The trigger for the undertaking of the report was the long-standing failure of the City Council to progress the development of any such management strategy. A management strategy is the basic starting point for the proper care of a major open space area and in particular one of such importance and sensitivity as the Cave Hill. The appendices to the report include the initial correspondence between the late Peter McLachlan, then Chairman of the Belfast Hills Regional Park Committee, and Maurice Parkinson, Head of Parks and Amenities for the City Council, in which the latter pointed out that "the Council has already agreed that a development strategy for the Cave Hill Country Park be undertaken", but admitted that this had not been done and explained "the reason why this process has not commenced is primarily lack of staff time". Encouragingly, Mr Parkinson welcomed the initiative, observing that "if there is any way the Hills Regional Park Committee or any other interest group could assist, we would be delighted for any help given". The Vision report was sent to Mr Parkinson in July 1999 and is reproduced below.

In a very welcome development in February 2000, the Parks and Amenities Department of the City Council approached John O’Boyle, the Belfast Hills Development Officer, and Dermot Hughes of the Ulster Wildlife Trust with regard to commissioning them to draw up a Strategic Management Plan for the Cave Hill Country Park.

The Cave Hill Conservation Campaign has been consulted from the outset. Given the record of both John and Dermot in moving forward plans for the Belfast Hills, we have every confidence in their ability to undertake the task. It is proposed that the work will be undertaken under the auspices of the Belfast Hills Planning Sub-Committee Working Group, on which we are also represented. It is also proposed that the report should be completed by the end of June 2000. This really does appear to offer the prospect of a new beginning on the Cave Hill.

In the meantime the original report of the Working Group is reproduced in full:

A Vision of the Cave Hill Country Park

A Report by the Working Group Of the Belfast Hills Regional Park Planning Sub-Committee

VISION: to encourage appropriate use (educational, recreational and tourist) of the Country Park whilst conserving and enhancing the environment both visually and in terms of biodiversity.

AIM: to promote a management strategy and action plan for the Country Park, based on the above vision, to be drawn up by Belfast City Council in consultation with the public.

Following an exchange of correspondence between Mr Peter McLachlan (Chair, Belfast Regional Park Committee), and Maurice Parkinson (Belfast City Council), it was agreed at the Belfast Hills Planning Sub-Group held on Thursday, 18 September 1997, that a working group should be set up to draw up a submission for the Cave Hill Country Park Management Strategy. The report is offered to Belfast City Council as a basis for consultation and discussion.

The Working Group consists of Mr John Gray (Cave Hill Conservation Campaign), Mr Tom Swindles (Collinward Residents), Mr Dermot Hughes (Ulster Wildlife Trust), Mr John O'Boyle (Bryson House). To date, site visits were made to the 'open country' in the Park on 20 November 1997 and to the Estate Woodland on 13 January 1998. The Group met at Bryson House on 12 February to discuss findings and again on 15 September 1998. On 22 September, the Development Officer met with Ms Agnes McNulty of the Council. The Development Officer met with Mr Dermot Hughes (UWT) on 23 October at Crossgar to discuss management of the Park for conservation. Finally, the Working Group met again on 12 November in Bryson House after the Planning Sub-committee meeting after which this draft report was drawn up.

In their recently published document, Belfast City Council states that its vision of a Sustainable Belfast is "safe and healthy, in which the environment is protected, in which citizens are involved in the decisions that affect their lives and in which there is economic regeneration and an improved quality of life for the citizens of Belfast" (Page 6, Sustainable Development in Belfast).

The Council's Parks & Amenities Service, alongside Grounds Maintenance, is responsible for protecting the Country Park and for preserving its flora and fauna. Along with the Council's Community and Leisure Services, it provides play and recreational space.

It is stated in the Council's document that there is a failure to encourage real community involvement in some areas of the Council's activities, that environmental awareness is lower in N. Ireland than other areas of the U.K and in addition, some of the major health problems in Belfast particularly associated with low income groups, are related to lack of exercise. The Working Group feel that the Sustainable use of the Cave Hill Country Park is a vital component in achieving the vision of a Sustainable Belfast. The Sustainable development of the Country Park allows all of these issues to be addressed through Local Agenda 21.

