Heritage and Regional Planning: A Case Study of the Mountains of Mourne, Northern Ireland. Annex: Recommended Proposal Process Based on a Living Heritage Approach (Master&#39;s Thesis)

Courtney Hotchkiss

Northern Ireland has several mechanisms for protecting its cultural and natural resources, yet it does not have a National Park System. A recent proposal for the first National Park in the Mountains of Mourne in Northern Ireland is the case in which this paper focuses. Considering the other countries of the UK have an established National Park system with which Northern Ireland can join or be affiliated, it is surprising that the proposal in question has been essentially denied. This paper explores the reasons for the failed proposal and how resource stewards in Northern Ireland can learn from this for future nominations. The methods employed to gather information for this case study include interviews with stakeholders and an expert as well as a review of government documents and other publications related to the National Park proposal. Analysis revealed three major issues from the proposal, namely a lack of communication, a neglect of community values and problems with the process itself. These issues raised points about community participation in decision-making and how the authorities perceive their role and civil society's role in regional planning. The result of the case study points to a broader problem of a lack of tools which integrate heritage conservation and regional development planning. There can be a stark distinction in our understanding of the two disciplines, however they overlap in many ways. Not sensing this overlap is argued to be a major downfall of the Mourne National Park proposal. The methodology applied to the issues discovered in the case study is a Living Heritage Approach, which has been developed by ICCROM and visiting researcher, Ionnais Poulios. This approach combines heritage conservation and regional planning based on sites that contain living heritage. Furthermore it gives the community a higher level of participation in decision-making. A description of how the Mournes meet the criteria of the approach is given. An adaptation of the approach in the form of a recommended proposal process intended for the Northern Irish authorities is provided. The paper ends with a critique of the approach and an analysis of the challenges regarding its implementation.

Heritage and regional planning: A case study of the National Park proposal of the Mountains of Mourne, Northern Ireland Kulturerbe und Regionalplanung: Eine Studie zum Nationalparkentwurf der Mountains of Mourne, Nordirland A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in World Heritage Studies By Courtney Hotchkiss Matriculation number: 3224956 Submitted on 15 September 2015 Supervisors Prof. Dr. Britta Rudolff Visiting Professor in Cultural Heritage Management Faculty II: Architecture, Civil Engineering and Urban Planning Brandenburg University of Technology Cottbus-Senftenberg, Germany Gastprof. Dipl.-Ing. James Miller Stevens Chair of Urban Planning and Spatial Design Faculty II: Architecture, Civil Engineering and Urban Planning Brandenburg University of Technology Cottbus-Senftenberg, Germany Statement of Authentication I hereby declare that I have written the present thesis independently, without assistance from external parties and without use of other resources than those indicated. The ideas taken directly or indirectly from external sources (including electronic sources) are duly acknowledged in the text. The material, either in full or in part, has not been previously submitted for grading at this or any other academic institution. Place, Date Signature Verfassererklärung Hiermit erkläre ich, dass ich die vorliegende Arbeit selbständig, ohne fremde Hilfe und ohne Benutzung anderer als der angegebenen Hilfsmittel angefertigt habe. Die aus fremden Quellen (einschließlich elektronischer Quellen) direkt oder indirekt übernommenen Gedanken sind ausnahmslos als solche kenntlich gemacht. Die Arbeit ist in gleicher oder ähnlicher Form oder auszugsweise im Rahmen einer anderen Prüfung noch nicht vorgelegt worden. Ort, Datum Unterschrift der Verfasserin Abstract A failed National Park proposal of the Mountains of Mourne in Northern Ireland is the phenomenon this paper focuses on. Considering the rest of the UK has a very strong and proactive system which Northern Ireland could easily join or learn from, it is surprising that the proposal in question has been indefinitely postponed. This paper explores the reasons for the failure and how Northern Ireland can avoid this from happening in the future. The methods employed to gather information for this case study include interviews with stakeholders and an expert as well as a review of government documents and other publications related to the National Park proposal. Analysis revealed three major issues from the proposal, namely a lack of communication, a neglect of community values and problems with the process itself. These issues raised points about community participation in decision-making and how the authorities perceive their role and civil society's role in regional planning. The result of the case study points to a broader problem of a lack of tools which integrate heritage conservation and regional development planning. There can be a stark distinction in our understanding of the two disciplines, however they overlap in many ways. Not sensing this overlap is argued to be a major downfall of the Mourne National Park proposal. The methodology applied to the issues discovered in the case study is a Living Heritage Approach, which has been developed by ICCROM and visiting researcher, Ionnais Poulios. This approach combines heritage conservation and regional planning based on sites that contain living heritage. Furthermore it gives the community a higher level of participation in decision-making. A description of how the Mournes meet the criteria of the approach is given. An adaptation of the approach in the form of a recommended proposal process intended for the Northern Irish authorities is provided. The paper ends with a critique of the approach and an analysis of the challenges regarding its implementation. Acknowledgments Living in Northern Ireland and interning for the Mourne Heritage Trust is a time that I will always treasure. The Mournes is a wonderful place filled with wonderful people. It was an honor to work with the staff and to contribute to the work that they do to take care of the Mournes. A special thank you to the Mournettes - Camilla, Emma, Amanda, Alwynne, Sinéad, Niamh, Mandy and Cathryn - for your patience, kindness and friendship. Also a big thank you to Martin Carey for the extra meetings and conversations, and for allowing me to transcribe one of those interviews for this paper. To the other lovely people that allowed me to interview them, I thank you for taking the time to meet me and for opening my mind to the feelings and fears of a community with such an intricate history. I wish all the best to MHT, MMLP, the community and everyone that works so hard to keep the Mourne AONB alive and well, especially after recent events. This paper is much more than “a thesis submitted in partial fulfillment for the requirements”... it is the culmination of what I have learned and experienced in the past few years. I have met so many wonderful people along the way, and I have learned so much in and outside of the classroom. I thank my colleagues and professors from Cottbus for all of the lessons and inspiration. Thank you to Dr. Britta Rudolff and Mr. Miller Stevens for supporting me at different points along the way. I'm very grateful for your academic advice as well as the times you reeled me back in when I felt lost in the process. Finally, I would like to thank my family, at home and abroad. Thank you mom, dad and Andrew for encouraging me and supporting me, despite the challenges that come with living far from each other. Ich danke den Seegerts, meiner deutschen Familie, für ein offenes Heim und offene Herzen. Thank you to Nico for your unwavering love and support. I am extremely privileged in so many ways, and I realize how lucky I am to have so many friends and family who support me. Abbreviation List AONB Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty ASSI Area of Special Scientific Interest DARD Department of Agriculture and Rural Development DOE Department of the Environment HERMES Heritage and New Media for Sustainable Regional Development HIA Heritage Impact Assessment ICOMOS International Council on Monuments and Sites ICCROM International Centre for the Preservation and Restoration of Cultural Property IUCN International Union for Conservation LHA Living Heritage Approach MHT Mourne Heritage Trust MMLP Mourne Mountain Landscape Partnership MNPWP Mourne National Park Working Party NI Northern Ireland NIEA Northern Ireland Environmental Agency NP National Park PCA People-centered Approach RoW Rights of way UNESCAP United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific UNESCO United Nations Education, Science and Cultural Organization USPC Ulster Society for the Protection of the Countryside Table of Contents Introduction...................................................................................................................................... 2 Key Issues.......................................................................................................................................... 4 Objectives.......................................................................................................................................... 4 Research question............................................................................................................................. 5 Scope and limitation......................................................................................................................... 5 Contribution...................................................................................................................................... 6 Structure and design......................................................................................................................... 7 Chapter 1 – Case study of the Mountains of Mourne..................................................................... 9 1.1 Background............................................................................................................................. 9 1.1.1 Landownership and identity......................................................................................... 11 1.1.2 National Park proposal.................................................................................................. 15 1.2 Interviews.............................................................................................................................. 17 1.2.1 Design and objectives................................................................................................... 17 1.3 Literature and documentation review.................................................................................. 19 1.4 Emergent issues.................................................................................................................... 20 1.5 NI governmental mechanisms and perceptions................................................................... 24 1.5.1 Goals and current forms of protection......................................................................... 25 1.6.2 Authority perception of the role of civil society........................................................... 29 1.6 Critical analysis...................................................................................................................... 31 Chapter 2 – Conceptual framework and methodology................................................................. 34 2.1 Conceptual framework......................................................................................................... 34 2.1.1 Definitions.......................................................................................................................... 34 2.1.2 Terminology ambiguity.................................................................................................. 36 2.1.3 Site classification........................................................................................................... 41 2.1.4 Civil society in decision-making.................................................................................... 42 2.1.4.1 Significance and challenges of community participation...................................... 46 2.2 Methodological approach..................................................................................................... 54 2.2.1 Concept behind a Living Heritage Approach................................................................. 55 2.2.2 Living heritage............................................................................................................... 58 2.2.3 LHA approach criteria and components....................................................................... 61 2.3 Applying the LHA criteria to the Mournes............................................................................ 63 2.4 Recommended proposal process.......................................................................................... 64 Chapter 3 – Discussion.................................................................................................................... 69 3.1 Analysis of the case study against the recommended proposal process............................. 69 3.2 Critiques of LHA as a planning tool....................................................................................... 71 3.2.1 Challenges with implementing the recommended process......................................... 73 3.3 Looking ahead....................................................................................................................... 74 Conclusion....................................................................................................................................... 75 Bibliography.................................................................................................................................... 77 Appendix I – Stakeholder interviews............................................................................................. 86 Appendix II - Expert Interview...................................................................................................... 116 Annex Introduction When imaging the countryside in the British Isles, a few things may come to mind: rolling, green hillsides dotted with lakes, old stone cottages, patches of forest, small working farms raising sheep and cattle, stone walls or shrubbery parceling the properties. The land is not only considered to be romantic and inspiring, it is full of biodiversity and geological wonders. Within the British Isles, many mechanisms for protecting their landscape and its sometimes sensitive ecological systems have been developed, including several National Parks (NP). In the UK, the NP 'family' consists of 15 designated parks (10 in England, two in Scotland and three in Wales) and the first designation taking place in 1951 (National Parks 2015). In the Republic of Ireland, there are six parks with the earliest designation in 1932 (NP Wildlife Services 2015). Although there is a long history of parks with well-established management systems, the one country in the British Isles without a NP is Northern Ireland (NI). That is not to say that designating a NP has not been attempted; the NI government has been working on a proposal to nominate their first NP for over ten years, but the proposal has been indefinitely 'shelved' (Institute for Historic Building Conservation 2013). The success of NPs in other parts of the British Isles makes this decade-long struggle very surprising. The proposed region is the Mountains of Mourne located on the south-east coast in County Down, east of the main road connecting Belfast and Dublin. It contains a string of peaks, six of which are over 700m, as well hosting the tallest peak in NI, climbing to 850m (WalkNI). The 12 “High Mournes” are encircled by a dry-stone wall spanning 22 mi (35.5 km) which still stands today (Watterson, 2010). Most of the population lives in the lowlands separated into small parcels of land lined with the traditional-style dry-stone walls. Most of the land is farmed or used for grazing, otherwise, the land hosts a large reservoir, small urban areas, (almost completely) abandoned quarries and recreational areas. It has a long, tumultuous history and many of the residents have strong ties to the land (Dooley 2014). It has inspired such artists as C.S. Lewis and Percy French (MMLP 2010, p. 10), and it continues to do so today. This paper begins with a look into the Mournes NP proposal. It was discovered that the Mournes NP proposal is being carried out as a way to stimulate the region economically as well as protect its natural and cultural resources (MNPWP, 2006). Like other rural landscapes around the world, the rural farming regions of NI are suffering economically which will require action for revival 2 (McAreavey, 2010, p. 2; MHT 2012). The Mournes rely on the land, not just as a source of income, but also as a traditional lifestyle as they have for centuries. Evidence from the case study shows that heritage in the area is very strong, which conflicted with the regional development plans being prepared by the federal planning authorities. Reconciling the views of what to protect and how is the challenge, and studies on up-to-date planning processes within the field of heritage site management are limited (Lusiani and Zan, 2013, p. 109). Furthermore, authorities do not always have mandated heritage assessment tools; a report from ICOMOS (2011) states, “the capacity of heritage authorities varies globally... In some countries there are strong environmental systems that provide a basis for EIA [environmental impact assessments], but the heritage elements ... are underdeveloped or non-existent” (p. 2). Considering that cultural policies, especially in developed countries, are expected to permeate to all levels of jurisdiction, these two disciplines should be more inclusive of the other. This thesis aims to show that the Mourne area, as well as similar places, could be managed both as a heritage site and as a regional development area, and proposes a way to further integrate these two disciplines. The failed NP proposal is the phenomena this paper focuses on; the argument is not whether the decision by the authorities to create a NP will be beneficial or detrimental, rather it is an analysis of what took place and the interplay of heritage conservation and regional planning processes. Heritage is identified as playing a major role in this case study, and therefore this paper explores the issue through the eyes of heritage experts and the local community, as well as regional development planners (representing the government authorities). Through analysis of the case study, three main issues are identified as the cause of the failed proposal. Closer analysis reveals how these issues came about, why they are important to address in future regional planning activities (particularly in NI) and how they can be more appropriately addressed in the future. A Living Heritage Approach (LHA) is the methodology applied to the case study as well as the basis of a recommended proposal process directed to the NI authorities. This approach is also critiqued and its scope expanded, as it is a relatively new approach to heritage conservation and planning. The recommendation is intended to be used by the NI authorities in their continuing pursuits of sustainable regional development. 3 Key Issues Specific issues raised in the case study allude to bigger issues in what we know and understand within the heritage and development discourse. Some ambiguous and polemic concepts and definitions lace this paper, especially between heritage conservation and sustainable development, the role of civil society in decision-making and the concepts of cultural landscapes and NPs. These topics will be contextualized to explain their role in the case study and the recommended proposal process. As this paper deals with the relationship between heritage conservation and regional planning, a major topic is the overlap and ambiguity between these two disciplines. Authorities play a major role in decision-making, however the international community and sustainable development principles promote and justify the significance of community involvement. This overlap is addressed, as well as the role of the community in conservation and planning processes. Objectives This paper investigates why the Mourne NP proposal failed and how authorities in NI and elsewhere can create better proposals by integrating heritage site management and regional development planning. A LHA is applied to fill this gap, and a tool in the form of a recommended proposal process is offered which the authorities can use during the early stages of regional planning. It is tailored for the Mournes and the NI government, however it is intended to contain information transferable to similar sites. More specifically, the results of the case study show how the neglect of the identity and heritage of the residents of the Mournes led to an indefinite postponement of designating their first NP. Those in charge of planning processes, specifically for plans that use cultural assets as a driver of rural development, must understand the role that heritage and community involvement play at that site. This paper aims to reveal how the NP planning process and proposal of the Mourne Mountains 'failed' and to explain how the authorities can address these problems. Problems discovered in the case study lead to an exploration of the relationship between heritage conservation and regional planning and community participation in decision-making. This paper 4 also aims to show that site classification is important in creating a strong proposal, and that community involvement in decision-making begins during the proposal process. Research question What are the underlying reasons for the failure of the Mountains of Mourne NP proposal and how can the NI authorities avoid these issues in future regional planning? Scope and limitation Although many documents and publications were reviewed regarding the NP nomination in the Mournes, a few key documents became the focus of this study (a list can be found in Section 1.3). The Mourne NP Working Party (MNPWP) was created to conduct research and submit a final report to the Minister, which was informally supplemented by an Independent Report from a faction of the Working Party (and other Mourne Trustees) (Nominees 2007). The Independent Report, publications, and interviews provided the information on the point of view of the community and their involvement in the proposal process. Publications on government strategies, specifically on rural development, and other departmental plans provided key information on the perspectives of the authorities. All of that information is public and provided on the internet. Limitations of research were put on advantages and disadvantages of NPs in the Mournes. Several publications were reviewed, but they were not critiqued in this paper. These provided relevant information on assessing NPs and the various angles for which an area can be affected, however the focus of this study is the procedure of the nomination process and its steps and components. Limitations also occurred on time and resources, which was specifically an issue for the interviews. All but one were conducted while living on-site, the final one happening one year later over the phone. Interviews with higher officials and with more community members is desirable, but unfortunately not possible for this study. More information on the concept of living heritage is also not widely published and available (or existing), despite hints of a large project in the works by ICCROM. This also goes for the literature review as a whole; it is not exhaustive, however, it 5 includes major contributors to the fields of living heritage, cultural landscapes, community participation and sustainable development, as well as relevant case studies. Finally, the proposal recommendations are tailored to the NI authorities and this specific case. Contribution Analysis of this case study and the recommended process aim to build on the body of knowledge of heritage conservation and regional planning processes. It is an interdisciplinary approach in theory and in practice, opening up new ideas and methods as to how we take care of places we deem important, and how to work with the people that live there. Analyzing state-of-the-art research and case studies such as this one adds new information to the mix, yet builds on previous methods and has the possibility to reshape what we once considered a standard or 'best practice'. Qualitative analysis (such as this research paper) allows us to propose better solutions and to better understand, and thus act upon, intricate social phenomena (Marshall, Rossman 1995, p.2). Heritage conservation and regional planning is not a new combination, however this situation had an unanticipated outcome that revealed a conflict between them. In a broader sense, NI is facing problems many rural areas also share, such has a suffering economy, culture commodification as a source of income, the politics of national identity, power differences, etc., yet contextualizing the key issues and looking at it through a heritage lens allows us to compare it with other sites and to create solutions that can be shared and utilized in the field as a whole and across other disciplines. This is especially important for the planning aspect, where formalizing policies at all levels is often a significant step towards improvement. The information gathered here is meant to be a resource for the NI government and Department of the Environment (DOE) to consider during future NP proposals and updating of current legislation. Despite being tailored to the NI situation, the analysis and recommended process are intended to be useful and transferable to similar sites and for policy-makers. In summation, this paper contributes to the heritage body of knowledge as well as a contribution to the field of regional planning, adding a new perspective, a new planning tool and a call for collaboration. Finally, this paper applies a LHA, a type of people-centered approach (PCA), as the methodological framework. Thus far, it has only been applied to religious sites, or heritage sites that have a 6 continuity through religious affiliations. The approach is critiqued as a planing tool and the challenges of its implementation are discussed. Application of this method expands current usage to include cultural landscapes that meet the criteria, although only theoretically at this point. Structure and design This paper uses a methodology derived from inductive reasoning, where post factum observations and information lead to the formulation of the problem statement. This is opposed to deductive reasoning, where a methodology is applied to a case study and information and results are gathered after the application. The problem lead to in depth research in related topics, where the results lead to the identification (and adaptation) of an appropriate methodology to apply to the problem. The methodology is described and applied to the case study, and is also the basis for the creation of a recommended proposal process for the NI authorities. Chapter 1 explains the method of gathering information. It provides a background of the case, the unique cultural aspect of the area, a quick look into the current status of regional development issues and a review of how information was gathered through the interviews and literature review. Following this is an analysis of the collected information and results, and an exploration into some conceptual topics that arose. The results from the interviews and literature are formulated into three emergent issues. A quick look at existing NI mechanisms and legislation related to the case study is presented. These issues and current legislation are critically analyzed alongside the results found in the literature review. From the results, a conceptual framework was derived and several concepts are defined and contextualized. The results of the case study and the concepts it raises reveal the need for an interdisciplinary framework for planning between regional development and heritage conservation. Chapter 2 explains the methodology of a LHA and applies it to the case study. A LHA is an existing heritage conservation approach for a planning process that is expanded to fit a cultural landscape (the Mournes), and an explanation of the concept of the approach and its components are provided. Adaptation of the approach to the case study is made and a recommended proposal process is provided (the full plan is added as an Annex). Chapter 3 is a discussion of this approach applied to the case study as well as a critique of the 7 approach itself. Implementation of the recommended process and the LHA in general is given. This is followed by a section on questions that arose that did not fit into the scope and limitations of this research and what research is still needed. The paper ends with a conclusion section, bibliography of sources, an annex of the recommended proposal process and two appendices of the transcripts of the interviews. Fig. 1: View of the Mourne Wall1 1 Source: Courtney Hotchkiss 2014 8 Chapter 1 – Case study of the Mountains of Mourne 1.1 Background “Oh, Mary, this London’s a wonderful sight, Wid the people here workin’ by day and by night: They don’t sow potatoes, not barley, nor wheat, But there’s gangs o’ them diggin’ for gold in the streetAt least, when I axed them, that’s what I was told, So I just took a hand at this diggin’ for gold, But for all that I found there, I might as well be Where the Mountains o’ Mourne sweep down to the sea.” -From 'the Mountains of Mourne' by Percy French The Mournes are not just a place of natural beauty and environmental richness; it is bursting with cultural history and inspiration captured in works of art. It is not just land, it is a landscape, and it has a very intricate and exciting story. For example, the lyrics above are from a popular song by Percy French in 1896, who often wrote about Irish diaspora (Fitzgerald 2005, p. 32), and the words are of a man who had to leave Ireland to find work. The lyrics go on reminiscing, specially when he runs into a friend. They long for what they left behind despite the promise London offers, showing the connection they feel to the land and their life there. Geologically, the land was shaped by magma that flooded a collapsed shale area, which hardened into granite stone. That granite stone was then discovered, extracted and 'dressed' by the people living in the Mournes; people who developed special techniques to extract and methods to transport this heavy, gray stone. People wrote songs and stories about their lives as quarrymen, and evidence of the 'plug and feather' method to evenly cut the giant granite slabs can still be found on mountainside today. The long divisions created by the dry-stone walls, including the 22 mile dry-stone “Mourne Wall” circling the highest mountain peaks, are also made of granite extracted from the mountains. Also being right at the Irish sea meant fishing and ship building was a common profession that is still practiced today. These are just a couple examples, but there are many more that make up the history of the Mournes and its people, and it explains the landscape which we see and experience today. The cultural heritage is visible, but also omnipresent. 9 The purpose of this brief introduction to the cultural history provides a bigger picture of the Mournes, however one of the most distinguishing cultural attributes of the area is a long history of farming and grazing. Albeit, farming is not only a lifestyle, it is a source of income. Records of human settlement in the area go back as far as the 12 th century (Watterson, 2010), and farming has been practiced in NI for 6,000 years (National Museums:NI 2015). Of the 1.85 million people living in NI, 37% of them live in rural areas (DARD 2011) where there are 24,200 active farms (DARD 2015, p. 1). According to an annual report from the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development (DARD)(2014(2)), farm sizes are measured using a UK system of five categories, however no farms in NI fall under the largest category (p. 10). Not only are farms small in size, “[a]lmost all farm businesses in Northern Ireland are owned and operated either by an owner occupier or by a family partnership. Most labour is therefore provided by the farm family” (ibid, p. 20). However, farming can no longer support the economy like it used to, and most farm laborers are relying on part-time jobs to supplement their income (ibid). County Down, where most of the Mourne Mountains and lowlands are located, is the county with the second highest number of farmers and farm business size (ibid, p. 67-70). Small-sized farms around the world face a difficult if not bleak future as well as new and challenging rural development policies (Hazell et al, 2007), and it is forcing many traditional rural landscapes everywhere to adapt. Even though family farming accounts for the majority of food production in the world and “plays a fundamental socio-economic, environmental and cultural role” (FAO, 2014), it is becoming more of a novelty in some areas, including the Mournes that have, for example, turned seaweed harvesting into a tourist attraction. Despite this, the farmers have more than just an economic and cultural dependency, they are considered custodians of the land (Nominees, Point 1.1). Maintaining and protecting the land means working alongside and cooperating with the farmers, which will be discussed in later chapters. 10 1.1.1 Landownership and identity Fig 2: A topographical map of the Mourne Mountains and lowlands, and the location of the area in Northern Ireland 2 Northern Ireland is a unique country with a tumultuous history, yet it is not unique in the people's desire to safeguard their most treasured countrysides and aspects of a traditional lifestyle. Like many places around the world, globalization is clashing with culture in this small country in the British Isles. Many identities can be found there, and some of them not so friendly towards others, due to a long period of fighting with England over ownership of Ireland. NI, also known as Ulster, is where Ireland meets England; geographically located on the island of the Republic of Ireland, partially ruled over by a devolved British government, partially ruled by its own government beginning with the 1998 peace agreement (with a four year suspension in the early 2000's). The official language of NI is English, and two regional languages are recognized: Gaelic and Ulster Scot. NI is home to only 1.8 million people, where 36 per cent of the population live in rural areas often as farmers (Office for National Statistics 2012). It is a country with no official flag and a peace treaty ratified less than two decades ago which created their devolved government with England and ceased civil unrest. 2 Source: http://www.walkni.com/destinations/mourne-mountains/ 11 Fig. 3: A traditional farmhouse in the lowlands of the Mournes 3 However, one aspect of their lives that the residents feels very strongly about is that of landownership (or land tenure). According to the Irish historian Terence Dooley (2014), farming and grazing may have been going on for centuries, but it was not so long ago that the Irish were allowed to again own their own land under the Land Acts of 1881 and 1923. The Irish were always using the land, but they were not always allowed to own it themselves. For a long time there was a tenant and landlord system, where wealthy Englishmen owned the land and rented it out to the Irish (or other English and Scots living in NI). The English were unsympathetic and often evicted tenant farmers when they could not pay their rent fees. In 1881, co-ownership of the land was possible and it ended English landlordship. This was followed by the Act of 1923, which allowed the Irish to buy their land with government assistance, if necessary. Despite the terrible economic repercussions of this, Irish people again owned the land in their own country. 3 Source: Courtney Hotchkiss, 2014 12 To gain a better understanding of the relationship between land and identity in Northern Ireland, he explains; “Beginning with the Anglo-Norman conquest of the twelfth century, successive waves of new settlers meant that the land question became inextricably entwined with issues of nationality, religion, and politics and, for as long as Ireland remained a predominately agricultural society, where access to land greatly determined political, economic, and social status, it became inevitable that rural society would be characterized by generations of inter-class and sometimes sectarian tensions” (Dooley 2014, p. 107). Dr. Dooley points out that land tenure is one of the main reasons why the Irish have such strong feelings for with the land, and how it has become a major characteristic of rural identity. He goes on further to explain that the land and Irish pride are one in the same; “'the [land tenure] issue became so important to national life that it shaped the future of Irish nationalism and the shape of the society which emerged out of the nationalist struggle, creating between the issues of land and nationalism a nexus which was so strong that the one issue became effectively a metaphor for the other'” (ibid, p. 114-115). Landownership as it stands today is spread among a few key groups of people. According to a Mourne Mountain Landscape Partnership report in 2014, the biggest owner within the mountains is NI Water, who also commissioned the building of the Mourne Wall and Binnian Tunnel in order to create two major reservoirs. The arable land is mainly held by the Mourne Trustees, who farm it themselves or rent it out to other farmers. Other land owners are the National Trust and the National Forest Service. Fig. 4 is a map delineating landownership today. A map of the landowners in the lowlands (the area between the mountains and the water) could not be acquired. 