Month: December 2022

This (relatively short) consultation paper sets out proposals for licensing of grouse moor management with revised controls over muirburn and various forms of trapping. These are not new issues; there’s been ongoing debate over the years and a disappointing failure especially to prevent illegal persecution of raptors. The proposal to introduce a licensing system is an attempt to regulate this form of rural land management, which has become increasingly intensive over recent decades. My response to the consultation is as follows (extracts from the consultation paper in italics, for clarity):

Section 1 – Licensing of Grouse Shooting

The Scottish Government is proposing a licensing scheme for the taking of grouse. 

Purpose of the scheme

The main purpose of the proposals to license grouse shooting is to address the on-going issue of wildlife crime and in particular persecution of raptors on grouse moors.  It will do this by enabling the application of a meaningful civil sanction regime for offences against wild birds and other specified wildlife crimes.

More details can be found in “Part 1: Licencing of Grouse Shooting”” of our consultation paper.

Q1. Do you agree that the licensing of grouse shooting should be introduced to deter raptor persecution and wildlife crime linked to grouse moor management? (Yes/ No/ Unsure)

Yes

Q2. If you answered ‘No’ to question 1, please state what other option/s you think we should consider (max 150 words).

If you answered ‘No’ to question 1, please give us your views

Q3. Do you agree that the landowner/occupier/person responsible for or accountable for the management decisions and actions should be responsible for acquiring and maintaining the licence for the taking of grouse on a particular piece of land? (Yes/ No/ Unsure)

Yes

Q4. If you answered ‘No’ to question 3, please state what other option/s you think we should consider (max 150 words).

If you answered ‘No’ to question, please give us your views

Q5. Do you think that the person wishing to shoot grouse on land that they do not own, or occupy, should be required to check that the person who owns the land has a licence which allows for the taking of grouse on that area of land? (Yes/ No/ Unsure)

Yes

Q6. If you answered ‘No’ to question 5, please state what other option/s you think we should consider (max 150 words).

If you answered ‘No’ to question 5, please give us your views

Q7. If we introduce a licensing scheme, do you agree that NatureScot should be the licensing authority? (Yes/ No/ Unsure)

Yes

Other body (please specify)

Q8. Do you think that a licence should be granted for a maximum period of one year (renewable on an annual basis thereafter)? (Yes/ No/ Unsure)

Yes

Q9. If you answered ‘No’ to question 8, please state what other option/s you think we should consider (max 150 words).

If you answered ‘No’ to question 8, please give us your views

Q10. Do you think that the civil rather than the criminal burden of proof is an acceptable test for the application of sanctions in relation to grouse moor licences?

[Please note that a civil standard of proof would require NatureScot to base their decision on the ‘balance of probabilities’ whereas a criminal standard of proof requires satisfaction ‘beyond reasonable doubt’.] (Yes/ No/ Unsure)

Yes

Q11. If you answered ‘No’ to question 10, please state what other option/s you think we should consider (max 150 words).

If you answered ‘No’ to question 10, please give us your views

Q12. Do you agree that record keeping or reporting requirements should be part of the licence conditions?

[Please note that record keeping would involve noting down the activities carried out under the licence (e.g. the number of days on which grouse shooting took place, the number of grouse shot on each day, types of predator control undertaken, etc.) and providing these if/when they are requested. Reporting requirements would involve the active reporting of activities carried out under the licence on a regular basis.]

Record Keeping – Yes

Reporting Requirements – Yes

Neither

Unsure

Q13. If you answered ‘neither’ to question 12, please outline why you believe this (max 150 words).

If you answered ‘Neither’ to question 12, please give us your views

Q14. Do you agree that, where a person holds a valid licence, and there is sufficient evidence to show that, on the balance of probabilities a wildlife crime has been committed on their property, NatureScot should have the power to impose the following penalties:

• Issue a written warning
• Temporarily suspend a licence
• Permanently revoke a licence

(Yes/No/Unsure)

Yes

Q15. If you answered ‘no’ to question 14, please outline why you believe this (max 150 words).If you answered ‘No’ to question 14, please give us your views

Q16. Please provide any further comments on the questions in this section here.

Grouse moor management has been given every opportunity to demonstrate responsible self-regulation and to tackle the long term sustainability of the practice. Failure to show significant progress makes licensing, along the lines explored in the Werritty Report, inevitable. Any licensing system needs to be robust enough to provide effective oversight of what is happening on the ground and, hopefully, to encourage improved working practices. All the elements above (Q1, 3, 5, 7, 8, 10, 12 and 14) are required to achieve this.

The licensing system will have cost implications for the licensing body, which should be recouped as one of the expenses of grouse moor management.

Grouse moor management has gradually become an intensive form of land use on some of our most sensitive upland landscapes, with damaging ecological consequences. The growing need to mitigate climate change is another reason to rethink the forms of land management compatible with the wider public interest in these upland areas.

Section 2 – Muirburn – Scottish Government Proposals

The Scottish Government intends to implement the recommendations of the Werritty review which stated:

“That muirburn should be unlawful unless carried out under a licence.

• That muirburn should be subject to increased legal regulation
• This should apply to all muirburn, not only on grouse moors.”

We are also proposing a statutory ban on muirburn on peatland (to be defined as peat of a depth of 40cm or more) unless it is part of an approved habitat restoration programme, to protect public safety (e.g. reduce the risk of wildlife) or for the purpose of research.

We propose that the approach outlined above is consistent with precautionary principle in this matter. However, recognising that the scientific evidence on the impacts of muirburn is currently contested and that the management of peatland is a highly important aspect of Scotland’s net-zero target, we propose that the Bill should contain powers to modify the regulation of muirburn in the future, as the scientific evidence base develops. 

More details can be found in “Part 2: Muirburn” of our consultation paper.

Q17. Currently a licence is only required to undertake Muirburn outwith the Muirburn season. Do you agree that a licence should be required to undertake Muirburn regardless of the time of year that it is undertaken? (Yes/ No/ Unsure)

Yes

Q18. If you answered ‘No’ to question 17, please outline why you believe this (max 150 words):

If you answered ‘No’ to question 17, please give us your views

Q19. If we introduce a licensing scheme, do you agree that NatureScot should be the licensing authority? (Yes/ No/ Unsure)

Yes

Q20. Do you agree that there should be a ban on muirburn on peatland unless it is done under licence as part of a habitat restoration programme approved by NatureScot? (Yes/ No/ Unsure)

Yes

Q21. Other than for habitat restoration, public safety (e.g. fire prevention), and research, are there any other purposes for which you think muirburn on peatland should be permitted? (Yes/ No/ Unsure)

No

Q22. Do you agree that the definition of peat set out in the muirburn code should be amended to 40 cm? (Yes/ No/ Unsure)

Unsure

Q23. If you answered ‘No’ to question 22, please outline why you believe this (max 150 words):

Please give us your views

The case against muirburn on deep peat for any reason is strong, however the threshold of 50cm is arbitrary and originates, I understand, from the basis on which peatland has previously been mapped by the James Hutton Institute, among others. But a reduction in the threshold to 40cm, or even 30cm, would still permit damaging muirburn on large areas of peaty soils. The urgent need for measures mitigating against climate change suggest that routine muirburn on peatland of any depth should be discouraged. There’s enough of a challenge controlling wildfires in our uplands; it can be argued that permitting deliberate muirburn, even within the terms of the muirburn code, makes this challenge more difficult.