In the past there has been a lack of consultation with interested parties in drawing up any plans for the Park. This draft report of Belfast Hills Regional Park Committee Working Group, offers the opportunity to encourage real community involvement in drawing up a management plan for the Country Park. The Group feel that the recommendations contained in the report will protect and enhance the biodiversity of the Park, and provide opportunities for the Community & Leisure Services to incorporate the Country Park within Healthy Activity Plans.

The report covers the following key issues:

• Access
• Conservation
• Anti-social Behaviour
• Ranger Service
• Promotion and Education
• Public Consultation

The recommendations of the report are set out at 10.0 below.

The Working Group believe that the question of access is fundamental to the management of the Park.

4.1 Controlled Access

With a basic network of waymarked paths, walkers can be directed and controlled on a chosen few main routes. Paths should be appropriately constructed and maintained to accommodate varying pedestrian traffic loads, thus reducing strains on the surrounding environment.

4.2 Path erosion - McArt's Fort

The Sheep's Path is a prime example of an eroded track that is currently unsafe for use, leaving the issue of access to McArt's Fort a major problem. Numerous unofficial, informal routes to McArt's Fort on either side of the Sheep's Path have been created due to the impossibility of traversing the Sheep's Path itself. This is leading to increased erosion around this main route. The condition of this access to McArt's Fort is also leading to an increase of pedestrian traffic on the route under the caves leading above the Zoo to the top of the escarpment. With the additional pressure of scramblers and mountain bikes, this is accelerating erosion on this track.

The effects are that access to the escarpment is becoming unsafe, and unsightly scars are appearing on the hillside, the latter visible from the M2 motorway.

4.3 Route to McArt's Fort

Resolution of the problem of a main safe access to McArt's Fort is a number one priority. Alternatives are (i) re-instate the Sheep's Path. This could be done in parallel with the suggestion to hold a competition in conjunction with the Institute for Civil Engineers to reinstate the route (see Appendix 2), (ii) develop an alternative lower route onto the Sheep's Path or (iii) make the route under the caves the main route to the top, but ensure that it is adequately stabilised.

4.4 Access to Bellvue Zoo

The group feels that common access to the zoo facilities e.g., toilets and restaurants is desirable. The old zoo area should be restored and be available for public access. In addition, there should be improvements to and promotion of access to the park from the zoo car park.

4.5 Path Construction

Paths should be appropriately constructed paying particular attention to drainage, surfacing and long term stability. 'Carriageways' should be avoided, leaving paths as wide as they need be to accommodate pedestrians. The gravel chips on paths are particularly unsightly and untidy and quickly spread off the paths into the surrounding terrain. The use of 'bed springs' on the track behind McArt's Fort becomes unsightly when they protrude. Consideration should be given to alternative methods of path construction, and site visits to view methods used in the Moumes, Murlough Nature Reserve, Redbum Country Park or Collin Glen Forest Park, would be useful.

4.6 Informal Routes

In general, there should be a presumption against creation of any further new routes. Informal tracks such as from Daddystown to Collinward or the route into the main quarry should be left informal.

Stiles stop walkers clambering over fences and are a positive feature along informal routes. Informal paths do need regular, continuous monitoring for signs of developing erosion. Sensitive intervention should be made at points of strain to divert or cater for new paths.

4.7 Fencing

Properly strung fencing should be strategically used within an overall management plan to confine stock, and, in limited areas of hazard or environmental sensitivity, control walkers.

4.8 Access from Collinward

It would be desirable if Belfast City Council could work alongside Newtownabbey Borough Council to secure access for the public on the Collinward side of the Country Park.

The Working Group place the highest priority on managing the Country Park to conserve and enhance the natural environment. Appendix 3 outlines the need for management of the natural environment and provides a guideline to drawing up a management plan.

