updating content and developing
common content.
 Getting the right level of consultation – deep enough to validate, broad
enough to give weight – sound enough to represent all interests
 Investment in community consultation v investment in ‘political’ consultation
 Ensuring robustness of content for use in the planning process.
ii) Understanding and reflective the changing policy and economic context for this
round of MP review – specifically:
 NPPF
 NEWP & BD 2020
 Need to forge relationships with the Local Enterprise Partnerships
 Growth and Infrastructure
 “No stone unturned in pursuit of growth” Heseltine review
 Defra emphasis on economic growth
iii) Pitching the management plan review appropriately to deliver the
requirements of S89 CRoW Act whilst being mindful to current financial constraints
– AONBs need to be seen as ‘enablers’ of sustainable development. SD is the
cornerstone of NPPF and AONB management plans can ensure development is as
sustainable as possible in the AONB context.
iv) A challenge for AONB teams to define the what “light touch’ review means in
2013
Light touch as a refresh/ tweaking exercise v light touch in terms of depth and
breadth of consultation. Decision on the degree of “light touch” needs to be set
against need to give emphasis to the ‘enabling role’ role of the designation and the
opportunity to articulate and push AONB designation contribution to:
 BD 2020 delivery
 Developing the ecosystem approach,
 Better management of natural resources and building resilience into the land
management system.
v) Data, data, data but don’t forget the importance of the immeasurable too.
vi) Being clear and staying true to the purposes of the Management Plan
Return to the root legislation: “S89 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000
requires relevant local authorities and conservation boards to prepare and publish a
plan which formulates their policy for the management of the area and for the
carrying out of their functions in relation to it. Plans are essentially about delivering
the statutory purpose of AONBs, ie, conserving and enhancing their natural beauty.”
vii) Choosing the right ‘voice’ for the management plan – the choice of voice for the
management plans should talk to the key audiences – this may be official or could be
more informal but should always be positive rather than negative in tone.
viii) Working with the Landscapes for Life branding guidelines to ensure
consistency across the AONB family and working together on increasing the
national and local profile of management plans.
Summary of Workshop sessions
1) Robin Toogood, South Devon AONB Manager reflected on previous learning
from undertaking Management plan Review
A quick look through 14 Plans:
Quite a bit of variation between them  Length (varies between 40 and 140 pages)
 Relative quantities of text, photos, maps and illustrations
 The quantity of background and supporting information provided for each
topic
 Design, presentation, use of titles and sub-titles, general navigability
 Our perennial muddle over definitions of what constitutes objectives, aims,
targets, policies, etc
 Extent and clarity over measures and monitoring
BUT – despite that variation  The Plans are really good!
 They convey a powerful sense of place and what is special and significant
 They nearly all contain clear visions, statements of significance, forces for
change, policies, objectives, measures
 They carry an authoritative “voice”
 They express clearly the values and principles for managing the protected
landscapes
So our starting point must be that they are fit for purpose and in good shape.
Four good things we at South Devon found last time around:
1. We developed a common format with the five Devon AONBs at the outset:
 Agreed chapter structure, main headings, layout, page numbers
 Sorted out terminology (objectives, forces for change, measures etc)
 Worked out text to fit prescribed spaces – like “painting by numbers”!
2.



We commissioned some contract work jointly with the five Devon AONBs:
Data acquisition
Joint commissioning SEA/SA/HRA
Data atlas
3.