13 Fig. 4: A breakdown of landownership in the Mourne Mountain area 4 4 Source: MMLP 2012, p. 12 14 1.1.2 National Park proposal The idea for a NP in NI came about as early as the 1940's, when unionists were pushing hard to follow and mimic the British who had just passed legislation creating a NP System in England (McAreavery, 2010 p. 8-9). A NP was not favorable to the people then, and the idea was put on hold until about 15 years ago when it was revived to update the legislation and begin researching which site would be most suitable for the first NP. The four main goals of a NP in NI are listed in an information leaflet produced by the MNPWP, which are: 1. to conserve and enhance the natural and cultural heritage 2. to promote sustainable use of the natural resources of the area 3. to promote understanding and enjoyment (including enjoyment in the form of recreation) of the special qualities of the area by the public and 4. to promote sustainable economic and social development of the area's communities (MNPWP 2006). As has been mentioned, rural areas in NI are suffering, and one reason for creating a NP system in NI would be to help revive the economy. For example, it could improve tourism through brand recognition, it could help create a network for local farmers and businesses and it could address local and national sustainability goals and overall aspirations of the government (covered in more detail later in this chapter). Sustainable rural development in the Mournes seems to be the main driver of the NP proposal, as pointed out in Dr. McAreavey's (2010) paper on the question of rural development and tourism in the Mournes. It is not surprising that the government seems to be using a NP system as an umbrella solution to their rural development problems. It is interesting that NI is not a part of the UK park system, because it is considered to be a very 'successful' system. In England, Scotland and Wales, NPs are all under the same system yet have their own management styles based on each country and even each individual park. An example of their success can be found in the Scotland National Parks Sector Review, which reported an increase in domestic tourism of 24 per cent from 2011 to 2012 at their two parks (VisitScotland 2013). This also means that the local people are finding enjoyment in their own protected landscapes, as well as hundreds of thousands of foreign visitors each year. The United Kingdom's NPs have millions of visitors a year and bring in millions of pounds annually (National Parks 2015). 15 According to their website, they are continually launching new conservation projects, they have active community participation and engagement, encourage biodiversity and generally try to balance development and traditional practices (ibid). Because NI is a devolved government to the England, they are still able to establish their own rules on designating and caring for a NP, but the England would essentially have the highest level of jurisdiction in legislative matters. However, NI can choose the management scheme (under the UK park management system, like Wales, or on their own, like Scotland), what criteria a NP must meet and how and by whom the designation process is undertaken. The Mourne Mountains already have several protection systems in place, mainly regarding the natural environment. They are currently one of eight Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) in NI that include cultural characteristics, as well as hosting many designated Areas of Special Scientific Interest (ASSI) that are purely ecologically-based (more on this in Chapter section 1.5.1). After an assessment by the DOE, the corresponding press release announced that the Mournes were selected as the most suitable AONB to become NI's first NP (DOE 2002), and the area proposed for the NP is similar to the current AONB boundaries. In order for NI to create a NP system and authority, it would first need to modify and pass legislation. The land is currently managed by several bodies, including members of the Mourne Trustees, the National Trust, National Forest Service, NI Water, the Mourne Heritage Trust (MHT), as well as the three councils within which the boundaries of the site lie. A brief outline of the proposal process is as follows: 2002: Environment and Heritage Service (now NI Environmental Agency) commissioned a study to see what benefits a NP could have in NI, indicating the Mourne Mountains as the best choice to become the first NP 2004: Creation of the MNPWP, requested by the Minister of the Department of the Environment (DOE) 2005: Two Mourne Trustees were appointed to the MNPWP 2006: MNPWP launches a 3-month public consultation 2007: MNPWP public consultation report presented to the Minister. The MNPWP disbands, after having met 24 times 2011 March: DOE publishes the White Paper on Enabling Legislation for a NP 16 2011 November: Synopsis of the results of the consultation document regarding the White Paper is published 2012 October: Minister of the Environment halts NP efforts (BBC 2012(2)) 1.2 Interviews 1.2.1 Design and objectives One of the methods this thesis uses to collect information is interviewing because they can be an important source of qualitative data that allow us to infer probabilistic causation (de Vaus 2001). Seven interviews of community members were conducted and one expert interview approximately one year later. For their design, a qualitative, semi-structured, mixed-method approach was employed. The approach to designing and conducting the interviews was mainly based on the book Qualitative Interviewing: The Art of Hearing Data by H. J. Rubin and I.S. Rubin (1995). Two rounds of interviews were taken, the bulk of them in the very beginning of the research process, and therefore, the questions posed to the interviewees are standard and open-ended. Interviews with open-ended questions were chosen as the method so that more information about the community perception of the NP proposal could be gathered, because they encourage conversation. This style “allows the participants to contribute as much detailed information as they desire and it also allows the researcher to ask probing questions as a means of follow-up” (Turner 2010, p. 756). The seven community members were chosen for their professions and connection to the site. There is a standard set of questions, however they were meant to probe and to gather as much information as possible about a subjective topic, hence why the method is considered semiqualitative. As has been mentioned, this paper uses inductive reasoning and observations to derive a post factum theoretical framework for a solution to the identified problem (and subsequent recommended proposal process). The interviews are a source of data used to gather information to identify the problem. Specifically, these interviews were taken in order to gather more information to address the first part of the research question, What are the reasons behind the 17 failure of the proposal? They were formulated to discover some of the reasons why the NP proposal is being rejected by the community and how some community members perceive the situation. Certain criteria were used in choosing the participants so that a wide range of responses could be gathered, yet from individuals that are closely connected to the proposal in some capacity. The theoretical questions of these interviews, not directly posed to the interviewees, are, Does the community feel that a NP is an appropriate solution for the site, and, What are some of the reasons behind the resistance to or acceptance of the proposal? For the design of the interviews, criteria was created for who to select. Three criteria were designed to cover a range of important stakeholders directly affected by designation of a NP: 1. Individuals identifying with the different opinion groups: 'Yes', 'No' and 'No opinion' 2. He or she must live and work in the Mournes 3. He or she must have a strong identification with the area through occupation or lineage The question set for the stakeholder interviews has two-parts; the first 17 questions are iterative and were posed to all of the interviewees. Not everyone answered all of the questions. The second part consists of flexible questions, ones that were designed to get more in-depth into the interviewee's field of expertise. This flexible design was chosen because it allows the interviewer to address new ideas and themes that may have been brought up during the standard questions and to exploit knowledge and perspectives within the scope of the research question (Rubin and Rubin 1995, p.45). All the stakeholder interview questions are open-ended, however they are grouped into themes to get a better view of individual and collective perceptions of the proposal: 1. Individual perception of the situation 2. Collective perception of the situation 3. NI identity 4. Perception of authorities Additional to the stakeholder interviews, an expert interview was conducted because it allowed deeper questions into the process of the proposal. The questions for this interview are also open ended, however the interview was taken after analysis of the stakeholder ones and therefore 18 reflect new information. Transcripts of all the questions and their responses can be found in Appendix I and II. 1.3 Literature and documentation review In addition to the interviews, a literature review was conducted to gain information about the problems with the proposal. A review was done of NI's regional development policies and other documentation surrounding the NP nomination, mainly published by the MNPWP, DOE and DARD. This was followed by review of NI's cultural and natural heritage protection policies and other regional development goals and strategies. The literature review heavily focuses on four major publications because of their relevance to the NP proposal and regional development planning. A variety of literature was reviewed and included in this case study, however it is important to list these publications to gain a better understanding of the nature of the sources of information about the proposal; 1. Programme for Government 2011-2015: Building a Better Future, published by the Northern Ireland Executive 2. Rural White Paper Action Plan, published by the Department of Rural Agriculture and Development (DARD) 3. Report to the Minister, submitted by the Mourne National Park Working Party (2007) 4. Report on the outcome of the Mourne National Park Consultation Exercise: Independent Report of the Nominees of the Mourne Trustees After analyzing the interviews, literature and personal observations, three major issues were identified which are explained in the preceding section. They are referred to as Emergent Issues 13 and each description of them begins with examples from the interviews that helped pinpoint an obstacle in the process. Following the three issues is a short review of NI government mechanisms related to regional planning and heritage conservation, and what these documents revealed about how the NI authorities perceive their responsibilities regarding regional development and heritage conservation. 19 1.4 Emergent issues Speaking with people tends to shed a new light on a situation, and the interviews certainly revealed new ideas and connections to what was originally understood about the proposal. This chapter remarks on the information from the interviews and literature review and categorizes them into the three main issues. The evidence supporting these issues is given first, followed by a review of the NI authority perceptions and mechanisms and it ends with a critical analysis of all the information. Issue 1: Misunderstanding of terminology: National Park The first issue identified dealt with the definition of a NP, where a variety of answers were given. The question posed to stakeholders was “Without thinking of the NI current proposal, what comes to mind when you hear the term 'National Park'?” Responses included, “...it will automatically include less farmers and it will focus on the nature” (Appendix I: 3-4); “I believe a NP is an international brand. The basis of a NP is designed to suit the needs of the people” (Appendix I: 287-289); “The name is not very appropriate for the landscape. In Scotland ... they are well managed, planned, and have a higher number of tourists” (Appendix I: 445-447); “The word 'Park' is misleading … It changes the landownership. On paper, it says you own it, but your legal rights are taken away to manage your own land” (Appendix I: 482-483). The responses show a wide array of impressions and, in some cases, fears. To the interviewees, a NP is a marketing tool, a misnomer, a protector of nature and a tourist attraction. This is significant because the very name is unclear to the stakeholders, even years after the initiation of the proposal. The mystery of what a Mourne NP will look like and how it will be managed is further muddled by academic publications narrowing in on the economic opportunities associated with a NP system in NI. In an article from in the Land Use Policy journal, it is speculated that NI has created its own model in the evolution of NP systems, and it is a model with the most focus on economic benefits (Bell, Stockdale 2015, p. 214). In a paper published by Dr. McAreavey (2010), she claims that rural development in NI is possible via sustainable tourism goals in a NP system (if stakeholders work together and the process is transparent). She also promotes a NP system for potential economic gains, which is one of the main aims to which the authorities are also aspiring (MNPWP 2006). 20 Furthermore, prevalent economic woes were also mentioned in an interview from a farmer who claimed that younger generations do not want to take over their family's farms, therefore farmers are unsure how to earn money as they age with the resources they have (Appendix I: 65-69). However, according to one stakeholder, a NP “could bring a lot of prosperity, which is badly needed” (Appendix I: 289). Issue 2: Lack of communication with the community Issue two reveals that a lack of communication with the community from the very beginning resulted in a neglect of their values or backtracking to address potential issues that were not communicated well in the first place. The interviews are laced with moments of uncertainty, assumptions and contradictions. Examples found in the interviews include issues concerning liability of countryside access on private land, foreseen restrictions on development, a change in farming practices, more tourists, too many tourists, opportunities to bring in money which can lead to better conservation and tourist education and a general feeling of more 'red tape'. An example of an interviewee fear dealt with farming regulations, stating, “I see a problem with the quarries. The proposal recommended that the sand and gravel quarries close because they are a ‘blot’ on the landscape” (Appendix I: 123-124). Another common fear was expressed over Rights of Way (RoW); “Land is precious to the people. [...] If there's a NP, people think they'll lose control of the land” (Appendix I: 213-214). However, many of the fears of the community have been addressed by activist groups in public forums, however they seemed to have reached the public too late or have fallen on the deaf ears of staunch opinions. In reference to the quarry worry, the final Report to the Minister reads, “Quarrying and sand extraction contribute to the economic diversity of the Mourne area. Subject to adequate environmental controls, and provision for restoration and aftercare, these activities should be able to continue” (Nominees 2007, p. 16). In a statement made by the Ulster Society for the Protection of the Countryside (USPC), community fears are also directly addressed, which reads “Those who object to the creation of National Parks disadvantage Northern Ireland, and they overlook the many financial advantages to be gained from such honourable designations. Their main complaints are based on the possibility of more stringent planning and building controls within National Parks, and they also worry about legislation that might facilitate recreational 21 walking” (USPC, n.d.). Nonetheless, the community fears manifested themselves so strongly, and some of the interviewees still expressed these worries despite evidence and promises from authorities that they will not come to fruition, and that a NP is in their best interest. One interviewee made an interesting point when he said, “In the beginning the ‘yes’ campaign did a poor job to educate people on what they were proposing. It’s a lot of work. People are very affected by wild public rhetoric. It’s easier to say 'no' and farmers are happy with the status quo. It’ll be a big job now to educate and persuade.” (Appendix I: 345-347). He uses the term educating two ways; one to mean information sharing and the other as instructional. By pointing out that the authorities did a poor job of educating, he alludes to the bigger issue that the whole process was poorly communicated due to the fact that the community members did not fully comprehend what was being proposed and planned. One of the documents above that needs special clarification is the Independent Report, written and submitted to the Minister by the two Trustees that were members of the Working Party. It contains a wealth of information about the opinions and feelings about the NP from the point of view of the Trustees, and they claim the report was “to bring both local and wider perspectives to proposals for a national park in Mourne” (Nominees 2007). The Main Report (including public consultation results) did not include this Independent Report. Their response about not being included in the final report was direct; “The Nominees’ opinion is that the [Main] Report gives undue weight to the submissions made not only by what could be fairly described as vested interest groups but also by the majority of the members of the Committee and largely ignores the views of well informed local people” (ibid). The accuracy of this report is disputed in the expert interview, claiming that the Trustees' needs and requests were given more attention than necessary and the Trustee representatives in the MNPWP gave consensus to the Main Report before it was submitted (Appendix II: 618-621, 636-638, 640-642). Another point of contention in the community may also have come from a meeting with the DARD about challenges that farmers may face under a NP where the Trustees were not invited. Due to these examples or persistent fears, one major issue with the failure of the proposal can be attributed to poor communication with the community from the commencement of the proposal. 22 Issue 3: Community participation within the proposal processes Issue three is not about a lack of community participation, but when in the proposal process it took place. There are not very many recorded sources of the order of the process, however one quote really gives pause for thought. A comment recorded during the meeting minutes of the MNPWP in October, 2004, reads, “Dr. Mitchell commented that the Mourne Area was like a patient. The group needed to examine the subject to see what is wrong before coming up with a diagnosis and discussing what to do” (DOE 2004, Point 3.o). This is an interesting because he implies the solution to the problem of NI's regional development problems happened before all the information was gathered. Later in the same meeting, it was stated, “Not surprisingly there was a perception that the Working Party was a ‘smoke screen’ for a ‘done deal’,” (Minutes 28.10.04: item 3f). A given solution before the community input was requested was also mentioned in an academic publication, stating, “...the consultation process did not ask the fundamental question: do you want this area designated as a national park? This was simply outside the remit of the Working Party” (McAreavey 2010, p. 12). Furthermore, before the MNPWP dissolved, the Trustee Nominees quit the Committee. It is very obvious that the Trustees, who own much of the land in the Mournes, and who also represent all their beneficiaries, felt that they were not included during key moments of the decision-making process. The MNPWP consisted of some local stakeholders, however they only emphasized some points that the community valued and not others. Therefore, the community may have felt ignored, even though the aim of a NP system is so that the whole regional and country can prosper. The leaflet that produced the four aims of a NP later reads, “The primary purpose of establishing a National Park in the Mournes would be to co-ordinate work for the protection and long-term interest of the area and the give local people the chance to be more directly involved in its management” (MNPWP 2006). It is a positive move that the NI government wants to include the people in decision-making, however they decided on implementing a NP system without consulting the residents. In fact, the leaflet was already a tool for input on how to manage a NP, let alone requests for an alternative solution for the area. Furthermore, the leaflet does not phrase it in a way to recognizes the community and landowners as stewards of the land. This is especially important because, as can be seen from the first chapter, landownership is an important part of NI identity. The expert interview also mentioned this sentiment, saying that not only is NI culture shaped by the land, owning the land is an important value to them, whether or not it is financially 23 viable. Owning land strengthens Irish identity and social-status, as well as serving as a source of pride (Appendix II: 788-797). The four points from the NP information leaflet sound like regional development plans in general, and they theoretically could be accomplished under a NP system, yet no clear, up-front mention of landownership rights under a NP could frightened the community. At the time of its distribution, there were no consultations with the community despite the decision for the implementation of a NP in the Mournes. In essence, the solution offered for future regional development plans did not reflect any contributions of the stakeholders. In this case, the authorities took a top-down approach, and the decision to implement a NP system was made with only top-level input. Therefore, any strategies proposed, a NP or otherwise, do not sufficiently reflect their needs. This point is also mentioned in the expert interview. When asked whether he would change anything about the proposal process, his reply was, “... it was compromised from the start. … it was an attempt to impose from the top down, and the reality is, because of the things we've just been talking about - this historical connections with land, the fact that we have lots of small land owners - if you're going to do NPs in Northern Ireland, it has to be more bottom-up...” (Appendix II: 815-819). It is interesting that the NI government would pursue a NP without first consulting communities that may be affected, because even “Thus as far back as the 1940s five areas, including the Mournes, were recommended for NP designation by an Amenity Committee (Buchanan 1982). Local resistance, apparent since these earlier proposals, has been a major reason why designation has not yet come to fruition” (McAreavey 2010, p. 8-9). The community did want a NP designation back then, so it is interesting that they thought they could just impose it this time. It is very obvious that the Trustees, who own much of the land in the Mournes, and who also represent all their beneficiaries, feel that they were not included during key moments of the decision-making process. 1.5 NI governmental mechanisms and perceptions The main issues discovered in the interviews and publications review require a further look into the NI government and how they understand their role in governing the community and the goals they set for the future of their country. It is also important to get an idea of what mechanisms and 24 resources the government has in place for regional planning and heritage conservation already and to see if anything is weak or lacking. Is NI, a country with a long history and newly formed government, politically and socially ready to take on a NP system? What are they currently doing to protect the land, the people and their environmental and cultural resources? Since community participation and communication are emergent issues, the authority's perception of the role of civil society (NGOs, private businesses, communities and minority groups) is also mentioned. The information in this section is used to gain a better understanding as to how NI approaches regional development, the current mechanisms for protecting the environment and cultural resources and what role they give civil society in decision-making. 1.5.1 Goals and current forms of protection In the NI Land and Amenities Act 1989, legislation for a NP already exists. It is criteria is given as; 12. (1) Where, in relation to an extensive area of countryside, the Department consider it desirable that measures be taken for the purposes of(a) conserving or enhancing the natural beauty or amenities of that area; (b) conserving wildlife, historic objects or natural phenomena therein; (c) promoting the enjoyment by the public of the area; and (d) providing or maintaining public access to the area; the Department may by order designate the area as a National Park. (4) Before making any such designation of the Department shall consult each district council the whole or part of whole district is within the area to be designated. The legislation for a NP proposal procedure reads, 13. (1) The Department may formulate proposals for the achievement, in relation to the area of a National Park, of the purposes referred to in Article 12(1). (2) Before formulating any proposals under paragraph (1) the Department shall consult the Committee for Nature Conservation and the Ulster Countryside Committee, and each district council the whole or part of whose district is within the 25 area of the National Park. As one can see, the language is vague and weak. The goals of the MNPWP are similar to legislation, but they put more emphasis on economic and social sustainability, understanding of the area and they expand the term cultural resources into the more inclusive term of heritage. The legislation mentions other stakeholder input during a proposal, but not civil society. Fig. 5 is a chart showing areas within the Mourne AONB (and the immediate surroundings) that are registered under national and international conservation agreements in order to protect them. What is not shown are the additional forms of protection on the area, including; • 35 sites of Local Nature Conservation Importance • 6 Geological ASSIs • 8 Registered Historic Parks and Gardens • 60 Scheduled State Care monuments • 414 historic monuments that fall within agri-environment schemes, but not protected by law (Nominees 2007, Annex E, p. 53) As you can see, the area and the 'boundary zones', in a sense, have many layers of protection, especially when it comes to environmental and biological aspects. The last three points address some cultural aspects and measures to protect them. NI has many other statutory and nonstatutory ways of protecting their heritage including; • 1 UNESCO World Heritage Site • A governmental department (NIEA) dedicated to protecting natural and built heritage with over 9,000 historic buildings listed in their database • The National Trust, owning over 20 properties • Several Heritage Trusts • Support for conservation projects from the Heritage Lottery Fund 26 Fig 5: Conservation mechanisms at national and international levels in the Mournes and immediate surroundings 5 One of the biggest heritage site managers is the MHT, which must apply for funding from the Heritage Lottery Fund on a three year cycle. Their mission is to “reconnect the people of the Mourne area with their mountain heritage and share this inheritance with the wider world” (MMLP 2012, p. iv) and they have several thematic aims to protect the environment and ecosystems, create sustainable recreational areas, maintenance of cultural resources, encourage people to visit the Mournes, collect oral histories, etc. They are one of the main actors in protecting the cultural and natural heritage of the Mournes, If we turn to regional development goals, NI is strongly focused on sustainable development. As the system currently stands, the care and oversight of regional planning will require the collaboration of several ministry departments, all of which specifically state their intention to work with and attend to the well-being of the community. Firstly, there is the DARD which is responsible 5 Source: MNPWP; Report to the Minister, 2007, Annex E p.52 27 for exactly that. In DARD's strategic report, they write, “We want to be an advocate within Government for the needs of the wider rural community” (DARD n.d., p. 8). Furthermore, in the Rural White Paper Action Plan, they write, “Our vision is for rural areas that maintain their distinctive features as places of agricultural production, areas of outstanding beauty, places of social, historic and cultural uniqueness and places with a strong community infrastructure which can avail of economic, social and cultural opportunities... Our vision is of a fair and inclusive rural society where rural dwellers enjoy the same quality of life as all others in the region” (DARD (2) n.d., p. 10). In a report released by NI Executive government titled Programme for Government 2011-2015: Building a Better Future, priorities, commitments and intentions of the government are listed, to be understood as a common strategy for all the departments. This document is the basis for all other policies and plans executed during this time, including the federal planning policy (DOE, 2014 (2), p. 4). Also in the document are five overarching priorities summarizing the goals of the government over this time period, the most relevant one pointed out below; Priority 3: Protecting Our People, the Environment and Creating Safer Communities - This priority focuses on making real improvements to people’s health and wellbeing... and improving the environment in which we live (preserving and improving the built and natural environment) (Northern Ireland Executive, p. 42). Fig. 6: A visual aid created by a consultancy firm hired by the NI government, called Sustainable NI, to develop sustainability strategies for the country6 6 Source: Sustainable Northern Ireland, 2007. This model is a simplification of the official model from a UK report titled, “One Future, - different paths” about a sustainability framework for the devolved governments. That report can be found at <http://www.sd-commission.org.uk/publications.php?id=215> 28 1.6.2 Authority perception of the role of civil society The role of public authorities in NI is laid out in the 1998 Agreement which formed the NI devolved government as it is today. And it would not be a proper analysis of NI government and policy without mentioning Section 75, which creates, “a statutory obligation on public authorities in carrying out their various functions relating to Northern Ireland, to have due regard to the need to promote equality of opportunity... [and], without prejudice to this obligation, ... required to have regard to the desirability of promoting good relations between persons of different religious belief, political opinion, and racial group” (Northern Ireland Assembly 1998). NI has a very diverse community with certain factions strongly disliking the other, so inclusive decision-making is not only promoted, it is mandated. This directive may not specifically mention community involvement, however there is hopefully a trickle down effect. One example discovered while interning at the MHT was when feedback forms after an event hosted by MHT asked participants which 'community' they belonged to so that later statistics could determine if the grant money they receive is not favoring one side or the other. It is positive in the sense that they are aware of the political and social divide still present there, but important to note that this issue still exists today. Some of the most compelling evidence of NI's intent to include the community in decision-making is in an official report to the EU of NI's rural development plans until 2020, stating, Support to villages will ensure there is an integrated action plan developed in conjunction with other Government departments to ensure the potential of rural areas can be developed. Capacity building of rural communities will encourage social cohesion and the identification of local needs through a bottom-up approach. Access to affordable and adequate information and communication technologies is an essential requirement to support the economic and social development of rural areas and reduce social isolation. The development and improvement of the natural, built and cultural heritage of rural areas will contribute to the development of rural areas (DOE, 2014 (3) p. 99). A bottom-up approach is specifically mentioned, focusing on the needs of the people. One point, which was mentioned in an interview, was that even though ASSIs are protected areas, 29 people are still allowed to farm on them with some restrictions (Appendix I: 155-156, 180-186, 3438). In fact, the farmers are sited as protectors and stewards of the land (Nominees 2007, p.28, MMLP 2012, p. 12), so restricting them would put more strain on them. Recognizing the landowners and farmers as stewards of the land is already placing some trust and responsibility in the hands of the community. If the authorities did respect the landowners as stewards, they should also respect their opinion on decisions about the land. As can be seen, public participation is institutionalized at a high level, however there is only vague information on what this means or how it should be carried out. The NI Executive publications have a lot of information on how councils can include the community in development plans, however, “The planning system makes sure the right things are built in the right places,.. But it is also about the ability to shape and change the character, look and feel of the places where we live, work or visit. ... Responsibility for the planning system is shared between the DOE and local councils”, and further, “Each council is required to publish a Statement of Community Involvement which sets out who, how, where and when consultation and policy making is to take place” (NIdirect 2015). If someone is unhappy with a planning process, they can only make an appeal if the planning permission request is directly related to them; no third party appeals are permitted (ibid). NI planning authorities have also developed and published reports on how they understand their role and the responsibilities they have in fulfilling regional development goals. Specifically, priorities 4 and 5 of the Building a Better Future report address the responsibility of public authorities in providing 'public good' and how they can be held accountable; Priority 4: Building a Stronger and Shared Community: This priority focuses on building relationships between communities, encouraging active citizenship... and unlocking the potential of the culture, arts and leisure sectors as instruments for positive change. Priority 5: Delivering High Quality and Efficient Public Services: Citizens have... the right to expect excellent public services and value for money ([through the] review and rationalisation of arms-length bodies [and] improved access to services and information) (Northern Ireland Executive, p. 48, 52 respectively). Three principles to improve the economy are laid out; 30 - Balanced sub-regional growth: we will ensure that all sub regions are able to grow and prosper; - Equality: we will ensure that no section of the community is left behind - Sustainability: sustainability policy is driven by intergenerational equity – securing a positive quality of life for present and future generations (Ibid, p. 25). 