The management of the natural environment in the Park can be divided into two broad categories,

1.Woodland

2. Open Country - comprising the upland heath, farmland, amenity grassland and other areas such as the quarries. The management of the Zoo and castle are outside the scope of this report. Ongoing monitoring and survey of flora and fauna would be desirable.

5.1 Management of the Woodland

The Estate Woodland is predominantly a single age woodland. There is some sycamore and Laurel infestation. As recommended in the Bankhead report (1987), it would be desirable to have trees of all age classes, and this should be achieved through felling of sycamore and diseased trees in small patches and replanting with native stock where possible. The Working Group felt that the areas of tree clearance and tree replanting carried out by the Council has been successful in contributing to the regeneration of undergrowth and has contributed towards the creation of a patchwork pattern of habitats.

It would be ideal to have a rolling long term programme to tackle small patches of half an acre to one acre. A proportion of felled trees should be left to rot and the rest cleared to avoid a build up of deadwood which would not normally happen in natural circumstances. Developing a matrix of cleared areas over a long period will diversify the woodland. It may be desirable to plant in natural species or the resulting colonisation would be predominantly sycamore and ash.

The objective should be to diversify the age and species of the woodland. It is felt that it would not be necessary to rigorously manage the whole woodland, but to move towards managing perhaps less than 50%, maybe 25% of the area.

Many of these suggestions can be found by revisiting the Judith Bankhead (1987) report.

5.2 Dead Elm Trees

It was felt that dead standing elms are probably best left untouched where safe to do so, unless new elms are being introduced, in which case it would be desirable to destroy the dead wood.

5.3 Laurel Infestation

Targeting the worst affected areas for clearance where the laurel is having most impact is felt to be the best way to tackle this problem. The spread should be monitored and controlled.

5.4 Carr's Glen

This attractive area should be protected and conserved.

5.5 Open Country

In the main the management of open country is best achieved through a grazing regime. Thought should be given to the time and pattern of grazing, linked to the species on individual swards and the objectives of the strategic management plan. Fencing could be used to protect special areas of wetland, or special plant species. It is felt that heather management should be sensitively carried out through flailing. Burning might send out the wrong signals to young people. The grazing should also determine the fencing policy on the hill where there is a potential conflict between open country access and fencing. During site visits it was felt that there had been a degree of unnecessary segmentation of land on the hill due to fencing.

5.6 Land Purchase

The Country Park is fortunate to be surrounded by attractive land both at Collinward and between the Hightown Road and Carr's Glen. These areas are attractive from a point of view of landscape quality and conservation value, and would provide an attractive addition to the existing Country Park with associated access, recreational and educational potential.

Evidence of a number of antisocial activities was observed by the working group during site visits:

6.1 Scrambling

Scrambling has a detrimental effect in the Park, causing soil erosion and noise pollution. During the Annual Hills Walk on 31 May 1998, there were several complaints from walkers about scramblers on the Hill. The walkers felt that the vehicles were being ridden without due regard to public safety. It is felt that a strong warden service is the only way to combat this problem.

6.2 Mountain Bikes

This activity causes similar problems to the scrambling and can be very off-putting and threatening to casual walkers or ramblers. Apart from a warden service, it is felt that strategically placed chicanes on steep downward slopes would help to deter this activity.

6.3 Fires

Fires can cause irreversible damage on peaty ground. This can also encourage the spread of bracken, whins and mat grass. Wardening and selective early season removal of rank vegetation as a deliberate policy to reduce 'fuel' in the summer season should be investigated. It is understood that the Fire Service have access to the Country Park. Presence of wardens at 'peak' fire times (dry weather / school holidays / weekends) would also be a deterrent.

6.4 Tree Vandalism

There is one area in the south of the park (between the Upper Cave Hill Road entrance and Downview Park West entrance) where trees have been burnt and had graffiti applied .

