UKC

Just posting on here for those with an interest:

https://thebmc.co.uk/outdoors-for-all-a-manifesto-for-the-outdoor-sector 

A monumental bit of partnership working here from my colleague Catherine Flitcroft - winning the support of essentially the entire outdoor recreation and conservation community in calling for the outdoors to be made accessible for people from all backgrounds, and to engage in life-enriching activities. Many of these organisations have in the past been reticent to add their voice to calls for definitive expansion of access and rights of way so this is a definite step in the right direction, evidencing the need.

Outdoors for All challenges politicians to meet the needs of our communities.

It's a proclamation of the huge benefits that come from connecting our environment with our people.

The UK ranks bottom among out peers for nature connection, and yet we have one of the most well-developed path networks on the planet, and since 2000, a law (CRoW) which supposedly giva us reasonable access over open country.

So how can this be?

⦾ Access in the UK is drastically unequal in its distribution - open country when designated was limited to a narrow definition far more commonly found in uplands, far away from urban centres.

⦾ Our paths connect our settlements but don't allow us to connect with the land. It's nice to pass through a beautiful place but how do we connect if we cannot stop. What good are arteries without capillary function?!

⦾ We operate under a legal and cultural default of exclusion - from landowners to citizens, we have been stripped of the ability to consider land as a shared resource to be enjoyed and looked after mutually and in partnership. The benefits of such an approach are innumerable and easily evidenced.

A paradigm shift is possible - the Welsh Labour Government has missed 20 years of opportunity to do so, and Labour may get another shot in Westminster soon. 

I'm currently writing a broader piece on access, right to roam, and how this all fits together from a hillwalking/mountaineering community, hope to finish over Christmas. Let us know what you think of OFA.

- Eben

Sound like the right noises, and fully support the spirit of the campaign, but I can't find info on concrete content of legislation (including in manifesto). Is this a campaign for a Right to Roam, or merely wasting the energy of this demand by diverting it into, e.g., some poxy legislation encouraging landowners to expand access? As always, it's not what you say, it's what you do. Are you able to clarify? Thanks

Unfortunately Labour shifted away from their Right to Roam proposals earlier this year, I think they were afraid of doing something that would encourage the ordinary person in the street to vote for them, or possibly just afraid of the press. Following this the BMC seems to be trying to capitalise on the popularity of the idea by doing what they can to improve access without being able to get full right to roam implemented.

You're pretty spot on in your assessment that this isn't per say a 'Right to Roam' manifesto, because most of the organisations signed on to the Outdoors for All coalition (as it were) would not feel comfortable signing on for such a specific call.

What this does it outline the need for more access to nature and lays out the evidence, the cross-sector support. What the BMC aim to do in the meantime is show that a default of access is by far the cheapest, easiest, most comprehensive way to achieve the goals set within. We aren't alone in campaigning for this and this manifesto represents a significant step up in the demands laid out by environmental organisations for more access.

In short, this is by necessity a consensus document.

As Spenser said - Labour have backstepped considerably over the last few months. 

*However* - we are not planning to move with them. Our position is that a Right to Roam (default of access) or whatever language you wish to use is the way forward and we plan to campaign on that basis, with (hopefully, according to our data) the (strong) support of our members. Pointing out the shortcomings of CRoW is not incompatible with calling for wholesale new legislation. We are an access campaigning organisation and our job is not to move with the debate.

As for why Labour are moving towards the landowners on this; it's because recent polling suggests that rural seats have suddenly become winnable for them, and simultaneously they don't need to worry about pleasing their urban base who desperately want/need more access to nature as those seats are completely safe.

Edit: The other thing I would add as to the value of the specific demands within this document is that campaigning on repealing the historic rights of way registration deadline is taking up an enormous amount of campaigning resources from organisations like the Ramblers and the OSS. Were we to achieve even that alone, it would free significant campaigning resources for other access demands.

Hold on.... This points out that only 4% of rivers are freely accessible. But the opener says the Canal and river trust have signed up to this. Their own website says "From narrowboats to barges, canoes to large river cruisers, you need to licence your boat if you want to keep and use it on our canals and rivers."

Surely the solution, for waterways then, is for them to stop stopping us? What am I missing here? 

You're not missing anything! You'd have to ask them why they signed up to a document which seems to contradict a longstanding policy of theirs...! Perhaps some boaters could get in touch with them and ask.

It may be that those currently working there don't agree with the decisions of the past. Dare I say you could probably ask a similar question about towpaths which are generally also not official rights of way, but rather permissive paths owned by the Canal and River Trust. Funnily enough most are also not bridleways and so not accessible to bikes or horses (ironic given their origins, I think).

Regardless - you can see why getting organisations like them to sign a strong declaration asking for more access is endlessly useful!!

Yeah, ok. I mean, I was always under the impression the crt were kinda.... how can I say it..... um..... knobs about this sort of thing and usually want their palm crossed with silver before anything good comes out. From where I'm sitting they could do everything I want of them by ceasing to exist. So, yeah, great if they're on board and change is in the air.

Fwiw all the canal boaters I've spoken to hate them, for the same as well as different reasons. But mostly the size of the enormous cheque they have to write every year and the comparisons between salaries of executives and work done on lock gates.

Cards on the table - I have never had personal dealings with them (or Glandwr Cymru as they're known this side of the border). Many other organisations on that list have restricted access in some way in the past, I need not name them.

Regardless of whether it leads to actual changes in the way they do things, I think seeing even organisations which in the past have not been explicitly pro-access in the past lends weight to the demands within. Imagine if we had been able to get the NFU for example to sign up (in some fantasy). 

As far as ceasing to exist, it seems that it's probably better to have a pro-access landowner (as they are claiming to be here!) with charitable objectives than a patchwork of private owners who would be able to close any stretch of path on a whim. But like I say - I do not know them closely.

There's still an 'if' hiding in there, but yes, fully agree.

Thanks for taking the time to engage on this (and all the other stuff you've been up to), and to your colleagues who brought it together.

No problem - I'm supposed to be off for Christmas but thought Cath had done a really great job on this which we hope to replicate for Wales. 

Been enjoying engaging with UKC on here, it's much more positive than Facebook and I find the discussions to have been really constructive when I've been interacting. 

Here's to a more positive 2024 for the BMC and hopefully progress on access.

I would suggest a big barrier to greater access, which is ultimately a political decision, is the conflation in many voters minds, of large land holdings and peoples Gardens. Many people think that a right to roam would mean people wandering through their garden and setting up camp on their front lawn. Also people generally have a strong sense of fairness, and many people think that allowing people to wander at will on other peoples private land, is unfair.
Therefore, IMHO, an information campaign over  possibly a year or two to dispel this image, could be a good idea. 

Absolutely - every man's home is his castle however some people's castles are their homes (and accompanying estate).

De-mystifying what right to roam means in practice is a main priority.

The greater degree of openness and discussion about what's going on is great!

I am glad that the BMC is still pushing for proper right to roam legislation to be put forward.

My point about Labour was due to a general feeling that they're taking a lot of votes for granted.

Thanks for your detailed and thoughtful reply.