1.6 Critical analysis After reviewing the case study and the NI government mechanisms and perceptions, the summation of these issues stems from the authorities neglect of the heritage in the Mournes (and perhaps the rest of NI). The heritage is expressed in the community values, and particularly the historical relationship that the people have with the land. Why did the community feel their values were not addressed when this NP proposal claims to be so beneficial to regional development, the environment and the lives of the people? It is hasty to claim that the authorities do not care about community values, but rather that their assessment of them was inadequate and at the wrong stage in the process. It is clear that the community is very active and has an opinion they are not afraid to share, however, as it has already been mentioned, the “diagnosis” of a NP was given before a full evaluation of the “symptoms” was completed; the community was involved in the planning process, yet they were not involved in the initial decision about the plan of action and were only asked to contribute after the “solution” of a NP was decided. It is argued that if the authorities took this into consideration during regional development planning, communication with the community would have happened earlier in the process because information and interaction would have been sought (and needed) to make appropriate decisions. Neglect of heritage is not an emergent issue, however they point to the authorities' ignorance of the community upon which they wished to impose their regional development solution. There are two ways to look at the proposal process; one is to point a finger at the top-down approach on the decision to create a NP, or one could say the process is inadequate. A top-down approach does not automatically result in failure, but this paper tries to critically analyze the flaws in the process under the assumption of the good-will of the government. Government-initiated proposals and top-down decision-making can be successful, if the process is tailored to the specific 31 context. The continuation of the quote from the expert witness mentioned in Issue 3 about a bottom-up/top-down approach is, “... I'm sorry, there is one caveat to that; you could still do it topdown, if the government didn't get cold feet in the middle” (Appendix II: 819-820). He goes on further to explain that the NP system in Scotland was imposed on the nation and turned out to be very successful. In fact, current legislation takes a top-down approach to NP proposals. On the flip side, there are times when a top-down approach has failed. An example of a failed top-down approach is the Willandra Lakes region which is a World Heritage Site and NP in New South Wales, Australia that ignored the Aboriginal traditional grazing and farming habits, and the negative effects of the mismanaged proposal and the uproar from the community was so powerful that the site almost lost its World Heritage Status (Sullivan 2003, p. 49). When it comes to current site land and heritage maintenance, NI authorities certainly have adequate coverage at all levels, and do not seem to shy away from putting restrictions on the land or biodiversity there. This is interesting when it comes to the 'usage' of the land. Landowners are viewed as also being responsible for taking care of the land, which implies more than just the area listed on their deed, but the region as a whole, functioning ecosystem. Cooperation with the farmers and landowners therefore would be in the authorities' best interest. When reading the current NP legislation, perhaps it would have been a better transition if they had updated and elaborated on the language instead of trying to do it simultaneously with a park designation. Looking at all the forms of protection already in place, the question arises, what will a NP offer if the environment and built heritage already have adequate statutory conservation legislation? One thing to point out is the AONB designation, which is one of the highest recognitions given to landscapes in NI due to its beauty and unique characteristics (DOE 2014). It has some slight differences to the NI and UK definitions of a NP, however it has already been established that a country can establish its own criteria for its NP system. Although this is not an exhaustive review of tools and legislation, there is the impression that NI has the ability and intention to protect significant natural and built areas and develop in a sustainable way, which includes the community and their opinion. What is lacking are policies and other tools that suggest how to include the community in a proposal process, and, moreover, ones that are interdisciplinary and inter-departmental. The Department of Regional Development is responsible for development policies and regional planning, DARD focuses on the economic development of the countryside and land-use and DOE is 32 responsible for the environment and care of the built heritage. Of course, the departments must work together at certain times (e.g. there is an historic monument on public land), yet there is no indication that they plan together. On top of this, since every planning process needs to be contextualized, so does community participation activities, meaning it needs to be a part of policy and adaptable to the project. Finally, there is the commitment to community inclusiveness in NI policies, however none of these mechanisms and official procedures explicitly state when community participation begins and to what extent. 33 Chapter 2 – Conceptual framework and methodology To review all that has been covered up to this point, the paper began with a description of the Mountains of Mourne and the NP proposal, followed by an explanation of the methods used to collect data in the form of a literature review and interviews with key stakeholders and an expert, a description of the three emergent issues, an overview of existing government mechanisms and then a critical analysis of the data. Chapter 2 aims to explain some of the fundamental ideologies that were touched upon in the case study, particularly about regional development and heritage conservation, community participation in decision-making and why this matters to the NI authorities. This will bring us to the second part of the problem statement, a methodology for addressing the problem and its application to the recommended proposal process for future regional planning and heritage protection in NI. 2.1 Conceptual framework Section 2.1 is a reflection on some of the concepts brought up in the analysis of the case study. The issues identified in the case study bring up broader topics that need more analysis. Exploring some of these topics helps to better identify an overarching issue; a gap between regional development planning and heritage conservation. Explanation of the relationship of these two disciplines and why integrating them is important is also provided, as well as the important role of civil society in planning processes. 2.1.1 Definitions This section provides short definitions of region, development, planning, heritage, heritage site and NP. The definitions for regional planning and development come from the US Department of Regional Development in a book they co-authored with the US National Park Service (Organization of American States). This source was chosen because it provides straight-forward, standard 34 definitions of regional development, written and distributed by the US, a country that shaped an early definition of NPs worldwide (Sellars 2009, Preface; Bell and Stockdale 2015, p. 214). Region is any area specified for planning or requiring development for a host of reasons, including social or environmental issues. It could also be randomly defined through another land-use or zoning system. Development is understood to be based on the concept of sustainability and “change with growth and equality.. [and] to initiate and sustain a process whereby the material and spiritual well-being of a population is improved and development proceeds are fairly distributed according to principles of social justice” (OAS 1985, Chapter III). Planning is defined as a process with a series of steps which produces a report (note: this paper only goes insofar as addressing the proposal, although typically planning ends with a plan of action). The definitions of heritage conservation and its components come from a books series published on a four-part symposium organized by HERMES (Heritage and New Media for Sustainable Regional Development) which produced three volumes on the topic of “Cultural Heritage and Regional Development”. This book was chosen because it is a recent publication on the relationship and politics of heritage and regional planning. Heritage, in reference to development, can be seen “as an 'umbrella concept' [and] is helpful for practical work because it points to the common denominator of such activities, namely a reference to the past from the perspectives of the present” (Schröder-Esch 2006, p. 199). Heritage is something from past generations that we would like the future to have or experience, and is often thought of as a permanent representation of something from the past (Schröder-Esch, Ulbricht 2006, p. 8). A heritage site is explained in two parts; “...'heritage' is conceptualised as cultural knowledge about the past, i.e., a certain way of thinking about elements of history, and of evaluating them in the light of contemporary issues. (...) The meaning heritage has is therefore a social construct from the present and is re-attributed continuously by society in its ongoing process of change. A heritage site is a place where 'heritage has meaning' is projected onto, and woven into, material artefacts. In other words, such sites symbolise and express those aspects of the past which are regarded as heritage” (Schröder-Esch 2006, p. 191). 35 Natural heritage sites are “delineated natural areas of outstanding universal value from the point of view of science, conservation or natural beauty” (World Heritage Convention 1972, Article 2). National Park has several definitions. IUCN defines it as a “Large natural or near natural areas set aside to protect large-scale ecological processes, along with the complement of species and ecosystems characteristic of the area, which also provide a foundation for environmentally and culturally compatible spiritual, scientific, educational, recreational and visitor opportunities” (Dudley 2008, p. 16). Like many countries, NI has created its own definition which can be seen in Section 1.5.1, and the UK definition states it is not the IUCN category of a NP (NP 2015). As has been mentioned before, NI legislation for NP focuses on conserving the wildlife and built environment, promoting the enjoyment of the area and providing public access. There is a much higher economic and development focus on NI and UK definitions, also attributed to higher population densities (Bell and Stockdale 2015, p. 214). 2.1.2 Terminology ambiguity “... the task is to formulate principles for development 'with' and 'of' heritage, and not against it” Schröder-Esch 2006, p. 192 The terms listed in the previous section and their definitions show the room that is left for interpretation as to how a NP could be protected as a heritage site or regional development site. This is a main point because the NI government is using a NP system as a way to economically and socially develop as well as conserve the natural and built environments and cultural heritage. NI's NP proposal is a perfect example of the two disciplines of regional planning and heritage conservation overlapping. The term NP also has a lot of ambiguity surrounding it, as can be seen in the case study under emergent issue 1, the misunderstanding of the term NP. The term goes beyond a discrepancy in official definitions to include social perceptions of what a NP symbolizes. A NP is not just protecting the environment and developing appropriate recreational facilities; it is also representative of the finest natural areas of a nation. Even definitions that include both environmental protection and 36 recreation can be conflicting, assuming that recreation and tourism can potentially be harmful if not adequately managed. A professor summed this up well in a HERMES publication, stating, “effective management of heritage resources means providing accurate answers to the questions of its availability and its consumers (…) At the same time the new philosophy of preservation – which should be free of cultural nationalism – should strongly accentuate the issues of identity, individual traditions and vernacular character of individual cultures,” (Jacek Purchla in SchröderEsch 2006, p. 192). He makes the point that preservation should be about treating local identities separately, because they are the 'consumers'. Yet, what if the consumer also includes the rest of the country and international visitors? Furthermore, who decides what represents a nation's identity? Is the title of a NP just a brand, or is there a general consensus that most citizens in the country identify with the culturally and naturally rich areas within predetermined geo-political boundaries? A NP touches upon so many layers, from environmental protection, to cultural resources conservation, to sustainable recreational uses and to local community and national identities. The next two terms that need to be addressed are heritage conservation and regional development, which both require planning processes for their projects. To build on the earlier definition of development, development theory is the “organized intervention in collective affairs according to a standard of improvement” (Hettne in Nederveen Pieterse 2010, p. 3). Development means progress (improvement), but that does not necessarily mean modernizing (ibid, p. 6). Conservation is also not focused on modernizing, however the role of 'improvement' measures in development are rather viewed as 'maintenance' measures in conservation plans. This can be seen in the definition of heritage conservation, using a popular definition from the Burra Charter (2013), stating conservation is “all the processes involved in taking care of a place as to retain its cultural significance” (1.4). However, they are not exclusive of one another. 'Maintaining' and 'improving' are subjective terms based on a set of criteria or standard that could have similar objectives which do not need only maintaining or only improving. Perhaps improving could encompass maintenance strategies, or, on the flip side, maintenance activities are an improvement of the site, a 'development'. As one can see, both are organized interventions with loose definitions that show meeting points of the other. One way in which these two concepts over lap is through sustainable tourism goals, because heritage conservation has the potential to develop an area economically and socially (Schröder- 37 Esch, 2006; European Commission, 2014). This is where the combination of development and heritage conservation come into play: heritage conservation can be a form of development for a site, just as development plans of an area can include conservation. “... [H]heritage has the potential to serve as an important regional development asset, and that development schemes can have either positive or detrimental effects on the heritage in question. It is therefore necessary to find strategies which achieve a harmonious balance between aims of preserving and protecting heritage and of generating economic and social development” (Schröder-Esch 2006, p. 192). Tourism is an example of a meeting point between heritage conservation and regional development to integrate. Another similarity between heritage conservation and regional development derives from the need to respond to change. Unless we intend to musealize our world, everything must constantly adapt so that current and future generations are able to meet their needs (and thrive). Something to consider is the notion of 'best practice' because both heritage and development are processes; indeed, this is what makes planning for them so dynamic and challenging. An article from a HERMES publication describes the potential of heritage in economic development, yet this potential cannot always be realized, explaining, “[t]here is no universal model for the attainment of success or the avoidance of failure. Too much depends upon the specific conditions of time and place,... and a creation of local synergies to support and permit the heritage development. There are lessons to be learned from previous practice ... but they are not the lesson of imitation.” (Ashworth in Schröder-Esch, Ulbricht 2006, p. 24). This also stands for development plans, which “...[encompasses] both economic and societal aspects. One usually thinks of local or regional communities which are subject to development and growth” (Schröder-Esch 2006, p. 191). This response to change is also seen in rural policies, specifically in Europe, that are showing a shift towards an integrated approach that takes into account economic, social and environmental needs (McAreavey 2009, p. 8). Heritage conservation and development are very hard to separate, yet there is no need to think of them so distinctly. Looking at the intention of each of them is one major source of overlap, but it also explains some of the differences, too. Conservation has the intention to protect or safeguard. Development, no matter the theory behind it, has the intention to adapt to the current situation. However, conservation plans can also be in response to an external factor, causing them to protect and adapt. The same goes for development; a development plan could be created in response for 38 the need to protect something. If we look at the methods of adaptation of both development and conservation, they are both people-centered, meaning people are the cause of this desire or demand for something to change, and any planning proposals should also be focused on them. Conservation is in response to the valuation people put on a place or thing and development is in response to pressure created or driven by people. An unpredictable factor forcing change is a natural disaster, otherwise people drive the change they want or need. Conservation and development are reactions to the needs and desires of people, putting people at the center of decision-making of both processes. How we choose to write development plans is based on a declared or subliminal theoretical premise, but the reasons why we develop or conserve come from the same source: meeting the demands of the people. Even though heritage conservation is about protecting something that was created or started in the past, it also serves a contemporary need (Ashworth in Schröder-Esch, Ulbricht 2006, p. 18). Considering the scope each terminology implies, development is less limiting in the spectrum of what it is capable of encompassing compared with conservation. Development can be progressive or it can be purely done out of necessity (i.e., after conflict, after a natural disaster, a rapid increase in population, etc.). Conservation is only performed if the intangible values are threatened (meaning, if an important building is damaged, we want to restore or conserve what is left because of the value we attach to it). For example, we may abandon an old house or let it fall to ruin if no one cares about the past attached to it or if no one values the fabric of the house. We only conserve it or protect it if it is meaningful in some way. However, development and conservation can metaphorically sit under the same roof if the project serves to protect and adapt tangible and intangible properties. This is often the case with conservation projects because heritage sites or objects are very often forced to adapt. Since conservation is a more specific response to demand and usually a forced adaptation, they could be included under a broader development plan. To get a better understanding of intentions, let us look at an urban site and rural site example under a conservation and development scenario. For rural, we will look at the Mournes. The demand is to fix the drystone walls that separate the grazing properties and keep the decorative landscape. The hypothetical intentions of a conservation plan could be to continue the use of the drystone walls for its traditional values, aesthetic uniqueness and historically innovative building technique. The intentions of a development plan could be to assist the farmers in containing their 39 valuable sheep as well as beautifying the area for visitors, and generally to make sure that the community thrives. Both plans demand protection of the drystone wall, which the people there have assigned a value to. They both have tangible and intangible justifications, yet they each plan to rebuild the drystone walls for different, fundamental reasons. They could even be overlapping intentions of the same plan; perhaps the community desires the potential revenue from tourism, and the developers want to use the traditional drystone walls because it is also environmentally friendly and it keeps community tensions at a lull. Then, it becomes difficult to call it strictly one plan or the other. For an urban example, it is just the same. Take the old Titanic harbor and shipyard in Belfast. The heritage conservationists intend to protect it because it is a major part of the story of the city and of the lives of the families there. The developers intend to adapt it so that the abandoned shipyard is still usable for recreation and still paints a picture for visitors that are interested in the history of the city or the Titanic ship. This example is very simplified, but it is just to get an idea of the relation between these two planning processes. This issue of intentions is also an explanation of the major difference between the two, but more specifically it reveals a difference of intentions among the stakeholders. When the intentions do not overlap, there is conflict about how to meet the demand. It was already alluded to above in the differences between conservationists and developers, but there are many more stakeholders. One major stakeholder group is the community and their values. This paper delves more deeply into this specific stakeholder group because these stakeholders have arguably the most important role in the conservation and/or development decisions at a place with strong connections to their heritage like the Mournes. Conservation and development strategies are indeed different disciplines, however they should be treated as a synergy as far as possible. Interestingly, several tools and concepts of site management as we know it within the international heritage community comes from development planning terminology, and many heritage professionals have backgrounds in urban planning (Lusiana and Zan 2013, p. 108). Both development plans and conservation plans systematize an area through the creation of a strategy. A strategy creates goals, aims, and implementation methods; it formalizes actions and assigns names, functions, and purposes, it gives roles to people and the fabric and it attempts to forecast the future. A similarity between conservation and development is the consideration of intangible and tangible attributes of a place, the consideration of both during planning, as well as the demand for 40 community involvement in development and conservation theories and best-practice. It can be referred to as 'participatory governance' or more commonly 'community participation'. No matter the development approach that is chosen, there are always people involved whose needs must be considered, regardless of the power they possess. This inclusiveness in decision-making is also a major part of heritage conservation where intangible qualities drive the choices made on how to deal with the tangible properties of heritage (this point will also be addressed later). Tangible and intangible qualities at inhabited areas are inseparable and therefore decision-making must consider both. 2.1.3 Site classification “...[a] landscape is much more than a passive backdrop for the representation of the past.” Whelan 2014, p. 84 Another perspective of understanding areas with heritage aspects and regional development opportunities is by looking at them as cultural landscapes. This is especially significant for the cross over between heritage conservation and regional planning because in heritage discourse, places where people live or value are known as cultural landscapes. The scope of a cultural landscape is debated, but a popularized definition created by Carl Sauer, the influential human geographer and author on how we understand cultural landscapes today, reads, “The cultural landscape is the geographic area in the final meaning (Chore). Its forms are all the works of man that characterize the landscape. Under this definition we are not concerned in geography with the energy, customs, or beliefs of man but with man's record upon the landscape. ...The cultural landscape is fashioned out of a natural landscape [before man arrived there] by a culture group. Culture is the agent, the natural area is the medium, and the cultural landscape is the result” (1925, p. 46). Furthermore, in 1992 the UNESCO World Heritage Committee included a definition of cultural landscapes in its Operational Guidelines, stating they are, “cultural properties and represent the 'combined works of nature and of man'... They are illustrative of the evolution of human society and settlement over time, under the influence of the physical constraints and/or opportunities presented by their natural environment and of successive social, economic and cultural forces, both external and 41 internal” (UNESCO 2013, Art. 47). A relationship is created wherever man exists; simply put, a cultural landscape is the duality of man and nature (Cadar 2012). The reason the definition of cultural landscapes is provided here is to give the reader a different lens with which to look at and comprehend land. Land can have a function greater than resource exploitation; there is often a cultural connection to the land which people form over time. Cultural landscapes have tangible and intangible qualities attached to it, yet are considered “immovable” (World Heritage Convention 1972). They are situated in a place and therefore can potentially become areas of regional development. If authorities and regional developers look at the land as a cultural landscape, it will be easier to see the importance of the role of people in the decisionmaking process. 2.1.4 Civil society in decision-making This section touches upon issues 2 and 3: lack of communication with the community and their participation within the process. The body of knowledge surrounding community participation is quite extensive, and this section gives a quick look into the basics and why it is so challenging, its significance to decision-making, its recognition by the international community and a summary section on why this is important for the authorities to implement. Civil society is very often the main beneficiary or recipient of regional development projects and heritage conservation, and the collection of their input in decision-making is known as community involvement or participation. In fact, it is the belief in Western society “that active public participation in decision-making will benefit local communities,” (Marzuki et al 2012, p. 587). Several disciplines have studied this topic and the framing of how we understand the role of civil society in decision-making is known as participatory approaches. A few definitions are provided here. The University of Kansas Working Group (2014) defines it as an approach “... in which everyone who has a stake in the intervention has a voice, either in person or by representation. ... Everyone's participation should be welcomed and respected, and the process shouldn't be dominated by any individual or group, or by a single point of view”. In a more pragmatic definition, in reference to participation in the tourism industry, “public participation should not simply comprise the dissemination of information from the government or a developer to local residents: 42 instead it should be a 'bargaining' process” (Bramwell and Sharman 2000 in Marzuki and Hay 2013, p. 2). Furthermore, community participation creates transparent dialogue among stakeholders (Royal Town Planning Institute 2007, p. 2). In summary, participation is about strong communication and a collaboration of knowledge and skills among those trying to reach a similar goal. There have been many interpretations of community participation and methods devised to showcase its advantages and disadvantages at certain levels. One of the most famous is Sherry Arnstein's model from the 1960's (Fig. 7). She advocates that “citizen participation is citizen power” (1969, p. 216) because it demands a redistribution of power on behalf of the authorities. Because of redistribution of power means minorities and smaller communities will be forced to be recognized by power holders if there are mechanisms in the planning process that give them a chance to speak, resulting in shared decisions (ibid). It is a very early model pointing to the “meaningfulness” of community involvement. At the bottom of the ladder is non-participation, where meaningful participation is very low; it is an “empty ritual” (ibid) where minority voices are ignored. This model shows the many levels of participation, however it leaves room for further inquiry. For example, which level truly resembles meaningful community participation? Are multiple levels acceptable or effective, depending on the situation? Are some levels preferred depending on the knowledge levels of the stakeholders? If the community chooses not to participate or is not given the right information, is the final decision-making a kind of 'failure'? The questions are intentionally rhetorical, but this shows that one implementation of participation may not suit every situation. It is also significant in how it portrays the concepts of tokenism and non-participation at the bottom of the ladder, or acts of participation that little, if at all, affect the final outcome; a wolf in sheep's clothing. In fact, this is sited as a risk in heritage conservation, where Lusiani and Zen state, “participatory practices are always referred to, although real and crucial decisions are then taken out of this picture” (2013, p. 113). A high level of participation has an effect on the overall power structure thus allowing a true representation of the stakeholders in final decision-making. 43 Fig. 7: Arnstein's model of participation and non-participation7 Another way to consider why community participation is important is because it can be a way to Fig. out how a community can build itself up so that it becomes less vulnerable and more resilient (Cannon 2008, p. 2). Part of resiliency is being receptive to new ideas and alternative solutions; “[o]ur role is not to create solutions, but to learn to ask questions, be open, and ‘unlearn’ our own assumptions. At the same time, local people and... partners... come to appreciate and value their own knowledge and skills” (Voluntary Service Overseas 2004, p. 6). One way to accomplish this is through the combination of traditional and expert knowledge, which can create unique solutions when a high level of community participation is exercised. The legitimization of community participation is also evident in numerous international agreements, demonstrating its importance at the highest level of authority as well as the crosscultural recognition of it as vital to decision-making. Many international instruments specifically mention the significance of community involvement for sustainable heritage protection and also in 7 Source: Arnstein 1969, p. 217 (published online in the Journal of the American Institute of Planners 2007) 44 regard to fair representation and appropriate prioritization of the sites' values. Below are a few examples over the past couple decades where community participation is directly mentioned: “... Convinced of the need to involve everyone in society in the ongoing process of defining and managing cultural heritage” (Faro convention 2005, Preamble). “Recognizing that communities, in particular indigenous communities, groups and, in some cases, individuals, play an important role in the production, safeguarding, maintenance and recreation of the intangible cultural heritage” (Intangible Cultural Heritage Convention 2003, Preamble). “[with the aim] to increase the participation of local and national populations in the protection and presentation of heritage” (UNESCO 2013, VI.A:211.d). “Responsibility for cultural heritage and the management of it belongs, in the first place, to the cultural community that has generated it, and subsequently to that which cares for it”, and, “[p]articularly important are efforts to ensure that attributed values are respected, and that their determination included efforts to build, as far as possible, a multidisciplinary and community consensus concerning these values” (Nara Document on Authenticity 1994, Preamble 8, and Appendix I:3, respectively). “Groups and individuals with associations with the place as well as those involved in its management should be provided with opportunities to contribute to and participate in identifying and understanding the cultural significance of the place” (Burra Charter 2013, article 26.3). “Community development is a way of strengthening civil society by prioritising the actions of communities, and their perspectives in the development of social, economic and environmental policy. It seeks the empowerment of local communities, taken to mean both geographical communities, communities of interest or identity and communities organising around specific themes or policy initiatives”, and, “[l]ocal communities should be recognised as active and legitimate partners in the development of plans, structures and policies for local economic development” (Budapest Declaration 2002, Preamble and Article 26, respectively). This is just a small sample of international agreements and declarations addressing this topic, yet it is significant and relevant for public authorities at all levels. International agreements and declarations are intended to permeate to all levels of authority and accepting or agreeing to the value of community participation at a national level is meant to be representative of the goals of the state. These should then be carried out under the notion of good governance: a term used in 45 international development theory, where good governance is an authority's responsibility to make sure, “views of minorities are taken into account ... the voices of the most vulnerable in society are heard in decision-making … [and] is also responsive to the present and future needs of society” (UNESCAP 2009). Another point is that each quote uses different names for the people: everyone in society, indigenous communities, local and national populations, the cultural community, groups and individuals with associations with the place, civil society, and local communities. They all refer to the people living at the place and the connection they have with the site. There are many more instances where the need and desire for community participation is clearly expressed, and the example of NI's perception were given in Section 1.5. 