6.5 Litter

Litter was not found to be a problem on the days of the site visits

The benefits of a Ranger Service are obvious from the point of view of dealing with antisocial behaviour, education and interpretation / guided walks, and implementation of a management plan. It is felt that Cave Hill, as an open and largely wild environment, as compared with urban parks elsewhere, requires Ranger coverage tailored to its particular needs. The possibility of linking into the Hills Watch scheme should be explored.

Strategic positioning of interpretative material on plinths or boards, signage and waymarking would be of great benefit to the public using the Park. The Group identified a number of sites for interpretation: Hightown Road car park, the Cascade at the Green Road / reference Benn's history, quarry workers cottage site on the Green Road (photographs exist), main quarry and Nessie O'Hawkins, McArt's Fort, Tent Rock, Hazelwood and the Volunteers Well as well as natural features, trees etc. Attention would have to be given to a sturdy, vandal-resistant form of interpretation.

Further interpretation and education for the public can be arranged through guided walks. In 1998, Bryson House organised a number of events using the Country Park in co-operation with Cave Hill Conservation Campaign and the Belfast Hills Regional Park Committee. There is scope for developing and increasing the number of events and educational opportunities.

Agenda 21 sets out the actions that local Councils should take in planning sustainable development: "Each local authority should enter into dialogue with its citizens, local organisations and private enterprises and adopt a 'Local Agenda 21' ie. local action plans for sustainable development".

The Council's stated vision for Sustainable Development is that "citizens are involved in the decisions that affect their lives" (Sustainable Development in Belfast, page 6).

We present this report to the Council as a constructive and considered opinion of key issues that should be incorporated into any management strategy for the Cave Hill Country Park, and the Working Group would be pleased to meet with the Council to discuss the report.

1. That the City Council consider the report and recommendations of the Belfast Hills Regional Park Committee.
2. That the City Council draw up a management strategy for the Country Park.
3. That the City Council, in line with their stated vision for Sustainable Development, involve the Cave Hill Conservation Campaign in the planning, decision making and implementation of a Management Strategy for the Cave Hill Country Park.
4. That the City Council should consider purchase of lands surrounding the Country Park at Collinward and between Carr's Glen and the Hightown Road.

The Sheep's Path is an ancient track leading from the caves at 250m A.O.D. to McArt's Fort at 350m A.O.D. approx.  It has significant connections with the history of Belfast from the period of the McArt O'Neil sept to the United Irishmen of 1798.

Until the 1960's the path remained substantially intact, but with increased foot traffic and more significantly, increased use by scrambler motor bikes, it has deteriorated to the extent that a substantial length is impassable.  Accelerated erosion has exposed regolith, which has caused the slope and pathway to slide.  Valuable access management by Belfast City Council within the Cave Hill Country Park has excluded motor bikes from the route, but hikers and mountain bikers have now established many alternative paths below the lost section of the Sheep's Path.  This has led to further erosion with a potential for the loss of all of the route.

Remedial action and a maintenance plan is therefore urgently required. 

It is proposed that a competition be sponsored by Belfast City Council, the Institution of Civil Engineers and the Belfast Hills Regional Park Committee (Bryson House) to select the most appropriate design for the reconstruction, stabilisation and maintenance of the Sheep's Path.

Design Parameters:

1. The reconstructed pathway will retain a natural appearance consistent with the surroundings, and will not be injurious to the habitat of flora and fauna.
2. The potential for exacerbation of the slip by the construction operation must be recognised.
3. The anticipated stable life of the pathway will be 100 years without extensive further stabilisation being required.
4. The importance of the difficulty of construction access should be recognised.
5. Reconstruction and maintenannce will be carried out without the use of heavy plant.
6. Reconstruction and maintenannce will be carried out with the minimum of imported materials, with as much as possible being generated from the immediate vicinity.
7. Reconstruction and maintenance will be capable of being carried out by unskilled labour and with a low level of professional supervision, both probably volunteers.

Awards (if any) to the successful competitor will be determined by the sponsors. 