Q24. Please provide any further comments on the questions in this section here.

The practice of deliberate muirburn is not restricted to grouse moor management, although perhaps this is where it is most prevalent. Taking a long view, across recent centuries, there’s good evidence that repeated burning has impoverished our upland soils and vegetation, with damaging ecological consequences. These are hard to see, because throughout our lifetimes the hills have been bare. There’s even a perception that such bare hills are natural, contradicted by comparisons with similar areas in Scandinavia. We urgently need a strategic rethink about land management in our upland areas, so as to tackle the climate and biodiversity emergency we are facing and begin to ‘bend the curve’ in favour of nature recovery.

Section 3.1 Wildlife Traps – Scottish Government Proposals

The Scottish Government accepted this recommendation, committing to amend legislation to strengthen the use and monitoring of traps.

To fulfil this commitment, we are proposing to make it a requirement that anyone must satisfy certain conditions if wishing to use the following types of traps:

• Live capture bird traps;
• Live capture mammal traps (except for traps that are used or intended to be used to capture mammals in indoor settings); and
• Traps regulated by the Spring Traps Approval Order (STAO)

The conditions to be met are as follows:

• complete training by an approved body (list of approved bodies to be determined by NatureScot);
• register with NatureScot for a unique ID number;
• display this unique ID number on each trap they use using a non-transferable ID tag or another other form of permanent ID marking;
• undergo refresher training every 10 years; and
• keep a record of the traps they deploy and make those records available to Police Scotland if requested.

More details on this can be found in “Part 3.1: Trapping and snaring” of our consultation paper.

Q25. The Scottish Government proposes that a person operating a wildlife management trap must apply for a unique identification number which they must then attach to any traps that they set outdoors, do you agree that this proposal should apply to (select all that apply):

Live capture traps for birds – Yes

Live capture traps for mammals (except rodents) – Yes

Traps listed in the Spring Trap Approval Order – Yes

Rodent kill traps – Yes

Live capture traps for rodents – Yes

None of the above

Unsure

Other Traps (please specify)

Q26. The Scottish Government proposes that a person operating a wildlife management trap outdoors must successfully complete an approved course dealing with the relevant category of trap, do you agree that this proposal should apply to (select all that apply):

Live capture traps for birds – Yes

Live capture traps for mammals (except rodents) – Yes

Traps listed in the Spring Trap Approval Order – Yes

Rodent kill traps – Yes

Live capture traps for rodents – Yes

None of the above

Unsure

Other Traps (please specify)

Q27. This question should only be answered if you agree that training should be required for at least one of the traps listed in question 26. The Scottish Government proposes that a person operating a wildlife management trap outdoors must undergo refresher training every 10 years, do you agree that this proposal should apply to: (select all that apply)

Live capture traps for birds – Yes

Live capture traps for mammals (except rodents) – Yes

Traps listed in the Spring Trap Approval Order – Yes

Rodent kill traps – Yes

Live capture traps for rodents – Yes

None of the above

Unsure

Other Traps (please specify)

Q28. Do you agree that record keeping and reporting requirements should be part of the registration scheme?

[Please note that record keeping would involve noting down the activities carried out under the licence (e.g. the number of days on which grouse shooting took place and the number of grouse shot on each day) and providing these if/when they are requested. Reporting requirements would involve the active reporting of activities carried out under the licence on a regular basis.]

Record Keeping – Yes

Reporting Requirements – Yes

Neither

Unsure

Q29. Do you agree that an individual found guilty of the offence of:

• using a trap without valid training from an approved body
• using a trap without being registered to do so
• using a trap without displaying an identification number correctly on the trap
• falsifying records or identification number
• using a trap on land without landowner permission
• failing to comply with the duty to keep trapping records

should be liable, on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale (or both). A level 5 fine is currently £5,000. (Yes/ No/ Unsure)

Yes

Q30. If you answered no to question 29 please explain the reason for your answer (max 150 words):

Q31. Please provide any further comments on the questions in this section here.

Control of ‘predators’ is an important issue which goes well beyond the grouse moor management which is the focus of this consultation. It is argued, for example, that such control is necessary to protect breeding wading birds such as curlew, yet these species co-existed for centuries before humans massively modified the landscape. Any resulting imbalance between predators and other species need very careful research (some of which is taking place) before this can be properly understood and management actions prescribed. However, it is certainly plausible that numbers of crows, foxes etc are artificially high due to availability of prey species such as pheasants, bred and released annually in huge numbers.

Section 3.2 Glue Traps – Scottish Government Proposals

The Government has accepted the recommendations of the SAWC report on the use of rodent glues traps in Scotland. 

We are proposing introducing a comprehensive ban on the use of glue traps by both members of the public and professional pest controllers. 

We are also proposing introducing a ban on the sale of rodent glue traps in Scotland, provided that this can be achieved under the terms of the Internal Market Act, which was brought in by the UK Government in 2020.

In-line with the recommendations made by the SAWC that there should be an outright ban on the use and sale of glue traps we are not proposing to the introduction of a licensing regime for professional pest controllers.

We are proposing that there will be a 2 year transition period between the legislation being passed and the ban on the use (and sale) of glue traps coming into force.  This is to allow a reasonable period for businesses who use and sell glue traps to develop, trial and source alternative methods of rodent control.

More details on this are available in the section on “3.2 Glue Traps” in our consultation document.

32. Do you agree that the use of glue traps designed to catch rodents should be banned in Scotland? (Yes/ No/ Unsure)

Yes

33. Do you agree that the sale of glue traps designed to catch rodents should be banned in Scotland? (Yes/ No/ Unsure)

Yes

34. Do you agree that there should be a two year transition period before the ban on glue traps comes into force? (Yes/ No/ Unsure)

No

35. Please provide any further comments on the questions in this section here.

Glue traps are indiscriminate and should be banned without delay.

Section 3.3 Snares

The Scottish Government is proposing to implement the recommendations of the 2017 Snaring Review. This involves the following legislative amendments:

• “the Scottish Government to consider the merit of amending legislation to require operators to update records at least once every 48 hours unless they have a reasonable excuse not to do so, and to submit records to the Police on demand if the Police arrive at the location where the records are kept, or within 7 days to a police station.
• “Furthermore that consideration is given to the introduction of the power of disqualification for a snaring offence, in line with section 1 of the WCA regarding the use of general licences to control birds.
• “Consideration should also be given on how a strengthened Code of Practice can be better endorsed through legislation in a manner comparable with how the WANE (Scotland) Act 2011 (section 15) applies the Code of Practice for Non-Natives.”

A disqualification order can stop you from owning, keeping, selling, transporting or working with animals or running a service which involves being in charge of animals.

As recommended by the Statutory Snaring Review Group, the Scottish Government is currently undertaking a wider review of snaring which will consider the wider welfare implications of snaring included whether there should be a ban on the use of snares.

Depending on the outcome of the wider snaring review we may undertake further consultation on additional proposals to amend the legislation governing the use of snares, at a later date.