2.1.4.1 Significance and challenges of community participation To begin, the act of participation hinges on the opportunity to do so. The author and philosopher Amartya Sen explains that, under Human Development theory, the right to participate is considered a freedom and should be institutionalized. He states, “the exercise of freedom is mediated by values, but the values in turn are influenced by public discussions and social interactions, which are themselves influenced by participatory freedoms” (Sen 1999, p. 9). For this case study and for the recommended proposal process, it is implied that participation is already a permissible freedom, or, for other cases, that it is a foreseeble option. Participation is fundamentally about communication, however communication is and has been rapidly changing at all levels with globalization. Globalization increases the level of communication and knowledge all over the world, thus people have more access to information; in other words, there is a “global free-flow of knowledge and expertise” (Renn and Hyman 2012, p. 16). People are becoming more and more educated about technology, politics, their surroundings, etc. Globalization is not only educating people, it is a way of encouraging education by making it easily accessible. For example, new, wide-spread technology allows online classes, e-books and other electronic teaching materials, live-streaming, open-access software, open archives and databases. On the one hand, the state can potentially dictate or influence what is being taught or can shape what we know. Yet on the other hand, the free-flow of information gives people access to information that could counter an authority's control. These technological advances could help 46 prevent an authority's power to shape people's notion of past, present and future by limiting their potential to dictate or influence over public opinion. However, being an informed citizens means much more than the simple acquisition of knowledge; it also means acting on what you know. In Wilcox's Guide to Effective Participation (2003), he claims that “[p]ower will depend on who has information and money” (p. 4). There is also the theory that power will shift even more towards higher education versus money; power theorist Alvin Toffler claims there is a regime shift known as the “third wave” of power, stating that knowledge is taking over wealth (Toffler 1980, p. 172-175). This means that the people with the most power can no longer rely on the disenfranchised to obey because they are more informed, they know their rights and they have a better chance of getting access to more tools and resources. Like Arnstein, who promotes the redistribution of power to the community to create shared decisions, the scholar Gene Sharp (2010) claims that those on top must redistribute their power if any honest changes are to be made; moreover, if subjects do not obey the leaders, the leaders no longer have power. He even goes on to explain that resistance to power comes from educating the oppressed, namely through determination, self-confidence and skill level. This puts a wrench in the works as power holders can no longer “educate” their subjects the way they want to because the subjects are educating themselves. Such an education by power holders is often mentioned when explaining the different levels of participation, however this type of education is actually “instruction”. If authorities pursue decision-making without community participation, they should not be surprised by any retaliation from informed citizens. It is apparent that globalization has brought an increased level of education and has changed the way in which we communicate. It is something to which power holders should pay attention to during planning processes, since there is a foreseeable increased demand for higher levels of community participation. This alludes to the issue of access to information, specifically information that is often situational and can be withheld from the public by authorities. Government transparency is always desired by its citizens, yet it is not always offered, possible or reliable. It should be noted that in order to reach a high level of community participation authorities are required to provide necessary and consequential information to stakeholders. Furthermore, this paper takes the position that community involvement in decision-making (government-initiated or otherwise) is not only desirable but a part of sustainability, and more generally that traditional knowledge and professional knowledge are both important contributors to development and conservation projects. Community participation is “a process of 47 empowerment that helps to involve local people in the identification of problems, decision-making and implementation, which can contribute to sustainable development” (France in Marzuki et al 2012, p. 588). Taking a look at the UN Post-2015 Millennium Development Goals Report, their concept of sustainability is inclusive and people-centered (Fig. 8), stating that “democratic and coherent global governance mechanisms” and “good governance practices” are enablers to sustainable development. Furthermore, sustainable development includes cultural considerations as well as political, social, and economic factors, either as a separate or under the social category because of its focus on improving human living standards (Herremans and Ried, 2002). All of these aspects need careful attention in planning objectives and implementation in order to make progress towards sustainable improvements. Although no international agreement or declaration explicitly states that culture and heritage are 'pillars' of sustainable development, it is has been alluded to (and it seems to be inherent) in the practice of heritage conservation and protection. In the Rio+20 Final Outcomes document, signed by 193 UN member countries in 2012, Article 41 reads, “[w]e acknowledge the natural and cultural diversity of the world and recognize that all cultures and civilizations can contribute to sustainable development” (UN 2012). This rings true when considering heritage sites or any place people live; societies come in all shapes and sizes, the society has environmental responsibilities and the society is a part of a greater system of societies that need to functionally and respectfully exist together. Sustainable development strategies must include all of the pillars, and the people living there are more than just bystanders. One point to mention is that community participation, although legitimized in theory, does not always work in practice. Humans are biased and irrational; “I[i]t is not only a 'stakeholders' point of view that is necessary, but also an understanding of the impacts of any stakeholder’s desire in terms of the internal consistency of the project (and its levels of risk), and of [the] trade off between different willingness of various stakeholders for the sustainability of the projects,” (Lusiani and Zan 2013, p. 113). This is perhaps what the expert interviewee meant when he mentioned the “cold feet” of the NI government, because they weakened under the pressure of public opinion and did not stick to the goals they set for themselves (Appendix II: 852-855). Yet, is this a good or bad decision by the authorities? Is it a weakness on their part or is it a realization that maybe something is wrong? Although participation can offer new information and perspectives, it should be noted that it does not automatically result in a successful project. “Participation means many things to many people. It carries potential benefits, but only if all those involved have a common understanding and set of expectations” (VSO, p. 5); in other words, good communication typically result in a better outcome, 48 Fig. 8: A diagram of the UN Post-2015 Millennium Development Goals Report, as an example of how a global actor is placing people at the center of its sustainability goals. 8 8 Source: United Nations (UN), 2012 (2) 49 but do not guarantee it. This idea of human bias and social constructs in decision-making, on the part of the community, may explain what happened in the Mournes under a theory known as 'tragedy of the commons'. According to the scientist who coined the term, Garrett Hardin (1968), it is a typical human behavior of self-interest to keep some of a shared resource ('the commons') for himself rather than share it amongst all those that need it too (p. 1244). For the Mournes, the shared resource is the lowland areas of the mountains and the sea. Hypothetically, the authorities want to make decisions about land usage to promote tourism, make money, etc. and the landowners want the land left alone so they can continue their lifestyles. This leaves the situation in a rut, because no side is willing to negotiate on the basis of the greater good. Community participation is desirable and potentially very beneficial to all parties, however it can have pitfalls. Finally, it is important to mention the all-too-common issue of tokenism or non-participation (according to Arnstein's ladder), meaning a higher form of participation is invited, but the decisions are not taken seriously or are not actually included in the final outcome. This gap between agreeing to higher aspirations and the reality of implementing them is a true disappointment, and it goes back to the problem of power. A famous poster drawn in 1968 by French students (Fig. 9) displays this scenario very well. It seems to have happened in the Mournes, that the authorities invited the key stakeholders to participate at many points, but then did not seriously consider their opinion or they asked for their input at an inconsequential moment of the decision-making. Authorities must also recognize the significance of community participation. It is important to understand the role and mentality of public authorities and to look at the situation from their perspective to justify why public participation can be beneficial to them in policy- and decisionmaking. Furthermore, international instruments and agreements, like the ones previously listed, are extremely important in creating a framework for and legitimizing community participation, however they do not specify how or in which ways (Labadi in Poulios 2014, p. 17). Government authorities at all levels are responsible for encouraging and even enforcing community participation in appropriate and meaningful ways (noted earlier as good governance). 50 Fig. 9: A poster created in 1968 in response to a student-worker rebellion; an effect of low-level participation. 9 One of the biggest and maybe most fundamental challenges of public participation is the disconnect between the authorities and the people they oversee. In James C. Scott's (1998) book Seeing Like a State, he explains, “[o]fficials of the modern state are, of necessity, at least one – and often several steps – removed from the society they are charged with governing. They assess the life of their society by a series of typifications that are always some distance from the full reality these abstractions are meant to capture” (p. 76). As he describes it, each party has different ambitions, and interactions among them must be consciously pursued. The state has its own agenda and has the power to make decisions, which means it is hierarchical by nature. Projects, particularly in recent history, initiated by authorities are sometimes seen through a “utopian” lens (ibid, p. 19), furthering the disconnect between state and civil society. Consequentially, if the 9 Source: Arnstein 1969, p. 216 (published online in the Journal of the American Institute of Planners 2007) 51 citizens do not agree with a decision made for them, the severity of their reaction could be quite high, and ultimately make the situation more difficult than the authorities planned because they need to backtrack or solve a newly created problem; this is exactly the case with the Mournes. More on this idea of the role of civil society in influencing authority decisions, known as 'social capital', can be found in an article by Murzyn-Kupisz and Dziazek, titled, “Cultural Heritage in Building and Enhancing Social Capital” (2013). State authorities, at all levels, have a variety of responsibilities and demands and can have farreaching effects, and with so much responsibility, they frequently attempt to make their work more manageable. As alluded to, Scott explains this by claiming that states respond to their immense workload by trying to make their tasks simpler in order to streamline or create a standardization tool. Yet this simplification is noted by Scott as a major contributor to the downfall of development projects. He explains that simplification requires that we narrow our view and then categorize things or processes in a way that boxes them into having only one purpose or function. It is not so much a problem of naming things, but rather who creates the name; an anthropologist will name something differently than, say, an architect. When it comes to development and conservation, simplifying is not a bad practice, but there are so many aspects that need to be taken into account that making things easier may in fact make them more arduous in the future. An example of this can be seen in China where simplifying housing development projects has resulted in the disruption and destruction of traditional lifestyles (Wang et al 2009); homes and land are more than just concrete and dirt. In general, public authorities have obligations they must fulfill, particularly serving the 'public good' as well as their fiduciary responsibilities (Young 1982, p. 113). Everything they do or decide must be covered by their budget, and because they are a public entity, they operate on taxpayer money. Authorities do not only have to deal with politics at their level, they are also held accountable to national mandates, policies and a menagerie of rules and obligations. Furthermore, authorities, especially in heritage planning and management, should recognize that they are not the sole decision-makers: “[a]s the interest in heritage and heritage sites has grown, people have come to anticipate benefits from these resources, and authorities must take into consideration these expectations” (Mason, MacLean, de la Torre, 2003, p. 1). This could be covered in much more detail, however the point is that public authorities are often driven by their fixed budgets, cost-benefits and higher governing decrees to which they are bound. If community participation is 52 not a driving force or not a mandated action, it is possible to see why authorities would not prioritize it. Despite this, there are ways in which an authority can deal with all their responsibilities in a positive way: by delegating some tasks and allowing the community to inform them. Delegation is often done by the hiring of consultants or third party organizations, or strong civic groups. Alternatively, authorities can request the community to help or give input. In democratic societies, public participation and intervention should be expected; a common understanding of democracy is 'rule by the people'. Also in non-democratic societies the public want to participate, yet often times governments do not have the understanding or capacity to address the interests of their people, allowing community participation activities the opportunity to educate the authorities (WMD 2010, p. 67). Furthermore, local people may have good, if not better, knowledge of the area and the other inhabitants at a site. They already know what has and has not worked in the past, which could be very beneficial to those planning development or conservation projects there. Including the public in decision-making gives some of the responsibility to the citizens, who are already interested in having a say in how their surroundings are being formed or changed. It also openly values their traditional knowledge and management methods. This case study and the topics it raises demonstrate that heritage is and should be a component of regional planning. There is a relationship between the goals and intentions of heritage conservation and development, where heritage and culture are considered a component of the larger goal of sustainable development. Community participation is accepted and promoted at an international level because it redistributes power by giving a voice to the people living there, empowering communities to be stewards of their surroundings and valuing the benefits of combined traditional and expert knowledge. This is important for authorities because they may not have the resources or the desire to fully understand a site. They might trust the community with some of that responsibility, understanding that the community intends to protect their cultural and natural resources for their own benefit. Essentially, integrating these disciplines and having a high level of community participation is beneficial for all the key actors in an area marked for development. 53 2.2 Methodological approach Section 2.1 touched on some major points raised by the issues identified in the case study and between the disciplines of regional planning and heritage conservation, which leads us to what and how we can address these issues. Referring back to the problem statement at the beginning of this paper, we can now address the second part of the question; how can the NI authorities avoid these issues in future regional development planning? As has been discovered in the case study, heritage was identified as a factor in the failure of the NP proposal, so the next step is to create a solution that allows heritage and regional planning to synthesize. UNESCO and many other institutions have identified the positive role that heritage can play in sustainable development, and the Hangzhou Declaration goes as far as to request authorities and power holders to “place culture at the heart of future sustainable development policies” (UNESCO 2013 (1), p. 3). This declaration goes on further to explain that despite every situation being unique, intercultural dialogue and PCA are what allow sustainable development projects to reach their full potential. It is an example of the valuation of combining traditional and professional knowledge, or, in this case, combining development authority planning processes with community systems and priorities. Heritage site management over the past couple of decades has been receiving increased attention, which is particularly true for World Heritage Sites after the Operational Guidelines to the Convention were revised in 2005 making it obligatory that all sites submit a management plan (Ringbeck 2008, p. 6). Many other countries followed suit and UNESCO itself created a slew of publications to help guide authorities and other institutions on how to create management plans based on site type (cultural, natural and mixed), and not just exclusively for World Heritage Sites. Management plans not only allow the predictable benefits of site maintenance such as improved organization, communication, strategy, foreshadowing, monitoring, etc., for heritage sites they paint the bigger picture of why a site's heritage is considered valuable and how we can best conserve or protect a site based on its significance (UNESCO, 2011). In the Annex there is a recommended proposal process and it, like all management plans, creates aims and objectives that set the foundation for the rest of the project. As such, creating management plans can be a tedious process because each site is different, however having an agreed upon foundation gives the entire project a better chance at having a more successful outcome. 54 A recent study on planning tools and methods in heritage conservation addresses the naïvety of current management tools which stem from the complexities of current systems and of humans themselves (Lusiani and Zan, 2013). Not all management tools and resources are created equally, and substituting one for the other does not always work. The desire to protect can come from authorities or from civil society, however the flexibility to address this issue is needed, preferably in a formalized way. This point was also addressed in Section 2.1.3 about understanding the land as a cultural landscape. If authorities and professionals can look at an area as having more than one function or purpose, it can open up new ideas or ways to tackle the issue. The problem of stakeholder miscommunication and misunderstanding is neither new nor idiosyncratic, but it is our arsenal of tools and understanding that needs to be improved. In the first part of this chapter, it was shown that NI authorities have the mechanisms, even at a federal level, to mandate community participation. The NP proposal had several forms of participation and indeed very active community members, yet no form of consensus was reached on how to sustainably develop the region. This paper argues that the issue is not that there were no opportunities for a high level of community involvement in decision-making in NI, but rather the issue is when participation was sought. Because a top-down approach to this proposal was taken by the authorities, community members were not even given the chance to offer alternative solutions. Furthermore, the proposed area of the Mourne AONB is a very complex site that is not just an area in need of regional development, but an area with rich, long-standing cultural and natural heritage. This changes how we view planning processes, and this case study moves our attention specifically to the proposal process. A LHA addresses exactly that, by including the key stakeholders very early in the process, before a solution is even offered, and assesses the heritage components of a site appropriately. This step ended up being very significant in the Mourne proposal and it ended up costing them a lot of time and money, and still with a plan of action. 2.2.1 Concept behind a Living Heritage Approach In this paper the methodology of a LHA is used to structure its theoretical background of heritage conservation and regional planning and as the basis of the recommended proposal process to the 55 NI authorities. It is based on the work of a visiting researcher to ICCROM, Ioannis Poulios, which can be found in his book The Past in the Present: A Living Heritage Approach. It is a progression of an ICCROM study and a forum in 2003 on Living Heritage and PCAs. Poulios classifies a LHA as a heritage conservation approach, however this case study uses it as an integrated approach to heritage site management and regional planning processes. Here, it serves as a proposed planning solution for the key actors so they can work together in the Mournes and at other similar sites. Conservation approaches change with new ideas, technology and with the receipt of new information, and all new approaches add to the body of knowledge. Having an inflexible definition of heritage is detrimental theoretically and practically, and living heritage is an additional way to interpret heritage (Kimball et al 2013, p. 5); namely understanding heritage as a process. ICCROM promotes a LHA as an adaptive tool and one that emphasizes the importance of combining traditional and expert knowledge, explaining the “concern for reciprocal relations among local communities and heritage places is imperative for sustainable and adaptive heritage conservation and management” (ibid, p. 6). A LHA is considered a paradigm shift in our approach to conservation (ibid) and an evolution of the previous frameworks of “materials-based” and “valuesbased” approaches. However, breaking down conservation strategies into materials-based and values-based strategies is considered to be a very black and white method of dealing with heritage conservation. “A material-based approach is an expert-driven approach” where the process is lead almost exclusively by experts (Poulios 2014, p. 19-21). Taking care of such a large area where people live and where some of them would like to continue using the land as they have been for generations is no easy task. A values-based approach emphasizes the attention put on the intangible aspects of a site, however Poulios argues that it does not sufficiently include the community in decision-making (only in assessing site values). The community, the ones that assign or create value, are not always included in decisions about the future of the site. This is exemplified in a case study of Hadrian's Wall (UK) carried out by the Getty Association, where a values-based approach is defined as “... the coordinated and structured operation of a heritage site with the primary purpose of protecting the significance of the place as defined by designation criteria, government authorities or other owners, experts of various stripes, and other citizens with legitimate interests in the place” (Mason, MacLean, de la Torre 2003, p. 1). The values and significance of the site are selected in a very inclusive way, which should not be belittled, however the case study shows that all major conservation decisions were made by the power holders. The 56 values-based approach only allows a certain level of community participation. It uses the community to identify what the most important values are (which can influence decisions), but Poulios argues that final decisions are still made and pursued by the experts and professionals. To build upon a values-based approach, a PCA continues one step further to give more decisionmaking power to the people from which those values are derived. It is an approach that creates a more trusting dialogue among community members and professionals as well as reconciling modern conservation methods with traditional management systems (ICCROM 2012). A LHA is a PCA, one that puts the “living dimension” at the center of decision-making in heritage conservation and management efforts as well as by providing an approach that can adapt to contemporary and diverse human issues (ICCROM 2012, 2013). Living heritage is based on the continuity of the original function of a site and emphasis of the core community in decision-making and maintaining the site, which will be explained in more detail in the following sections. Another method that shares some conceptual similarities with a LHA is a Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA). It is a values-based tool that is very beneficial in assessing heritage and the effect that development projects might have at that site, however its scope is limited to being an assessment tool mainly implemented under the direction of planning authorities or heritage professionals. In a World Heritage definition, it uses the Outstanding Universal Value to determine what should be protected, and only regards those qualities that contribute to the [Outstanding Universal Value] which are treated as ' at risk' (ICOMOS 2011, Purpose). Both a HIA and a LHA are planning tools that provide options for planners, but an HIA is considered 'iterative' whereas a LHA is will need to be adapted to the community and the situation for every implementation (ibid, point 4-4). This need for adaptation also supports the idea that heritage is in flux and needs tools like a LHA planning process that are flexible to change. It is important to note that, thus far, a LHA and the concept of living heritage has been mainly focused on religious sites. Since the early 2000's, ICCROM has been working on a project and developing ideas for protecting living heritage sites, and in 2012 they launched a project called “Promoting People-Centered Approaches to Conservation” (Poulios, 2014(2)). More work on this project including a workshop is scheduled for October 2015. Before diving into the approach, some definitions, clarifications and relationships are provided. 57 2.2.2 Living heritage A definition of living heritage is needed as well as an explanation of its roots in intangible characteristics. Of course, living heritage has the word 'living' built right into it, alluding to the qualities that connect heritage to the present and do not exclusively focus on its creation or inception in the past. Author and conservations, Dr. Gamini Wijesuriya, is quoted saying, “...living heritage values are being elevated above the more familiar 'documentary' or 'historical' heritage values” (Stovel, et al, 2005, p. 1), also connecting the concept of heritage with the present. In an article by Federico Lenzerini, he refers to the academic Raymond Williams's very early concept of living heritage saying, “[h]e actually caught the essence of cultural heritage, which is composed not only of tangible properties, but also and especially of the essential elements representing the living culture of human communities, their evolution, and their continuing development” (2011, p. 102). They both paint a picture of heritage being a process from the past into today rather than a static idea or memory. Cultural heritage is composed of beliefs and practices (intangible) and the materials we use to express or embody them (tangible). The inclusion of tangible aspects as a part of the definition of living heritage is one way it is different than intangible heritage. Intangible characteristics are of major significance in all types of heritage, but it has a more narrow definition in the concept of living heritage. Firstly, according to the UNESCO (2003) definition, intangible heritage is composed of “practices, representations, expressions, knowledge, skills... that communities, groups and, in some cases, individuals recognize as part of their cultural heritage,” including the space and tools associated with them (Article 2.1). Living heritage is defined by all of those things, yet it goes further because of its values in connection with a place. In a 2003 ICCROM forum on religious living heritage, one of their main conclusions addressed this relationship, stating “[t]he tangible and intangible cannot be separated since all cultural material has intangible value. Living religious heritage is expressed in cultural material” (Stovel et al 2005, p. 9). For living heritage, the location and the environment are still relevant today, which is why living heritage is often coupled with the term 'site'. It is important to distinguish that intangible heritage is a human expression which may or may not be practiced today, or practiced as it was originally created. To make a direct (and blunt) comparison, the definition of intangible heritage can encompass “dead” practices. This constitutes 58 another key difference between living and intangible heritage; [The living heritage] paradigm constructs neither discontinuities nor arbitrary barriers between the past and the present, but instead envisions heritage places, their natural and social environments and their integral intangible assets (local and indigenous knowledge, stories, practices, etc.) as, in a sense, living, i.e, adaptive expression of and full participants in dynamic relations among the past, present and future of people and their societies (Kimball et al 2013, p. 5). Intangible heritage is intrinsic and often expressed in a physical, tangible way. Living heritage always consists of tangible components that manifest the intangible. Finally, the aspect of continuity in living heritage means that not just the values are passed on from individuals or a community, it is an ongoing belief in connection with the original function of a place. To compare, we turn to a later definition of intangible heritage which refers to traditions held or practiced over time, but only as an idea or belief; intangible heritage consists of “cultural expressions that have been passed from one generation to another, [and] have evolved in response to their environments and contribute to giving us a sense of identity and continuity” (UNESCO 2007, p.2). Living heritage must and intangible heritage often has qualities that are carried over time, but intangible heritage can change or stop being practiced entirely from the original, where living heritage is defined by its continuity of original use or function. Determining the continuity of the site is not the same as the site significance, because a place can be important for many reasons and may cross over into many different social constructs. Nor is it a community's association to the site, as Poulios describes continuity as “much more than the association of a local dwelling community, [it] is the association of the original (and not a changing/evolving community10), [it] is a historically valid (and not a claimed) association, and [it] can embrace contemporary changes such as modernisation” (2014, p. 28). The original function of the site should always be present and active, not musealized or static. This approach relies heavily on the evidence of continuity at a site, which is a differentiating factor between living heritage sites and other categories of heritage sites. It has been mentioned that the concept of living heritage is defined by its continuity in relation to the place it is occurring. In other words, living heritage sites “tell the story of people, events and places through time, offering a sense of continuity: a sense of 10 The changing/evolving community Poulios mentions is further explained in Chapter 4 of “The Past in the Present” (2014), meaning a community that changes in response to changing values of society and other conditions, enough so that they use the site in a way other than its original function or use the site in different context. 59 stream of time” (Taylor in Swenson and Sæsen 2012, p. 81). Discontinuity would be a break or a change in a site's original function. As for the people expressing and passing on these values, they are the ones that assign value to everything, and for living heritage they are known as the core community. The members of the core community create the values, and that community and their extenuating beliefs are the backbone of continuity (Stovel et al 2005, p. 30-31). The core community do not only assign value and carry out the original function, they are the main stewards and managers of the site. Furthermore, the people that are regularly practicing or expressing the site function have a strong connection to it, and their identity is, to some degree, formed by it. Essentially, the core community also determines the level of continuity, and whether it wishes to maintain the original function. The process of identifying the core community is not meant to be hierarchical, but in practice it is; the core community is a reflection of those that represent the site continuity because they have the strongest connection and identification with the site, and they essentially have the most to gain and lose by changes made at the site. These points exemplify the relationship between intangible heritage and living heritage, and also the main difference between them, which is the physical aspect of continuity and that living heritage is very much present and 'alive' through the core community. The question arises whether living heritage changes or evolves over time and if there is a boundary for acceptable change. Naturally, cultures must adapt, yet living heritage can and should integrate with development. Poulios describes the boundaries of change as “evolving within the traditional parameters defined by the continuity and in accordance with the original function of the [site]. In a sense, the evolution of the space is embraced as a part of the continuity, and is seen as an essential requirement for the maintenance of a living heritage site over time to the present” (2014, p. 118). It is imprudent and romantic to think that places and people are stuck in time. How the site and its core community adapt is the evolution of their heritage. It is not about stopping modernity, it is about how to incorporate it into daily life, and a LHA anticipates evolution and recognizes the original function of the site adapting to changes it faces over time. 60 2.2.3 LHA approach criteria and components A LHA has criteria and components that determine if the site does contain living heritage as well as guide planners and conservationists through the rest of the planning process. The four elements that pinpoint the continuity and the essence of the living heritage (over other values found at the site) are as follows; 1. the continuity of the site's original function, 2. the continuity of the community's connection with the heritage site, 3. the care of the heritage site by the community, as expressed through the community's management and ownership mechanisms and maintenance practices, and, 4. the continual process of the evolving space of the site (tangible and intangible expressions as a unity) (Poulios 2014, p. 28). The criteria for determining the site continuity are all connected to one another with the original function and use at the core. It is important to note that the 'connection to the past' still allows for the evolution of tangible and intangible aspects (working as a unity), yet within the boundaries defined by the continuity and the original function of the site. Fig. 10 is a diagram of the relationship of the components that constitute site continuity. As one can see, the people living and/or expressing the function of the site are the focus of conservation aims because their values decide all the elements, and thus they are given a high level of participation in the decision-making process. Once this core community has been identified, the broader community is taken into account as additional stakeholders. The core community is not the only voice, but they are intended to have a high level of participation in the decision-making. Reflecting on the theories of Poulios and Arnstein, the decision-making power is (re)distributed as a shared responsibility. It is a very high level of participation because authorities are expected, on the one hand, to be a part of the decision-making, however on the other hand, to act as a facilitator providing resources and perhaps accommodating alternative management styles and practices. It is recommended that a third party facilitate collaborative work with other stake- 61 Fig. 10: A graph depicting the elements used to determine continuity 11 holders in order to mediate and even formalize the collaboration in a legally binding way. Following the identification of the core community leads to the creation of a working group. Recognition of the community members and their role in site maintenance and safeguarding are part of the aims of the approach, but continuity is the defining factor. Stewardship by the core community, as can be seen in Fig. 10, is a determining factor of continuity, meaning local stewardship is integrated into any future management plans of the site to a) not break the continuity and b) ensure the community is responsible for taking care of their homes. Furthermore, the community has the desire to be stewards and managers of the site. Once continuity and function have been determined, one can then classify (or not) the site as a living heritage site. Then, and only then, can a LHA continue the process of deciding how to best protect the site. 11 Source: Poulios 2014, p. 116 62 2.3 Applying the LHA criteria to the Mournes The LHA criteria will now be applied to the Mournes; it identifies the original function of the landscape of the Mournes, a list of the elements that express the original function and a description of the core community according to the continuity and its elements. These points are derived from the case study as well as through observations and participation. This site has two main continuous original functions: 1. used as place for people to farm and raise sheep and cattle on their own land, as well as fish in nearby harbors, 2. possess the function to be a biologically diverse as well as an inspirational landscape. The elements emphasizing continuity of original function are is also evident through these points: 1. There are many active, traditional professions heavily based on agriculture. 2. The farmers and Trustees are stewards of the land (traditional land management). 3. There is a very strong sense of landownership for historic reasons, despite more profitable ways to farm and/or divide the land. 4. There are generations of families living and working in the same plots of land. 5. Many families still live in country homes made of the original or traditional fabric (accompanied by zoning and building policies that favor traditional housing styles, as well as traditional dry stone walling used to divide properties). 6. There still exist areas in the high Mournes and the low lands that remain a source of solitude and inspiration. 7. The quarries and granite extraction for building and repairing, as well as exports, still takes place. 8. The area is full of traditional instruments, dancing, sports, foods and uniforms found in schools and incorporated into daily life. 9. There is a strong community pride expressed in local festivals and celebrations, traditional foods, sports games and services offered, etc. The core community would consist of people from generational farmers and fishermen and the 63 Trustees and individual landowners. As can be seen, there is a strong relationship with the land and the built fabric, and we know from the case study that the core community has the desire to manage the site in order to sustain the site's original use and function. The Mountains of Mourne meets the criteria required in proceeding with a living heritage approach. The remainder of Poulios' planning process is not described in detail, however it can be seen in the diagram in Fig. 11. It is not necessary to describe the rest of it in this paper, as the case study focuses on the proposal process and exploring the relationship between heritage and regional planning. 