1. The need for management

Few natural wildlife habitats remain in Britain and the vast majority of sites of conservation value are semi-natural; both their development and present composition have been influenced by man's activities.

These remaining areas of semi-natural habitat need management if their conservation value is to be maintained. For example, the herb-rich downland flora, developed over centuries, depends upon grazing for its maintenance. Remove grazing and the herb-rich turf gives way, by natural succession, to scrub and eventually woodland.

All sites managed for nature conservation should have a management plan, the main purpose of which is to ensure that there is continuity and stability of management. Without an effective plan, sites are vulnerable to inconsistent management which can result in a waste of resources and, worse, in the loss of the special interest of the site. Once a plan has been prepared and agreed it should be adhered to and any necessary changes properly authorised.

Preparing a plan requires relevant information to be assembled and appraised. Once a full understanding of the site's present conservation status has been gained, the manager can determine what must be done to maintain or enhance the important features of the site. This in turn leads to prescriptions for site management to attain these objectives. There are considerable advantages in standardising the structure and format of plans Standard headings provide a framework for preparing plans and guide the less experienced in their preparation.

The standard format also helps to ensure that -

* The sites are properly described.

* Their importance is assessed against recognised standards.

* Clear objectives of management are laid down.

* Relevant work is prescribed, planned and executed.

* The effects of the work are carefully monitored.

Such detail is as important on a small, simple site as upon a large diverse National Nature Reserve (NNR) if the value of each is to be maintained, and resources used to best effect.

The NCC's aim is to encourage the production of effective management plans for all sites of conservation imerest. The level of detail required in any plan is that necessary to further effective management of that site. The plan structure given in this guide is adaptable so that time money and energy are not expended completing irrelevant sections. For some reserves a comprehensive plan may be prepared. Instructions for preparing this are given in the second part of this guide. However, on many reserves the preparation of this full plan may be beyond the resources available or could only take place at a later stage. In these cases a briefer working plan should be produced. The NCC has devised an abbreviated format for such a minimum plan which is presented in the third part of this guide together with a worked example. To assist the reader, sections of the full plan which are required for the minimum plan are highlighted in part two:

In 1983 the Nature Conservancy Council published A Handbook for the Preparation of Management Plans. Part 5, Operational Details contained the following statement:

For many years the mere existence of an agreed management plan was considered adequate for the purposes of managing sites. When fully completed, plans, often in the form of weighty scientific documents, dealt at length with the various attributes of sites as a preliminary to outlining the main management and resource requirements. Little, if any, attempt was made to relate the requirement to the resources available and no formal procedures were laid down for monitoring progress in relation to objectives. Reviews were periodically undertaken, usually at five-yearly intervals, which served for the most part to enhance the value of the written plan as a work of reference. In terms of practical management the plans were at best used as broad guidelines to indicate areas where work should be concentrated.

This was clearly a reason for the failure of many plans. There was no firm link between the purpose, or objectives, and the process, or prescription. Quite remarkably, and despite the clear message in the handbook, organisations continued to produce useless plans, dusty volumes gathering even more dust on forgotten shelves. Perhaps part of the fault lay in the handbook, and possibly in the title, "A hand book for the production of management plans". For as long as the reader is lead to expect that the purpose is to produce a management plan then that is what they will produce. The plan as described in the handbook was, in fact, simply the beginning of the planned management process. Planning must be recognised for what it should be, a continuous process which over time enables the efficient and effective management of sites and species. Ideally, this process would begin as soon as possible following acquisition, or even before site selection.

