THE CAMBRIAN PARADOX

“Careful design of the cultural landscape is an important basis for the autonomous and confident development of peripheral regions. Nostalgia has no place in this however and nor has the schematic adoption of global concepts”
Gion Caminada 2005

The proposition is that the cultural landscape of the rural heartland, and in particular the uplands of Wales, are a repository of national identity and that these areas are increasingly threatened. Most readers of this piece will already recognise that this topic is not a simple question of development v conservation and that the foregoing quote raises several issues which grow more complicated and increasingly paradoxical by the month.

The first of these issues relates to confidence, as it frequently appears that any questioning or implied criticism of prevailing policy is dismissed as ‘talking down’ Wales. This presumption of treasonable negativity may merely evidence provincial paranoia on the part of politicians or a more general lack of national self- belief. This may then be aggravated by further questioning whether Wales has ever been, and ever can be, truly autonomous.

Mountains themselves may be synonymous with stability and security - aros mae’r mynyddoed mawr – and a consistent factor in what has been a long search for regional/ national identity.

The threat to such regions may be best rehearsed by reference to the area now known as the Cambrian Mountains, the remainder of our upland not afforded the degree of protection awarded to Snowdonia, the Brecon Beacons and Preseli Mountains as National Parks. It may be argued that the industrialisation of the Cambrian landscape by wind farming evidences both our lack of political autonomy and resolve, in short the abrogation of responsibility for stewardship of the cultural landscape by our regional government. I find it surprising if not amazed that the imposition of wind farms on Wales has not generated the same level of resistance as the flooding of its valleys to provide water for English cities. A common explanation appears to be a 'confusion of commitment’, particularly that to sustainability.
If we refer to the Brundtland definition of sustainable development as “ that (which) meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their
own needs” then perhaps we should agree that the industrialisation of the Cambrian Mountains denies future generations the beauty that we have hitherto enjoyed. This is not some sentimental notion, for nostalgia should have no place in this as Caminada suggests in the opening quotation. The argument is simply that rehearsed in the formation and designation of National Parks- that the public amenity afforded by historic and cultural landscapes has greater value in the long term than their commercial exploitation to meet short term economic objectives. In the case of the Cambrian Mountains we have not seen what Clough Williams Ellis outlined as follows;

"A wide popularity and appreciation; a democratic goodwill, an alert public opinion that would protect them from injury and maintain their integrity against the Philistine and our possibly more civilized successors, had some how to be assured. The National Parks and their younger brothers the Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, have gone a long way to fulfilling this task; they have helped in popularizing the enjoyment of their beauty by making lovely buildings and lovely places generally accessible, without somehow thereby impairing their distinctive characters." (1.)
In evoking this patrician, often patronising patron of our landscape I might digress slightly to introduce another current paradox. This is that the resistance to such development is seen as reactionary and the counter-culture as ‘conservative’, the protection of self-interest by a minority. This should not be the case but the interests of the environmental lobby, conservationists
and communities are divided by the supposed benefits of such development. There is little as yet to suggest that ‘the enjoyment of beauty’ is a cause for widespread public support.

For those committed to such resistance the Cambrians Mountains may be cherished as our ‘green desert’ and ‘last wilderness’ but they have long been commercially exploited. The appearance of today’s cultural landscape has largely been moulded by agriculture and forestry since the Middle Ages, by human occupation and the exploitation of natural resources before and after (2). Many of their most accessible and popular tourist attractions are a legacy of such development from Dolaucothi to the Elan Valley and thought needs to be given to the popularity of such sites. We may consider, for example, the importance of the former as an historical site and element in the cultural landscape and the melodramatic beauty of the latter. It may well be argued that wind farms are a fitting monument to our times and have beauty to some beholders. Unfortunately I have as yet failed to be persuaded of that or their economic/ environmental benefit.

This then leads to a further consideration of the stewardship of a landscape which has long been settled and managed and indeed the definition of ‘rural’ and ‘urban’ areas. The close proximity of domesticated countryside to urban centres in an area as small as Wales should naturally exaggerate their symbiotic relationship but this does not appear to be the case. The Cambrian Mountains are still considered to be relatively remote to the dense urban conurbations of South Wales. Accessibility will be considered further but in this context may be considered a factor in the lack of ‘ownership’ or identification with this upland area by the urban majority. There is no general recognition that the cultural landscape of areas such as the Cambrian Mountains represents perhaps our greatest economic capital, our common inheritance as a nation. It needs to be more widely recognised that this is not something our regional centres can do without.

