Responsibility for developing heritage must be given to local authorities, local politicians and local communities, argues Michael Starrett
The debate about the conflict between heritage and development has become heated and polarised. On one side, conservationists and environmentalists, on the other, the "development" lobby, a broad spectrum of interests. And much confusion among the general public who don't feel part of either side.
This is compounded by the fact that the responsibility for protecting our heritage has never been with the Irish public. We were a colony for so long, never used to responsibility for our own decisions, and when we gained responsibility we created very centralised structures which did not allow the people a say.
This debate is everyone's business and the stakes are high; engaging the public is a key requirement, and a strategy to give heritage back to the people is in everyone's interest. The responsibility for heritage lies firmly with the people in countries like France and Austria, whose independence is much longer-established, and many believe we are currently experiencing growing pains.
Such growing pains are more understandable in the context of unprecedented growth and ambitious development. There is much to be gained or lost.
Heritage is not about the past, but very much about the present and the future, and has a direct effect on our quality of life; from recreational amenities and the wildlife and plants that surround us; to tourism, agriculture, water quality, the buildings we live and work in, our landscape, and precious antiquities from past generations that enrich our lives.
Planning and heritage are relative newcomers to the arena of development in Ireland. Both rely on the availability of information to make the best decisions. We do not have an effective central base where developers and decision-makers can access information on aspects of our heritage such as biological records, protected areas and protected structures. If we are to be serious about the national heritage and resolve some of the current issues, we must have easy access to the best information.
How we have done business in the past is at the root of the current debate. What is important is how we do it in the future and that has to be much more inclusive. Bad legislation and inadequate decision-making have led to mistakes in the past.
To compound matters, it can be argued that the whole tenor of aspects of the environmental movement until very recently was about the exclusion of people. Heritage became expertised. The structures gave no responsibility to people. But times are changing and we are all in this together. Solutions are within reach, but we must not fall into the us-versus-them trap.
Good decisions are based on good information and open access to it. People need to feel part of the system and should not be given the opportunity to sit outside, without responsibility, sniping at decisions. They can do that if information is "hidden" from them. Give people responsibility and access to information and just watch the quality of decision-making improve. If they ignore it, then they can be challenged.
To achieve this, responsibility for developing heritage must be given to local authorities, local politicians, and local communities. Some lobbies may scream in anguish at the suggestion, but it is the only real solution. Accountability comes with responsibility, an approach whose effectiveness is clearly demonstrated in countries where local politicians can be held personally liable for bad decisions.
Policies to improve decision-making and better access to information have been proposed by the Heritage Council. These include a landscape policy that seeks an integrated approach across all sectors, and a Biological Records Centre where data that is currently unavailable or dispersed can be coordinated and managed. This would greatly improve development plans and planning decisions by allowing easy and open access to vital information such as where species and habitats occur, which areas are important for conservation, and how the status of species and habitats changes over time.
The Heritage Council's monument grading policy would help safeguard against costly and litigious appeals - we proposed that monuments should be graded according to their national importance rather than the current one-size-fits-all approach. The introduction of local heritage and biodiversity plans can also provide a more sensitive localised approach to heritage conservation and development.
All this work is aimed at establishing a sound strategic approach and at devolving responsibility for decision-making to a more inclusive and informed stakeholder approach at local level.
Much of worth has happened in the past seven years. Heritage is taken more seriously as its contribution to our quality of life and economy is more widely recognised. National strategies are in place for the first time for our natural and cultural heritage, and at a local and regional level community representatives are, through stakeholder forums, getting an input into county heritage plans.
The structures required will take some time to put in place, and in the meantime we have to manage some of the mistakes of the past. But let's not cloud the issue by losing sight of where we're really going. Let's continue to move towards greater access to information, improved structures at local level, and greater involvement of the wider community. Improved decision-making is made easier with proper systems and procedures in place. But, it is the pride and sense of ownership of local communities that will provide the glue to hold the pieces together.
Michael Starrett is chief executive of the Heritage Council and president of the Federation of National and Nature Parks