We did “consultation light” (but no-one has questioned its legitimacy)
We ran themed workshops on chosen topics
We did an online questionnaire
We piggy-backed on other consultations (eg LAG local development strategy
process)
We did public drop-ins at summer shows
And the consultation draft
4. Confidence
 We had done it before. A good product – fit for purpose and much improved
from previous one
 Has stood the test of time
Four bad things we found last time around:
1. The amount of time and resources it took – including working over Christmas
and New Year holiday to finish writing! A real concern to our Partnership
Committee.
2. Even having done it before, the process was still stressful and difficult
(distilling the issues is like assembling a 1000 piece jigsaw on a beer mat!) –
staff dealing with it need support.
3. Our wording on planning was too weak.
4. We included lots of measures of progress – but too time consuming to follow
up. Data is a black hole for resources!
Next time round – three recommendations:
1. Change as little as possible! Most of it is still fine. But do have a look at a
selection of other plans – it’s fun and you can pick up lots of ideas!
2. Watch out on consultation - keep it light, but clearly focused on those areas
where there is a lot of change. And tease out the critical issue of political
balance given growth agenda and squeeze on resources - get the local
authorities into the process early on.
3. Get help! (We are taking on a graduate temp. to do organize the consultation,
data, measures and legwork.)
2) Howard Davies Contextual Changes since 2009
2009 seems a long time ago.
Twitter
2009 - 18 Million Users (3.8% of adult Internet users.) Facebook – 175 million users
2012 - 140 million users (29.5%) and sees 340 million tweets per day. Facebook over
1 billion users
So, the way we communicate is changing rapidly
2009 - Growth rate (GDP) – minus 4.4% average
2012 – Growth rate (GDP) – minus 0.025% average
2009 - Unemployment 2.47 million
2012 – Unemployment 2.53 million
2009 - Public sector debt about £600 million
2012 – Public sector debt about £1.3 trillion
Different governments in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Consequently with
new governments in place we are now working with
 different policies,
 different ministers, and
 different wishes and expectations.
In England and Wales we have seen significant changes to the country agencies and
in England AONBs have moved much closer to Defra.
Defra priorities
 Support and develop British farming and encourage sustainable food
production
Drivers – CAP reform
 Enhance the environment and biodiversity to improve quality of life
Drivers – NEWP (LNPs and NIAs), Biodiversity 2020,
 Support a strong and sustainable green economy, including thriving rural
communities, resilient to climate change
 Drivers – Heseltine Report (no stone unturned), Local Enterprise Partnerships
- Where local enterprise partnerships exist, AONB plans need to make the
connection. Defra will increasingly have to demonstrate how the funding
they provide to all of the bodies they support is helping to promote economic
growth. Heseltine report on growth (no stone unturned)
Welsh government
 Sustainable development
 Resilient ecosystems
 Health and well-being (environmental justice)
Drivers – One Wales: One Planet, Natural Resources Wales, Sustaining a Living
Wales
Plus the debates surrounding the planning white paper, including the emerging
environment bill, SD bill, and heritage bill
Northern Ireland Executive



Growing a sustainable economy
Improving health and wellbeing
Work towards halting biodiversity loss
Then you have the overarching drivers such as the UK National Ecosystem
Assessment, and the TEEB Report
Questions