This might be achieved by placing this local exemplar in a wider international context and, for example, the propositions and definitions outlined in initiatives such as the European Spatial Development Perspective (ESDP) 1999. The operative word here is perspective as Wales fell within the ‘Island Zone’ briefly characterised as “generally urbanised and industrial areas with
pressure on surrounding natural environments. Important urban centres have capacity for expansion but with strong barriers and relatively weak links to global cities and gateways. Priority to strengthen global functions and corridors/ links with central zone.”

This may be applicable to South Wales – Glamorgan, Gwent and South East Carmarthenshire, but the characteristics of the outer, more peripheral ‘Open Zone’ of North West Europe may be more relevant to the greater part of Wales; “Extensive high quality natural environments, threats from depopulation, decline and intense tourism in certain locations. Poor links to urban services. Priorities are to strengthen role of regional towns, links with strategic centres, maintain low environmental pressures and build on indigenous potential.”

As classified elsewhere as ‘Highland Zone’ such regions are characterised by a specific yet varied landscape history and culture and these so called ‘structurally weak regions’ themselves lie on the periphery of nation states. It may be argued that only by addressing and developing their strengths, weaknesses, threats and opportunities can the well- being of the whole be advanced.
This concept of ‘well-being’ may be an important factor in considering the practical application of development proposals for rural Wales. There has been an increasing convergence of healthcare leisure and tourism in Europe and elsewhere particularly in the revival of luxury spa resorts. We should, as suggested by Caminada, avoid the ‘schematic adoption of global concepts’ and consider what are perhaps the more realistic and achievable precedents in Mid Wales presented by our own former spa towns. We might then further investigate the closure of rural hospitals, particularly those originally established as sanatoriums. Their locations perhaps attest the quality of the environment in the situation so selected. Those which have been closed leave a local workforce with the required skills in healthcare/ well being. These hospital closures in rural Wales result in the loss of both local amenity, employment and that skill base through emigration of the young for employment and an increasingly aging population who will, in due course, need healthcare. In addressing this paradox it might be suggested that the availability of skills in healthcare research and development be retained as the core of a wellbeing offer within the region.
The duality of this health nucleus and regional wellbeing offer then presents opportunities and facilities for the local community, health-seeking visitors and tourists, to create new local jobs, and strengthen, nationally, educational links between Mid Wales, other national academic centres and tourist destinations. There is then the opportunity to stimulate related business development ranging from research and development to care living, as well as centres of excellence retained from the existing hospitals.
Such a strategy may have the advantage of being implemented in a more evolutionary way through selective redevelopment of those buildings that are structurally and functionally obsolete and adaptive re-use of those which are capable of retention. This may then allow surplus buildings and parts of the site to be transferred to the community for their use, which may include low cost workspace, or leisure. Diversification of use also affords the opportunity to address other local issues, not least the provision of affordable housing and appropriate care facilities for the elderly in rural areas. Dignified care for an ageing population is clearly a major challenge in Wales and proper integration of suitable facilities within the community is necessary and desirable.In addition to what may be generally regarded as service industries proper consideration must be given to the potential for manufacturing premium quality products. To succeed and prove sustainable such enterprise may only be possible by specific conditions in a specific locality. We have examples of success and failure in Wales which need to be further analysed to better understand how our rural and upland regions might attain greater economic dynamism.

This then raises questions as to other forms of accommodation which may need to be provided in rural communities. For example, the need for live/work accommodation and the obstacles to such provision. Here we move from the Cambrian to the Crickhowell Paradox and the vexatious issue of its ‘Tele-Village’, a development now considered one of the most successful in the
country but which bankrupted its developer. Important lessons are there to be learned for successful sustainable development in rural communities, not least the most obvious. That is that the economic benefits of such development may only be realised once the social benefits are fully appreciated and that the ‘hit and run’ approach of most housing developers is very unlikely to produce sustainable places of the required quality. Longer term interests in the land must be retained and may require, over time, support from or the participation of regional government departments of health, environment, housing, education, economic development, corresponding local government departments, health board, third sector and community organisations. Long term ownership and, even more importantly, leadership will be critical to the success of such proposals and this would represent a departure from the ‘flatten it and flog it’ approach which has been the norm for hospital closures elsewhere which has seen potential assets such as Denbigh, Talgarth and other hospitals squandered.