More details on this can be found in the section on “3.3 Snaring” of our consultation paper.

Q36. Do you agree with the recommendations from the statutory review of snaring that operators should be required to update their records at least once every 48 hours, unless they have a reasonable excuse not to and that these records should be made available to the Police on demand if the police arrive at the location where the records are kept, or within 7 days to the police station? (Yes/ No/ Unsure)

Yes

Q37. Do you agree that a power of disqualification should be introduced for snaring offences?

A disqualification order can stop you from owning, keeping, selling, transporting or working with animals or running a service which involves being in charge of animals. (Yes/ No/ Unsure)

Yes

Q38. Please provide any further comments on the questions in this section here.

Snares are indiscriminate and should be banned without delay. However, in the meantime it’s important that snaring is conducted in a way which minimises harm, and the measures proposed here might help to achieve this.

As a result of Brexit, the UK is no longer tightly bound to the EU Common Agriculture Policy (CAP). Farm policy is devolved, so the Scottish Government is developing a new approach. In the meantime, the existing CAP support measures remain in place, providing the basis for the huge annual payments examined in other posts¹. These currently stand at around £750m per annum, including direct and indirect payments to farmers and crofters. The Scottish Government has embarked on extensive consultations with the sector, involving a number of ‘farmer-led groups’ overseen by an ‘ Agriculture Reform Implementation Oversight Board’². The resulting proposals require new legislation, hence this large (and rather unwieldy) consultation with more than 70 separate questions to consultees. I didn’t attempt to answer all of them, since some topics are getting beyond my core interest in rural land management, but illustrate the massive complexity of the underlying issues. Overall, I thought the consultation tackled the right issues, but the proposals seem disappointingly similar to the previous Basic Payments System. In my view, this hands over far too much of the available support with far too little in terms of public benefit. The responses I submitted are as follows:

[Extracts from consultation paper text in italics for clarity]

The proposals for the new Agriculture Bill aim to provide an adaptive framework to respond to future social, economic, and environmental changes, challenges and opportunities.

This approach also enables tailored provisions and support to be implemented through secondary legislation and potentially adapted on a regular basis as required. This will enable specific targeted support to be adaptable to the future challenges and uncertainties, including climate impacts and market changes, whilst reinforcing our commitment to continue to support the agricultural industry.

The new Agriculture Bill aims to enable flexibility whilst ensuring that Scotland’s people are able to live and work sustainably on our land and this framework will deliver key outcomes:

• high quality food production
• climate mitigation and adaptation
• nature restoration
• wider rural development

For each of these proposals for the new Agriculture Bill, there are a number of questions to determine whether respondents agree with the aim of the proposal; agree with the suggested method to achieve that aim; have any alternative proposals for achieving the aim; and have any comments on the potential impacts of the proposals.

This consultation is split into 6 parts to reflect the proposals that the Scottish Government is considering for possible inclusion in the new Agriculture Bill. Each of these proposals will assist in the delivery of the Vision. These parts are:

Future Payment Framework – Proposals

The Future Support Framework proposes mechanisms should be incorporated into the new Agriculture Bill to enable conditional payments under 4 tiers:

• Tier 1 – a ‘Base Level Direct Payment’
• Tier 2 – an ‘Enhanced Level Direct Payment’
• Tier 3 – an ‘Elective Payment’
• Tier 4 – ‘Complementary Support’

Tier 1 and 2 would sit under the one umbrella of direct payments, acknowledging the need to ensure that conditions are fitted to the variance of Scottish agriculture, and Tiers 3 and 4 would be indirect payments. 

Q1. Do you agree with the proposal set out above, in relation to the Agriculture Bill including a mechanism to enable payments to be made under a 4 tiered approach? (Yes/ No/ Don’t Know – please give reasons)

Don’t Know – Pillar 1 and 2 payments to farmers and crofters, currently exceeding £500m per annum across Scotland, outstrip all other forms of direct support for rural land management put together, while also making up a substantial proportion of net farm income (around 40% of net value added – Economic Report on Scottish Agriculture). Many farm businesses, even some whole sectors (notably livestock farming in the hills and uplands), would simply not be viable without these annual payments.  So the way these funds are deployed is of huge consequence. While they provide appreciated socioeconomic support, it can also be argued that funding on this scale has been a key driver enabling rural land management’s contribution to the damaging practices creating our climate and biodiversity emergency.

Scottish Government endorsed the Leaders Pledge for Nature, a “commitment to urgent and transformational actions to address biodiversity loss”. The influence of rural land management and the scale of these payments makes them a foundation for practical action to meet this commitment.

Although the debate leading up to these proposals has hinted at this among key elements defining a wider public interest and justification in providing agricultural support, it seems extraordinary that these emerging proposals are so similar to the basic payments system currently in place.

It does not seem likely that these proposals are bold enough to drive the transformation of rural land management required to achieve the key Outcomes, at least unless any tiered payments are conditional on delivery of sufficiently high standards to achieve ‘transformation’. For example, in the current system, around £140m of annual direct ‘greening’ payments apparently achieve no identifiable benefit. Such tokenism does not set a good precedent and would not seem to be a good use of public money.

How will the new approach do better? Some assurance on this is urgently required. The Vision is right to assert that “it is necessary to ensure Scottish farmers and crofters have security of income and have the mechanisms in place to enable their activities to be rewarded” and “to ensure these mechanisms are flexible to emerging social, economic and environmental priorities”. The latter, especially, requires a transparent and responsive ongoing process engaging a range of stakeholders which has not yet been spelled out. Farmer-led groups are a small step in the right direction, but too narrow to meet these wider aspirations.

Q2. Do you agree that Tier 1 should be a ‘Base Level Direct Payment’ to support farmers and crofters engaged in food production and land management? (Yes/ No/ Don’t Know – please give reasons)

Don’t Know – Any support to farmers and crofters from limited public funds must be conditional on land management achieving defined standards of husbandry and stewardship supporting all four key Outcomes – public funds for public goods. All businesses in receipt of public support should be required to meet such standards. However, the numerous valid components of such conditionality (as listed in the proposal above) show the risk of creating a bureaucratic nightmare of paperwork which would fail to achieve the desired outcomes.

The focus here should be on how these multiple factors and stakeholders can be reconciled in a proportionate way, rather than this focus on the resulting ‘base level’ payment tier which implies an unjustified degree of entitlement over conditionality.

Q3. Do you agree that Tier 2 should be an ‘Enhanced Level Direct Payment’ to deliver outcomes relating to efficiencies, reducing greenhouse gas emissions and nature restoration and enhancement? (Yes/ No/ Don’t Know – please give reasons)

Yes – I agree there must be scope for enhanced direct payments linked to commitments to deliver efficiencies, reduce greenhouse emissions and restore losses of biodiversity. More explanation is required to clarify how such payments are justified above and beyond the land management standards forming conditions for any tier 1 direct payments.

Q4. Do you agree that Tier 3 should be an Elective Payment to focus on targeted measures for nature restoration, innovation support and supply chain support? (Yes/ No/ Don’t Know – please give reasons)

Yes – I agree there should be scope for further payments linked to commitments to even higher ambition. More explanation is required to clarify how such payments are justified over and above the standards required for tier 1 and tier 2 payments.