2.4 Recommended proposal process The recommended proposal process is a result of this work and addresses the second research question of this paper: how can the NI authorities avoid these issues in future regional planning? The structure of the recommendation is not a 1-for-1 application to Poulios' planning process (Fig. 11), but rather it is a slight adaptation in accordance with the case study. It does not go as far in the process because the case study is not that far along yet and the focus is on the proposal procedures. It has been mentioned that this planning process will create a foundation from which the entire project commences, giving the project a better chance at being successful and more sustainable. More specifically, the significance of this recommended process gives attention to temporal and cultural aspects of a site. Emphasis is given to a high level of participation in determining an appropriate solution for a planning process in an area with a strong heritage connection. The temporal aspect addresses when community participation begins and the cultural part defines the goals and solutions based on the community's needs. Finally, it emphasizes community participation which has been legitimized by the international community and is a way to redistribute power. 64 Fig.11: A diagram of Poulios' Living Heritage Approach to planning12 12 Source: Poulios, 2014, p. 136 65 The recommended proposal process can be used for any heritage conservation or regional development process, but it was specifically designed for the authorities involved with the living heritage site of the Mountains of Mourne. It was identified in the Mournes' case study that participation is sometimes occurring after a preliminary conservation decision has been made, and thus there was little or ineffective community involvement during the decision-making process. This proposed process addresses that issue, as well as the issue of integrating heritage conservation and regional planning. A proposal is not an action plan, however it will be the basis for an action plan and further management planning. Authorities, funders and other stakeholders will make commitments based on the proposal. Before the recommendation process begins, a list of the overall aims are given in order to get a general idea of what results will be produced at the end. Those aims are to assess whether there is any living heritage in an area under potential regional development plans, to determine the site's continuity of original use/function and the core community and to create a high level of participation. Each step begins with focus questions and more specific aims, followed by goals and implementation examples when applicable. A diagram has been created (Fig. 12) to show a simplified version of the adapted process. The main body of the process can be found as an Annex as a standalone document, however an analysis of the Mourne case study against this process is presented in the proceeding section. The diagram is designed to be a simple visual aid of the overall process, and the recommended process itself has an introduction with a description and justification for why it has been included. It begins with a “Preliminary Step”, which identifies the overarching problem, the initial boundaries of the area that needs attention and whether there is living heritage present in that area. The preliminary step is included because if there is no living heritage at the site (perhaps it is only classified as a type of cultural landscape) then an alternative approach to meeting the overarching problems could be used. The preliminary step and step 1 are not identical to Poulios' original planning process methodology, but the information gathered at the end is similar, and they have been separated in this paper to emphasize the importance of classifying the area more accurately. This recommended process is intended to be used by planning authorities and, therefore, getting a feeling for the role that heritage could play at the site will be one of many things they will need to consider before coming up with an approach and subsequent proposal. Performing the preliminary step will be the first moment of recognition and agreement that heritage will play a role in how 66 they continue in the planning process. Step 1 moves more directly into Poulios' LHA: it determines the criteria and components of continuity, site function and use and identification of the core community. The preliminary step reveals that living heritage exists alongside the regional development goals, and step 1 reveals to the authorities the strength of the living heritage in the area. It culminates in the creation of a working group whose representatives are based on the identification of these components. Step 2 goes beyond the identification of the criteria and into a deeper assessment of the site. Opportunities for broader community involvement and consultation are part of this step; actual methods of how to gather and interpret information are to be determined by the working group. These steps end with the creation of a proposal. The aim of this planning process is not to implement a solution to the overarching problem, but to adequately research and brainstorm a proposal by a fairly represented working group. As was pointed out, the case study did this in exactly reverse order, with a solution to the problem followed by the formation of a working group (with research strewn throughout). 67 Fig 12: Diagram of the adapted LHA planning process for the recommended proposal process 68 Chapter 3 – Discussion 3.1 Analysis of the case study against the recommended proposal process This section is retrospective and serves to show points where the proposal went wrong and how this recommended proposal process structures the process according to what we know now. It is used simply to assess where problems occurred and to point out some strengths and weaknesses of this case. As we can see from earlier chapters, there were several issues and socio-cultural influences that shaped the NP proposal as we understand it today, however a comparison is still beneficial because it reveals how the actual process and the recommended process differ. This does not imply that skipping a step or not strictly adhering to the recommended process will automatically result in a failed proposal, it is only to identify the issues in this particular case and how we can learn from them. It is an analysis, as well as food for thought. To set the scene, the MNPWP did an incredible job collecting information about the area, much of which was readily available and up-to-date. Many people were very passionate about the issue and they were able to create and submit well-researched and sensible reports to the minister at the DOE. Some of the problem was the tainted, singular research that results with a goal already in mind and, as we already know, the authority's token or improperly placed community participation. Similarly, those community members opposed to a NP did the opposite; they focused their research solely against a NP. Yet research and the presentation of data is not everything; the process and chronology of the steps taken were more influential in the final outcome. Each step will be addressed individually and briefly critiqued. Preliminary step: Recognize Living Heritage. This step was only partially completed, namely the identification of rural development issues and some attention to cultural aspects/resources of the area. The Mournes need rural development due to a suffering economy, and the status quo will not suffice. This challenge was identified by the NI government, but it was a problem faced by most of the country and was not raised particularly for the Mourne Mountain area. 69 The cultural ties and significance of the people and the land is a part of the NP proposal aims and the greater NI sustainability goals, but the area was not recognized as a cultural landscape and further as a living heritage site. This paper shows that negligence of this fact resulted in the wrong approach from the beginning, and failure of the proposal. Finally, a NP system as a plan of action and solution for the area was created before the site was even chosen. The actual preliminary step of their planning process was the creation of a solution followed by the creation of a proposal for that solution. Indeed, a NP sounds like a wonderful idea and it does have the potential to benefit the area in several ways, especially considering the economic and social climate in the area, yet perhaps an alternative solution could have or would have served the area better. As previously mentioned, the Mournes are a by-product of the proposed solution, and the plan was not specifically tailored to the site. Step 1: Determine a living heritage framework. The MNPWP was created with a wide variety of stakeholders and it did in fact cover a wide range of people from the core and broader community, including a third party called the Public Consultation Inform Communications NI Limited. However, in retrospect, much of their work was done in vain because they did not include the community, specifically the core community, at the most important steps in the process. Due to the fact that the MNPWP were appointed, hired or invited by the DOE and immediately told what to do, all their efforts at creating a well-researched proposal for NP legislation and a subsequent Mourne NP plan was dictated by the authorities. Furthermore, the two Trustees were only invited shortly after, so they were clearly not a priority in party membership. Additionally, as has been mentioned, the Trustees and broader community created a report that became a sub-report of the main document, and essentially regarded as less important. The core and broader community were initially not involved in decision-making, which later had negative consequences for the proposal as a whole. The role of heritage was never identified in the proposal process, so everything related to living heritage is completely absent. Step 2: Gather, share and brainstorm (and creation of a proposal): The MNPWP and other researchers excelled at this step, with wonderfully rich documents of comparative data, informed 70 strategies and general academic research, as well as community input and evaluation. Brainstorming also took place during MNPWP meetings and through analysis of the public consultation results. They offered many alternatives to management strategies within a NP system, also strategies suggested by the broader community, yet no alternatives to a NP. This step was accomplished, yet it was under the wrong pretenses and at the wrong step in the process. Furthermore, the proposal, the White Papers, public surveys and evaluations were appropriate and essential to the process, yet they were spearheaded by authorities and accomplished, according to this method, too soon in the process. It is a shame, because NI and the Mourne community have the resources and the passion for sustainable heritage conservation and development, however the process they pursued resulted in indefinite postponement and the community now has a tainted perception of a NP system in the Mournes and perhaps the rest of NI. 3.2 Critiques of LHA as a planning tool A LHA has been explained as to why it is an appropriate solution to this case study, however it has its overall faults as an approach and in its application to the Mournes. Because a LHA is based on the function and continuity of a site, it can be said that it does not meet all of the pillars of sustainable development of political, economic, social and cultural protection or enhancement. Particularly regarding NI's sustainable development goals, it should be noted that the LHA does not explicitly expand on some aspects such as environmental issues. However, the aims of the approach and other PCAs focus on a general well-being, where well-being is assumed to be a holistic term that includes all aspects and influences on human life: economic and political systems, environmental health, cultural respect, human rights, etc. There is always a relationship between man and nature in cultural landscapes, and therefore the core community and the environment rely on each other. Furthermore, a cultural landscape is the duality of man and nature, so it is anticipated that any environmental issues will be sensitively dealt with. The existing legislation and regional development goals of the NI government and its departments are holistic, and a LHA is not expected to be incompatible with their long-term goals. As has been mentioned before, religious living heritage sites are the main places a LHA has been studied and applied to so far. Defining continuity and function/use is more straightforward for 71 these places, because religious sites become heritage sites instantaneously since they are sites created with a culturally significant reason in mind. For this reason, Dr. Wijesuyria (2005), separates religious sites from other heritage sites; non-religious heritage values evolve over time while for religious heritage, it is inherent from the very beginning (in Stovel et al, p. 2). Both a living heritage site and a cultural landscape are evolving, however, at a religious site, one begins with a very clear culturally significant use and evolves around that, with the original use unwavering. However, it is argued that this concept should be transferable to other sites that contain living heritage (in other words, meet the criteria proposed in a LHA). The question arises, are there different levels of site continuity and function/use that must be identified? Are there different strengths of continuity, or is it only present or not present? This thesis expands the definition of living heritage by applying it to a cultural landscape, claiming that a present-day heritage site can have continuity, even if it was not primarily built or created with a singular cultural function from the moment (or even before) it is created. One major critique of this approach is the sometime ideological notion of good-will from the core community. This approach puts a lot of decision-making power into the hands of the people, who are also only human; just like all the other stakeholders, they are prone to making decisions on self-interest or bias. A LHA also runs the risk of putting too much responsibility and maybe even too much faith in the core community. Assuming cooperation and negotiation from all stakeholders is not impossible, but perhaps a bit wishful. In places with a long history come people with long histories, meaning there are layers of challenges concerning the relationships among stakeholders. The cost-benefit of giving the core community the reins is that the site will continue to have strong tangible and intangible heritage values, but it may be at the expense of other site attributes or goals. In fact, a community decision turn out to be more expensive, either producing more costs or less potential revenue. Heritage protection and regional development using a LHA is a negotiation. As discussed in Chapter 2, community participation is not always predictably reliable and beneficial, and indeed the Mournes may have itself suffered from a ''tragedy of the commons' scenario. Furthermore, delegating power to a core community may be a little controversial because it seems to prioritizes some people living at a site over others. In relation to the good faith given to stakeholders, it would also be interesting to see what would happen if the core community and broader community did not want to maintain the original function. Indeed, in a LHA, it is the community's prerogative to decide what happens. In general, 72 are there enough checks and balances so that the other stakeholders understand and respect the site? Is it the responsibility of the heritage experts to make sure that any changes are acceptable, especially at internationally valuable places such as World Heritage sites? Is there a danger that an extremely significant site could be irreversibly damaged and lost to humanity, because the core community felt the site was no longer culturally valuable to them? A major topic of heritage discourse is that of authenticity. Counter to such significant international agreements such as the World Heritage Convention, a LHA does not prioritize authenticity as a main attribute to the preservation of the site. This goes against what is preached in heritage discourse, where authenticity is regarded as part of the backbone of conservation goals, even for cultural landscapes (Fowler 2002, p. 16). Poulios argues that preserving authenticity in Westernbased conservation practices means either “freezing” it or “enlivening” a particular phase of its history, sometimes both at the same site (Poulios 2014, p. 13). Both of these paths halt the 'living' continuous function and its evolution. Furthermore, attempting to preserve an authentic atmosphere, e.g. through behaviors and traditions, automatically makes the actions disingenuous and phony (ibid, p. 14). this concept is referred to as “the good old days” (Kimball et al 2013, p. 4). In relation to this, access and use by external users could also be lost under a LHA if the core community feels it is in the sites best interest. Whether reducing the significance of site authenticity, particularly the fabric, and if (potentially) unnecessarily restricting access will be detrimental to a site should be further studied and monitored at sites that prescribe to this approach. 3.2.1 Challenges with implementing the recommended process Naturally, implementation of this recommended process in a real-life situation is essential. Currently, this is just a set of theoretical steps based on research and analysis, and not an analysis or the implementation at the case study site or in general at a non-religious site. More specifically, the question arises as to whether this recommended process and a LHA are suitable tools for all living landscapes (for example, at an historic urban landscape). Thus far, research has shown that a LHA has only been applied to religious sites in practice, and through this paper it is only theoretically applied to a cultural landscape meeting the criteria. It is important to know if this 73 planning method is applicable to other types of heritage sites that also meet the criteria of the approach. Generally, research is needed as to determine how far this recommended proposal process can be extended and applied for other types of landscapes and heritage sites. There is also the question of integrating this recommended process into existing policy. Considering NI's current legislation under the 1985 Land and Amenities Act, the government already takes a top-down approach in NP proposals and designation. Integrating heritage and culture into development plans needs to come from a federal level and then be integrated into a regional level. Perhaps heritage assessment during regional planning does not need to be a policy of all 12 departments' frameworks (even if all departments could be involved at some point in regional planning), but it does need to be a part of the policy of those departments directly related: the Department of Regional Planning, the Department of the Environment and the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development at the very least. Unfortunately, politics is especially challenging in NI, even when things are starting to look up. In March 2015 it was announced that the NI Environment Agency would stop funding AONBs in June 2015, even though they are the ones that created and designated them (BBC 2015). Perhaps the NP proposal was partially a façade, knowing that they were facing severe budget cuts and hoping a NP system would receive more funding from the UK government or other sources. Maybe one of the reasons they did not approve the proposal and accompanying legislation was because they knew they could not financially commit to it, or commit to the start-up costs. This could go either way, depending on who is in office and if the situation will change in the near future. The loss of funding to AONBs as a reason for the failed NP proposal was refuted in the expert interview, but it is still something to consider in the bigger picture. 3.3 Looking ahead There are many more components of regional development planning and heritage conservation that were omitted or only briefly mentioned because they are outside the scope of this paper, and they will need to be expanded upon and explored theoretically and in practice. Further research is also needed to look deeper into some questions, such as, what happens in real life if a planning proposal is so close to the border of conservation and development? If there is such a fine line, 74 how does it affect the type or level of community participation? Development pressures and power systems will continue to be strong influences on the recommended process as well as heritage conservation as a whole. This paper attempts to disseminate power, but in a realistic and meaningful way. Perhaps authorities may not see it this way or may need more incentives. Considering this is written from the perspective of an academic, real-life politics will always pose unforeseeable challenges. If the NI government and DOE were to continue to push for a NP in the Mournes, they would have to do so without the support of the core community. Perhaps the community will change their minds with further meetings and negotiations, however it appears to be an uphill battle, even if it proves to be the best solution to address the needs of the area. There are several assumptions in the critique of LHA as a planning tool that will only be answered once the recommended proposal process are put into practice. In general, a LHA is a relatively new methodology that must prove itself against the test of time, even implemented within the category of sites for which it was initially intended. Naturally, a real-life implementation of the recommended process is necessary to discover its short comings. Conclusion This papers has two main results; the first was derived from the case study, showing that the Mourne NP proposal neglected the role of heritage in its regional planning processes which was one of the main underlying causes of the failed proposal. The second result came from the adaptation and application of the LHA methodology to the case. This exposed the need for more tools that integrate regional development and heritage conservation planning, as well as a specially-tailored proposal process recommended to the NI authorities as a way to assess future projects more appropriately and avoid problems uncovered in the case study. The case study of the Mourne Mountains' NP proposal process has shed light on some of the reasons for its failure, and it revealed a bigger issue of the need for integrated regional development and heritage conservation tools. Results of the interviews, site visits and a literature review revealed three key issues of a misunderstanding of the term NP, a lack of communication with the community and the late inclusion of community participation in the process. Looking into 75 some conceptual topics related to these issues, such as regional development, community participation, heritage management and ambiguous terminology, help to understand their complexity. There is a ubiquitous shift of power around the world with globalization, the accelerated methods of communication, and the universal acknowledgment of the role of the community in development and conservation, which demand that public authorities provide access to information and meaningful levels of community participation in planning processes. Furthermore, exploration of these concepts help explain some of the fundamental and/or systemic challenges pointed out in the emergent issues of the case study, and they further justify why we need interdisciplinary tools for site assessment and planning. This research and contextualization of information led to question of “what can be done?” Iaonnis Poulios' planning method using a LHA is a method that addresses the issues from the case study as well as the bigger gap in the lack of interdisciplinary tools in heritage conservation and regional development. A LHA is derived from a PCA, and it is an approach for regional planners to use at sites that contain living heritage. It takes a critical look at the role that heritage plays at a site, so that proposed solutions (and eventual action) are sensitive and inclusive of key stakeholders. This recommended process will not prevent all failures in the future, yet it hopes to hinder the types of problems that occurred in the Mournes from happening there again and at similar sites. Theoretically and in practice, regional development and heritage conservation are two planning approaches with a unique relationship to each other, and this calls for the creation of tools and methodologies that are multidisciplinary and adaptive. 76 Bibliography Arnstein, S R, 1969. A Ladder of Citizen Participation. The Journal of the American Institute of Planners, [online] Published online 26 Nov 2007. Vol: 35:4, 216-224. Available at: <http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01944366908977225> [Accessed 23 June 2015]. The Burra Charter: Australia Charter for the Conservation of Places of Cultural Significance, 2013. [pdf] Available through ICOMOS Australia: <http://australia.icomos.org/publications/charters/> [Accessed 11 Mar 2015]. BBC UK, 2012. Mournes National Park Opposition Voice. BBC News: NI [online] 5 September. Available at: <http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-19483423> [Accessed 15 Jan 15]. BBC UK, 2012(2). Mournes National Park won't be imposed: Alex Attwood [online] Available at: <http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-19998105> [Accessed 15 Jan 15]. BBC UK, 2015. Environmental Groups Face Huge Cuts to Budgets. BBC News: NI [online] 26 March. Available at: <http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-32068180> [Accessed 02 Apr 2015]. Bell, J, Stockdale, A, 2015. Evolving national park models: The emergence of an economic imperative and its effect on the contested nature of the ‘national’ park concept in Northern Ireland. Land Use Policy [online] Vol: 49 p. 213-226. Available through: <http://www.journals.elsevier.com/land-use-policy. [Accessed 31 Aug 2015]. Budapest Declaration on World Heritage, 2002 [pdf] UNESCO. <http://whc.unesco.org/en/decisions/1217/> [Accessed 16 Jan 2015]. Available at: Cadar, S, 2013. Cultural Landscapes, 41-4-08 Cultural Landscapes, summer semester. Brandenburgische Technische Universität, Cottbus-Senftenberg, Germany. Lecture 11 Apr 2013, unpublished. Cannon, T, 2008. Reducing People's Vulnerability to Natural Hazards: Communities and Resilience, research paper [ebook] University United Nations World Institute for Development Economics Research (UNU-WIDER). Available through Econstar: <http://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/45089/1/571444865.pdf> [Accessed 09 Mar 2015]. DARD, n.d. Strategic Plan 2012-2020 [pdf] Available through DARD: <http://www.dardni.gov.uk/consultation-dard-strategic-plan-2012-2020.htm> [Accessed 09 Mar 2015]. DARD (2), n.d. Rural White Paper Action Plan. Northern Ireland: Department of Rural Development. DARD, 2011. Northern Ireland Rural Statistics: Did you know? [pdf] Available through: <http://www.dardni.gov.uk/index/statistics/rural-statistics/statistics-did-you-know.htm> 77 [Accessed 20 Aug 2015]. DARD, 2014. Agriculture Census in Northern Ireland: Results June 2014. Available at: <http://www.dardni.gov.uk/agricultural_census_ni_2014.pdf> [Accessed 20 Aug 2015]. DARD, 2014 (2). Rural Development Program 2014 – 2020 Summary of Proposed Measures [pdf] Available at: <http://www.dardni.gov.uk/rdp-2014-2020-summary-of-measures-booklet-v2.pdf> [Accessed 11 Jun 2015]. DARD, 2015. Statistical Review of Northern Ireland Agriculture 2014 [pdf] Available at: <http://www.dardni.gov.uk/stats-review-2014-final.pdf> [Accessed 20 Aug 2015]. DARD, 2015 (2). Northern Ireland Rural Statistic [online] Available at: <http://www.dardni.gov.uk/index/statistics/rural-statistics/statistics-did-you-know.htm> [Accessed 20 Aug 2015]. DOE, 2002. Minister Paves The Way For National Park In The Mournes. [press release] 25 Sept 2002. Available at: <http://www.planningni.gov.uk/index/news/news_releases/news_newsreleases_archive/news_rel eases_2002/news_release_mournes_250903.htm> [Accessed 20 Nov 2014]. DOE, 2004. Minutes of the Second Meeting of the Mourne National Park Working Party Thursday 28th October 2004: Downshire Arms, Hilltown. [pdf] Available at: <http://www.doeni.gov.uk/niea/2nd_minutes_npwp.pdf> [Accessed 20 Nov 2014]. DOE, 2014. Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty [online] Available <http://www.doeni.gov.uk/niea/protected_areas_home/aonb.htm> [Accessed 13 Apr 2015]. at: DOE, 2014 (2). A Strategic Planning Policy Statement for Northern Ireland: Planning for Sustainable Development, Public Consultation Draft [pdf] Available at <http://www.planningni.gov.uk/spps> [Accessed 06 Mar 2015]. DOE, 2014 (3). Rural Development Programme 2014-2020: Final Draft for Formal Submission to EU Commission [pdf] Available at: <http://www.dardni.gov.uk/2014-2020-rdp-final-draft-for-formalsubmission-to-eu-commission.pdf> [Accessed 09 Mar 2015]. Dooley, T., 2014. Landscape and the People. In: A. Jackson, ed. 2014. The Oxford Handbook of Modern Irish History. New York: Oxford University Press. p.107-125. Dudley, N., ed., 2008. IUCN Guidelines for Applying Protected Area Management Categories: Developing Capacity for a Protected Planet. Series No. 21. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland. European Commission, 2014. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions: Towards an integrated approach to cultural heritage for Europe [pdf] Ref: COM(2014)0392 Available at: <http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2014_2019/organes/cult/cult_20150119_1500.htm#> [Accessed 6 Mar 2015]. 78 FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization), 2014. What is Family Farming? [online] Available at: <http://www.fao.org/family-farming-2014/home/what-is-family-farming/en/> [Accessed 12 Mar 2015]. The Faro Convention (Council of Europe Framework Convention on the Value of Cultural Heritage for Society), 2005. [online] Available through: <http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/Commun/QueVoulezVous.asp?CL=ENG&CM=8&NT=199> Accessed 11 Mar 2015]. Fitzgerald, P., 2005. 'Come back Paddy Reilly': aspects of Irish return migration, 1600 – 1845. In: Emigrant Homecomings: The Return Movements of Emigrants, 1600-2000, Ed. Marjory Harper. Manchester: Manchester University Press. P. 32-54. Fowler, PJ, 2003. World Heritage Papers 6: World Heritage Cultural Landscapes 1992-2002. Paris: UNESCO World Heritage Centre. Hardin, G. 1968. The Tragedy of the Commons. In: Science. Vol. 162 p. 1243-1248. Hazell, P, Poulton, C, Wiggins, S, and Dorward, A, 2007. The Future of Small Farms for Poverty Reduction and Growth [pdf] International Food Policy Research Institute, 2020 Discussion Paper 42 [pdf] Available at: <http://www.ifpri.org/sites/default/files/publications/vp42.pdf> [Accessed 02 Apr 2015]. Herremans, I and Ried, R, 2002. Developing Awareness of the Sustainability Concept. Journal of Environmental Education, [pdf] Fall 2002, 34:1 pp.16-20. Available at: < http://pages.ramapo.edu/~vasishth/Sustainability_Education/Herremans+Developing %20Awareness%20of%20the%20Sust%20Concept.pdf> [Accessed 02 Apr 2015]. ICCROM, 2012. Living Heritage [online] Available at: <http://www.iccrom.org/ifrcdn/eng/prog_en/4people-centered-appr_en.shtml> [Accessed 05 Mar 2015]. ICCROM, 2013. Promoting People-Centred Approaches to Conservation: Living Heritage [online] Available at: <http://www.slideshare.net/ICCROM/2-ga13-gw-final> [Accessed 15 Jun 2015]. ICOMOS, 2011. Guidance on Heritage Impact Assessments for Cultural World Heritage Properties. In collaboration with UNESCO. Paris: UNESCO. Institute for Historic Building Conservation, 2013. Northern Ireland national park Bill ‘shelved’ [online] 15 November. Available at: <http://ihbconline.co.uk/newsachive/?p=6788> [Accessed 24 Apr 2015]. Intangible Cultural Heritage Convention (Convention for the Safeguarding of Intangible Cultural Heritage), 2013. Paris: UNESCO. Kent Downs, 2015. What is an AONB? [online] Britain. Available <http://www.kentdowns.org.uk/about-the-aonb/what-is-an-aonb> [Access 16 Jan 2015]. 79 at: Laird, SA (ed.), 2002. Biodiversity and Traditional Knowledge: Equitable Partnerships in Practice. People and Plants Conservation Series. Earthscan Publications, Ltd. Land and Amenities Act 1985. (Part IV c. 12-13). 1985/170 (N.I. 1). United Kingdom: Her Majesty's Stationery Offices Ltd.. Lenzerini, F, 2011. Intangible Cultural Heritage: the Living Cultures of People. The European Journal of International Law [online] Vol. 22:1 Available at: <http://www.ejil.org/article.php? article=2127&issue=105> [Accessed 07 Nov 2014]. Lusiani, M, and Zan, L, 2013. Guest Editorial: Planning and heritage. Journal of Cultural Heritage Management and Sustainable Development [online] Vol 3:2, pg.108-115. Available at: <http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/abs/10.1108/JCHMSD-06-2013-0026> [Accessed 10 Mar 2015]. Marshall, C., and Rossman, G. B., 1995. Designing Qualitative Research: second edition. United States: Sage Publications. Marzuki, A and Hay, I, 2013. Towards a Public Participation Framework in Planning. Tourism Planning & Development [online] Available at: <http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/21568316.2013.804432#abstract>[Accessed 29 Oct 2014]. Marzuki, A, Hay, I, and James, J, 2012. Public participation shortcomings in tourism planning: the case of the Langkawi Islands, Malaysia. Journal of Sustainable Tourism. 20:4, p. 585-602. Mason, MacLean, and de la Torre, 2003. Hadrian’s Wall World Heritage Site::A Case Study. [pdf] The Getty Conservation Institute, Los Angeles. Available at: <http://www.getty.edu/conservation/publications_resources/pdf_publications/hadrians_wall.html > [Accessed 04 Nov 2014]. McAreavey, R, 2009. Rural Development Theory and Practice. New York: Routledge. McAreavey, R, 2010. Towards a Mourne National Park? Emergent prospects and pitfalls from articulating needs in a local context [pdf] Available at <http://www.qub.ac.uk/researchcentres/TheInstituteofSpatialandEnvironmentalPlanning/Impact/WorkingPapers/FileStore/Filetou pload,432506,en.pdf> [Accessed 29 Sept 2014]. MHT, 2012. Position Statement on National Parks for Northern Ireland - May '12 [online] Available at: <http://www.mournelive.com/Publications/National%20Parks> [Accessed 30 Sept 2014]. MMLP, 2012. Landscape Conservation Action <http://www.mournelive.com/publications> Accessed on paper. Plan. Available at; MNPWP, 2004. Minutes of the Second Meeting of the Mourne National Park Working Party [online] October 28. Available at: <http://www.doeni.gov.uk/niea/2nd_minutes_npwp.pdf> [Accessed 10 Oct 2014]. 80 MNPWP, 2006. Proposal for a Mourne National Park: Your Opportunity to Have Your Say. Printed leaflet. MNPWP, 2007. Report to the Minister [pdf] September. Available at: <http://www.doeni.gov.uk/niea/working_party_report__to_minister_broadband.pdf> [Accessed 20 Nov 2014]. Moore, L., 1901. The Ancient Kingdom Of Mourne. Yorkshire Ramblers' Club Journal. Volume 1 Number 3: pp155-172. Leeds: YRC Murzyn-Kupisz, M and Dziazek, J, 2013. Cultural heritage in building and enhancing social capital. Journal of Cultural Heritage Management and Sustainable Development, [e-journal] 3:1, pp. 35-54. Available at: <http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/full/10.1108/20441261311317392> [Accessed 07 Apr 2015]. The Nara Document on Authenticity, 1994. [online] UNESCO. <http://whc.unesco.org/archive/nara94.htm> [Accessed 08 Apr 2015]. Available at: National Museums: NI, 2015. Ulster Folk & Transport Museum: Agricultural [online archive] Available at: <http://nmni.com/uftm/Collections/Agriculture> [Accessed 20 Aug 2015]. NP, 2015. Britain's breathing spaces: National Parks facts and Fig.s [online]. Available at: <http://www.nationalparks.gov.uk/learningabout/whatisanationalpark/factsandFig.s> [Accessed 14 Jan 2015]. NP and Wildlife Services, 2015. National Parks <http://www.npws.ie/national-parks> [Accessed 8 June 2015]. in Ireland. Available at: Nederveen Pieterse, J, 2010. Development Theory. 2nd ed. Nottingham: Sage Publications. Nominees (Nominees of the Mourne Trustees), 2007. Report on the Outcome of the Mourne National Park Consultation Exercise: Independent Report of the Nominees of the Mourne Trustees [online] Available at: <http://www.mournetrustees.org/html/mourne_national_park.html> [Accessed 12 Nov 2014]. Northern Ireland Act 1998. Reprinted 2002. c. 47. United Kingdom: Her Majesty's Stationery Offices Ltd. NI Direct, 2015. Government Services: Community Involvement [online] <http://www.nidirect.gov.uk/community-involvement> [Accessed 11 Jun 2015]. Available at: Northern Ireland Executive, n.d. Programme for government 2011-2015: building a better future [pdf] Available at: <http://www.northernireland.gov.uk/pfg> [Accessed 09 Mar 2015]. OAS (Organization of American States), 1985. Integrated Regional Development Planning: Guidelines and Case Studies from OAS Experience [ebook] Available at <http://www.oas.org/dsd/publications/Unit/oea03e/begin.htm#Contents>[Accessed 09 Jun 2015]. 81 Office for National Statistics, 2012. Country Profiles: Key Statistics - Northern Ireland, August 2012. [pdf] Northern Ireland. Available at: <http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/regional-trends/region-andcountry-profiles/key-statistics-and-profiles---august-2012/key-statistics---northern-ireland--august2012.html> [Accessed 14 Jan 2015]. Percy French Festival, 2015. 