How are you going to build in the work by NE on NCAs (English AONBs)?
How are you going to reference tourism?
How are you going to better portray the AONB designation as an enabling
designation rather than red tape?
 How are you going to build in monitoring and evaluation making best use of
the work that NE is doing?
 Probably, most significantly, how are you going to articulate the notion of
natural beauty such that it relates meaningfully to scenic beauty and has any
traction in relation to the current planning framework?
So, lots of questions set against a backdrop of new policy drivers. We need to better
articulate the role of the AONB designation, and value of not only the landscape but
the designation as a tool to conserve and enhance it, within the context of wider
political priorities.
But we have some opportunities
We have collectively, as an AONB Family agreed a set of shared objectives – how
do we use them better?
1.
2.
3.
4.
Support policies for conserving and enhancing natural beauty
Develop an understanding of AONBs and the issues they face
Improve the way in which AONB partnerships and the NAAONB work together
Secure and manage resources
Whilst 1. May be a given, 2. And 3. haven’t had a great deal of prominence in past
plans. Essentially how will the new plans capture the value of collaboration?
In relation to 4. There is a question over how the AONB plan relates to the business
plan of the AONB unit (where that exists)
But, let’s not lose sight of what we are here to do
We need AONB plans that
 inspire us and challenge us,
 move the agenda on,
 are flexible enough to capitalise on new and unexpected opportunities,
 are developed collaboratively, not just consulted upon,
 have real traction when it comes to effecting change on the ground
 stimulating exciting projects that help us push the boundaries, influence
policy and change behaviours
 Written in a language that people will understand
 That really explains why we are doing what we do – not focus entirely on
what we are doing, or how we intend to do it, but why we are doing it. We
need buy in and we will only get that by explaining why we do what we do.
Most of all show some real leadership in the field of landscape management. We
have a far more prominent platform than we have ever had before. We need to rise
3) Stephen Preston on Defra Guidance
 Principles of the 2001 and 2005 Guidance still hold
 AONBs encouraged to work together on common themes and share
resources
 Review must be mindful of the changing context (see Howard Davies session)
 Setting wasn’t an issue 5 years ago it is this time around
 Marine and coastal issues will be significant elements for coastal AONBs
 Review evidence base needs to be robust
 Compliance with SEA/EIA etc should not be onerous
 More work required to build and standardise the Monitoring framework for
AONB management plans
 Call for review to strengthen local relevance of plans.
4) Ben McCarthy on Biodiversity 2020 outcomes and the role of AONBs
Top 2 Actions for Biodiversity
 Take full account of the value of the natural environment in decisions and
policy across all sectors (NEWP & Natural Values programme)

Establish coherent and resilient ecological networks on land and in our seas
( BD 2020 Strategy)
2020 mission = Action in four themes:
 Integrated large scale approach to conservation
 Putting people at the centre of BD policy
 Reducing environmental pressures
 Improving knowledge
3 Key Challenges;
 Ecological Challenge (Lawton “better managed sites, bigger sites, more sites
and more joined up!)
 Delivery challenge (SSSIs & Priority Habitats working harder, Landscape scale
‘stepping up” , dealing with ‘diffuse’ pollution, adopting an ecosystems
approach)
 Engagement Challenge (catalyse, connect projects and co-ordinate)
Whats coming in next 6 months:
 Targeted recommendations for species – what needs to happen / where
 New single layer inventory of habitats
 Breakdown by NCA
 Criteria to assess ecosystem approach
 BARS II reporting system
How AONBs can help with BD ambitions:
 Championing the recovery of key species in each AONB
 Supporting large scale projects and ensuring they step up their contributions
 Supporting effective, integrated, joined up delivery by testing the criteria of
an ‘ecosystems approach’
In Break out groups discussion centres on what AONB partnerships would need to
better understand the biodiversity 2020 ask and what ‘offers’ AONB partnerships
could make toward biodiversity 2020 outcomes:
Understanding the Ask:

Issues for reporting and target setting where NCA and AONB geographies
don’t sit comfortably together.

It is the ‘approach’ that counts (integrated, joined up) – the level of
engagement may vary depending on the geographies and the partnerships
involved.

Being clear about the role of AONBs alongside Natural England, Forestry
Commission and Environment Agency, esp as the agencies are moving more
toward direct delivery.

How to avoid double counting of activities whilst ensuring credit goes to the
right organisation?

Need maps of SSSIs and their condition status – ideally both now and five
years ago.
Starting to compile the Offer to BD 2020 delivery from AONB

AONB partnerships ideally placed to support integration of biodiversity
ambitions with economic and social drivers in designated areas. AONBs can
lead debate, discussions, help with negotiating outcomes and brokering deals.

AONB partnerships well placed to help engage people in biodiversity policy –
Need to align communications, co-ordinate and champion. AONB Friends
Groups nad volunteers can be real assets in getting messages out.