Q5. Do you agree that Tier 4 should be complementary support as the proposal outlines above? (Yes/ No/ Don’t Know)

If so what sort of Complementary Support do you think would be best to deliver the Vision? (Please give reasons)

Yes – As budgets for staffing of public bodies have been cut back over the years, there has been a regrettable focus on ‘enforcement’ of a rule-based approach to the detriment of encouragement of good husbandry and stewardship. Enhanced and secure funding for a farm advisory service would help to counter this trend, but realistically there also needs to be a greater emphasis on fostering self help through enhanced support for local group actions.

Q6. Do you agree that a ‘Whole Farm Plan’ should be used as eligibility criteria for the ‘Base Level Direct Payment’ in addition to Cross Compliance Regulations and Greening measures? (Yes/ No/ Don’t Know – please give reasons)

Yes – A ‘whole farm plan’ may be the best term to describe the package of conditionality defining eligibility, however there’s a key challenge to devise an approach which is proportionate while delivering tangible outcomes.

Q7. Do you agree that the new Agriculture Bill should include a mechanism to help ensure a Just Transition? (Yes/ No/ Don’t Know – please give reasons)

Yes – In principle this seems right, although it isn’t clear what form such a mechanism might take. It is essential to avoid slogans or token gestures which raise expectations without clearly defining practical support for land managers to whom this is applied. Many of the elements making up a Just Transition are touched on elsewhere in these proposals (ie rural support measures that foster a farm sector that more directly and explicitly supports our climate and environmental ambitions, in a way that is fair and leaves no one behind). Perhaps a mechanism to help ensure a Just Transition is simply the complete implementation of all these proposals.

Q8. Do you agree that the new Agriculture Bill should include mechanisms to enable the payment framework to be adaptable and flexible over time depending on emerging best practice, improvements in technology and scientific evidence on climate impacts? (Yes/ No/ Don’t Know – please give reasons)

Yes – While there are merits in such flexibility included in the proposed Bill, it is essential that this is not simply open-ended, because then it becomes impossible to assess progress against the key outcomes. Any such flexibility must be defined in terms of an open and transparent process to be followed, engaging stakeholders and providing a clear evidence base for change.

Q9. Do you agree that the new Agriculture Bill should include mechanisms to enable payments to support the agricultural industry when there are exceptional or unforeseen conditions or a major crises affecting agricultural production or distribution? (Yes/ No/ Don’t Know – please give reasons)

Yes – In principle this must be right, but the use of such mechanisms must be clearly circumscribed to make sure they are used only in exceptional circumstances and for a short time. Longer term difficulties should be addressed through the flexibility measures proposed in the previous question.

Climate Change Adaptation and Mitigation – Proposals

To deliver the Vision and “emission reductions in line with our climate targets” we propose:

The new Agriculture Bill should include powers and other mechanisms to allow future payments to farmers, crofters and land managers to support delivery of national climate change mitigation objectives (including the statutory economy-wide greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets and duties set in the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009).

The new Agriculture Bill should include powers and other mechanisms to allow future payments to farmers, crofters and land managers to support delivery of national climate change adaptation objectives (e.g. building resilience to relevant risks identified in statutory Climate Change Risk Assessments).

The new Agriculture Bill should include a mechanism to enable payments to be made that are conditional on outcomes that deliver climate mitigation and/or adaptation measures, along with targeted elective payments.

The new Agriculture Bill should include a mechanism to enable payments to be made that support integrated land management, such as for peatland and woodland outcomes on agricultural holdings, in recognition of the environmental, economic and social benefits that it can bring.

Q10. Do you agree with the proposal set out above, in relation to the new Agriculture Bill including measures to allow future payments to support climate change mitigation objectives? (Yes/ No/ Don’t Know)

Do you have any views on specific powers and/or mechanisms that could support such alignment? (Please give reasons)

Yes – It is essential that the new Agriculture Bill has the scope to embrace the many factors bearing on rural land managers, as summarised in the four key Outcomes. Payments to support climate change mitigation must be part of this, without which the target to secure a one third reduction in carbon emissions over the next decade cannot be achieved. But greater clarity is required on how this reduction will be achieved, so that limited resources can be focused for maximum benefits. Which sectors, what land management changes, are most affected? Only then can funding mechanisms be best designed and implemented.

Q11. Do you agree with the proposal set out above, in relation to the new Agriculture Bill including measures to allow future payments to support climate change adaptation objectives? (Yes/ No/ Don’t Know)

Do you have any views on specific powers and/or mechanisms that could support such alignment? (Please give reasons)

Yes – For adaptation as for mitigation, it is essential that the new Agriculture Bill has the scope to embrace the many factors bearing on rural land managers, as summarised in the four key Outcomes. Payments to support climate change adaptation must be part of this, so as to secure better resilience. But greater clarity is required identifying the priorities for better resilience in rural land management, so that limited resources can be focused for maximum benefits. Which sectors, what land management changes, are most affected? Only then can funding mechanisms be best designed and implemented. Building, for example, on the Farming for a Better Climate initiative is one worthwhile way to bring this about, yet activity on this appears to have tailed off during 2022. Has funding support been curtailed, or redirected to a new priority?

Q12. Do you agree with the proposal set out above, in relation to the new Agriculture Bill including a mechanism to enable payments to be made that are conditional on outcomes that support climate mitigation and adaptation measures, along with targeted elective payments? (Yes/ No/ Don’t Know – please give reasons)

Yes – It’s important to be sure that all payments are aligned with all four key Outcomes, avoiding competing and contradictory results.

Q13. Do you agree with the proposal set out above, in relation to the new Agriculture Bill including measures that support integrated land management, such as peatland and woodland outcomes on farms and crofts, in recognition of the environmental, economic and social benefits that it can bring? (Yes/ No/ Don’t Know – please give reasons)

Yes – Alignment of these multiple objectives is essential to achieve balanced progress across all four key Outcomes.

Delivery of Key Outcomes – Nature Protection and Restoration – Proposals

To deliver the Vision and “contribute to the restoration of nature through biodiversity gain” we propose:

We propose the new Agriculture Bill should include powers and mechanisms to protect and restore biodiversity, support clean and healthy air, water and soils, contribute to flood risk management locally and downstream and create thriving, resilient nature.

The new Agriculture Bill should include a mechanism to enable payments that are conditional on outcomes that deliver nature restoration, maintenance and enhancement, along with targeted elective payments.

That the new Agriculture Bill should include a mechanism to enable and support action on a catchment or landscape scale.

Q14. Do you believe the new Agriculture Bill should include a mechanism to protect and restore biodiversity, support clean and healthy air, water and soils, contribute to reducing flood risk locally and downstream and create thriving, resilient nature? (Yes/ No/ Don’t Know – please give reasons)

Yes – A mechanism along these lines is essential because rural land management has such a key role in tackling and resolving our combined climate and nature emergency. The provisions of the Agriculture Bill must provide practical support for delivery of Scotland’s Biodiversity Strategy. A sectoral approach would be impractical and risk waste of limited resources where it resulted in competing measures. Farmers and crofters deserve a joined-up approach which provides clear signals and support for their efforts, so working to achieve our collective wellbeing.

