The Economy...

(... and it is stupid.)

One of Sheffield Moors Partnership’s  themes for consultation was Wider Benefits of the Moors and among those they clearly wanted to get some comments coming in on economic benefits, this being good for managers generally. There is benefit to those who work in the conservation economy of course. I’m amused at this insistence that the economy must be served in the Sheffield Moors Area. Don’t we have enough economy everywhere else? Should we not set areas aside free from the economy? This cropped up briefly in the group discussion at Saturday’s SMP meeting. The officer obviously wanted to collect together some responses that confirmed pre-held policies. My response, I could see, was disappointing: It was to the effect that it could indeed be of great economic benefit in a wider sense that people working in the economy nearby, for example in Sheffield, felt the need to escape the economy and needed some relief from it. So what greater benefit than having a place set aside that is free from the pressure to be part of the economy where they could recharge their batteries before returning to the rat race? What good has the economy done to our landscape anyway apart from exploiting it? The farming industry of today is not the farming industry of yesterday or  two centuries ago. There is always something of the museum mentality within the conservation industry but the kind of museum they want is odd – it enables established occupations to keep running but to do so in a modern manner with modern practices. All very well for those who like those modern practices. These might include heavy machinery, hard-nosed profit seeking, barbed wire fencing, livestock treated as units of production and a marginalising of natural beauty in favour of the bottom line.

Much of the problem comes from visions and mission statements. The problem with visions and mission statements is that they get under the skin of minor functionaries who cease to think independently. One of these is the vision of the PDNPA as found in its management plan, which talks of cultural landscapes and working landscapes. How many people were involved in putting it together I have no idea – and even less whether any of them had any common sense. Nor whether there was anyone with ultimate and all seeing powers of wisdom and responsibility who could define its exact terms of enforcement.

Does it mean for instance that every square metre of every land segment must show evidence of being ‘worked’ or of reflecting some cultural relevance? If not where do we abide by the vision and where do we not? What about set aside for instance. And if that was acceptable what about other parts? And the PDNP is not or should not be all the same, in this or any other aspect. Landscape types differ and anyway should continue to evolve. Usually when something like this vision is put together and its woolliness becomes obvious another element quickly muscles in – it’s called self-interest. And it’s those with power who get to minister to their own, usually twisting the guiding principles into what suits them.