EH:WH Weekend Workshop – Cynthia Burek

Firstly those which are broad and holistic in approach such as the Cheshire region and Staffordshire LGAP

Secondly those that concentrate wholly on a Geodiversity audit as the key process, and so are narrow based

What benefits does Action Planning provide?

Action Plans are a common mechanism of achieving aims in the business world and have been adopted by the biodiversity community in the UK since 1994 as Biodiversity Action Plans (BAPs). They

Ensure a focus on actions that matter

Enable every issue to be addressed without duplicating effort

Allow achievements and progress to be closely followed

Provide a framework and methodology which is transferable

Location	Publication date of LGAP
Cheshire region	Sept 2003; August 2004
Tees Valley	Dec 2003
Staffordshire	March 2004
Leicestershire and Rutland
North Pennines AONB (2004–9) and County Durham	2004
Warwickshire	2004

Partnership is clearly an important part of the successful establishment of an LGAP.

The delivery of stated objectives through targets within a certain time period works because the LGAP is publicly seen to be moving forward towards the overall aim.

The holistic nature of an LGAP clearly works as its breadth includes rather than excludes interested parties.

The majority include a lead partner and other main partners often at the same level of responsibility. Below these lies consultees who have helped develop the LAGP.

Funding source. All the LGAPs had substantial funding from ALSF, EN or MIRO. The amount of work involved in developing an LGAP does seem to require funding in the seeding phase. At present it is difficult to see if the LGAPs can be self-sustaining although this is clearly the intention in the broadly based ones.

All the case study LGAPs perceived the need for or appointed a project officer. In the case of the narrow LGAPs this was to head up the audit while in the broader based LGAPs it was to manage the process and to keep up the momentum.

While the partners themselves become responsible for driving the LGAP forward it is necessary to have markers or stages in the process. One way of doing this is to have timed meetings where the LGAP partners meet and discuss progress.

LGAPs should be in the public domain and published. This will help move the process forward as the partners then become responsible to a larger audience than just a client.

Wide consultation. Most LGAPs had over 20 Consultees either as individual Consultees or forming a core steering group.

The number of objectives ranged from 4 to 10. Some were very generic as 'Partnership and involvement', others are very specific (e.g. 'Interpretation at Breedon Hill and Cloud Hill Quarries'). The latter more easily have a timed element built in.

All LGAPs recognised that a geodiversity audit of resources is an imperative first step but differences arose in the timing of the other objectives.

The Cheshire region LGAP

The lead partner is University College Chester with Cheshire RIGS, Cheshire Landscape Trust, Chester City Council and Cheshire County Council. At present (Dec 2004) there are a further 25 partners.
Common accepted Aim – 'To contribute to the maintenance and improvement of the well-being of the Cheshire region by producing a Cheshire region LGAP (Local Geodiversity Action Plan) to safeguard the geology, geomorphology, soils and landscapes of the area.'
CrLGAP has 8 objectives; the first being to audit the local geodiversity resource by December 2004 but recognising this as an ongoing process.
Initial funding was from English Nature but further funding has been received from the Aggregate Levy Sustainability Fund and Cheshire County Council among others. However many actions are undertaken by the partners as part of their own workload.
Much of the administration jobs are shared between the partners but there is a small part time administrator (not a project officer) for the LGAP.
Two full partnership meetings a year are held, similar to the Cheshire region BAP partnership.
Boundaries follow the same lines as the Cheshire region BAP partnership, Cheshire RIGS, Cheshire Landscape Trust and Cheshire Wildlife Trust thus forming continuity in approach between major conservation bodies.
The Cheshire region LGAP has already gone to two published editions with a third planned in November 2005. The first was publicly launched.
The CrLGAP is attracting new partners all the time as people and organisations see the benefit of understanding Geodiversity.
Education is at the forefront of the CrLGAP.
Cooperation, communication and a common aim are the backbone of CrLGAP.

Two examples of good practice:

How age might/might not affect people's attitude to geodiversity value of countryside. This was important for the County Council countryside dept.

How these findings may affect the future direction of the CrLGAP

No clear and shared aim.

No geodiversity audit of sites, information, personnel and skills. Narrow focused LGAPs are perhaps better perceived as producing a product rather than a process. An audit must be monitored or maintained but sustainability must be clearly defined and intrinsic to the LGAP itself.

No ownership of the LGAP between the partners.

No embodiment in strategic documents.

No mechanism to make the process sustainable.

A fundamental difference in perception of content of the Action plan between partners.

Generic objectives (these become difficult to monitor with no time framework and would be better becoming aims).

LGAPs need to sit within a national framework delivering national objectives based on the overall national aim of protecting UK Geodiversity for the future. While each Local Geodiversity Action Plan will have different local objectives based on the local distinctiveness of an area, they will all implicitly be contributing towards delivery of the National GAP aim.

Raise awareness of the importance of Geodiversity among the population in general and landowners, legislators and planners in particular so that LGAPs become embedded in policy and process.

There are two types of LGAPs emerging at present, but if the LGAP process is to be sustainable and not just a product, broad, well-accepted aims and objectives beyond the narrow focus of a Geodiversity audit need to be adopted. This then makes an LGAP sustainable. LGAPs should underpin a National GAP, which has yet to be developed. This could be spearheaded by the UKRIGS organisation, which has the capability to provide strong lead organisations at the local level (RIGS groups).

Conclusions