'The Mountains of Mourne', [online] In: Prose, Poems & Parodies of Percy, 1980. Available at: <http://percyfrench.ie/percy-french/the-mountains-of-mourne/> [Accessed 6 Nov 2014]. Pieterse, J N, 2010. Development Theory: Second Edition. California: Sage Publications, Ltd. Poulios, I, 2011. Is Every Heritage Site a ‘Living’ One? Linking Conservation to Communities’ Association with Sites. The Historic Environment. Vol. 2:2, pp. 144–56. Poulios, I, 2014. The Past in the Present. London: Ubiquity Press. Poulios, I, 2014 (2). Discussing strategy in heritage conservation: Living heritage approach as an example of strategic innovation. In: Journal of Cultural Heritage Management and Sustainable Development: Vol. 4:1 p. 16-34. Renn, J and Hyman, M, 2012. The Globalization of Knowledge in History: An Introduction In: Renn, J 2012 (ed.) Globalization and Knowledge in History [ebook] Available at: <http://www.editionopen-access.de/studies/1/> [Accessed 11 Mar 2015]. Royal Town Planning Institute, 2007. Guidelines on Effective Community Involvement and Consultation [pdf] Available through <http://www.rtpi.org.uk/knowledge/publications/#CommunityEngagement> [Accessed 27 Mar 2015]. Rubin, H & Rubin I, 1995. Qualitative Interviewing: the Art of Hearing Data. USA: Sage Publications, Inc. Sauer, C O, 1925. The Morphology of Landscape. University of California Publications in Geography 2,2. Berkeley, California: University of California Press. Schröder-Esch, S (ed), 2006. Practical Aspects of Cultural Heritage – presentation, revaluation, development. HERMES-Project, Volume 1. Weimar: Bauhaus-Universität Weimar. Schröder-Esch, S, Ulbricht, J H (eds), 2006. The Politics of Heritage and Regional Development Strategies – Actors, Interests, Conflicts. HERMES-Project, Volume 2. Weimar: Bauhaus-Universität Weimar. Scott, J C, 1998. Seeing Like a State. Yale University Press. Scottish Government, 2013. National Parks [online] Available <http://www.gov.scot/Topics/Environment/Countryside/16131> [Accessed 09 Apr 2015]. 82 at: Sellars, R.W., 2009. Preserving Nature in National Parks: A History. Yale University: Yale University Press. Sen, A, 1999. Development as Freedom. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Sharp, G. 2010. From Dictator to Democracy [ebook] Available at: <http://www.aeinstein.org/english/> USA: Albert Einstein University Press [Accessed 10 Apr 2015]. Stovel, H, Stanley-Price, N and Killick, R (eds) 2005. Conservation of Living Religious Heritage: Papers from the ICCROM 2003 Forum on Living Religious Heritage: conserving the sacred. Rome: ICCROM. Sullivan, S, 2004. Local Involvement and Traditional Practices in the World Heritage System. In: World Heritage Papers 13, Linking Universal and Local Values: Managing a Sustainable Future for World Heritage. Paris: World Heritage Centre. P. 49-55. Sustainable Northern Ireland, 2007. Principles of Sustainable Development [online] Available at: <http://www.sustainableni.org/sustainable-development/sustainability-principles/index.php> [Accessed 07 Apr 2015]. Swenson, G, and Sæsen, A, 2014. Managing historic resources in active farming landscapes: National priorities and local practices. In: Journal of Cultural Heritage Management and Sustainable Development [online] Vol 4:1, pg. 80-94. Available at: <http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/full/10.1108/JCHMSD-12-2012-0072> [Accessed 15 Sep 2014]. Toffler, A, 1980. The Third Wave. New York: Bantam Books. Pgs. 172-180. Turner, D.W. III, 2010. Qualitative Interview Design: A Practical Guide for Novice Investigators. The Qualitative Report [online] Vol 15:3 p. 754-760. Available at <http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR153/qid.pdf> [Accessed 4 June 2015]. UN, 2012. United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development: Rio+20 Final Outcome Document [pdf] Available at: <http://www.uncsd2012.org/content/documents/774futurewewant_english.pdf> [Accessed 21 Jan 15]. UN, 2012 (2). Realizing the Future We Want for All Report to the Secretary-General: UN task Team on the Post-2015 UN Development Agenda [pdf] Available through: <http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/policy/untaskteam_undf/report.shtml> [Accessed 5 June 2015]. UNESCAP, 2009. What is Good Governance [online] Available <http://www.unescap.org/resources/what-good-governance> [Accessed 23 Jun 2015]. at: UNESCO, 2007. Kit of the Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage: What is Intangible Cultural Heritage? [pdf] Availabe at: 83 <http://www.unesco.org/culture/ich/doc/src/01851-EN.pdf> [Accessed 13 Nov 14]. UNESCO, 2011. World Heritage Resource Manual: Preparing World Heritage Nominations. Second edition. Paris: UNESCO. UNESCO, 2013. Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention. Paris: UNESCO. UNESCO, 2013 (1). The Hangzhou Declaration Placing Culture at the Heart of Sustainable Development Policies [pdf] Available at: <http://www.unesco.org/new/fileadmin/MULTIMEDIA/HQ/CLT/images/FinalHangzhouDeclaration 20130517.pdf> [Accessed 11 Mar 2015]. University of Kansas, 2014. Chapter 18: Participatory Approaches to Planning Community Interventions [ebook] In: Work Group for Community Health and Development at the University of Kansas: Community Tool Box. Available at: <http://ctb.ku.edu/en/table-ofcontents/analyze/where-to-start/participatory-approaches/main> [Accessed 20 Mar 2015]. USPC, n.d. National Parks for Northern Ireland [online] <http://www.uspc.org.uk/documents.html>. [Last accessed 2 Sept 2015]. Available through VisitScotland, 2013. National Parks Sector Review-2012: Version 2 Updated August 2013, [pdf] Available at: <http://www.visitscotland.org/pdf/Scottish%20National%20Parks%20Sector %20Review%202012%20UPDATE%20AUGUST2013FINAL.pdf> [Accessed 10 Apr 2015]. Voluntary Services Overseas, 2004. Participatory Approaches: A facilitator's guide [ebook] Available at: <http://www.participatorymethods.org/resource/participatory-approaches-facilitators-guide> [Accessed 09 Mar 2015]. WalkNI, 2015. Overview: Mourne Mountain, [online] Available <http://www.walkni.com/destinations/mourne-mountains/> [Accessed 02 Apr 2015]. at: Wang, YP, Wang, Y, and Wu, J, 2009. Urbanization and Informal Development in China: Urban Villages in Shenzhen. International Journal of Urban and Regional Development, [online] 33.4. pp. 957–73 Available at: <http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.14682427.2009.00891.x/abstract> [Accessed 07 Apr 2015]. Whelan, Y., 2014. Landscape and Politics. In: A. Jackson, ed. 2014. The Oxford Handbook of Modern Irish History. Oxford University Press, New York. pg. 83-103. Wilcox, D, 2003. The Guide to Effective Participation [ebook] Available at: <http://phobos.ramapo.edu/~vasishth/Readings/Wilcox-Guide_To_Effective_Participation.pdf> [Accessed 02 Mar 2015]. World Heritage Convention (The Convention Concerning the Protection of World Cultural and Natural Heritage), 1972. Paris: UNESCO. 84 World Movement for Democracy (WMD), 2010. The Sixth Assembly, Jakarta, Indonesia. 11-14 April 2010 [pdf] Available at: <http://www.wmd.org/sites/default/files/Sixth%20Assembly%20Final %20Report.pdf> [Accessed 07 Apr 2015]. Young, R O [ed], 1982. Compliance & Public Authority: A Theory with International Applications. International Journal [online] 37:3 pp. 500-503. Available at: <http://www.jstor.org/stable/40202081> [Accessed 13 Apr 2015]. 85 Appendix I – Stakeholder interviews Introduction The stakeholder interviews were conducted while living on-site during a 5-month internship at the Mourne Heritage Trust. Interviewees were chosen based on a set of three criteria given below. The questions have two-parts; the first 17 questions are iterative and were posed to all of the interviewees. The second part are the flexible questions, ones that were designed to get more indepth into the interviewee's field of expertise. Not all of the interviewees answered all of the questions, so the questions are repeated in the transcript. These are semi-structured, qualitative interviews, and the responses were initially recorded by hand and then immediately typed up after in session. Objective To gain a better understanding of the perceptions key stakeholders about the NP proposal of the Mourne Mountain area, the role of the authorities and landownership. Underlying questions 1. Does the community feel that a NP is an appropriate solution for the site? 2. What are some of the reasons behind the resistance to or acceptance of the proposal? Question themes [A] Individual perception of the situation [B] Identity [C] Perception of authorities Interviewee selection criteria 1. He or she must clearly identify with one of the opinion groups: 'Yes', 'No' and 'No opinion' 86 2. He or she must live and work in the Mournes 3. He or she must have a strong identification with the area through occupation and/or lineage Standard questions Pre-question: Please tell me a little about yourself and your role in the community. 1. Not thinking of the Mournes current proposal, what do you think of when you hear the term ‘National Park’? Does one come to mind? [A] 2. Can you tell me more about land ownership in NI? [B] 3. What are some issues you see with becoming a NP? [A] 4. Do you think becoming a NP would be more beneficial or more harmful to the environment and the community? [A] 5. In your perception, what has been the community reaction to becoming a national park? [A] 6. Many English parks have claimed that they can get more funding once they have the NP brand. Do you agree or disagree with this? [A + C] 7. Do you think a NP will affect the economy? For example, the number of jobs or job diversification? [A] 8. Do you think NP status will affect tourism in the area? [A] 9. The current buzzword is 'sustainable development'. What does that mean to you and for the Mournes? [A] 10. Both sides of the argument seem to be in disagreement about restrictions. Do you believe there will be more ‘red tape’ or will a NP authority help streamline activities? [A + C] 11. The MHT is funded by the lottery under a 3-year project proposal. If they do not receive funding again, who will manage the landscape? Do you have any other ideas for ways to manage the landscape? [A + C] 12. In the beginning, to me, the role of NP authorities was unclear. Do you think introducing a new NP authority will have a positive or negative effect on landscape management? [A + C] 87 13. In line with landscape management, do you believe the current departments are doing an adequate job? For example, Northern Ireland Water within the Mourne Wall, DARD for agriculture and regional development, district councils deciding Rights of Way and other development planning, the minerals division of DOE for extraction and quarrying, etc. [A + C] 14. In respect to the NP proposal, how do you feel about some people saying, ‘if it’s not broken, don’t fix it’? [A+ B] 15. How do you think NP status would affect development or zoning rules? (ex. encourage people to move there, increased housing prices, difficult to build new/expand, possibility for grant applications, etc.) [A + C] 16. Do you believe the creation of a framework and approval by all stakeholders feasible at this point in time in NI? [A] 17. Where do you get most of your information about the nomination, e.g., news, radio, meetings, newsletter? [A] Further questions A set of specific questions based on the profession of the interviewee were developed and added to the end of the standard questions. 88 Interview 1 Name: Desmond Patterson Date and place: 2 February 2014 at Meelmore Lodge, Bryansford Criteria 1. 'Yes' for a NP. 2. Lives and works in the Mournes. 3. His profession is a farmer and councilor for the Down District Council, business owner in the high Mournes, and current chairman of the Mourne Heritage Trust. 1 1. Not thinking of the Mournes proposal, what do you think of when you hear the term ‘National 2 Park’? Does one come to mind? 3 I imagine the NP to just be in the high Mournes, because then it will automatically include less 4 farmers and it will focus on the nature. 5 2. Can you tell me more about land ownership in NI? 6 I bought my land from farmers that had passed and the families didn’t want the land anymore. 7 They easily parted with the land. 8 3. What are some of the major issues you see with becoming a NP? 9 Essentially, I think the proposed area is too big and should just be the high Mournes. Currently, the 10 boundary reaches down to the sea and will include a lot of farms, the quarry, the fishing towns, 11 etc. It should be the same area that the AONB is now, which would exclude some of the industrial 12 heritage, but will be more focused on the natural. The current proposal should just focus on the 13 natural aspects. 14 5. In your perception, what has been the community reaction to becoming a national park? 15 The community as a whole doesn’t really care, but many people are against it. They think it will 16 hurt the farmers and make development more difficult. 17 7. Do you think a NP will affect the economy? For example, the number of jobs or job 89 18 diversification? 19 I see the whole picture of the Mournes, as a farmer, a tourism business owner, and a resident. Our 20 facility is unique because we have the only toilets in the high Mournes, and we’ve just grown from 21 there. We saw the opportunity and added a car park, a cafe, and a hostel. That’s what other 22 farmers need to do, too – take the opportunities before they’re gone. I’m different than the other 23 farmers in the high Mournes because I farm my land based on the market demands. Some farmers 24 plant their normal crops and then can’t sell their produce because no one will buy it. They didn’t 25 check the market demand first. The other farmers thought I was crazy in the beginning, but I’ve 26 been so successful, no one could buy me out. Now other farms want to copy me, but they can’t get 27 the planning permission to do it. They are too close to the mountains and they don’t have enough 28 assets to back a loan. 29 8. Do you think NP will affect tourism in the area? 30 Yes, it will bring in more people, and they need to be educated about where they can go, where 31 they can park, etc. 32 10. Both sides seem to be in disagreement about restrictions. Do you believe there will be more 33 ‘red tape’ or will a national park authority streamline activities? 34 Farmers oppose a national park because they believe there will be more restrictions. Farmers are 35 also afraid of ASSIs, but I already farm on 100 acres of that land without problem. Farming in an 36 ASSI should deserve a reward for taking care of the land more carefully. Farmers need support and 37 an NPA could advise them. Farmers don’t have the financial means or the knowledge. They are 38 afraid of risk. I’m different than other farmers in the area because I have a university degree. 39 11. The MHT is funded by the lottery under a 3-year project proposal. If they don’t get funding 40 again, who will manage the landscape? Do you have any other ideas for ways to manage the 41 landscape? 42 Currently, the Mournes are managed by the MHT. Without MHT, things would go back to how they 43 were, which is not good. 44 13. In line with landscape management, do you believe the current departments are doing an 45 adequate job? [...] 46 The area now is run by the NIEA and they are very hard to work with. They are too focused on the 90 47 environmental aspects and they aren’t seeing the bigger picture. DARD can stay. A NP authority 48 would essentially eliminate the NIEA which wouldn’t be a bad thing. NIEA wants to ‘close down the 49 Mournes’, meaning they are staunch environmentalists. They want to protect the Mournes by not 50 touching the area. They also oppose the new car park I want to build, but there is a lot of illegal 51 parking on the road and it can be dangerous in the summer. NIEA has a bad attitude and they think 52 they write the law. They are based in Belfast, not in the area. 53 14. In respect to the NP proposal, how do you feel about the saying, ‘if it’s not broke, don’t fix it’? 54 Everything needs mended, everything needs tender loving care during its life. 55 16. Do you believe the creation of a framework and approval by all stakeholders feasible? 56 The NP authority would need a working group together of all the important people. I’m not sure if 57 it would work. But I can’t see religion playing a role. The NIEA does not get along with the farmers 58 and I don’t think they’ll get any better. A NP authority would be a better option. The NPA board 59 must be made up of people that live and earn money in the Mournes. 60 17. Where do you get most of your information about the nomination? [...] 61 I’m a part of the working party for the proposal. I get most of my information about the proposal 62 from the MHT, local farmer magazines and from English farming magazines. There’s not much in 63 the local papers and if you wanted to reach farmers, it would be best to speak in person. Further questions for Mr. Patterson’s profession 64 A. How do you imagine farming in the Mournes in the next 5 years? In the next 20? [A + B] 65 For the future of farming, it’s hard to imagine. I know that it needs to move forward. There are 66 many older farmers, but their children don’t want to farm or they do want to farm but aren’t 67 learning new ways. They’re not thinking ahead or taking advantage of opportunities. Most farmers 68 now are traditional farmers. Farmers will need to change. They will need to respond to the market 69 changes. 70 B. The Belefast Telegraph published an article titled, “Mourne Farmers win National Park Battle” 71 (Oct. 2012). Why do you think the article implies that all farmers are opposed to a NP? [A] 91 72 Farmers oppose a national park because they believe there will be more restrictions. Farmers are 73 also afraid of ASSIs, but I already farm on 100 acres of ASSI land without problem. Farming in an 74 ASSI should deserve a reward for taking care of the land more carefully. 75 C. Do you think there is a threat to more hikers on your land? [A] 76 I am flexible to let others walk about on my land. I made some of my own trails leading to the main 77 walking path. Walkers need to be educated. I don’t fear tourists, but I know others do. In fact, I’ve 78 talked to a lot of European tourists and the active walkers have their own insurance. I think the 79 fear of getting sued if a walker gets hurt on your land is ungrounded. As far as I know, only one girl 80 was hurt while walking on someone’s property. She took it to court, but it was eventually dropped. 81 D. What can you tell me about government farming subsidies? Do you think they will help or hurt 82 in the long term? (Furthermore, if taken away, what do farmers have?) [A + C] 83 Europeans make the agriculture rules. They also provide the subsidies. Farming subsidies should be 84 taken away and that money should be used to better develop the area. Tourism would allow the 85 inefficient farmers to stop farming and get more secure jobs. It will be tricky for the first 2-3 years, 86 but it will be better in the long run. The key is, once farmers see it working in a small area and the 87 benefits that can come from it, they’ll want to join in too. The NP boundaries will automatically 88 grow. The whole area from Gullion to Downpatrick should all be branded as a NP, but the actual 89 boundaries are just the high Mournes. There will be automatic benefits to the surrounding areas 90 that will come from the NP brand. 91 E. Address the statement, “Parcels of land are too small to be productive.” [A] 92 The parcels of land that are being farmed are too small and need to be consolidated in order to be 93 efficient. Farmers that aren’t doing well should sell their land. Farmers do need to be rewarded in 94 some way because they do look after the land. They raise sheep which eat the tall grasses and 95 other plants which prevent fires from spreading. If subsidies are taken away, they still need some 96 support. There are also ‘part-time’ farmers, which are very unproductive, too. It’s mainly just a 97 hobby now because they work somewhere else during the day and farm in the morning and at 98 night. I don’t consider myself a part-time farmer. 99 F. Address the statement, “Rural Tourism is the biggest economic sector in the Mournes” (MHT 100 101 2012). [A] There are 4 enterprises here - lamb, beef, potatoes and tourism. Lamb and beef farmers are 92 102 receiving subsidies, but potatoes and tourism earn the most. The Mournes need 3-4 more of these 103 enterprises. We need to educate tourists how to use the car parks and trails. That will 104 automatically improve things. 105 G. There’s the argument that NP status can begin the steps for sustainable development, especially 106 rural development. Do you agree or disagree with this? [A] 107 A NP is big opportunity economically, especially for the economy in eastern NI. 108 H. Is it possible to revive farming in the mountains? Perhaps, wrack harvesting? [A] 109 If seaweed harvesting were to come back, it would just be for novelty. 93 Interview 2 Name: Cllr. Harold McKee Date and place: 14 February 2014 at Kilmorey Arms Hotel, Kilkeel Criteria 1. 'No' against a NP 2. Lives and works in the Mournes 3. His profession includes being a District Councilor for Newry and Mourne, the NI representative for the British Blue Cattle Society and member of the Mourne AONB Resident's Group. His family has a history of sand and gravel quarrying in the area. 110 Pre-question: Please tell me a little about yourself and your role in the community. 111 My involvement started when I was approached by Valerie Hanna. Mourne Mineral (?) arranged a 112 meeting with farmers here. The AONB residents group formed from that. We went around the 113 communities and had meetings, and that’s where we asked people to tell us their opinion. Angela 114 Smith, an old minister of the environment, first came up with idea of a NP. After her, Ally Attwood 115 continued it. But he had a bad attitude to farmers. He said, “If I felt it was right, I would do it.” His 116 party, SDLP, didn’t like the idea and said they would abandon him if he approved a NP in the 117 Mournes. A lot of them sided with the farmers. Attwood's response was, “If so, so be it.” Now, he’s 118 been replaced and was harassed. 119 2. Can you tell me more about land ownership in NI? 120 Most land is privately owned, about 90%. There are some public trustees from the 1920’s. There is 121 a lot of low land grazing still. There would be 3-8 committees within the proposed boundaries. 122 3. What are some of the major issues you see with becoming a national park? 123 I see a problem with the quarries. The proposal recommended that the sand and gravel quarries 124 close because they are a ‘blot’ on the landscape. It removes the top soil. The quarries could 125 certainly be used as a part of the parks to educate kids. Quarries can also clean up after 126 themselves. In fact, environmentalists in Southern England say that there aren’t enough quarries 127 because we need the resources they provide. There they said even more lapbirds counted after the 128 quarry was set up. The proposed boundaries now include Annalong and Kilkeel. Although they 94 129 have important histories, they shouldn’t be included in the boundaries. The NP should be as rural 130 as possible. But there’s a certain amount of acreage that a NP must have in order to be designated. 131 At one of the community meetings about the proposal, 3 Welsh farmers came to talk about their 132 experience living in a NP. They said that walkers leave gates open and dogs were not on leads. The 133 dogs scare the sheep, which abandon the lambs. Also, if hikers want to get somewhere, they’ll do 134 it, even cut down wire fences. 135 4. Do you think becoming a NP would be more beneficial or more harmful to the environment and 136 the community? 137 There are many small industries in the Mournes that could suffer under a NP. For example, in the 138 Lake District, they used to have sea trials, but the NP made them stop. This had an affect on the 139 hotels, many of which were forced to close down. 140 5. In your perception, what has been the community reaction to becoming a NP? 141 5 or 6 years ago a petition was sent around that received 6,500 signatures against the designation. 142 Local industry doesn’t want it, not just farmers. It was an open petition that was brought to 143 meetings, but members of the AONB Residents' Group also went around looking for signatures. 144 There was a consultation document sent around in the very beginning, but it wasn't distributed 145 correctly. It was surveying people in Australia what they thought, when people in Slieve Croob 146 didn’t get any consultation forms. 147 8. Do you think having the NP designation will affect tourism in the area? 148 I’m not against tourism. The people for a park were saying that becoming a NP would bring in 145 149 million visitors per year, but that would mean 66 bus loads a day to the Mournes. Then it came out 150 that they meant 1.45 million people, but they didn’t change their materials right away. We think 151 that was a ploy. 152 11. The MHT is funded by the lottery under a 3-year project proposal. If they don’t get funding 153 again, who will manage the landscape? Do you have any other ideas for ways to manage the 154 landscape? 155 ASSIs- two new ones will be designated by 31 March of this year [2014]. You can farm on ASSI land, 156 but they don’t want the designation. The farmer is already protecting the land. 157 12. In the beginning, to me, the role of NP authorities was unclear. Do you think introducing a new 95 158 NP authority will have a positive or negative effect on landscape management? 159 You’ll hear the word quango used often - meaning, the NP authority will be answerable to no one. 160 Bureaucracy is always an issue and an NPA would certainly be a lot of it. The work that an NP 161 authority would do would duplicate what’s already here. The organizations now will knock on the 162 doors of farmers, and they never have anything good to say - they need to fix a wall or they need 163 to do something. Currently, the countryside management does offer money for maintenance. If 164 there is a NP, DARD will need to keep watch and more enforcement from them is foreseen. There 165 will have to be an NP authority. They would focus on the environmental aspects, and it doesn’t 166 favor industry. They want to hold on to what they’ve got. In forming the NP authority, 2 or 3 167 farmers would be be on the board, but the rest would be selected by the ministry. And these 168 farmers might not even be good representatives. Authority and management are words that 169 farmers don’t like. 170 16. Do you believe the creation of a framework and approval by all stakeholders is feasible? 171 If elected and agreed to a body, no. They just don’t want it. Further questions for Cllr. H. McKee’s profession 172 A. Please address the issue of hikers on private land. [also, refer to question #3] [A] 173 In terms of access to land - 4 or 5 paths exist now, but they have been proposed to expand. Some 174 are public rights of way and some of them will be linked under a NP. For permissive rights of way, a 175 farmer can say yes or no. One farmer was offered £40,000 incentive to open up his land to walkers. 176 He refused because he didn’t want people walking on his land. It takes a lot to make a farmer 177 refuse money. Generally, walkers are disrespectful and they go wherever they want. 178 B. What can you tell me about government farming subsidies? Do you think they will help or hurt 179 in the long term? (if taken away, what do farmers have?) [A + C] 180 The EU uses the single-farm payment to keep farmers in check. Part of it is withheld into their 181 schemes, so farmers don’t get the full payment. Cattelry farm (?) from CAP [Common Agriculture 182 Policy] payments. Less is for farm production, more for land. Some farmers would rather not have 183 the single-farm payment. Farming in the long-term must have large turnovers. Land will need to 96 184 amalgamate to 50-100 acres in size. This way, farmers can share the cost of big, expensive 185 machinery. Now, 3 smaller farms could have 3 tractors right next to each other. It should be more 186 like 1 tractor per 500 acres. 187 There is something called ‘Conacre’ which is renting land. 30% of all land in NI is rented. 188 Landowners that own land but don’t work it are still claiming the single-farm payment - this isn’t 189 fair because the ‘active’ farmer works but doesn’t see the money from that payment. In England, 190 they have a ‘shared-farming’ concept. the land owner and the farmer are ‘active’ and both receive 191 money from the single-farm payment. 192 A long time ago, they asked farmers to remove sheep from the land, but then the heather 193 overgrew and allowed fires to spread. There was big wildfire not too long ago. There is the 194 problem of introducing new sheep onto new land. Lambs follow the sheep and learn the 195 boundaries, despite fences. Several years later, they still know their boundaries. If new sheep are 196 introduced, they wander with the new sheep and the new ones don’t know what the boundaries 197 are. It’s bad to introduce new sheep or to move them. Trustees must maintain the fences and 198 farmers must pay a fee per sheep to the trustee. 199 C. Can you tell me more about the Mourne AONB Residents’ Action Group? 200 requirements to participate? [A + B] 201 No, everyone is welcome. 97 Are there Interview 3 Name: Heather Wilson Date and location: 28 February 2014 at the Down District Council Civic Centre, Downpatrick Criteria 1. 'No' for a NP 2. Lives and works in the Mournes. 3. Profession is Countryside Access Officer at the Down District Council. 202 Pre-question: Please tell me a little about yourself and your role in the community. 203 I am the Countryside Access Officer. My job enforce the 1983 Rights of Way (RoW) policy. It created 204 a network asserting rights of way and its maintenance, including biking trails. There are currently 205 72 RoW. For example, a wall in Dundrum collapsed so we it needs to be attended to, as well as 206 farmers closing their gates, etc. RoW must join 2 public ways, and it means you don't have to ask 207 permission to walk there. To become a RoW, the path must be there for a 'long period of time'. A 208 long time with few people using it or a path that is in an urban area with high traffic over a shorter 209 period of time. There must be evidence of use. We use something called the Red Book which was 210 created by the NIEA [formally under the Environment & Heritage Services] and explains the rules 211 for Access to the Countryside. 212 2. Can you tell me more about land ownership in NI? 213 Land is precious to the people. After the Irish land acts, tenants bought that land back. That wasn't 214 so long ago, it's still fresh. If there's a NP, people think they'll lose control of the land. At the big 215 estates in Scotland and England, it's not so noticeable. UK land parcels are bigger. 100 acres in NI is 216 really big. 217 3. What are some of the major issues you see with becoming a national park? 218 If there is a NP, it will effect land owners attitudes, they may become militant, potentially refuse, 219 and not cooperate. It might be perceived that walkers can go anywhere they like. 220 4. Do you think becoming a NP would be more beneficial or more harmful to the environment and 98 221 the community? 222 In my opinion, a NP could be more beneficial. 223 5. In your perception, what has been the community reaction to becoming a NP? 224 Good, minus the farmers. Newcastle and Castlewellan will definitely get more business and 225 tourism. The Down District Council supports the proposal. A silent majority think it's ok, but there 226 is a loud 'no'. A NP will bring in jobs and money, but that doesn't get heard. More tourists means 227 more management. There will be more erosion and more car traffic, which will require more 228 infrastructure. Currently, there does need to be more of that and more staff. 229 7. Do you think a NP will affect the economy? For example, the number of jobs or job 230 diversification? 231 NP could bring in more money in terms of access. But formalizing this gets scary. How does a land 232 owner get benefits? Same as RoW. There will be a higher quality environment and there is the 233 potential for more jobs. Farming is dying, so we could get the farmers into tourism to supplement 234 their income. 235 8. In general, do you think having the NP designation will affect tourism in the area? 236 It will definitely increase, and it will need more management and facilities. There is no other real 237 industry here. Tourism is a main industry, and my role is becoming more important as tourism is 238 growing. 239 10. Both sides of the argument seem to be in disagreement about restrictions. Do you believe 240 there will be more ‘red tape’ or will a national park authority streamline activities? 241 I've heard with an NP authority there will potentially be more red tape, particularly for affordable 242 housing, transportation, managing the land. It will require working with land owners. All of this is 243 very difficult. 244 12. In the beginning, to me, the role of NP authorities was unclear. Do you think introducing a new 245 NP authority will have a positive or negative effect on landscape management? 246 A NP authority should consist of counselors, a board (like MHT), separate committees off of that, 247 local farmers and experts in conservation. Similar to MHT; keep it very local. 248 15. Conservation efforts do tend to displace people, especially in communities who are poor or do 99 249 not have a voice. How do you think NP status would affect development or zoning rules? [...] 250 [Conservation] must be tailored to the area. 251 17. Where do you get most of your information about the nomination? [...] 252 The press, the Mourne Heritage Trust colleagues. Not much else. Further questions for Ms. Wilson's profession 253 A. Can you please tell me the state of ‘rights of way’ now in the Mournes. [A + C] 254 National Park declaration does not mean a right to roam so there would be no change. We are very 255 different in the sense that legislation for RoW is poorly written. The investigation process and any 256 evidence we gather leads us to a conclusion based on the balance of probabilities. There is no 257 process detailed. Councils try to get agreement first, and then they go to court if necessary. In the 258 UK, they have something called the Right to Roam (except for in dwellings). In Scotland, it's based 259 on the responsibility of the user. Personally, I wouldn't advocate the same system. We have a 260 different farming system and walkers [hikers] need to have designated paths. I would recommend 261 reading the CROW Act. 262 B. What do you think of the proposed boundaries? [A] 263 I think the area within the wall is good. The western Mournes are in an ASSI so there are 264 restrictions. 265 C. Has anyone ever gotten hurt on a public path? [A] 266 There is a low possibility of compensation if one is hurt on a public RoW. If you go off the path, 267 there could be an issue. For permissive paths, the owner has more control and can close the path if 268 he wishes. For example, if a farmer is 'lambing', he can close the path for those 3 months if he 269 wishes. RoW are no longer owned, all rights are given up. To extinguish a RoW, there is a long legal 270 process. In a Permissive RoW, the land owner must maintain the path. The farming community has 271 a big lobby. Counselors have some farming background, we're an agriculturally based society. 272 Counselors here are fearful of RoW. The Ulster Federation lobbies to get access. 100 Interview 4 Name: Jerome Mullen Date and location: 14 February 2014 at the Canal Court Hotel in Newry Criteria: 1. 'Yes' for a NP. 2. Born in the Republic of Ireland, works in Newry, and has been living in the outskirts of the Mournes for 46 years. 3. His profession is as a member (previously president) of the Chambre of Commerce in Newry, he helped trained young people to find work in the area for many years and he is the representative of the Polish government in Northern Ireland. He is a retired businessman. 273 Pre-question: Please tell me a little about yourself and your role in the community. 274 Through these different organizations, I’ve learned about and become involved with the NP 275 campaign. A business colleague invited me to a NP meeting, the same man who sponsored the 276 large meeting in Newcastle at the Slieve Donard Hotel. The meeting turned very ‘intimidating’ to 277 say the least, and it angered me. It was a very one-sided meeting on the side of ‘No’. Everyone 278 there thought it would be very detrimental to the farming community and they believed the NPA 279 would tell them what to do. For example, building regulations, which is not true. Soon after, I met 280 with Mike Nesbitt, a Unionist leader, and he never had any real reasons why the NP designation 281 would be a bad idea. He couldn’t define the real issue. After that meeting, I felt compelled to deal 282 with this big issue. It needs an objective platform, a quiet collection of views from everyone. After 283 speaking with some other people, we formed a group that we hoped would be a place for debate; 284 it’s called the Future of the Mournes Area (FoMA). 285 1. Not thinking of the Mournes proposal, what do you think of when you hear the term ‘National 286 Park’? Does one come to mind? 287 I believe a NP is an international brand. A NP is a brand that doesn’t require a lot of explanation. It 288 means a beautiful land and things to do [outdoor recreation]. The basis of a NP is designed to suit 101 289 the needs of the people. It could bring a lot of prosperity, which is badly needed. 