The dynamic and progressive nature of the process should be reflected in our entire approach to planning. There has been long, tedious and almost meaningless argument regarding the size of plans, with both sides failing to appreciate that the opposition had a good case. Plans can begin as brief outline statements. However, as further information becomes available the plan will grow. There can be no doubt that managers of all sites should recognise the need, over the long term, to produce an exhaustive and definitive site description. (The description, Part 1 of the plan, contains all available information about the site. ) However, this realisation has lead many managers towards the production of over-large, pseudo-scientific documents. They are often produced at great expense and, in many cases, divert resources away from the real objectives of site management. The production of a definitive description should be accomplished over a longer time scale, and be recognised as part of the planning process. Thus, in the early stages the description need only contain sufficient information to enable the planning of later stages. The prescriptions could simply require the collection of sufficient information to enable the identification of further management objectives. (The prescription contains a list of all work, including recording and monitoring, that is to be carried out on a site.) The process is analogous to the production of clay sculpture. The sculptor begins by constructing a wood and wire armature or skeleton. To this clay is gradually added and slowly the form begins to assume its final shape. The planning process must begin with a similarly strong framework and, as with the sculpture, the detail is gradually added. There is, however, one fundamental difference. The sculptor eventually completes his work; planning is never complete. Sites and species constantly change in response to natural and man-induced trends. The site description requires continual update and the prescription will often vary in response to the changing condition of the site.

The size of a plan and, perhaps more importantly, the resource made available for its production must be in proportion to the size and complexity of the site, and also to the total resource available for the management of the site. Thus, for small, uncomplicated sites short concise plans will suffice. A plan should be as large as the site or species requires and no larger.

It must be the long term aim of all site managers to produce, as far as is ever possible, a definitive description of their site. The planing process does not require, or depend upon, the definitive, but the process is used to locate and collate available information, and, thereafter, identify the shortfall of data and the need for further surveys etc.

However, a base line description is important and must be established as soon as possible. This is usually obtained through survey and monitoring projects. The base line description enables the recognition of any subsequent changes in the condition of the site. If changes are not observed and recorded it will not be possible to measure the influence of management or any change resulting from natural or other factors.

This is perhaps the single most important and obvious function of the planing process. It is essential that the objective, or purpose, of management is identified and stated. In other words, why are we managing this site? Only then can we ask and answer the question: Is the management process effective?

Occasionally there will be an apparent conflict of interest and priorities. However, once the facts are assembled and a little logic applied, it usually becomes apparent that features are only very rarely equal in importance. It is essential that the planning process is recognised as the forum for resolving conflicts of management and allocating priorities to objectives.

Having established that a plan identifies the purpose of management it follows that it must also identify the process. Even where it is possible to manage habitats or species without a need to intervene, it is essential that the habitat is monitored. Monitoring must be recognised as an integral part of management and planning. It, thus, follows that whenever a site or species requires safeguard, some action, i.e. management, will be necessary. This function must, therefore, be met in all plans. Occasionally, individuals suggest that all any site manager requires in order to manage a site is a work programme or list of projects to be completed. We would suggest that a site manager must be able, at any time, to relate the work being carried out on a site to the objectives of management. If no such relationship exists, then for what purpose is the work being undertaken? Often works or projects are completed for no good reason. One of the benefits of planning is that it will preclude the possibility of managers acting on whim.

Monitoring must be recognised as an integral part of management and planning. Failure to monitor will lead to a failure of management followed by a failure to safeguard the site or species. If a plan does not identify the need to monitor, then it is not a plan.

It is best described as having four main stages but in reality is a continuum. The system is cyclical, but the loop is not closed to external influence, i.e. information from external sources will often be used to supplement or qualify site data. For example, an increase in a population of a rare species on a site can only be taken as an indication of successful management if the increase is not reflected off-site.

The process is uncomplicated; each part leads logically to the next. It begins with a description. This provides the information required to complete the evaluation. The evaluation places a relative value upon all site features. This in turn allows the identification of objectives. Objectives are achieved through prescriptions. (The prescription is the section of the plan that is used to identify all work required to manage the site.) All activities and significant events are recorded and the condition of the site monitored. This information is fed back into the description and, along with relevant external data, updates the description and so the cycle is complete. The short loop, linking annual reviews with work plans, is used to ensure that the site is being managed in accordance with the plan.

