Breadcrumbs
NCAF 16/4 Future of NCAF
2. The Countryside Agency considered the role of NCAF at its February Board meeting. It recognised the great help NCAF had provided in finding shared solutions to policy and technical issues as well as the support its members had given to the process of sharing information with their respective bodies or stakeholder groups. It was mindful that NCAF did not duplicate the work of other groups and felt it should not loose sight of its core function – to advise on the implementation of open access legislation – but that its role and purpose could be strengthened and broadened. This had been the original intention of NCAF and it was a good time to reflect back on this original remit and then to agree how to take the forum forward.
3. This paper raises a number of questions to facilitate a discussion about the objectives of NCAF, its relationship with other groups and the style and frequency of meetings. Questions are highlighted in bold italic text.
Objectives of the Forum
4. NCAF was set up in July 1999 “to assist the Countryside Agency to make the countryside more accessible and enjoyable for open air recreation, in ways which take account of social, economic and environmental issues.” The remit made clear that it was established to advise the Agency, which would then take account of that advice, but was not bound by it.
5. To date NCAF’s agenda has been dominated by open access and the issues have become narrower and more technical. We believe NCAF could evolve to cover broader issues, at a strategic level and that this can be done without changing the existing remit. At the same time the Agency does wish to continue to seek advice on open access as we develop management systems and public information. But we feel that open access should no longer dominate the agenda. The relationship between access and other agendas such as health, diversity, rural economies and urban design are strengthening and this is reflected in the Agency’s current programmes.
NCAF members are invited to consider whether they believe the objectives and remit is right, and if not to suggest how it might be changed. If the remit, or emphasis of the forum, is changed should membership change or expand to reflect this? Should NCAF have a member to formally represent the regional agenda? Is there a need to draw in other representatives to cover social, economic and health issues? Should co-opting be considered as a way of bringing in specialist advice at particular times?
Relationship with other groups
6. NCAF’s role needs to be clear to distinguish it from the role played by other groups, which the Agency either runs or is involved in. These include: the Rights of Way Review Committee; Discovering Lost Ways Advisory Group; project steering groups on water-based recreation; relevant authorities working groups; the Countryside Research Network; Country Parks Strategy and Delivery Groups – to name a few. NCAF could also consider formalising a relationship with local access forums. We have had a request to consider this by the Peak District LAF.
7. Formal reporting between all of these groups would be bureaucratic and a cumbersome process, but it may be possible to strengthen the awareness and sharing between a number of these groups without a rigid structure. This could be facilitated by a web-based access learning network, where minutes, papers and reports could be placed. At the moment minutes are exchanged between the Rights of Way Review Committee and NCAF to ensure there is an awareness of what issues are on the respective agendas. But it could be as informal as just acknowledging the existence of the other groups so that information is exchanged and issues raised when appropriate.
Members are invited to suggest how NCAF could work more effectively with and through other working groups. Do we want to formalize the links with LAFs? If so, how? How would NCAF members like to be kept informed about the work of other recreation/access groups?
Style and frequency of meeting
8. More meetings could be run in a seminar-style, with less time commenting on papers and more time for interaction and discussion. NCAF members could present ideas to the meeting to provoke discussion or to share best practice examples from their own organisation and experience. Or we could invite speakers from other organisations or from local access forums. The seminar discussions might be supplemented by short regular updates on regular items like restrictions and the mapping progress. If more meetings are in a seminar style perhaps fewer of them should be open to the public.
9. An annual meeting with the Welsh National Access Forum would ensure that cross border issues are dealt with, and that we learn from each others experiences in England and Wales.
NCAF members are invited to consider whether they would like more seminar-style meetings, whether all meetings should be open to the public, frequency of meetings and relationship with the Welsh NAF. Also would members find it useful to have opportunities to lead discussions and debates?
Next steps
Once we have absorbed the comments and advice offered by NCAF members at the meeting in May, we suggest that we make a proposal about the role of NCAF and the future pattern of meetings to report for endorsement by members in July.
Wendy Thompson, Programme Director, Countryside Recreation and
Andrew Chester, Countryside Adviser, Open Access
April 2003