290 2. Can you tell me more about land ownership in NI? 291 Historically, land was owned by the gentry, the British, in the 15th and 16th centuries. There is 292 emotion and attachment to the land [by the people that live there now]. Though it’s historical, it’s 293 the 21st century. Landowners often fall back on that historical argument. 294 3. What are some of the major issues you see with becoming a NP? 295 Minister Attwood favored a NP, but he made errors in handling the NP proposal. He was unable to 296 get legislation approved. He received a very hostile reaction, even within his own party, and he 297 didn't know why people were saying no. Some of the legislative fears were with a perceived 298 interference with farming life. In reality, these fears are unfounded. An NP authority would not 299 interfere with farming life. The authority would be selected by the community, public 300 representatives and a few appointed by the NIEA. To create a NP, legislation is required - primary, 301 subordinate, enabling. A NP would need further subordinate. 302 5. In your perception, what has been the community reaction to becoming a national park? 303 If poled, my guess is that most would be in favor of an NP designation; B&B’s, hotels, bus, villages 304 and towns, etc. 305 6. Many English parks have claimed that they can get more funding once they have the NP brand. 306 Do you agree or disagree with this? 307 Yes, I agree. The government would put in more money. Loch Lomond gets about £4-5 million from 308 their government. It would directly effect the NI government and they would have to budget for it. 309 Plus, the Mournes would be able to apply for various funding and projects under EU legislation. 310 The MHT will have to keep reapplying for money whenever their grant ends, and hope that their 311 money wasn’t earmarked for a different project. It is a good and important organization, but it’s 312 not likely to continue forever. A NP aims to be sustainable, therefore they would make every effort 313 to raise money from their own activities. They could increase tourism which automatically 314 increases sustainability. 315 7. Do you think a NP will affect the economy? For example, the number of jobs or job 316 diversification? 317 The future of farming is bleak, although I’m not a farmer. There is not much arable land. If a NP is 102 318 declared, there is the potential for job diversification and development of industry. There is no 319 employment in farming here, for example, the cottage industry, food products, raw materials. 320 Sand, gravel and granite would remain as they are. 321 9. The buzzword is 'sustainable development'. What does that mean to you and for the Mournes? 322 A NP will absolutely be a form of sustainable development. Opportunities that will be opened up 323 are easy to see. An NP will con tribute to sustainability and it will be a driver of change and 324 development. It will create the opportunity for individuals to apply for funding. In Loch Lomand, 325 the NPA is of great assistance to the population in preparing paperwork. It open’s up a pandora’s 326 box. They are able to communicate to the population. 327 Sustainability here is about improving the economy, where we need to create an income outside of 328 the government. More money means more opportunities. Access to land, private landowners can 329 help themselves by possibly diversifying. Income is dropping. The single farm payment will be 330 dropped. Most are small farmers, always struggling. There needs to be new thinking, whether it’s 331 co-ops, pulling resources. It worked in the past. We need to show farmers a NP will be a good thing 332 when they ask, ‘what’s in it for me’. Everyone should look at the region and ask, is it sustainable? Is 333 it enough? 334 10. Both sides of the argument seem to be in disagreement about restrictions. Do you believe 335 there will be more ‘red tape’ or will a national park authority streamline activities? 336 Politicians want to be reelected. Alex Attwood was not concerned with being re-elected. His party, 337 SDLP, is against the NP and they’ve been feeding the ‘no’ diet for too long. The politicians in Belfast 338 don’t care about the NP sides because their voters don’t live in the Mourne area. The ‘no’ 339 campaign doesn’t look ahead and they have no proposed alternatives. Ian Paisley said no to 340 everything, except when they offered him to [?] position. The ‘no’ campaign believes the NP 341 authority will come in and take control, but they haven’t examined this or done research to prove 342 this will happen. There are NPs all over Ireland and the UK. FoMA in general would never do 343 anything to damage the land. We are believers in preserving the land. We want farmers to prosper 344 and continue, and to continue benefiting from the land. 345 In the beginning the ‘yes’ campaign did a poor job to educate people on what they were 346 proposing. It’s a lot of work. People are very affected by wild public rhetoric. It’s easier to say no 347 and farmers are happy with the status quo. It’ll be a big job now to educate and persuade. I don’t 103 348 believe anything will happen for the next 2 elections, so until 2016. 349 14. In respect to the NP proposal, how do you feel about the saying, ‘if it’s not broke, don’t fix it’? 350 It must be a struggle for farmers, and a NP would be a benefit to them. Not all farmers are against 351 a designation. They’re not worried about their personal position as farmers, but they go with the 352 flow. They go with the opinions of their neighbors [farmers]. They don’t want to stand out, they’re 353 not brave enough. They think they won’t be heard. This was evident at the public meeting; anyone 354 against was shot down. It was not an open debate. 355 15. Conservation efforts do tend to displace people, especially in communities who are poor or do 356 not have a voice. How do you think NP status would affect development or zoning rules? [...] 357 We don’t want planning to go to the NP authorities now. People have fears that a NP authority will 358 be very strict with building, like only certain door colors. This isn’t true, and planning will stay with 359 the planners. This is proposed by the government White Papers. A farmer will still need to apply to 360 their council, and if he or she is unhappy, they can vote that councilor out. This all has nothing to 361 do with a NP authority. If the NP authority were to be involved, it would be via their opinion - 362 planners may consult with them but the NP authority would not have the power to make any 363 decisions. 364 The next white papers must be re-done, reminding the community of the planning process under a 365 NP. Government documents - white papers. Consultation documents and government proposals. 366 They explain what and how the governing body will work. There are many other documents and 367 studies from other parks. 368 England has about 10 national parks they bring in about £6b of revenue. 600,000 acres of 369 referendum in favor of NP for planning process in the Yorkshire Dales. In Loch Lomond, they gave 370 the planning and development powers to the NP authority, so people apply directly to them. They 371 say going through the NP authorities is much faster! There are 17 people in their NP authority - 6 372 or 7 are elected by the community, 4-6 are elected reps of the Scottish council, and the rest are 373 appointed. Their planning committee makes the decisions within the NPA, and that committee is 374 made up of the local people and not the appointed ones. It is quicker and very local. 104 Specific questions for Mr. Mullen’s profession 375 A. How would a designation affect the outlaying areas of the Mournes NP? [A] 376 The land mass of the Mournes is about 50% public land. The strategy now is to just designate the 377 public lands, which is not ideal but it can grow and expand when ready. This idea was proposed by 378 Alex Attwood. This way, people don’t need to be a part of it, but more lands can be added as they 379 become available. 105 Interview 5 Name: Mark Mohan, Date and location: 28 February, 2014 at the Down District Council Civic Centre, Downpatrick Criteria 1. 'Yes' for a NP. 2. He lives and works in the Mournes. 3. He is the Senior Tourism Initiatives manager under the Down District Council. 380 Pre-question: Please tell me a little about yourself and your role in the community. 381 I am the Senior Tourism Initiatives of the Tourism Department of economic development and 382 culture. My work centers around tourism destinations as well as the Ring of Gullion area. I work 383 with private and community centers over the 3 councils. I work on product development, 384 infrastructure and marketing. I do work with a central data management system and a lot of 385 marketing. I’ve managed tourism partnerships for the past 15 years. 386 3. What are some of the major issues you see with becoming a national park? 387 After a designation, implementation, delivery structure, and management will be a challenge. One 388 size doesn’t fit all. 389 4. Do you think becoming a NP would be more beneficial or more harmful to the environment and 390 the community? 391 A NP will be a game changer. The Down District Council (as it exists now) is supportive of the 392 proposal. Having NP status will be an advantage, it’ll be the only one in NI. The status is well known 393 to visitors already. Also, NP money would come from the central government and Department of 394 Food, Agriculture, and Rural Affairs (UK). The budget in London for National Parks would include 395 us, so we’d get some money from the London pot as well as NI. 396 8. In general, do you think having the NP designation will affect tourism in the area? 397 Yes, it will have a positive effect. The geography is similar to the surrounding area, so it’s all linked 106 398 together and the NP brand can be pushed to the surrounding area. There is already a service level 399 agreement between County Louth and the Newry and Mourne Council to work towards branding 400 the area all the way down to the Boyne valley (halfway between Newry and Dublin). There is a lot 401 of pre-Christian connections, points of St. Patrick, it’s on the main spine of traffic to and from 402 Dublin. That is a new area of development. Mourne is 1 of 9 sub-regional areas of destinations in 403 Northern Ireland. There is a push to maintain this. Also, there are possible themes and links to 404 develop, including a strong ‘Christian triangle.’ 405 9. The buzzword is 'sustainable development'. What does that mean to you and for the Mournes? 406 In terms of development, the anti-park group says [a designation] will hinder it. The ‘yes’ group 407 says it will open doors for investment. In a way, that fits. 408 13. In line with landscape management, how do you believe the current departments are 409 performing at their jobs? [...] 410 They could do better, it’s currently too fragmented and there’s poor communication. There needs 411 to be more collaboration. The other day, we jotted down some tourism partnership potentials. We 412 listed about 50 tourism groups, and we came up with 7 different themes. There are too many 413 organizations now and they’re too fragmented. A NP authority would help streamline. Of the 9 414 departments, 7 of them infringe on tourism, but a NP authority would have to bring them 415 together. They would and could look over the environmental aspects. However, it must be 416 representative of the community. It must be partnered with public organizations. 417 15. Conservation efforts do tend to displace people, especially in communities who are poor or do 418 not have a voice. How do you think NP status would affect development or zoning rules? 419 An NP authority would have a say in development and planning. In June, planning will be placed in 420 the hands of the local councils and DOE. It can go either way - planning can be structured to give 421 the NP authorities abilities. Having one source is a good thing. Maybe it won’t work here [in NI], 422 the national legislation will write the rules. After June, local people will make the decisions on the 423 national executive. Further questions for Mr. Mohan’s profession 424 A. How do you see tourism to be in the Mournes in 5 years? In 15? [A] 107 425 A NP may not be necessary to do this, but it will be an excellent boost. We need a game changer, 426 to stand out. Maybe it’s not the only option to push. Currently, we have no sub-line to base some 427 tourism statistics on, but we recently got statistics for the first time. Unfortunately, it doesn’t 428 mention (separate out) day-trips. 429 B. Do you have any recent studies on tourism? Are you expecting any soon? [A] 430 Check out the Carlingford Lough study from Dublin Institute They propose to make it one giant 431 tourism area, it's very interesting. 432 C. Do you believe tourism and infrastructure in Co. Down and Mourne area are adequate at this 433 time? [A + C] 434 Infrastructure in Newcastle is very good, but the wider region needs more beds. Infrastructure 435 linking all of the projects in the area would be great. There is the potential for a ferry link across 436 the Carlingford Lough. Financial assistance and a NP authority managing would be great. 108 Interview 6 Name: Sean Fitzpatrick Date and location: 13 February, 2014 at the Harbour Bar, Annalong Criteria 1. 'No' for a NP. 2. Lives and works in the Mournes. 3. He is a farmer in the Mournes and a board member of the Mourne Heritage Trust. 437 Pre-question: Please tell me a little about yourself and your role in the community. 438 I’ve been with the Mourne Working Party for the past 5 years. I’m a farmer in the high Mournes. I 439 went on a visit two NP, in Wales and Scotland. 95% of the farmers and people there were happy 440 with the place being a NP. They all benefited and were getting more income. 441 1. Not thinking of the Mournes proposal, what do you think of when you hear the term ‘National 442 Park’? Does one come to mind? 443 When I think of NP, I think of those 2 parks and, of course, Yellowstone, being the big one. But the 444 NP name makes me think that the land is suitable for Lords or is under a lordship. Here, we have 445 small, privately owned land. The name is not very appropriate for the landscape. In Scotland, the 446 privately owned land are bigger areas [parcels]. They are well managed, planned and have a higher 447 number of tourists. 448 2. Can you tell me more about land ownership in NI? 449 Each farm is owned land and they have been passed down generationally. Typically, at least 7 450 generations. Most farms are between 15-50 acres. Awhile ago, 5 acres was enough to sustain a 451 whole family. They could grow crops or raise meat and it would be enough. The only thing they 452 needed from the shop was flour and tea. Now, there’s more machinery, but it’s still traditional 453 farming. Many landowners rent out their land to farmers, but they still own it so it’s still in their 454 family. They won’t sell it because it’s a big asset and it’s theirs. 455 When the English came, they were given the land and forced the Irish to pay them rent. Some 109 456 people paid the rent and earned their land back, but others couldn’t afford it and were forced to 457 move. Some farmers resent the NP nomination because it’s their land and they feel like they’re 458 giving up ownership. 459 3. What are some of the major issues you see with becoming a national park? 460 The EU can’t possibly make any more regulations than what there is now. Building and 461 development might become a problem, but probably not. I don’t know. Farming and business 462 won’t be affected much by the NP. 463 4. Do you think becoming a NP would be more beneficial or more harmful to the environment and 464 the community? 465 A NP will improve health with people being outdoors more, which will save money for healthcare 466 system here. The land needs to be used for what it can be used for. Whether it’s new trees for a 467 forest, flowers, farming, or whatever, it needs to be used to get the most energy from it. 468 5. In your perception, what has been the community reaction to becoming a national park? 469 Varied. 470 8. Do you think NP status will affect tourism in the area? 471 It’s [NP] is a brand, it’s unique. There are a lot of opportunities for tourism, but there’s not enough 472 infrastructure. We need more infrastructure to accommodate new and current tourism. There will 473 be more opportunities for B&Bs and campsites to be built. Farming and tourism can and should go 474 hand-in-hand. I can foresee most farmers opening up their farms for education and tourism, but 475 not all of them. Kids, from about age 7, need to visit farms to see how they work and where their 476 food comes from. Also, to see wildlife and nature in action. Further questions for Mr. Fitzpatrick’s profession – None. 110 Interview 7 Name: Valerie Hanna Date and location: 12 March 2014 at the Calluna Cafe, Kilkeel Criteria 1. 'No' for a NP 2. Lives and works in the Mournes 3. She was a teacher and librarian. Spouse of a farmer and daughter of fishermen. 477 Pre-question: Please tell me a little about yourself and your role in the community. 478 I used to work as a librarian and also taught ESL at night. I married a farmer and my father was a 479 fisherman. I share the same concerns with these types of people – a lot of of environmental focus. 480 1. Not thinking of the Mournes proposal, what do you think of when you hear the term ‘National 481 Park’? Does one come to mind? 482 The word 'park' is misleading. It feels like playing everywhere. It changes the landownership. On 483 paper, it says you own it, but your legal rights are taken away to manage your own land. This even 484 goes for growing seeds. 'Non-indigenous crops' and even straw bales from other farms are not 485 allowed. The laws are stupid. 486 2. Can you tell me more about land ownership in NI? 487 England manages the land differently. There is a history of tenant farmers in England. The Irish 488 have the Irish Land Act which was given to them by the English gentry. Ownership is very emotive, 489 very different. The mountains are grouped and owned by the trustees – for low-land farmers 490 (beneficiaries) There are no landlords in the Mournes. There is generational farming, which is 491 expected. 492 3. What are some of the major issues you see with becoming a NP? 493 The NP boundary as just the Mourne Wall is too small, and there will be less access to it - the 494 boundaries will expand. The boundaries are actually bigger than the drawn lines. It even affects 111 495 the area around the boundaries - poultry was put out of business because of the smell which 496 affected people 2 miles away, in the Portrush area. 497 Also, Scotland has wind turbines next door which the NP authorities assembled there, and we have 498 the same problem [with new construction of wind turbines]. No new wind turbines in the NP. 499 One of England's NP, the Cairngorms NP, has people living there, but it is still less populated and a 500 bigger area. But something like the arctic wilderness, we can't compare. Brecon Beacons NP is 501 twice the size with half the population. Any regulations would really impact it. 502 7. Do you think a NP will affect the economy? For example, the number of jobs or job 503 diversification? 504 We invited businessmen here from Kilkeel – only 4 showed up (to the AONB residents meetings). 505 They were not well represented. Most businesses in Kilkeel oppose a NP – they believe a NP will be 506 hindering to their businesses. 507 There is no development industry in a NP and tourism is only in the summer. 508 8. In general, do you think having the NP designation will affect tourism in the area? 509 The American branding and view of NP is much different than NI. AONBs area already advertized. 510 However, tourism isn't the response and a NP can't resolve all the woes in the area. They ask, no 511 NP? What else can we do? In an MHT report, it said that in Scottish parks only 3% of people have a 512 main reason of visiting because it is a NP, and the rest come anyway. If you advertise properly, 513 people will come anyway. I think an AONB sounds more impressive than NP. NP is seen as it's 514 known, possibly even a skewed perception. The Mournes don't need to be advertized as a NP, they 515 just need to be advertized. More promotion. 516 I think that the Newcastle Chambre of Commerce closes too early. Shops close too early, even in 517 the summer. If they're thinking of tourists, think long term. Plan ahead. Warren Point is different 518 and it is thriving. Tourism does need promotion. Farmers aren't opposed to tourism. 519 The Tourist Board and MHT must do the promotion. The money is spent on the NP proposal 520 instead. MHT sent leaflets [surveys] about the proposal to Australia, but people in Slieve Croob 521 didn't get any. Also, the questions on the leaflets were misleading. 522 10. Both sides of the argument seem to be in disagreement about restrictions. Do you believe 523 there will be more ‘red tape’ or will a national park authority streamline activities? 112 524 A NP doesn't just impact the farmer. Business is based in the countryside. Even joiners. There will 525 be extra red tape and bureaucracy. A NP authority would bring more red tape with it. The largest 526 majority would be appointed. A councilor isn't just elected for his NP views, he's not necessarily 527 sympathetic. Top positions would go to non-farmers, and there would only be 5 representatives 528 out of around 25. 529 In Snowdonia [Wales], 3 engineering firms closed [because of NP designation]. Brecon Beacons 530 [residents] came over and told us not to do it. 531 12. In the beginning, to me, the role of NP authorities was unclear. Do you think introducing a new 532 NP authority will have a positive or negative effect on landscape management? 533 A NP necessitates a 'quango', meaning there will be an unappointed, unelected body in charge. 534 Farmers already 'manage' and they have been for a long time. 535 14. In respect to the NP proposal, how do you feel about the saying, ‘if it’s not broke, don’t fix it’? 536 The system is working ok now, and there are a lot of environmental controls. Why do you think this 537 is? The only tool or answer [for improvement] given is tourism. No other reason. [The NI 538 government] Stormont didn't expect this opposition. Now they shelved it. 539 15. Conservation efforts do tend to displace people, especially in communities who are poor or do 540 not have a voice. How do you think NP status would affect development or zoning rules? [...] 541 Development is restricted anyway in the country. But I would major on this point, because 542 somehow big projects have gotten through anyway [ones that shouldn't have, according to 543 restrictions]. Some people want things kept old, but things move on. The Lake District [England] is 544 old and hasn't changed, but they need to develop. They have restored some barns, but not 545 entirely. There needs to be some realization. The MHT? They suggest a “Mourne Design” for 546 buildings. This raises the price to build and the price of living. In the Brecon Beacons, they are not 547 allowed to have satellite dishes because they're ugly. People revolted. 548 17. Where do you get most of your information about the nomination? News, radio, meetings, 549 newsletter? 550 White papers and initially in the local papers. MHT and government sites sent the White Papers 551 and often their information is second hand. They didn't want to say directly that they are part of 552 the 'Yes' group. The Future of the Mournes group was created as a mediator. They don't have any 113 553 experience of land owning or from the farm community. Further questions for Ms. Hanna’s profession 554 A. Quote from an article submitted by Ms. Hanna: “National park designation is not the panacea 555 for economic growth. Tourist related jobs are short-term, seasonal, and low paid. Our young 556 people wouldn’t want them. ...we need long-term, sustainable employment opportunities.” 557 22/2/12 Mourne Observer. Can you please comment on this. [A + C] 558 Activities in the area are mainly walking and visiting home. They are day trippers who don't leave 559 money here. The B&Bs here aren't used very much. There's no problem with this, but we don't 560 need more beds. We need more family activities. Also, it's cheaper to travel to other places – 561 Newcastle needs more things for families to do, and for cheaper. Newry does a good job of this. 562 B. How do you see the future of farming? [A + B] 563 The future of farming is very bright, the food/agro industry as kept them afloat. Fishing isn't going 564 as well, but that's because the EU is so restrictive. They need to leave it alone. The small parcels of 565 land are not a problem – the land is intensely farmed and populated. MHT says that farming is 566 sinking and not good, but dairy herding is large and we're surrounded by it. The beef sector is 567 suffering because they're not given a fair wage, but I think it will change. Lambing does well, but 568 there aren't enough people doing it. Plus, there's thieving on the mountains. They can't say 569 farming is finished. People still need to be fed. 570 About the Single Farm Payment – good farms don't need it. Those that want to farm will do well. 571 Some that depend on the payment won't do well 572 C. Can you tell me more about the AONB residents' group? [A + B] 573 I am part of it, I am one of the chairs. We thought the NP proposal was strange. I met a tour guide 574 in the Canadian Rockies that advised the people not to buy the land there because it was a NP. 575 Soon after this, I discovered that the MHT was working on the NP proposal. I also read some case 576 studies that land was being taken away from people in Asia, even though the people needed the 577 land. 114 578 Then, a meeting of farmers happened, and this is important because it was a cross-community 579 meeting. This is one of the first in NI. We said anyone can join, and we are fighting for the 580 community as a whole. [They] hope to have a meeting in Stormont soon. People want to live and 581 let live. Politics. It's the bread and butter issues. What we're fighting for, 'this is our heritage.' Some 582 on Brecon Beacons [Wales] want their land out of the NP boundaries. 583 D. Do you think a NP will bring in more money to the area? [A] 584 There is only 1 pot of money in NI and it's split up. They can't guarantee money for a NP. Groups 585 [on a national level] must agree to give up some of their budget (health, education, etc.). I doubt 586 NI will get any money from the UK NP funds. And we can't depend on getting an EU grant. MHT 587 claimed that £80million will be brought into the area, projected for 2020. 588 E. What about EU farming subsidies? [A + C] 589 I'm not sure, just the Single Farm Payment. Subsidies aren't the way forward. I have heard that the 590 farmer isn't subsidized, the consumer gets the subsidy because it helps keep the price down. 591 Really, they should just give [consumers] a more realistic price. 592 F. What about the issue of countryside access? [A + C] 593 That's a thorny question. They say there's not enough access. What does that mean? The 594 mountains or lowland farms? There is access to the mountains all over. But no one has defined 595 what they mean by countryside access. Fields in the UK are huge. Here, they're small fields – you 596 can't have access to those. There is no right to roam in NI. We will fight that tooth and nail. People 597 in England have gotten too close with their dogs and have gotten killed. There haven't been any 598 claims, but they're trespassing. The Right to Roam should be around, just use the path. 599 I live on a lane – a half mile from the main road. They wanted to make it a public right of way for 600 pedestrians, but the businesses there objected. The reason being, lorries can't have people 601 walking there. These are stone companies, one that did the Diana Memorial. 602 G. What about new laws or restrictions for environmental reasons? [A + C] 603 Farmers need to diversify as market forces dictate, respond accordingly. Farmers are willing to 604 change their crops, but they want to be able to choose which one. 605 Belfast people aren't out in the field, but they're demanding jobs. We need more women in 606 politics, for more sense! 115 Appendix II - Expert Interview Introduction This interview was taken much later in the research process, and it was conducted for two reasons; it was intended to ask more poignant questions related to the conceptual themes and it goes more in depth into the process of the proposal. This was only possible once the statement of the problem was developed as well as the literature review and analysis. The style of this interview is a little different than the stakeholder interviews in Appendix I because it was recorded and full a transcription is provided. Mr. Carey was selected as the expert interviewee because of his involvement in the proposal and his ability to provide witness testimony, which sheds a light on to what was happening on the ground. He is also a stakeholder in the decision because he has a strong connection to the land because he has spent most of his life in the Mournes and now works towards protecting them. His questions are different than the stakeholder interviewees, but the criteria for selecting him is the same. Questions 1. Could you tell me a little more about the Independent Report that was submitted by the Mourne Trustees? Furthermore, do you know when it was submitted (in relation to the main report to the Minister)? 2. Do you think the concept of a NP has anything to do with national identity? Do you think the reflexive response to this concept of 'national heritage' by the community played a role in the Mournes NP proposal acceptance or rejection? 3. Strong feelings of landownership and a certain lifestyle connected to the past seem to be present in the Mournes. Do you think this connection people have with the past influences their decision-making, individually or collectively? 4. What is the cause of the community resistance against the proposal? 5. Do you think the rules regarding countryside access should be addressed first, or was the hope that a NP system could happen without changing or updating the law? 6. Would you change anything about this process? 116 Name: Martin Carey Date and Location: 6 June 2015 via Skype Criteria 1. 'Yes' for a NP 2. Lives and works in the Mournes 3. He is the executive director of the Mourne Heritage Trust, observer of the Mourne National Park Working Party consultations and founding member of Future of the Mournes Area (FoMA) Transcription 607 Can you tell me a little more about the Independent Report that was submitted by the Mourne 608 Trustees? Furthermore, do you know when it was submitted (in relation to the main report to the 609 Minister)? (Question 1) 610 Well, the main report came out of not just the consultation process, but it was a specific exercise 611 done with the Working Party taking all of the inputs from the consultations and working with them 612 to achieve a consensus around what was reported. There was a chap called Tim Burly who was a 613 former planning inspector from Scotland who was brought over to do that, and by common 614 consent he was very good - very diplomatic and very good at finding consensus. And there were a 615 number of workshop days held, full-day sessions in some cases, for Working Party members to look 616 at what had come through from the consultation, look at the evidence of research, and agree what 617 they felt that meant. So you can imagine that was quite a difficult process, because the Working 618 Party spans some quite militant farmers right through to, you know, strong advocates to the 619 national park. So, most people felt he did a really good job, that the published report, if anything, 620 went very far towards placating the farmers' interest and almost bent over backwards to do that, 621 which I don't blame in the circumstances – that was probably the thing to do. And the guys who 622 represented the Mourne Trustees seemed to go along with that, so they contributed to those 623 sessions. They were understood to be a part of the consensus. It was only after the report was 624 published that then they decided that they didn't like it. I suspect that it could well have been 625 because while they were involved in the process, they got to see other perspectives and they could 626 see that the consensus that was being arrived at was reasonable, and even might've appreciated 117 627 that other people were moving quite a lot to accommodate their perspective. I suspect that was 628 happened was that other guys saw that their Trustees saw their report and thought, 'the hell have 629 you agreed to, this is rubbish nonsense'. And then at that point they had decided that they had to 630 disassociate themselves. 631 So the two Trustees in the Working Party changed their opinion about the main report? 632 Aye, I think they felt that their own people, the other Trustees, did not like the idea of them buying 633 into the consensus that was brought out. They felt... it was too much compromise. 634 Were the Trustees and their opinion taken seriously in the consultations? 635 No, they were, but it was on behalf of the wider group. It was... I can't take stand in this, but it was 636 largely taken to be the work of one man of the two Trustees in the group. It was really like 637 engaging in a process, as they did with Working Party, but reserving the right if you don't get the 638 consensus around the particular view that you want to state the way of the world as you see it 639 anyway. 640 The Independent Report is really long, more than 20 pages. Do you know why the Trustees felt so 641 much was missing from the Main Report? If these are concerns of major stakeholders in the area, it 642 seems like their opinion and feelings were not directly addressed. 643 Yeah, there's an academic in Queen's that did a bit of work, up at Queen's University in Belfast, 644 that clearly made the mistake of treating the Trustee report as a credible document and them as 645 credible witnesses, cause they just aren't. That's the reality, you know. On one level I'm conscious 646 I'm on the other side of the argument, so you could be seen as being biased, but the reality is, eh... 647 that they weren't ignored. They were ignored at the outset of the process, which was a bad 648 mistake. There was no Trustee representative at the Working Party as it was initially set up – they 649 were added later – but they were by no means ignored in the reporting. In fact, as I say to most 650 independent observers, the Working Party bent over backwards to address the concerns raised in 651 the consultations, whether those concerns were well-founded or not. 652 They have very strong opinions, and in the way they reacted, they seemed to feel ignored. 653 They were short to do that. And a lot of the things they said were raised in the consultations by 654 other folk. But, yeah, it's a very... it's a very narrow, specific viewpoint of theirs. 655 Do you know when, in relation to the Main Report, the Independent Report was submitted? 656 It was around about the time that the other one was being completed. Now what I can't quite 657 remember is whether they submitted it before or after the other one was finished. I think they 658 submitted it afterwards having failed to get the situation where they... where there was something 118 659 in the main report to say that they disagreed. That just couldn't be accommodated because if you 660 start opening that up, it could have names all over it; 'So and so doesn't agree with this point', so I 661 think DOE toughed it out with them and said, 'Look, it's a consensus report, we've been through a 662 process, this is the consensus and I think it was then that they said, 'Right, well, we better do our 663 own'. 664 I read the Independent Report online, but was it distributed or published in some capacity? 665 Yeah, yep, and publicized it best they could. They stuck it up on the web. Yep, that's exactly what 666 they did. It was a report to the Minister. 667 Did they submit it to the Minister? Was it officially presented? 668 It's completely unofficial, and that's partly why the woman in Queen's shouldn't have given it the 669 credence that she did. I wrote to her by email when I saw that report pointing out a lot of flaws in 670 her analysis, because the conclusions are based on a face-value reading of the Trustees report. You 671 know, she makes conclusions around the consultations that are just not right. They're only 672 supported in the Trustee's report. And the reality is, the consultation process... there were many 673 many legitimate criticisms that could have been made of it. The ones she makes, I know, were not 674 the case. Well, she didn't seem to speak to anyone from the Working Party, she just went with 675 what was on the paper. 676 She is backed by the credibility of the University she's employed by. Is it wrong, what she did? 677 Well, it opened my eyes to academics to tell you the truth, Courtney – what they get away with. 678 You know, form a view, stick it on paper, it goes out there with their stamp – it gives a degree of 679 credibility. But they haven't really tested the evidence they're working on. 680 Is what she wrote incorrect? 