The most important function of the planing process is to identify the objectives. Provided that the process is applied as described it will consistently identify the most appropriate objectives. Even on the least complicated site there will be many factors which may affect our ability to meet the objectives. These factors or variables, are often unpredictable and uncontrollable. The next stage, the prescription, must therefore be flexible. It must vary in response to changing site conditions and, over a period of time, ensure that the objectives are obtained. This part of the plan is reactive and is the key to the entire process. It is only by linking objectives, through monitoring, to flexible prescriptions that we are able to achieve the objectives.

Plans, who needs them?

All site managers and everyone with a responsibility or involvement in site and species management need plans. But sites and species are sometimes managed without plans. If this is possible, then what is the justification for planning? If we could demonstrate that unplanned management is no less effective or efficient than planned management then there would be no case whatsoever for writing plans. In order to do so we would need to select a number of comparable sites, establish a baseline for monitoring the condition of each site and then identify the objectives of management along with an appropriate management process. This would be followed by a need to record all events, activities and any changes which may take place. Finally, all this information would have to be collated and analyzed. Only then would it be possible to establish the results and costs of management for each site. In the preceding few sentences we have, very briefly, outlined the planning process In other words, the only means of demonstrating that planning is not necessary is through implementing a planning process. This is obviously a contradiction which cannot easily be resolved.

But what of the sites which are managed without plans? It is not and never will be possible to comment on the effectiveness or the efficiency of management on these sites. The biggest problem facing conservatiomsts, and probably all countryside managers, is the lack of resources. We cannot afford any waste, and must be able to justify any expenditure. In other words, we should not be using a limited resource to manage sites unless we are able to demonstrate tangible benefits. This reason alone should provide sufficient justification for planning.

We recognise that planning is an essential component of virtually every human endeavour. Conservation or countryside management should be no exception. In order to appreciate fully the need for planning, and perhaps to convert some of the antagonists, we must consider the functions of planning. The following are some of the most obvious and important functions of a management plan:

Another often heard comment is "all good site managers hold a complete management plan in their head". Clearly many do, but they also move or even retire and they are certainly not immortal. The planning process can be compared to a road map; it identifies our destination and shows the route. Whenever we deviate from that route we waste time and fuel. In other words, we can not afford to make changes of direction unless we have unlimited fuel and time. The management plan provides a route or direction for existing and, more importantly, new staff. This is essential for smaller voluntary organisations where management is carried out by a succession of staff and volunteers. The long term continuity of monitoring systems is no less important than continuity of physical management.

A management plan, in draft form, should be regarded, and used, as a bid for resources. The recommended procedure is that, at first, the production of a plan is the responsibility of the site manager. It then passes, in draft form, to a region or management subcommittee. Here it is subject to amendment and finally approval. It then moves on to headquarters, or an equivalent. At this level it should be considered both in respect of its ability to deliver the required degree of site safeguard and also as a bid for resources. When approved by HQ it can be returned to the site manager as a directive which recognises the need for resources to manage the site. If an organisation decides that it will not, or cannot, meet the total resource required then the plan must be modified. For organisations requiring external funding, an approved plan should be the main part of any application.for funding to manage a site.

The planning process is dependent on the management and utilisation of data. The process is not a closed loop and cannot operate in isolation. Often external influences will be the most significant factors affecting site management. Our ability to assess the condition of a site can also be dependent on information obtained from external sources. Elsewhere, management techniques and procedures may be being developed and improved. This information would increase efficiency if it was available.

Information from external sources must be made readily available to site managers; data is only as good as it is accessible. Data collected in respect of the management of one site is often the external data required by other sites. Thus, given that the need to collect and manage data is a common requisite for all sites, there would be obvious advantages to all sites if these data were shared. If we are to share data, both within and between sites and organisations, we need a common language and also a means of communication.

This is possible when data are collected in a standard way and thereafter defined using a standard coding system. This provides a common language and the basis of a communication system. (The use of standard project codes and the Countryside Management System are described in later chapters.)

This is where we began. We must always be in a position to demonstrate that we are making the best use of resources. It is essential that we recognise the need for accountability.