Q15. Do you believe the new Agriculture Bill should include a mechanism to enable payments that are conditional on outcomes that support nature maintenance and restoration, along with targeted elective payments? (Yes/ No/ Don’t Know – please give reasons)

Yes – It’s really important that payments addressing different priorities across the four key Outcomes are aligned to avoid wasted resources through competition or failure to recognise connections. All payments must support delivery of all four key Outcomes.

Q16. Do you believe the new Agriculture Bill should include a mechanism to enable landscape/catchment scale payments to support nature maintenance and restoration? (Yes/ No/ Don’t Know – please give reasons)

Yes – It’s important that payments are not thought of only in context of an individual farming or crofting business.  The combined effect of payments across landscape and catchments can reinforce joined-up delivery of key Outcomes and sometimes judicious wider resource commitments can help foster understanding of landscape or catchment land management opportunities.

Delivery of Key Outcomes – High Quality Food Production – Proposals

To deliver the Vision of “high quality, nutritious food locally and sustainably produced is key to our wellbeing – in economic, environmental, social and health terms. We will support and work with farmers and crofters to meet more of our own food needs sustainably and to farm and croft with nature.”  We propose:

Giving powers to make changes to rules related to food – Further rules on common market organisation (e.g. marketing standards and trade descriptions) are contained in Scottish Statutory Instruments and retained EU law. The CMO ( was partially replaced and amended by the Agriculture (Retained EU Law and Data) (Scotland) Act 2020 (“the 2020 Act”). Now that the UK has left the European Union there has been the opportunity to see how powers need to be used in practice. As a result of this, some technical fixes are necessary to allow Scottish Ministers to readily amend retained EU law and related legislation on common market organisation in the area of food and drink.

Continuing to provide current support re. food – Furthermore, adjustments may be necessary to the nature of the support to enable the Scottish Government to deliver wider objectives while reflecting current circumstances. For example, there may be opportunities to tailor support to the Scottish context while maintaining the objective of EU alignment, in order to produce more of our own fruit, vegetables, and horticulture products; assist the apiculture programme; support the circular economy; or meet our climate change and biodiversity targets. Similarly there may be changes to support schemes at an EU level which Scotland wishes to consider as part of its policy of alignment. Therefore we propose that Scottish Ministers should have powers to amend the CMO regulations and to take appropriate measures to provide support to relevant sectors in the future.

Giving new powers to support the agri-food sector – The Agriculture Bill should include a mechanism to enable payments which help deliver food production and, where appropriate, to provide grants to support both the agri-food sector and to bodies related to the agri-food sector in connection with:

• Agri-food sustainability
• Agri-food efficiency
• Agri-food co-operation
• Agri-food industry development
• Agri-food education 
• Agri-food processing
• Agri-food marketing

Giving reserve powers to support the agri-food sector – The new Agriculture Bill should include a power to declare when there are exceptional or unforeseen conditions adversely affecting food production or distribution, and the ability to provide financial assistance, if necessary, to the agri-food sector and related bodies whose incomes are being, or are likely to be, adversely affected by the exceptional or unforeseen conditions described in the declaration.

Q17. Do you agree that the powers in the Agriculture and Retained EU Law and Data (Scotland) Act 2020 should be extended to ensure Scottish Ministers have flexibility to better respond to current, post exit, circumstances in common market organisation and easily make changes to rules on food? (Yes/ No/ Don’t Know – please give reasons)

Yes – Agree, however safeguards are required to ensure that the exercise of these powers is evidence-based and that this evidence is open to scrutiny. Ministers lines of accountability to Parliament must be explicit.

Q18. Do you agree that Scottish Ministers should have powers to begin, conclude, or modify schemes or other support relevant to the agricultural markets? (Yes/ No/ Don’t Know – please give reasons)

Yes – Agree, however safeguards are required to ensure that the exercise of these powers is evidence-based and that this evidence is open to scrutiny. Ministers lines of accountability to Parliament must be explicit.

Q19. Do you believe the new Agriculture Bill should include a mechanism to enable payments that support high quality food production? (Yes/ No/ Don’t Know – please give reasons)

Yes – The amount and purpose of any such payments must be transparent, enabling clarity of understanding of the benefits of using public funds for public good.

Q20. Do you believe the new Agriculture Bill should include a mechanism to provide grants to support industry in the agri-food supply chain to encourage sustainability, efficiency, co-operation, industry development, education, processing and marketing in the agri-food sector? (Yes/ No/ Don’t Know – please give reasons)

Yes – The amount and purpose of any such payments must be transparent, enabling clarity of understanding of the benefits of using public funds for public good.

Q21. Do you believe the new Agriculture Bill should include powers for Scottish Ministers to declare when there are exceptional or unforeseen conditions affecting food production or distribution? (Yes/ No/ Don’t Know – please give reasons)

Yes – Agree, however safeguards are required to ensure that the exercise of these powers is evidence-based and that this evidence is open to scrutiny. Ministers lines of accountability to Parliament must be explicit, indicating the basis on which such powers are required and for how long. Any such powers must be time-limited showing how and when ‘normal’ conditions are expected to be restored.

Q22. Do you believe the new Agriculture Bill should include powers for Scottish Ministers to provide financial assistance to the agri-food sector and related bodies whose incomes are being, or are likely to be, adversely affected by the exceptional or unforeseen conditions described in the declaration referred to above? (Yes/ No/ Don’t Know – please give reasons)

Yes – Agree, however the amount and purpose of any such payments must be transparent, enabling clarity of understanding of the benefits of using public funds for public good, are evidence-based and that this evidence is open to scrutiny. Ministers lines of accountability to Parliament must be explicit, indicating the basis on which such payments are required and for how long. Any such payments must be time-limited showing how and when ‘normal’ conditions are expected to be restored.

Q23. Do you agree that the new Agriculture Bill should include the powers to process and share information with the agri-food sector and supply chains to enable them to improve business efficiency? (Yes/ No/ Don’t Know – please give reasons)

Yes – Agree, however safeguards are required to ensure that the exercise of these powers is evidence-based and that this evidence is open to scrutiny. Ministers lines of accountability to Parliament must be explicit.

Delivery of Key Outcomes – Wider Rural Development – Proposals

To deliver the Vision and “ensure that Scotland’s people are able to live and work sustainably on our land” we propose to undertake a whole land approach which seeks to optimise the use of our wider natural assets in striving to meet our climate change targets while benefiting and empowering rural communities as a whole we propose:

To make provision under the new Agriculture Bill to continue to provide the support to land-managers and communities who are undertaking and supporting economic activity related to land management including but not limited to agriculture.

To enable Scotland to continue providing support for rural development – collaborative, partnership working; capacity building; support for innovation and engagement in local and policy development – we propose the new Agriculture Bill should provide Scottish Minster’s powers and other mechanisms to allow:

• Activity in and financial support for rural development and the rural economy generally.
• Activity related to the delivery of community led-local development to enable delivery of the principles identified above.
• Activity in and financial support for collaboration and the sharing of information, ideas and good practice.
• Activity in and financial support for innovation in agriculture, food production, forestry, and land management.  
• Activity in and financial support for farmers, land managers, rural and island communities and stakeholders to influence policy developments.
• Activity in and financial support for public access and the understanding of land use.