It would appear that neither regional nor local government currently has the resources or expertise to facilitate such community/ stakeholder design workshops or implement the development proposals recommended over a long term. We may therefore need to determine whether the Environment/ Forestry/Countryside agglomerate will be able to facilitate and fund such community/stakeholder initiatives. At a minimum there must be a clearly stated policy that community and stakeholder dialogue will be encouraged by that body. However, in terms of long term stewardship (i.e. sustainability) of the public estate, it would be useful to determine what remit the new body will have for accommodating required rural development on that land that it manages. This might then inform the necessary budgets for the facilitation of such workshops and be justified by reference to the available evidence that the participation in such exercises by all stakeholders reduces total costs in time and fees when compared to the more adversarial process which has prevailed in rural development.

The recently published WG Green Paper, Sustaining a Living Wales, suggests a new approach to natural resource management in Wales and would appear at first blush to underpin that more holistic approach and perhaps signals a move towards bioregionalism. "The central proposal is to move to an ecosystem approach to environmental regulation and management. This will mean considering and regulating the environment and its health as a whole rather than dealing with individual aspects separately. It will mean weighing up and setting priorities for the many competing demands on our natural resources to provide different services to society – ranging from the value of the environment in itself, to food production to land for construction. And it will result in us taking steps at both local and national level that will help to maximise the environmental, economic and social opportunities available to us as a nation."

On the face of it this may then suggest action which may be welcomed as an ‘autonomous and confident development’. There is of course devil in the detail of each sentence and the success of such a strategy will again depend on its ownership and leadership. The more cynical of those concerned with’ land for development’ may predictably respond that this does indeed appear to be a Green Paper. However the principles outlined appear to address some of the issues raised above with the caveat that the detail remains to be addressed on many elements of the cultural landscape. How, for example, will other custodians of the cultural landscape such as CADW fit into the proposed new framework? However, and at risk of repetition, the suggested approach is encouraging particularly the following statement;
The fundamental principles of embedding sustainable development as a central organising principle are threefold:
• Long-termism: all decisions promote the long term, sustainable wellbeing of people and communities, now and for future generations;
• Integration: taking full account of, and where possible integrating, social, economic and environmental outcomes;
• Involvement: engaging with, and involving, the people and communities that will be affected by decisions.

As regards the practical application of this overarching policy it will be interesting to see whether this meets with greater success than other regional government initiatives such as the Wales Spatial Plan. Planning and development control will presumably remain with local government with the consequent variations of local policy, competence and pressures. The Cambrian Mountains extend into three counties currently. The existing National Parks are independent planning authorities and the Brecon Beacons, for example, extends into seven unitary authorities. It is to be assumed that the new body will be a statutory consultee in planning matters as its component bodies are currently. How much sway it will have remains to be seen as will any direct intervention in planning matters from the regional government.

Those concerned with the integrity of cultural landscapes will be mindful that guaranteeing the quality of landscape design and development is not to be confused with conservation. It must necessarily be concerned with the regulation of agricultural enterprise and, ideally, ensuring both attractive landscapes and the development of authentic and holistic agricultural economies in mountain regions. ‘Authentic and holistic’ are the operative words here. The encouragement of rural diversification, tourism and leisure development and the aforementioned industrialisation of the rural landscape may in many cases prove to be neither. The consequences are that with each development Wales becomes a lesser place. Great care must be taken in exploring, utilising and developing
the potential of our upland regions as a catalyst for raising their profile in larger regional centres. Mountain landscapes have determined the development of many generations of inhabitants and vice versa. Landscape and culture have always been and still are engaged in permanent interaction.

RHC March 2012

Notes
(1) Clough Williams Ellis . Around the World in Ninety Years, p 24

(2) Cultural Landscapes have been defined by the World Heritage Committee as distinct geographical areas or properties uniquely "..represent[ing] the combined work of nature and of man.." The World Heritage Committee has identified and adopted three categories of cultural landscape, ranging from (i) those landscapes most deliberately 'shaped' by people, through (ii) full range of 'combined' works, to (iii) those least evidently 'shaped' by people (yet highly valued). The three categories extracted from the Committee's Operational Guidelines, are as follows

(i) "a landscape designed and created intentionally by man";
(ii) an "organically evolved landscape" which may be a "relict (or
fossil) landscape" or a "continuing landscape";
(iii) an "associative cultural landscape" which may be valued because of the
"religious, artistic or cultural associations of the natural element"