News

Landscape Institute President's Speech to IFLA ER (EFLA)

26th October 2007

Nigel Thorne's speech to EFLA on 26 October 2007.

“Landscape architecture as the environment profession? Design + Management + Science + Planning”

I am delighted to have this opportunity to address friends and colleagues of IFLA European Region.

You have given me a platform to present how the Landscape Institute and landscape architects in the UK promote an inclusive and open approach to defining our profession of landscape architecture in the context of the wider discussions on the EU Directive and the Common Education Platform.

Landscape architecture cannot be expressed in terms only of planning and design. It is an holistic profession which ranges across environment, construction, science, ecology, management, as well as design and planning; addressing social, cultural and economic purpose and meaning of landscape, both urban and rural.

Landscape architects think and act across a very broad spectrum of social, economic, environment and cultural perspectives. To limit or narrow the perspective of our profession is both out-dated and unhelpful. From a personal perspective my own specialism in the field of landscape management would render me excluded from some of the more limited definitions of our profession.

There has never been a more important time to highlight the role of landscape architecture and landscape architects. There is growing social, political and economic concern over the use of our natural resources and an ever increasing demand for the development of sustainable communities.

The Landscape Institute in the UK promotes landscape architecture as the environment and design profession; one that works with communities to create places that respect their environmental context and contribute to a high quality of life. Ours is the profession best able to provide an holistic approach to creating places where people want to live, work, visit and relax - both now and in the future.

In 1978 we changed our name from the Institute of Landscape Architects to the Landscape Institute and we have fought to retain this title on numerous occasions. Only last year we rejected a motion to change our name to the Royal Institute of British Landscape Architects. Our name is inclusive of all those working in the profession from landscape designers and managers to ecologists, planners and scientists. It acknowledges the diversity of the 5,500 professional members it represents. The inclusivity it engenders was fundamental to our obtaining our royal charter.

Our royal charter is an important element which helps in the understanding of our regulatory framework in the UK. The LI is governed by its Royal Charter granted in 1997. It dictates that we work not just for our members but for the benefit of the public as a whole. To change our charter requires the approval of the Privy Council, which theoretically consists of all members of the Cabinet, former Cabinet ministers and others appointed by the Sovereign.

Our Charter states: “The objects and purposes for which the Institute is hereby constituted are to protect, conserve and enhance the natural and built environment for the benefit of the public by promoting the arts and sciences of Landscape Architecture…Landscape Architecture shall mean all aspects of the science, planning, design, implementation and management of landscapes and their environment in urban and rural areas and the assessment, conservation, development, creation and sustainability of landscapes.”

We promote this broad definition of our profession as a palpable strength in our public image – something to uphold, be proud of and to defend.

All of us here have been asked to consider plans for the establishment of a Common Education Platform. Clearly, compliance with EU legislation is a requirement, something which is a given for all of us. However, the introduction of a platform is not compulsory under EU directives. It is a provision available to a profession if those member states who regulate landscape architecture believe it would be helpful as a tool for recognition.

The Landscape Institute would welcome the development of such a platform if it benefits the profession as a whole. However, we believe it cannot be prescriptive; it must allow for freshness and innovation and it must recognise that landscape architecture is more than matters of planning and design.

If it does not allow for the full range of skills and abilities coming out of the Landscape Institute’s accredited schools, then it would stifle our work and potentially set back the profession almost 30 years. We need full acknowledgement of what landscape architecture as a profession encompasses.

We feel the platform’s current focus is on design and that it seeks to impose uniformity on educational arrangements rather than provide a matrix whereby the requirements to become fully qualified in a particular country could be comparable in other EU member states as required by the EU directive. We believe any platform must drive home our message about the breadth of the profession. Adopting a policy of restrictive uniformity will not be to anyone’s benefit.

Our accredited courses across the UK, teach future landscape architects a whole range of techniques, skills and interests; the emphasis of each course is, however, distinct and unique to each institution and universities are encouraged to innovate – emphasising the specialisms and diversity within our profession.

We stipulate that all courses should provide a foundation for a career in landscape architecture. They should deliver experience of real life contexts, producing graduates with problem solving skills, with critical and analytical abilities. However, the detailed content of courses is not prescribed by the Landscape Institute, and all our students are learning crucial, yet often differing skills to cater for a range of career paths in our specialised and diverse profession. It is vitally important that this trend continues, not just within the UK, but internationally.

The EU directive requires that there should be no barriers if UK qualified landscape architects wish to work within EU member states provided there is no deficiency in their skills or knowledge. Equally, if a fully qualified landscape architect from the EU wishes to work in the UK, we must consider them for full membership in the same way.

The directive will make it easier for service providers, particularly small and medium sized enterprises, including landscape architects, to establish themselves and offer services in other member states. The Landscape Institute believes freedom not prescription, should be the way forward and welcomes this development.

The EU directive will aid recognition and unravel complex lines of movement. In many ways it is about consolidation of existing arrangements and should be nothing new for any of us here. EU member states have long had an obligation to consider fully qualified applicants who hold or are eligible to hold fully qualified status in another EU member state. We have an obligation to deal with applications for any such recognition within a stipulated time period. The Landscape Institute already has a mechanism for considering such applications. However, we are increasingly concerned about anecdotal evidence that not all EU member states are following the requirements of the directive and its predecessor. Some of our members who wish to work within the EU are encountering barriers to recognition.

I referred earlier to comparability of skills and knowledge. The profession is regulated in different ways throughout EU member states. The professional bodies are constitutionally very different, as are processes and standards for qualification. This must be a consideration when allowing landscape architects to operate outside their home country and is exactly what a common platform should seek to clarify. On behalf of the Landscape Institute I would ask that this organisation publishes more comprehensive information on the systems which operate across the EU to assist with recognition and mobility.

We recognise that there are specific legal obligations and planning systems in each member state which may not directly cross-reference. Thus we acknowledge that all landscape architects must have this contextualised knowledge to function effectively. This includes an understanding of planning laws and legal obligations, which are often unique to each member state. Applicants must be judged on merit. Applications to the LI are assessed not simply against their qualifications but how they have familiarised themselves with the requirements of UK practice. Individuals must be given options so that any deficiencies can be addressed. Just as landscape architects from member states may have limited knowledge of systems and laws in the UK, the same may apply to UK landscape architects wishing to work across Europe.

The Landscape Institute takes a ‘broad church’ approach to the profession. The breath and depth of the specialism and diversity of our members’ work cannot be over emphasised.

Landscape is the context within which all development takes place and the key to developmental sustainability. It must be a primary consideration not an after-thought.

In terms of the EU directive no unreasonable barriers should be applied to those who wish to work in, and seek recognition from other EU states.

For this initiative to be truly successful all EU member states must adopt an open approach and I urge all of us within IFLA ER to support this.

Engineering was the prominent profession in the Victorian era; planning dominated the post-war period; landscape architecture, so long the understated ‘jewel in the crown’, is the environmental and design profession best able to meet the challenges of the 21st century.

Thank you.