Q24. Do you agree that the proposals outlined above should be included in the new Agriculture Bill? (Yes/ No/ Don’t Know – please give reasons)

Yes – It’s important to avoid any loss of continuity with previous experience of support for rural development, maintaining active engagement of a wide range of stakeholders, while also giving scope to nurture new initiatives emerging in response to changing circumstances.

Q25. Are there other areas relating to non-agricultural land management such as forestry that you would like considered for support under the Agriculture Bill to help deliver integrated land management and the products produced from it? (Yes/ No/ Don’t Know – please give reasons)

Yes – Strong support is required to bring about a ‘whole land’ approach to rural land management, avoiding artificial or bureaucratic boundaries between different sectors and groups of stakeholders. Support for farmers and crofters is the largest programme, with implications for other sectors; careful alignment of expenditure across sectors (especially with forestry, biodiversity, access and recreation) will help to avoid contradictory and competing measures.

Q26. What other powers may be required to enable rural development in Scotland’s rural and island communities? (Yes/ No/ Don’t Know – please give reasons)

Yes – It isn’t clear how the work of the many public bodies involved fosters the best possible framework of support for Scotland’s rural and island communities. Too often, different public bodies pursue distinct priorities defined for Scotland as a whole without taking account of the combined effect of the resulting programmes for each locality. Statutory duties, eg to ‘have regard’ to each others responsibilities, are worthless without visible, ongoing collaboration and joint working. So a more explicit commitment or duty to this end would be valuable.

Q27. What potential social, economic or other impacts, either positive or negative, would such powers have on Scotland’s rural and island communities? (Please give reasons)

Rural Scotland, including the islands, face many universal challenges, for example health, housing, poverty and social inequality, which are also prominent in our main population centres. But in addition, rural Scotland is the site for additional challenges resulting from the climate and nature emergency which bear especially heavily on rural and island communities. This is mainly because there is more land (and sea) and fewer people. The scale of support for rural land managers, especially farmers and crofters, is hugely significant hence careful alignment of policy measures, effective collaboration between public bodies and the many stakeholders, both local and national is essential to make the most of limited resources. The positive impact of success will be progress towards the Government’s vision to “create a wellbeing economy: a society that is thriving across economic, social and environmental dimensions, and that delivers prosperity for all Scotland’s people and places”.

Animal Health and Welfare

Q28-30 not answered

Plant Genetic Resources and Plant Health

Q31-32 not answered

Skills, Knowledge Transfer and Innovation

Q33 – 36 not answered

Administration, Control, and Transparency of Payment Framework Data – Proposals

To deliver against the Vision and ensure that funding to support farming, crofting and land management is distributed based on sound financial management, budget principles, transparency and non- discrimination we propose that:

The Scottish Ministers take the powers to set an annual and/or multi-annual budget to support the proposed future support framework (outlined above) and enable intervention for the purposes of supporting high quality food production, climate change mitigation and adaptation, and nature restoration.

The Scottish Ministers take the power to set up an Integrated Administration and control System (IACS) which includes the following elements:

• an identification system for agricultural parcels
• a geo-spatial application system and, where applicable, an animal-based application system
• an area monitoring system
• a system for the identification of beneficiaries
• a control and penalty system including recovery of payments where proportionate
• a system for the identification and registration of payment entitlements
• a system for the identification and registration of animals

This proposal will improve the effectiveness and monitoring of support payments and allow Scottish Ministers to create further IACS for the purposes of improving support effectiveness.

The Scottish Ministers take the power to collect information for the purposes of carrying out management, control, audit and monitoring and evaluation obligations and for statistical purposes, and shall not process that data in a way that is incompatible with those purposes. To allow for the measurement and reporting of key performance indicators which will help better inform future policy.

The Scottish Ministers take the power to gain independent assurance that objectives are being met. This is to ensure that the support provided is within the scope of agreed conditions.

The Scottish Ministers take the power to enable the publication of details pertaining to recipients who receive payments including under the future payment model (outlined above) and set a level above which payment details will be published. 

Technical fixes to the Agriculture (Retained EU Law and Data) (Scotland) Act 2020 are necessary to extend the powers affected by section 5 to allow Scottish Ministers to amend retained EU law for CAP (Common Agricultural Policy) legacy schemes as needed to ensure their continued effective operation and regulation until they expire and also to ensure Scottish Ministers have flexibility to better respond to current, post EU exit, circumstances .

Q37. Do you agree that Scottish Ministers should have the power to create a system that provides for an integrated database, to collect information in relation to applications, declarations and commitments made by beneficiaries of rural support? (Yes/ No/ Don’t Know – please give reasons)

Yes – These are all essential components of a competent system of public administration.

Q38. Do you agree that Scottish Ministers should have the power to create a system that collects and shares information for the purposes of carrying out management, control, audit and monitoring and evaluation obligations and for statistical purposes, subject to General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) requirements? (Yes/ No/ Don’t Know – please give reasons)

Yes – These are all essential components of a competent system of public administration.

Q39. Do you agree that Scottish Ministers should have the power to share information where there is a public interest in doing so, and subject to complying with the General Data Protection Regulation GDPR? (Yes/ No/ Don’t Know – please give reasons)

Yes – These are all essential components of a competent system of public administration.

Q40. Do you agree that Scottish Ministers should have the power to create a system that provides a mechanism that aligns with the principles of the Scottish Public Finance Manual? [The Scottish Public Finance Manual’s principles are: (1) to ensure proper handling, reporting, and recovery (where appropriate) of public funds, (2) to prioritise the need for economy, efficiency, and effectiveness, and (3) to promote good practice and high standards of propriety] (Yes/ No/ Don’t Know – please give reasons)

Yes – These are all essential components of a competent system of public administration.

Q41. Do you agree that Scottish Ministers should have the power to create a system that provides the data required to undertake administrative checks on applications / claims made by beneficiaries for rural support? (Yes/ No/ Don’t Know – please give reasons)

Yes – These are all essential components of a competent system of public administration.

Q42. Do you agree that Scottish Ministers should have the power to create a system whereby on-the-spot-checks should be undertaken to further verify applications / claims made by beneficiaries for rural support? (Yes/ No/ Don’t Know – please give reasons)

Yes – These are all essential components of a competent system of public administration.

Q43. Do you agree that Scottish Ministers should have the power to create a system that would provide for cross compliance, conditionality that covers core standards in relation to sustainable environment, climate, Good Agricultural and Environmental Condition (GAEC), land, public and animal health, plant health and animal welfare, Soil health, carbon capture and maintenance? (Yes/ No/ Don’t Know – please give reasons)

Yes – These are all essential components of a competent system of public administration.

Q44. Do you agree that Scottish Ministers should have the power to create a system that provides a mechanism to support the delivery of practices aligned to receipt of elective payments, for targeted outcomes? (Yes/ No/ Don’t Know – please give reasons)

Yes – These are all essential components of a competent system of public administration.

Q45. Do you believe that Scottish Ministers should have the power to monitor and evaluate outcomes to ensure they meet the agreed purpose and help better inform future policy? (Yes/ No/ Don’t Know – please give reasons)

Yes – These are all essential components of a competent system of public administration.

