Lymington
Times 1 January 2011
(LETTERS
PAGE)
NATIONAL PARKS’ GOVERNANCE, and Dichotomies
Put simply a ‘dichotomy’
is a division into two opposing parts;
a ‘false dichotomy’ is a division into two opposing parts when no
natural division really exists.
If you live in an
English national park it is judged appropriate that you be governed by an
unelected collection of people known as National Park Authority Members; some are councillors from the county or
district councils (elected to those positions, but not specifically elected to
the NPA – they are nominated to the Authority by their respective councils))
and the rest are appointed by the Secretary of State through Defra. It is assumed the latter represent
‘national’ interests, while the others represent ‘local’ interests.
This is an example of
a ‘false dichotomy’ because it suggests that whenever the two groups of Members
are functioning there is a clear distinction between their roles. It suggests those representing ‘local’
interests have no regard for ‘national’ interests, and vice versa. In fact, the reverse may be true – those
appointed through Defra may never have lived elsewhere, may have had very
unvaried life experiences and have unrealistically subjective convictions about
where they live - all of which may not be in the national interest.
Encompassed within
this false distinction between ‘national’ and ‘local’ is the conviction that
while local people must be represented, the nationally appointed Members are
bound to act at a more authoritative level in
order to curb an unruly public that has no interest in national parks being
national assets. This is highly
insulting and usually untrue.
Try applying the
distinction between local and national to what you do every day, for instance
when you shop, travel, or walk the dog.
If you purchase locally produced goods you are acting to support local interests
but you are also supporting a national (or even international) trend; if you cycle or use public transport you are
doing the same; if you walk the dog
using the accepted dog-walking areas and pick-up pooh you are doing the same.
The governance of
national parks has two purposes – one aimed at conserving and enhancing the
area’s special qualities, and the other at promoting enjoyment and
understanding of the same, with a subordinate level of importance attached to
fostering the economy and social wellbeing while fulfilling the purposes. (There is a general mistaken assumption that
social wellbeing, in particular, is a matter for councils, not National Park
Authorities.) This is an example of a
real dichotomy because conservation, the economy and social issues are
inevitably inter-dependent and integrated, and this is directly at odds with
the uneven weighting given to the two national purposes and duty.
The appointment of
Members by a national organisation like Defra also represents a real dichotomy
when measured against government statements like ‘Imposition alienates. We want to hand-over power and
responsibilities so that local communities have real choices.’
Taken together the
two ‘real dichotomies’ mean New Forest National Park residents, and others like
them, suffer a ‘democratic deficit’ in terms of how they are governed.
Resolving dichotomies
involves recognising the irrationality of the false distinctions and devising
management structures that respect the validity of local people at least being
involved in the appointment of all National Park Authority Members, perhaps
with Defra acting as a facilitating body which offers advice and guidance. -
Perhaps this should also be extended to the appointment of the Chief Executive
Officers, because experience here as proved that the wrong appointment can have
devastating consequences.
You can take part in
Defra’s National Parks’ Governance Review public consultation and the comprehensive Residents’ Survey launched by
One Voice, New Forest – links found here:
www.onevoice.officeoverload.com/.
The consultation closes at the end of January 2011.