Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New resources
Latest activity
Trending Threads
Resources
Latest reviews
Search resources
FarmTV
Farm Compare
Search
Tokens/Searches
Calendar
Upcoming Events
Members
Registered members
Current visitors
New Resources
New posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More options
Contact us
Close Menu
Forums
Farm Business
Tenant Farming, Subsidies, BPS & Legal Issues
ELMS public engagement
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="holwellcourtfarm" data-source="post: 7553459" data-attributes="member: 42914"><p>That's not a bad report actually. The key conclusions seem right to me:</p><p></p><p><em>10 Key findings:</em></p><p><em>1. There is an appetite for providing permissive and enhanced access amongst farmers and land </em></p><p><em>managers but the intervention rates need to be at a level that provides an incentive to do so.</em></p><p><em>2. Improving access can be good for everyone – farmers and land managers might benefit at </em></p><p><em>least equally to those enjoying the access, this might be through new payments, diversification </em></p><p><em>opportunities, overcoming problematic access and overcoming social exclusion are examples.</em></p><p><em>3. There are barriers to access for some people including physical, economic, societal and </em></p><p><em>perceptual barriers. Some of the barriers to greater diversity and inclusion are built into </em></p><p><em>language, systems and governance; they are institutional and this should be recognised in </em></p><p><em>order to effect change.</em></p><p><em>4. Investment in enhancing access should not only be for areas of land or length of path but for </em></p><p><em>the intensity of benefit to the recipients, for instance small areas of land can provide </em></p><p><em>transformational benefit for very troubled or traumatised people. In other areas simple changes </em></p><p><em>(like short connections between public rights of way) can have a high level of benefit for low </em></p><p><em>investment.</em></p><p><em>5. Facilitators and community champions can work directly with those communities that access </em></p><p><em>the countryside least to help address access inequalities. They can help ensure that</em></p><p><em>educational access paid for through schemes reaches those that need it most and support </em></p><p><em>farmers and land managers to provide well thought through welcoming access and </em></p><p><em>engagement arrangements.</em></p><p><em>6. Investments should be long-term; it can be more damaging to have short run potentially token </em></p><p><em>projects that achieve some benefit then drop away; this is as true for farmers and land </em></p><p><em>managers as it is for those experiencing access inequality.</em></p><p><em>7. Educational access can achieve considerably more than it does under Countryside </em></p><p><em>Stewardship but the focus should be on engaging with people and communities that have </em></p><p><em>limited experiences of the countryside.</em></p><p><em>8. Providing new access should not be mandatory for farmers and land managers – it should be </em></p><p><em>taken up where it makes sense to do so and farmers and land managers are willing to engage. </em></p><p><em>Advisors and convenors should encourage farmers and land managers to become involved in </em></p><p><em>target areas where it will have the greatest impact if schemes are to provide value for money.</em></p><p><em>9. Land management plans should include access plans and identify opportunities to divert </em></p><p><em>access away from ecologically or otherwise sensitive sites. This could be either by providing </em></p><p><em>alternative routes or improving the quality of surfacing to encourage use in less sensitive </em></p><p><em>routes.</em></p><p><em>10. The concerns that farmers and landowners have about anti-social behaviour and that </em></p><p><em>permissive access may lead to claims of rights of access must be addressed explicitly in order </em></p><p><em>to give confidence in providing additional or enhanced access.</em></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="holwellcourtfarm, post: 7553459, member: 42914"] That's not a bad report actually. The key conclusions seem right to me: [I]10 Key findings: 1. There is an appetite for providing permissive and enhanced access amongst farmers and land managers but the intervention rates need to be at a level that provides an incentive to do so. 2. Improving access can be good for everyone – farmers and land managers might benefit at least equally to those enjoying the access, this might be through new payments, diversification opportunities, overcoming problematic access and overcoming social exclusion are examples. 3. There are barriers to access for some people including physical, economic, societal and perceptual barriers. Some of the barriers to greater diversity and inclusion are built into language, systems and governance; they are institutional and this should be recognised in order to effect change. 4. Investment in enhancing access should not only be for areas of land or length of path but for the intensity of benefit to the recipients, for instance small areas of land can provide transformational benefit for very troubled or traumatised people. In other areas simple changes (like short connections between public rights of way) can have a high level of benefit for low investment. 5. Facilitators and community champions can work directly with those communities that access the countryside least to help address access inequalities. They can help ensure that educational access paid for through schemes reaches those that need it most and support farmers and land managers to provide well thought through welcoming access and engagement arrangements. 6. Investments should be long-term; it can be more damaging to have short run potentially token projects that achieve some benefit then drop away; this is as true for farmers and land managers as it is for those experiencing access inequality. 7. Educational access can achieve considerably more than it does under Countryside Stewardship but the focus should be on engaging with people and communities that have limited experiences of the countryside. 8. Providing new access should not be mandatory for farmers and land managers – it should be taken up where it makes sense to do so and farmers and land managers are willing to engage. Advisors and convenors should encourage farmers and land managers to become involved in target areas where it will have the greatest impact if schemes are to provide value for money. 9. Land management plans should include access plans and identify opportunities to divert access away from ecologically or otherwise sensitive sites. This could be either by providing alternative routes or improving the quality of surfacing to encourage use in less sensitive routes. 10. The concerns that farmers and landowners have about anti-social behaviour and that permissive access may lead to claims of rights of access must be addressed explicitly in order to give confidence in providing additional or enhanced access.[/I] [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Farm Business
Tenant Farming, Subsidies, BPS & Legal Issues
ELMS public engagement
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top