Q46. Do you believe that Scottish Ministers should have the power to seek independent assurance that outcomes are delivered appropriately? (Yes/ No/ Don’t Know – please give reasons)

Yes – These are all essential components of a competent system of public administration.

Q47. Do you agree that Scottish Ministers should have the power to enable the publication of details pertaining to recipients who receive payments including under the future payment model (outlined above) and set a level above which payment details will be published? (Yes/ No/ Don’t Know – please give reasons)

Yes – These are all essential components of a competent system of public administration.

Q48. Do you agree that technical fixes should be made to the Agriculture and Retained EU Law and Data (Scotland) Act 2020 to ensure Scottish Ministers have all requisite powers to allow CAP legacy schemes and retained EU law to continue to operate and be monitored and regulated and also to ensure Scottish Ministers have flexibility to better respond to current, post exit, circumstances? (Yes/ No/ Don’t Know – please give reasons)

Yes – These are all essential components of a competent system of public administration.

Modernising Agricultural Tenancies

Section 5 questions 49-58 not answered

Scottish Agricultural Wages (Fair Work)

Section 6 questions 59-60 not answered

Assessing the Impact

Section 7 questions 61-67 not answered

The agreement between the Scottish National Party and the Scottish Green Party includes a commitment to designate at least one new National Park in Scotland during the life of the present parliament. To this end, a consultation process began in summer 2022 with an ‘ideas challenge’¹. This has been followed up with a more conventional consultation on the role and approach to National Parks, and how nominations for new National Parks could be evaluated². My response to the Part One questions (on role and approach) are set out in this post, for the record. I didn’t answer the questions on the nomination process, since these were broadly as one might expect plus I felt the level of detail rather implied that the role and approach issues had already been settled.

The role and purpose of National Parks is pretty contested territory, as illustrated by the diverse responses to the ideas challenge. Scotland was late to the party, with two National Parks designated soon after the millennium – England and Wales have had parks since the 1950s and the USA, at the other extreme, has had parks for over a century. Despite the shared name, these can be very different beasts. The ‘scene-setting’ paper from NatureScot helpfully includes an annex³ listing the internationally recognised IUCN classification showing that Britain’s parks are seen as ‘protected landscapes’ (Category 5), with a mix of private and public ownership and incorporating whole human communities. Multiple (not necessarily compatible) objectives are thus unavoidable, and the National Park Board becomes an arena in which the interaction of numerous stakeholders is played out.

I felt the latest consultation muddies these waters even more, introducing ideas which don’t seem compatible with the basis on which Scotland’s two parks are operating. The next stages of the process promise to be interesting. Constructive tension, anyone?

Section 1 – The Role of Scotland’s National Parks

This section examines the role of National Parks in Scotland and sets out proposals for refreshing the approach to National Parks.

At present, Scotland’s two National Parks  cover 7.2% of its land area  Establishing more National Parks will increase this total, bringing Scotland more in line with others parts of the UK (for comparison, the 10 English National Parks cover 9.3% of England and the 3 Welsh National Parks cover 19.9.% of Wales).  How do we enable the National Park designation to deliver more for each of these areas and Scotland as a whole?

Contents

• The role of National Parks
• The statutory Aims of National Parks
• Powers and Functions of National Park Authorities
• Diversity in approach 

2. The Role of National Parks (Q1-4)

Scotland has ambitious targets and priorities to meet the challenges we face in tackling the climate and nature emergencies and we need to transform what we do, and how we do it, if we are to deliver them.  Scottish Ministers wish to see Scotland’s National Parks as places that will actively demonstrate nature recovery and the transformational change needed in our approach to land-use, providing leadership and showcasing a just transition to net zero in Scotland. 

The establishment of one or more additional National Parks is therefore not only a goal in its own right, but must be seen in the context of a range of connected Scottish Government strategies and policies including:

• National Strategy for Economic Transformation – including its ambition “to demonstrate global leadership to deliver a just transition to net zero nature positive economy and rebuilding natural capital”.
• The Environment Strategy 2020 with its outcome that ‘Scotland’s nature is protected and restored with flourishing biodiversity and clean and healthy air, water, seas and soils’.
• Delivery of vision and outcomes of the Scottish Biodiversity Strategy for 2030, to protect nature by 2030 and restore it by 2045 including:
  • Preventing any further species extinction and halting declines by 2030 and making significant progress in restoring the natural environment by 2045.
  • 30×30 – securing by 2030 that at least 30% of Scotland’s land and seas are managed for nature.
  • Nature Networks – ensuring every Local Authority area will have a nature network of locally driven projects to improve ecological connectivity.
  • Establishing a world leading suite of highly protected marine areas
• Commitment to meeting carbon reduction targets and adapting to climate change through implementation of the Climate Change Action Plan by developing “thriving rural economies based around woodland creation, peatland restoration and biodiversity as well as sustainable tourism, food and drink and energy”;
• Delivery of Scotland’s national planning framework, land-use strategy and national marine plan, including the development of regional land-use partnerships and regional marine plans;
• The development of new legislative proposals for land reform including the introduction of a public interest test for transfers of large-scale landholdings;
• Implementation of Scotland’s vision for Responsible Tourism for a Sustainable Future in Scotland Outlook 2030 and its visitor management strategy; and the
• Refresh of Our Place in Time – Scotland’s strategy for the historic environment.

Scotland’s National Parks currently play a number of key roles that support many of these strategies and plans through demonstration and good practice.  In particular:

• they help protect some of the very best of Scotland’s nature, landscapes and heritage;
• they are at the forefront of landscape-scale action for nature restoration;
• they are an important part of Scotland’s visitor offer and provide a range of outstanding opportunities for outdoor recreation and enjoyment of nature;
• they are an important mechanism for land-use planning and the piloting of regional land-use partnerships; and
• they provide exemplars of community engagement and sustainable development, including natural capital approaches.

To build on this existing work and add greater emphasis to it, National Parks could be given a new overarching purpose “to lead nature recovery and a just transition to net zero”.  Key elements of leadership and action required in this role could include:

• Promoting the need to do things differently and at greater pace if we are to make the changes needed to address the climate and nature emergencies;
• Recognising that change is inevitable and that nature recovery should be inspired and informed by the past but not seek to simply replicate it;
• Accelerating the transition in land and marine use needed to deliver climate mitigation and adaptation and nature recovery;
• Testing and embedding natural capital approaches to growing a well-being and sustainable economy;
• Generating opportunities for greater  private investment in natural capital;
• Realising the just transition by championing reskilling and new employment opportunities to help ensure that no local community in the Park area is left behind;
• Leading on improving ways of design and place making that achieve optimum outcomes for people, nature and landscapes.

Question 1. Do you support “leadership of nature recovery and a just transition to net zero” becoming the overarching purpose of Scotland’s National Parks? If not, what else would you propose?

No, I do not support this proposal. I’m not in favour of yet more rhetorical slogans lacking practical effect, especially this wording which seems far too broad, and has the disadvantage of lacking clear legal definition. So many things could be branded as ‘leadership’ or as ‘a just transition’.

