I commented via Walk Magazine July 19th:

‘The natural national champion (to me at least) for national and indeed all
trails and rights of way is the RA – though not necessarily in terms of taking
over management and responsibility, though one might not rule that out at this
stage. The Inland Waterways Association, for example, own and operate one
navigation, and the National Trust another. A model – not of ownership of course – could be the recently launched Canal and River Trust, with a strong emphasis on local management and partnership.

However, the main challenge in this reaction by the RA is the lack of detail,
with no alternatives explored, and it would (and perhaps is an example of what
has highlighted in Benedict’s review) appear to be a rigid and inflexible one.

Is the RA completely opposed to change – is this a NO? If not, what is the RA
thinking? What indeed do local areas/groups think? Have they been asked (and as far as I’m aware the answer would be no, at least not via the Inner London Area Council at least) in the last 2-3 months?

Quantifying what is the current state, as well as examining some options, and
being open to seizing an opportunity (as well as seeing the threats and
weaknesses), would all be very welcome contributions and, possibly, help mobile public opinion within a campaign – though the objective needs to be a lot clearer!’

This is a very welcome and positive step though again it doesn’t seem that the
RA has discussed or consulted local groups or areas.

D.

12 September 2012
Walkers on the South Downs Way
Walkers on the South Downs Way National Trail

We’re proposing a fantastic future for England’s National Trails with the launch
our new vision document National Trails: a fantastic future.

Creating a charitable National Trails Trust is the best way to support, develop
and promote the 13 National Trails in England and ensure they reach their full
potential, with Local Trail Trusts to help manage the trails on the ground.

http://www.ramblers.org.uk/Resources/Ramblers%20Association/Website/National_Trails_Fantastic_Future.pdf

There is as yet no detailed response that has been made available, so as I said the devil may well be in the detail.

The last time I looked the UK (that is the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
Northern Ireland) included England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales.

The RA itself heads this up as “A new vision for the UK’s National Trails” at
http://www.walkmag.co.uk/news/a-new-vision-for-the-uks-national-trails/

It may just be sloppy headline writers of course …….

— In Ramblers-Net@yahoogroups.com, “Brian Reader” wrote:
>
> Dominic,
>
> Where please do you get the idea that the Ramblers’ response to the DEFRA consultation paper (on National Trails in England) also covers Scotland and Northern Ireland? The only reference to Britain in our response is that the Ramblers’ is Britain’s walking charity. The consultation was about England, and the vision you have quoted relates only to England. Our colleagues in Scotland and Wales may perhaps have other ideas about what is best for them, as they are entitled to under our internal devolution arrangements. And we have never “organised” ourselves in Northern Ireland.
>

and Pete Bland asked > OK, but this does beg the question as to how the Offa’s Dyke Path in particular will be managed in
> future, as it follows the England / Wales border for much of its length.
>

The discussion paper notes on page 6 that ‘With Offa’s Dyke Path National Trail (which is approximately one third in England and two thirds in Wales) our aim is for the current Welsh-led partnership to continue, whilst accommodating any differences in operational arrangements between the two countries.’

So a lot to discuss there, I would guess. And for the RA, other putative stakeholders to negotiate.

This reminds me a little of the suggestion made that using a charitable trust
(Canal and River Trust model, perhaps, though without ownership) model would be a starting point. An association – of local partnerships? – or perhaps other organisations? – sounds rather weak. The devil will no doubt be in the detail, and we’re promised more is to come.

I commented July 19th, on the RA’s response to the discussion paper, that
I’ve just been reading (by way of Benedict’s 100 day CEO review – well worth
treading, and not very technical at all – http://www.ramblers.org.uk/Volunteer/News/CE-100Day-Review) the Board of Trustees May meeting minutes:

“National Trails – The Board noted a letter from DEFRA regarding coastal access and the launch of a public consultation about the future of National Trails.

B/273/12 The Board noted Natural England is proposing each trail has a local
partnership which will manage it with an initial three year grant.

B/274/12 The Board noted the difficulties with the current proposals and that
Ramblers objective would be to prevent the proposals going through as they
currently stand. The Board also noted that they would need to make a decision on how best to meet this objective would either by a `No’ campaign, an alternative proposal or a combination of both as soon as discussions with allies had been completed.”

These difficulties appear to be fairly generic, and a re-cycling of old, fears:

“The Ramblers is seriously concerned that government’s proposals could see a dramatic fall in the quality of National Trails. Paths could fall into
disrepair, potentially obstructing access for the millions of people who enjoy
the trails and who generate significant revenue for the local economy. We would like to see government rethink its plans and we are ready to work with them to take a leading role in the future support and promotion of these national treasures.”

This response is a bit disingenuous. The natural national champion (to me at
least) for national and indeed all trails and rights of way is the RA – though
not necessarily in terms of taking over management and responsibility, though
one might not rule that out at this stage. The Inland Waterways Association, for
example, own and operate one navigation, and the National Trust another. A model – not of ownership of course – could be the recently launched Canal and River Trust, with a strong emphasis on local management and partnership.

However, the main challenge in this reaction by the RA is the lack of detail,
with no alternatives explored, and it would (and perhaps is an example of what
has highlighted in Benedict’s review) appear to be a rigid and inflexible one.
Is the RA completely opposed to change – is this a NO? If not, what is the RA
thinking? What indeed do local areas/groups think? Have they been asked (and as far as I’m aware the answer would be no, at least not via the Inner London Area Council at least) in the last 2-3 months?

Quantifying what is the current state, as well as examining some options, and
being open to seizing an opportunity (as well as seeing the threats and
weaknesses), would all be very welcome contributions and, possibly, help mobile public opinion within a campaign – though the objective needs to be a lot clearer!