681 Well, I don't dispute, well I can't quite remember, but I don't think her conclusions were at odds 682 with what she'd looked at. I think they were by-and-large supported by the Working Party Report, 683 but what she appeared to me to what to have not have done was to take a wide enough range of 684 sources and to check the credibility of her sources, which those are the two key things for me in 685 qualitative research, you know. Having done a history degree myself – particularly reliability of 686 your evidence and are there any likely biases in there and then get a wide enough range of 687 evidence to insure you're getting the full picture. Although now that I remember, when I started 688 reading it I thought it was a really useful and interesting paper in that her analysis and summary of 689 evidence of elsewhere was very good, it was just when she got to specific conclusions about the 690 Mourne experience that she got it badly wrong. So that initial overview was very good, I do 119 691 remember that now. 692 I used her papers as a source in this thesis. Should I reconsider? 693 Well do have a wee look, but the other thing is, if you've quoted it and referred to her evidence, 694 there's no one that can say it's wrong. I know it's wrong because I was there. 695 Well, but now I know better. 696 Well you do know better so yeah (laughs). So, that's true, sure, but now it's only in your hands. It's 697 a true reflection of that perspective, absolutely, and it's useful as that. Mind you, [her] mistake was 698 not to see it as that, but to see it as a balanced contribution. 699 The report may be biased and emotionally written, but would you consider it an expression of how 700 the Trustees feel? Is it useful in that sense? 701 Yeah, you know, it's a bit like these guys wouldn't have been used to being involved in processes 702 like that, consensual processes. If you go into something like that thinking you're 100 per cent 703 right, and at the other end it comes out that it doesn't endorse that, you're going to think you 704 weren't listened to. But they did it on balance, they did well on that Working Party report. 705 Community participation has many levels, and one of the lower levels is known as 'tokenism'. Do 706 you think the Trustee opinion was neglected during the consultation process and just asked out of 707 politeness? How, if at all, is the community usually involved in decision-making? 708 It raises an interesting conundrum for public consultation processes, which is puzzle of what do 709 you do if a view is very strongly expressed, but wrong. So in other words loudly and repeatedly 710 expressed in that group and others, but not supported in any way by the evidence and didn't stand 711 up to scrutiny. These fears of people walking over their land, all that stuff, didn't stand up to one 712 iota of scrutiny. So there's an interesting question in how do you accommodate that in working 713 through a consultation process. You recognize it as a perception, but how do you accommodate 714 that. And that's where I think actually the Working Party report did bend over backwards because 715 it could easily have said, 'these are the perceptions, but the evidence suggestions that they're 716 unfounded so let's go on', but it was written in a way to try and address all of those concerns. It 717 reassured people that [a NP] wouldn't mean open access to land, a NP wouldn't be a relevant 718 authority for agricultural management – all of that stuff. So, quite the opposite of tokenism; the 719 degree of opposition expressed, even though it wasn't supported by evidence, skewed the report - 720 twisted it. It doesn't read to me like a consultation report should – it reads to me like a response to 721 concerns. It reads like an attempt to reassure people. So, for example, the first recommendation, 722 before you even get into what a NP should do, says something along the lines of, 'sand and gravel 120 723 extraction and the industry should continue subject to the normal constraints'. It's a really bizarre 724 place for a NP report to start, I would've thought, you know. That's the extent to which the report 725 pandered to the strongly expressed opposition. 726 Why do you think it was it written that way? Is it trying to appease the residents? 727 Simply because it's Northern Ireland, Courtney (laughs). We have a very strange governmental 728 setup, as you know. Part of that is that we have way more public representatives per head of the 729 population than most other jurisdictions. Part of the effect of that is they are very vulnerable to 730 smaller minorities and interests groups, because it doesn't take a lot of votes to get elected. It 731 doesn't take a lot to lose votes, to not get elected. And the reality is, there was that very strong 732 anti-voice, we don't in Northern Ireland (partly because of the Troubles, partly because of our 733 current setup)... we don't have good mechanisms for wider civic society to speak with one voice. 734 So while there were loads of people out there who were mildly positively in favor, there was no, 735 sort of, communal expression of that. 736 So you're saying the 'no' group had a lot of sway in the decision-making, even though the 737 community participation mechanisms were built in to the process. Why was the 'yes' group not 738 heard? 739 That's my point – what we lack are mechanisms to express wider constructive communal civic 740 voices. So in that context you get the loud angry voices that dominate. Because with most places 741 with public policy issues, the folk that are in favor tend to be mildly in favor. When you're against 742 something, that's a real motivator. I don't know to what extent the research backs this up, but the 743 impression here was that it's very easy to rally people around a 'no' message. And even the 744 Northern Ireland thing kicks in there, because we've had Ulster say 'no' for 30 years in a political 745 sense. We've had politics of fear for decades. So, it's easy to rally a group around 'this is going to 746 harm you – be afraid and shout'. If you've got ten people doing that, you've got 30 over here that 747 are mildly positive, and you say, 'look, this isn't going to affect you that much. It'll have a 748 moderately positive impact on your life, so go and tell that lot to shut up'. It's not going to happen. 749 It's a failure of politics, and that has been replicated in Northern Ireland across so many issues, that 750 a small reactionary, vested interest is often able to stymy progress because our political system is 751 setup that our politicians don't feel brave enough to go against a loud voice. We don't have the 752 mechanisms to mobilize those more moderate voices. Plus it was a bad consultation – it was based 753 on open public meetings which are often dominated by the loud voices. So people came along to 754 meetings and said to me afterwards, 'I came along positively minded and I wanted to contribute, 121 755 but I was afraid'. 756 What about the surveys that were mailed out? 757 Surveys came back with quite a lot of positive comment. That's when people could sit down and 758 write, although again there was the mechanism of people going around, the 'anti' people going 759 around and saying 'you've got to sign this saying 'no''. There were some who didn't even answer 760 the survey, they just wrote 'no, no, no, no, no' and put it in. There were others who put a bit more 761 detail, but there were hundreds of identical responses of people that had just been handed this 762 and asked to copy about. 763 Can you tell me more about the public forums? 764 The stupid are easy there, Courtney, it's just the reality, you know. You can tell right away. Aside 765 from the survey, all the public elements were, and the DOE was advised against this by members of 766 the working party, some members, of which I was one, we set up a consultation sub-group and the 767 one thing we emphasized was do not have top-table, big audience public meetings because it'll 768 just be shouting. But for resource reasons, they just decided to go with that, and low-and-behold it 769 was just shouting. And low-and-behold, people who just wanted, as I said, to just come along and 770 engage in a discussion felt it was too hostile. 771 Do you think more people changed to the 'no' side or had doubts about their decision after the 772 public forum? 773 Strongly suspected, strongly suspected. Yes, it presupposes that the community is used to 774 collaborating in that way, and that the meeting doesn't get high-jacked by a staunch, stubborn and 775 vocal minority. What we had suggested was something along the lines of surgery-style meetings 776 where people came in, and if they had an opinion, they didn't speak it in front of anyone. They'd've 777 sat down in a room with an official and said 'this is what I think' or asked a question. But those 778 meetings gave people a platform. 779 Was there some type of presentation at the beginning the meeting? 780 There was, I can send it to you. But it was just ignored. This was the thing that really struck me, and 781 it was an eye-opener, is people's ability to just dismiss and ignore something that doesn't suit their 782 argument. And again, it's probably worse in Northern Ireland because we've had a history of 783 divisions, political positions supported by historical myth rather than hard evidence. 784 This leads into another question – the role that national identity played in the proposal. A NP 785 typically has this element of pride, as if to say, 'this is our best landscape and we're proud of it.' Do 786 you think the concept of a NP has anything to do with national identity? Do you think the reflexive 122 787 response to this concept of 'national heritage' by the community played a role in the Mournes NP 788 proposal acceptance or rejection? (Question 2) 789 Huge, yeah, but not in the traditional way you might think. To some extent it didn't divide between 790 the usual political lines. Some people would have been surprised that the Unionist side of the 791 community would've been more able to embrace it because of... a piece of it is the UK, and the 792 nation is the UK. You know that actually [the Mourne Resident's Group] and many others were 793 quite strong Unionists and many of those in favor were quite strong Nationalists, so it didn't divide 794 that way. But the way it did divide identity was by those that are attached to the land and those 795 who no longer are. The reality in Ireland is you only go back two or three generations and 796 everybody was attached to the land because the economy was with sustenance farming. Some 797 folk, over the last few generations have moved away from it, others have stayed on it. There's a 798 deep sense that... you know, the land isn't just their livelihood, it's their heritage. Particularly since, 799 for so long, the land was dominated by big landlords from whom the land was rented. Then only 800 over the last hundred years people were able to buy their own parcels of land and become owners. 801 So it's a folk memory of being disenfranchised from the land, and that this was in a very historically 802 short window was going back to taking... even if they didn't take the land physically off of them, it 803 was being in control of them. So that's where the identity thing, the extent of to which people's 804 identity is attached to land. 805 What about landownership? I have read and heard that there are strong feelings of landownership 806 and a certain lifestyle connected to the past seem to be present in the Mournes. Do you think this 807 connection people have with the past influences their decision-making, individually or collectively? 808 (Question 3) 809 We have a particular issue with that in Ireland because land was associated with power and politics 810 for so long that it's not just a natural resource, it's tied up with family identity, community identity, 811 class identity – we had a land war for god's sake in the late 19 th-century. With the land war, it was 812 the tenants rising up against the landlords. Out of that came the Irish Lands Acts which broke up 813 the big estates and gave the tenants the option to buy their own land and even loan them money – 814 the UK government loaned them money to buy their own land and then families paid it back over 815 years. And some of those loans were only fully paid off as recently as a few decades ago. So that's 816 how engrained it is, you know. 817 I have to say, I think one of the main issues with the proposal is that the solution to the regional 818 development problem was decided before consultation even began. It's a pity, because a NP has a 123 819 lot of positive potential for the area, and a lot of great research was done to show the evidence of 820 that. Would you change anything about the proposal process (other than some of the things you 821 already mentioned)? (Question 6) 822 Absolutely, you're right, it was compromised from the start. It got started off on the wrong foot – it 823 was an attempt to impose from the top down, and the reality is, because of the things we've just 824 been talking about - this historical connections with land, the fact that we have lots of small land 825 owners - if you're going to do NPs in Northern Ireland, it has to be more bottom-up in most other 826 jurisdictions, but it wasn't, it was top-down. Although, I'm sorry, there is one caveat to that; you 827 could still do it top-down, if the government didn't get cold feet in the middle. If they had faced 828 down the opposition and said they were going to do it anyway, then over time their point would 829 have been proved. 830 I see, but I wonder if that is the right way to go about it. 831 Well, I think it can be done if you have good reason to believe that the opposition isn't founded on 832 evidence, and while it's loud it isn't the great proportion of the population. You know, if you can 833 satisfy yourself beyond a reasonable doubt that it's a misguided vested interest and then proceed 834 to do the NP, it wouldn't have done the things to them that they thought it was going to do. That is 835 the only way you could prove to those people that it wasn't a threat. And that was the advice from 836 Tony Gates who used to be in my job who is now in North Umberland. To some extent, that's what 837 they did in Scotland – it wasn't the same strength of opposition, but there was some. There's 838 research, I can send you that as well, that shows the opposition in Scotland, which expressed 839 similar concerns, is now gone because people have seen in reality what a NP means. There was a 840 school of thought that that's the only way to do it, you know – declare a NP, don't restrict their 841 agriculture, don't tell them what color to paint their door, show them that there aren't people 842 walking all over their land, don't change the access [to the countryside] right, and over time people 843 will see that overtime this is fine. 844 There are many cases where community participation actually had a negative effect on decision- 845 making process, because the people were not informed, the people didn't trust the authorities, etc. 846 Do you think a little bit of that happened here? 847 Absolutely, that's very interesting because, yeah, you can include the community, and that's 848 happened here where you can find that a vested interest minority can manages the discourse and 849 maybe harms the greater good in the long run, it stymy's economic and sustainable development. 850 So you could argue that's the case here. There's no right answer to the questions 'should we have 124 851 gone bottom-up or top-down' – I think there are two answers. Ideally, because of the 852 characteristics that we have here, it would have had the best chance of success if it had started 853 bottom-up and gradually brought people with it. On the other hand, given that that wasn't done, if 854 you're going to start from the top-down, you have to keep going. 855 Assuming the best solution is a NP. 856 Well, assuming that is the solution. So if you start at the top and the consultation produces 857 opposition, but not opposition that is founded on evidence, than to me the only solution at that 858 point is to plough on and to prove by demonstration that the concerns were not founded. But 859 neither of those things happened; they didn't start at the bottom-up, but they started at the top 860 without the determination to see it through. They got surprised by the backlash, weren't prepared 861 to face it down, and rolled over. 862 What was the reaction of the authorities to this strong community resistance?(Question 4) 863 Naivety, initially, to be surprised by it, and then whenever they saw the strength of the opposition - 864 cold feet to not take Tony's advice and say, 'Look, we've heard you folks, but that's not supported 865 by the evidence. We're going to push on and, look, see that this is fine. We will not change the 866 access rights, we will not control your agriculture. We've got that, don't worry' and just do it. 867 Do you think the rules regarding countryside access should have been addressed first, or was the 868 hope that a NP system could happen without changing or updating the law? Or access to land in 869 general needed to be addressed before the proposal was introduced? (Question 5) 870 Aye, yeah I think probably there were things that were real unanswered questions, that weren't 871 grasped, because not enough people understood. The folk that proposed the NP, I don't think they 872 ever understood the whole complexity of Trustee ownership of the mountains. And I don't think 873 anyone really understands and I don't think anyone's really bottomed-out what the legal position 874 is. What I think they also didn't understand was that while people can walk up to [Slieve] Donard, 875 up to Binnian, etc. that there's no right of access. So I always had the worry in the back of my mind 876 that, 'Can we really have a NP and promote access to these high mountains when actually there is 877 no legal guarantee of the right of that access.' 878 One common concept of a NP is that it should permit access and recreation. 879 Absolutely, and in reality it implies that, and in reality that access exists here. But it exists on an 880 unsound legal footing. 881 Do you think this proposal is experiencing a 'Tragedy of the Commons' scenario? 882 Aye, actually there was an element of similar issues here in that a lot of the concerns that were 125 883 expressed here by the 'anti' crowd weren't actually the real issue, you know. They were proxies 884 for... they talked about controlling the agriculture when in fact what they really meant was, 'Look, I 885 don't really farm anymore, I'm not into that bloody hard work of farming, but there's great money 886 to be made in selling sites. So what they were concerned about, a lot of them didn't want to say 887 was, 'This will restrict my ability to build single houses and sell them'. But they knew that wasn't 888 the palatable argument, that seemed very self-interested, so it became, 'I've wanted to keep 889 farming like I've always done'. They can be quite disingenuous as well, that's the point, as well as 890 misguided. 891 We don't have much time left, but I'd like to know, where does the NP proposal go from here? Are 892 there plans to start again? 893 What would be interesting to tell you about is what the latest thinking on this is now on how we 894 might actually achieve a NP and get around these issues. One thing that Heather Thompson, who's 895 head of the National Trust in Northern Ireland, said to me that I thought was really true was she 896 talked about this thing of the three F's: family, food and faith. She was saying that there's research 897 to show that if you say something to somebody that threatens any of those things, those three 898 fundamentals of life, or even if you say something that they perceive to threaten those three 899 things, they actually physically stop hearing you. It steps over the boundary between the willful 900 stubbornness and the psychological effect of, you know, almost shutting down. You know that fear 901 or flight thing that just, this is going to destroy my religion, make my family starve or kill my family. 902 'I'm not hearing this!' When I look back, that's exactly what happened. There were people sitting in 903 front of me and others, and you were trying to explain to them how the threats weren't going to 904 materialize, but because you were saying one of those three F's, it was like they weren't hearing a 905 single word you said. You couldn't penetrate it. 906 Do you think this was the cause of the failed proposal? 907 Well, that's not to argue that any of it was done well – it was done really, really badly. The point is, 908 that's what we were up against to some extent. 909 Do you agree with this ideology? 910 Oh yeah, I absolutely agreed, but I think there was that phenomena, but I look what you get with 911 the Tea Party folk in the States. Now, they don't listen because of faith, family and food. What 912 Heather said to me that really struck a cord, because I could not understand how, if someone said, 913 'Look, I'm concerned about this', and you present to them very robust evidence that that concern 914 is unfounded, how do they still go away being still concerned about it? The reality is while you're 126 915 saying that to them, they're really not hearing it. Not even hearing it and then dismissing it, they're 916 just not hearing it. I thought it was a neat wee... just the way that she put it, that aspect that 917 they're just actually physically not hearing you. It made sense to me. 918 So the new approach to the NP proposal will be different? 919 Aye, it will mostly be focused on public lands, which will take away much of those concerns. 127 Introduction The recommended process is intended to be used by regional planners and developers and/or heritage conservationists to identify any living heritage at a site and, if so, to create an appropriate planning proposal. This recommended process is particularly addressed to the Northern Irish planning authorities (specifically the Department of the Environment) as a reaction to the 'shelved' National Park proposal in the Mountains of Mourne. This planning process is similar to all management plans for the reason that it will be the basis for the rest of the project. Visions, aims, objectives, etc. found in a management plan lay the foundation for a project that will be more successful in the end. This is important for living heritage sites because the high level pf participation is needed at these sites, specifically the core community and their cultural assets. The core community also represents the traditional knowledge of the site, which may not be available anywhere else. The recommended process consists of several steps (see the figure), the last of which amounts to the creation of a proposal to be submitted to the appropriate minister. This proposal process was designed to bring attention the cultural and heritage aspects of an area earmarked for development to the regional planning authorities. It gives particular attention to any living heritage, which is the long, continuous relationship that people have had with the land and/or its built fabric. Identification of living heritage requires identification of a certain group of stakeholders (the core community) that have a unique relationship with the land. These people are the most affected by any changes to the area. Furthermore, they are the stewards and traditional managers of the area. The core community are more than just traditional managers, they also have a special type of knowledge that has developed over generations, which regional planners or other heritage professionals may not be aware of. In general, this planning process emphasizes the importance of active community participation during a very early stage of the planning process in order to exchange the most amount of knowledge among stakeholders so that the best solution can be reached for an area. Aims of the planning process 1. To assess any living heritage in an area under potential regional development plans 2. To determine the site's continuity of original use/function and the core community 3. To encourage a higher level of community participation at an earlier stage in planning 2 3 Preliminary Step: Recognize Living Heritage Purpose: The purpose of the preliminary step is to gain a better understanding of what the regional development issues are, what area(s) need to be assisted and if any of those areas contain living heritage. Part A: Identify the regional development issue(s) Description: Regional development issues in many forms: a suffering economy, effects from a natural disaster, pressures from tourists, the need for better/more infrastructure, urban migration, rapid loss of biodiversity, etc. This step can be individually-, community-, or government-initiated. Goal: To determine whether there is a need for regional development (versus another type of development) and to understand its underlying causes and severity of the situation, and any time sensitivities. Also, to begin considering the cultural resources of the area. Implementation: 1. Access to information is key. If official reports are not available, other evidence is needed that a problem exists. 2. If necessary, formulate the problem or issue and present it to the appropriate authorities (a local planning department, a site managing body, municipal authorities, private site owners, etc.) 3. If you are not a hired consultant/organization, determine to whom you need to speak with about articulating the problem. Part B: Classify the area and basic information gathering 4 Description: Part B of the preliminary step identifies a need for some type of regional development in or around an area that might contain living heritage. This planning process assumes that the area affected by the problem is identified as having cultural resources. Furthermore, this step classifies the area as a cultural landscape is a good first step in understanding the role that heritage could play in the creation of a proposal. It can be the entire identified area or just a part, depending on where the associated physical (tangible) areas are standing. This step is important because identifying the main cultural heritage site(s) reduces the entire area to a manageable one. Basic research of the area begins here, which is important in discovering underlying problems as well as the history of the area (in terms of development and culturally significant groups and events). A small working group may have already begun to form by this stage. Preliminary boundaries of the affected area should be considered. Community participation may or may not be a part of this step, however, meaningful engagement with the community is encouraged in order to learn more about them and the area. The information gathered will be the first step in determining the site's continuity and function. Definitions: Cultural Landscape: It is an area that shows the relationship between man and the environment. The landscape can be agricultural, pastoral, associative (religious), inspirational, vernacular, etc., and the significance of the landscape is the value people have given to the land and the evolution of this relationship over time. Living Heritage Site: A living heritage site is a cultural landscape with living heritage components, meaning the original function/use of the land or something built on the land has not changed. It is a specific site, typically with certain associated built fabric (buildings or structures). Perhaps the use has evolved, but it has not changed. There is a group or people or society (the core community) that has been carrying out this function and using a traditional managing style to take care of the land and property since the inception of the original function. The carrying over of this original function from generation to generation is known as the site continuity. Goal: To classify the site based on its cultural components and determine preliminary boundaries 5 of the site to make it manageable to assess. Implementation: 1. Learn as much as possible about the area from all aspects: historically, politically, culturally, environmentally, etc. This includes gathering information from the community. 2. Record information and create a preliminary description of the situation. 3. Determine who will be involved or affected by any decisions in the area and find out what their relationship to the area is. 4. Analyze the different cultural resources in the identified area. 5. Ask: Is the site just a cultural landscape or is it a cultural landscape with living heritage? If there is living heritage found within the preliminary site boundaries, proceed to Step 1. Step 1: Determine Living Heritage framework Purpose: The purpose of the Step 1 is to determine the components of the living heritage (continuity of the original function and the core community) and to create a working group with special emphasis on the inclusion of core community members. Part A: Define the Living Heritage components Description: In the preliminary steps, it has been identified that there are cultural resources at the site in question and the site has been classified as a cultural landscape with living heritage. Now an understanding of a their connection to the area must be assessed. This proposed planning process uses a Living Heritage Approach, and its basic components are site continuity, function and identification of the core community; in management terms, maintaining 6 and protecting the existence of these components underline the aims and goals of the proposal and eventual action plan. Understanding this connection from the past to the present will allow the transfer of tangible and intangible properties of the site to be transferred to the future. Site continuity and function will be the foundation of any ensuing conservation or development plans. The core community provides the necessary traditional knowledge and represent the needs of the people that have the closest connection to the area or built environment. Goal: Determine the continuity of the original function of the identified site, its elements, and the core community. Implementation: 1. Define the site continuity of the original function and the elements that contribute to continuity. 2. Define who the core community is. 3. Form a dialogue with the core community and inform them of the current planning process. 4. Invite members of the core community to be a part of the planning process, especially in preparation of the creation of the working group. Part B: Create a working group Description: Once the living heritage criteria have been confirmed, a working party needs to be formed in order to gather more information about the site and, eventually, to begin brainstorming solutions. One way this planning approach better addresses the needs of a living heritage site is by creating a working group with a strong representation of core community members, so that their opinion is strongly represented throughout the brainstorming sessions in the next step. They are the voice of the tangible and intangible aspects of the site, and they prioritize the continuity of the site as well as being the ones most affected by any changes taking place at the site. They are the biggest source of traditional knowledge related to the site. Of course, the working group is more than just the core community, and representation of other 7 important stakeholders should be included within the working group. It is important that the working group is cross-departmental and inclusive of all relevant stakeholder groups (outside of the core community). This step is where information sharing and brainstorming come alive, while also creating rapport and positive communication. Sharing of information and ideas from different stakeholders will encourage a variety of solutions as well as help prevent and past mistakes or legal issues. Goals: Along with representative of the core community, identify key stakeholders and form a working group. Implementation: 1. Make a list of different stakeholders (additional to the core community members) within the potential site boundaries. They may live, work, visit, conduct research, or have some other interest or connection to the site. It will most likely include politicians, other government department representatives, minority groups, business owners, environmental consultants, and other relevant professionals. 2. Invite interested/willing/qualified people of the core community. 3. Create a communication network among each other. 4. Modify and update the definition or language of the site continuity of the original function. Step 2: Gather, share and brainstorm Purpose: The purpose of Step 2 is to do the necessary research, analysis and consultations in order for the working group to develop the most appropriate solutions for the site. Description: Now that the problem(s) have been identified, the living heritage components 8 identified and agreed upon and key stakeholders invited to collaborate, important characteristics and functions of the site need to be mapped and prioritized. This will focus on the relationship of the people and the place, envisioning short- and long-term goals. Part A: Map and assess the site Description: The site has been identified and boundaries need to be confirmed. Further research needs to be conducted, as well as other studies done at the site (e.g., historical map layering, heritage or environmental impact assessments, other management evaluation tools, etc.) that can provide site-specific information and data. This information can be used in decision-making as well as in creating the proposal. Both professional and traditional knowledge are essential during this step, where traditional knowledge is being represented by the core community members in the working group. Strong communication is needed here as information is presented and shared. Goal: Define appropriate boundaries for the landscape that help protect and sustain the site significance, and a buffer zone if possible/necessary. Collect and share in depth and technical information about the site to gain a more holistic understanding of the place and its attributes and challenges. Implementation: 1. Determine if there are any statutory or other restrictions on conservation or listing procedures. Communication across government departments is key. 2. Consider natural and other cultural resources that will or could be affected. 3. Perhaps dividing the area is an option, so that specific areas with living heritage are addressed appropriately and the surrounding area can take a different approach based on the needs there. 9 Part B: Broader community participation Description: Often, a living heritage site shares the area with other groups of people 1, and those that are not part of the core community should still be a part of the decision-making process. They are the broader community and also stakeholders, and their opinion and knowledge need to be considered during the proposal process and beyond. Some may be included in the working group, but a platform must be created for all people living and working in the area, and their opinion should be taken into consideration during the proposal process. Goal: Create ways for the broader community to share their ideas and then further evaluated so that their voice is heard and considered, as well as providing more information that can be used in the next step. Keep the broader community informed of the process. Implementation: 1. Methods of community participation include open forums, interviewing, online or offline surveys, etc. Following this should be some sort of evaluation of responses. 2. Any meetings of the stakeholder groups and public consultations should be documented through (e.g., meeting minutes). Part C: Brainstorm solutions and find consensus Description: Brainstorming is an exercise in creating informed solutions. Much information has been collected and a rapport with all parties has been created. It requires patience and mutual respect from everyone, so that all ideas are given similar treatment and consideration. This should also allow an atmosphere of negotiation. Perhaps more than one session will be needed, or even the assistance of a third party moderator. 1 Refer to chapter 4 of Poulios' 'The Past in the Present to learn about different classifications of communities at living heritage sites 10 When general consensus has been reached, the proposal should be articulated based on the results of the brainstorming session. Goal: To hold brainstorming sessions and reach consensus. Implementation: 1. After necessary research has been collected and the broader community input interpreted, information must be presented to the working group. Gaps in research may be identified at this point, and further research needed. 2. Brainstorming can begin at working group meetings. 3. After consensus is reached, one or more solutions will be formalized and presented to the appropriate government department. 4. Consider having a third party facilitator. End result: Creation of a proposal Description: The final result of this work is to be at a stage where the working group can create a regional planning proposal based on the consensus. The proposal is a formalized report that can then be submitted to the appropriate minister or authorities. Contents of the proposal: 1. Relevant information gathered about the site, include specific assessments. 2. The site classification information and an explanation of how the site has met the living heritage criteria. 3. A list of the stakeholders and core community members, a description of their process and meeting minutes. 11

RELATED PAPERS

RELATED TOPICS

Log In

Heritage and Regional Planning: A Case Study of the Mountains of Mourne, Northern Ireland. Annex: Recommended Proposal Process Based on a Living Heritage Approach (Master's Thesis)

Heritage and Regional Planning: A Case Study of the Mountains of Mourne, Northern Ireland. Annex: Recommended Proposal Process Based on a Living Heritage Approach (Master's Thesis)

Related Papers

RELATED PAPERS

RELATED TOPICS