AONB Partnerships need to engage with data gathering, data use and
reporting around biodiversity delivery. AONB teams need training in use of
BARs. Need to aim to make it ‘easy’ to report activity and for data to be fed
back through AONBs to partners.
5) Management Plan Surgery sessions
Session 1 - IUCN debate on Category V designation &
Defining ‘Natural Beauty’ clearly and consistently in MP review led by Paul Tiplady
and Howard Davies
Introduction to IUCN Statements of Compliance
Statements of Compliance are an innovation of the IUCN National Committee for the
United Kingdom’s Putting Nature on the Map project. The project has developed
guidance, within a UK context, on the use of the IUCN definition of a ‘protected area’
and the assignment of the associated management categories and governance
types1. The guidance suggests that short but authoritative Statements of Compliance
are produced for a conservation site or group of sites. This new initiative removes
that automatic assignment of a category and imposes a rigorous, evidence based, reassessment of all potential protected areas. Only on acceptance of a verified
‘Statement of Compliance’ will the IUCN confirm a category to a site or group of sites.
There is an on-going project linked to this initiative to improve and maintain a
protected areas data base. This will require the collection and collation of data to a
prescribed format.
For groups of sites designated for conservation under one overriding piece of
legislation or public policy, the statements should concentrate on whether the sites
meet the IUCN definition of a protected area. For statutory designations, the
Statements of Compliance should review all relevant legislation, focussing on the
priority given to nature conservation in the long-term. For sites not covered by
legislation, the statements should review the significance for nature conservation of
all relevant public policy positions that specifically affect the area or areas.
The IUCN National Committee UK is intending to consider the statements in
November 2012. Each AONB can complete and submit its own Statement of
Compliance but the guidance allows groups of sites that the IUCN defines as a ‘family’
to submit a single statement. The IUCN states that the English and Welsh AONBs can
probably be considered as a family in terms of meeting the definition of a protected
area and being categorised as category V. The relevant legislation for AONBs in
Northern Ireland is different and so they are not a part of the AONB family for this
purpose. They will need a separate examination.
1
Dudley, N (Editor) (2008) Guidelines for Applying Protected Area Management Categories.
Gland, Switzerland: IUCN. X + 86pp. http://data.iucn.org/dbtw-wpd/edocs/PAPS-016.pdf
AND
IUCN NCUK (2012); Putting nature on the map - identifying protected areas in the UK: A
handbook to help identify protected areas in the UK and assign the IUCN management
categories and governance types to them, IUCN National Committee for the United Kingdom,
UK http://www.iucn-uk.org/Portals/0/PNOTM%20Final%20January.pdf
What is a Statement of Compliance?
A Statement of Compliance is a succinct but authoritative justification for a site, or
group of sites, to be considered as protected areas according to the IUCN definition.
The statement is expected to have five sections:
 A critical review of the legislation affecting AONBs, especially on the priority
given to nature conservation in the long term.
 Identification of the significance for nature conservation of any relevant
public policy positions that affect the AONBs e.g. planning policy or
government policy towards nature conservation.
 An overview of current management objectives affecting the areas, including
those in AONB management plans and what they have to say about
prioritising nature conservation.
 A summary account of examples of current management practice that
demonstrate the priority given to nature conservation.
 A look forward with a summary of the ambition and vision for nature
conservation in the areas.
If the statement assigns a management category and governance type then it must
include supporting evidence.
ACTION – All AONBs to post to Basecamp evidence of biodiversity delivery over the
last management plan period 2009-14
Session 2 Natural England Monitoring Framework and data use in management
plan review – Led by Richard Clarke and Stephen Preston
Discussions relating to the detail on NE PL Monitoring Framework and how this will
play through MP review.
Key points:
1. With respect to the final datasets used in the framework there will need to
be a commentary on the dataset including assumptions made e.g Census
Output Areas apportionment on boundary ;any caveats and metadata is
essential.
2. Definitions when describing condition may be subject to interpretation and
need precise definition where possible. The confidence in using datasets, or
mix of datasets, will be variable.
3. Failure to collect data with respect to cultural, social and economic measures
to the same extent as environmental conditions may create a distorted
picture in PLs and could leave the way open for others to be critical of
restrictions within Protected Landscapes .
4. There may be important local indicators that should be visible at a national
level, but only available locally. Local information can provide a robust
challenge to the national picture.
5. The Protected Landscapes Monitoring Framework needs to find a way to
make comparisons with non-designated landscapes.
6. Concerns were expressed about how and who would update datasets such as
tranquillity and dark night skies, and they could only be included in a
framework when it was known how they would be updated.
7. It was felt that the data was hugely valuable, but analysis and understanding
what it could tell a PL Manager was a time consuming task. It was proposed
that this analysis could be done more efficiently if it was done by a single
person or organization for all 34 AONBs.
8. There needed to be long term confidence, 5 yrs +, that the same data would
be collected and made available, This is the start of the process not a snap
shot
9. Not all the measures used in the framework will be used by all PLs and they
will inevitably add local datasets and so there will be an inevitable drift away
from a standard framework over time.
10. The timescale for providing data for the management plan process: as soon
as possible would be great, but a general acceptance of the timetable
proposed, namely .
The ‘Framework for Monitoring Environmental Outcomes in Protected Landscapes’
project is currently aiming to provide data annually that reflects the situation as at
31st March where possible, so as to report a full financial year figure. The majority of
data would become available by end of May 2013, to allow time for its processing
and presentation. The one exception would be detailed information on the uptake of
groups of ES options, which would be provided in early June as it involves further
processing.
If any AONB needs information on certain datasets earlier, then some are available
to download from the Major Landowners Group website. This includes statistics on
the extent and condition of SSSIs, plus the area and condition of broad BAP habitats
within SSSIs. If you would like to have access to this site, please e-mail your postal
address to Paul Myland [email protected] and request login
details.
If you have any comments to make about the supply of this data please contact
Richard Clarke on [email protected]
A critical point was made that it was very important to know by the end of the
calendar year what would be included in the final framework. This would be
informed by the responses received to the questionnaire posted at
http://www.smart-survey.co.uk/v.asp?i=61502fvukk. Please complete the
questionnaire for your AONB.
Session 3 “Doing a Job Once”– Led by Dave Dixon & Jill Smith NAAONB
Key points:
1) It is good to share – need to agree what resources & materials we could usefully
share, who can make this happen and when it will be made available.
2) Dedicated NAAONB managed web space to support resource sharing.
3) An agreed list of resources that will be shared - starting this list now and
developing through dedicated space on NAAONB Basecamp:
Resource for Management
Plan Review
Shared by
When available
Message from Richard
Benyon for use in MP
foreword
NAAONB (Richard
Clarke)
Dec 2012
Consistent AONB Family
branding - visual identity –
guidelines on L4L brand with
examples
NAAONB (Jill Smith)
Available now. See page
of AONB Family Branding
Guidelines
Consistent AONB Family
branding - language –
Draft text and key messages
to explain relationship BD
2020 Delivery Plan
Dave Blake (CCWWD
AONB)
Feb 13
Consistent AONB Family
branding - language –
Draft text and key messages
to explain AONB role in
economic growth
NAAONB (Howard
Davies)
Feb 13
Consistent AONB Family
branding - language –
Draft text and key messages
Feb 13
to explain NPPF in relation to
AONB designation
Consistent AONB Family
branding - language –
Draft text and key messages
to strengthen definition of
‘natural beauty’ in context of
NPPF & IUCN designation
Feb 13
Avoidance of duplication of
workload - sharing
documents
Equalities Impact Assessment
structure
Paul Jackson
(HHAONB)
Avoidance of duplication of
workload - sharing
documents
List of national policy frame
for SEA
Oliver Cripps
(NWDAONB) based on
work done by
Cotswolds or SCH or an
NPA that has done SEA
work in 2012
Circulate good examples of
use of social media in helping
shape management plan
reviews
All
Dec 12