Our National Parks are not some over-arching banner, but rather have the core purpose to achieve the specific aims defined in Statute.  British National Parks are all focused on ‘protecting landscapes’ (as defined by IUCN Category 5) and none meet the IUCN National Park Category 2 definition of “large natural or near natural areas set aside to protect large-scale ecological processes” although land meeting the Category 2 definition may be required to achieve ‘nature recovery’ (some larger National Nature Reserves might better meet this requirement). The four aims defined in Statute show how ‘nature recovery’ in our Parks is inevitably compromised by considerations of land management, recreation pressures and local community viability. By design, ‘primacy of nature’ this is not.

I’m not sure there’s anything so wrong with the established statutory aims as to justify their revision. But their diverse nature carries unavoidable requirements for cooperation and conciliation. In practice, Scotland’s two National Parks were established especially to help manage pressures from recreation and tourism which other structures (local authorities and public bodies such as NatureScot or Forestry and Land Scotland working through various non-statutory committees) found difficult. But when it comes to land management, for example, our two Parks have relatively minor roles to play compared especially to the public bodies supporting farming and forestry which have much greater powers, resources and long-standing stakeholder relationships. While a third National Park might have a different focus to its predecessors, it would be essential that any such new focus provided clear added value over any alternative.

Question 2. Which of the proposed elements of leadership and action set out in the list above do you support? What others – if any – would you propose?

In general terms, I support all seven bullet points as identifying action required, but it isn’t clear why they are applied specifically to a National Park. There’s a variety of national and local public bodies who are just as much challenged by these statements, and who have greater resources and powers to help address them.

Question 3. What opportunities are there for National Parks to generate private investment in natural capital?

It’s clear that the quantity of public money which has been, and is likely to be, made available falls well short of need in tackling the nature and climate emergencies across Scotland. So there has to be a role for private investment; to date this has been problematic because private investors have not been subject to comparable transparency and accountability. The risk is that private money is simply driven by private gain, sometimes at the expense of the wider public interest. So there’s an urgent need to clarify the terms of this wider public interest in private investments in our natural capital. With this greater clarity, National Parks may perhaps be able to exemplify a proper balance of public and private interests.

Question 4. What role should local communities play in the National Park and how should National Park authorities work with and for them to secure a just transition?

National Parks, of the kind we have in Britain, cannot succeed without active engagement of their local communities.  Scotland’s National Parks are exemplary in maintaining a line of local accountability through the election of local Board members, but this highlights the fact that the Parks were designated for their National significance and attract additional National funding which would otherwise not be available. Alignment of national and local interests and priorities may often be difficult, and the balance struck between them must always be open and transparent – that’s a key bargain driving access to these additional resources.

3. The Role of National Parks (continued) (Q5-7)

A national statement that sets out the Scottish “vision and mission” for National Parks could be useful to provide further clarity on the role of National Parks and to promote their work more widely.

Question 5. Do you support a “vision and mission” for all of Scotland’s National Parks being clearly set out in a national statement? If not why not?

Now that the terms of the 2000 Act are informed by two decades of experience, a new national statement could help clarify the role of our Parks.  Such a statement provides an opportunity to explain where the National Parks designation fits in to, and enhances, Scotland’s rather piecemeal framework of designations.

There’s clearly a lack of consensus around what our National Parks are for, evidenced by the diverse responses to the ‘national discussion’ earlier this year. There was strong support, for example, for the idea of primacy of nature in National Parks, prioritising the protection and enhancement of biodiversity and ecosystem services. This idea is encouraged in the present consultation (for example “delivering more on the opportunities to restore nature as well protecting what exists already”, from the Scene setting paper), yet the present legislation does not provide such clarity of purpose. Our two National Parks lack the powers and resources to “maintain a working countryside”, despite this leading the list of key considerations in both cases. So some realism, yet ambition, in vision and mission would be welcome.

Question 6. If you favour a national statement for Scotland’s National Parks being developed, what else should it cover?

A national statement must set out a clear organisational framework for Scotland’s National Parks. Having our first two Parks as self-standing public bodies was pragmatic, but to continue in this way (with each new park creating yet another public body) risks greater confusion, especially if different parks develop distinct core purposes and priorities. As part of this, better clarity of the National Parks relationships with other public bodies and local authorities is required. Support for land management, for example, is dominated by farming (mainly RPID) and forestry (SF and FLS). Their shared purposes and relationships with National Parks are not explicit.

Question 7. To what extent should new National Parks be about the future potential of an area for nature restoration as well as what’s currently in place

This begs the question of the core purpose and priorities of any new National Parks. A primary focus on nature restoration may not be compatible with the multiple aims set out in Statute. Perhaps National Parks, on the Scottish model, may not be the best vehicle to achieve nature restoration (whereas for example a park meeting the IUCN Category 2 definition would be – perhaps designated as National Nature Reserves). A key issue here is the essential role of local communities; focus on nature restoration without their active support will fail, but we currently lack a clear path to reconcile local and national interests for example where national nature designations (SSSI, SAC, SPA etc) are determined and implemented centrally.

4. The Statutory Aims of National Parks (Q8-10)

National Park Aims are to:

• conserve and enhance the natural and cultural heritage of the area; 
• promote the sustainable use of the natural resources of the area; 
• promote understanding and enjoyment (including enjoyment in the form of recreation) of the special qualities of the area; and
• promote the sustainable social and economic development of the area’s communities.

Where
“natural heritage” includes the flora and fauna of a National Park or a proposed National Park, its geological and physiographical features and its natural beauty and amenity.
“cultural heritage” includes structures and other remains resulting from human activity of all periods, language, traditions, ways of life and the historic, artistic and literary associations of people, places and landscapes.

Section 9 (6) – In exercising its functions a National Park authority must act with a view to accomplishing the purpose set out in subsection (1); but if, in relation to any matter, it appears to the authority that there is a conflict between the National Park aim set out in section 1(a) and other National Park aims, the authority must give greater weight to the aim set out in section 1(a).

National Parks (Scotland) Act 2000

There should naturally be a close relationship between the “vision and mission” of National Parks and the statutory Aims of National Parks provided in the Act.  In covering environment, social and economic dimensions, the four statutory Park Aims currently provide the basis for Scotland’s integrated approach to National Parks.  While none explicitly refers to it, the Aims also enable National Parks to contribute to nature recovery and a just transition to net zero.

Definitions of both the natural and cultural heritage are provided by the Act.  The latter was developed before Our Place in Time, Scotland’s strategy for the historic environment, was written.  Further consideration may be needed on whether this definition should be updated to reflect this strategy and its implementation as well as experience of its application within National Parks.

The National Park Authority is required to take forward each of the Aims in a joined-up way unless this is likely to lead to the detrimental loss of the natural heritage and cultural heritage of the area at which point it must give “greater weight” to this first Aim.  This “balancing duty” is essential to the protected area function of Scotland’s National Parks.

While the current legislative approach has generally been seen as successful, a number of changes to these statutory Aims could be considered to further strengthen the focus and contribution of National Parks. Some of the possible broad options include:

1. retaining the current status quo e.g. keeping the existing four Aims as currently worded;
2. keeping the policy intention of each Aim unchanged but rewording them to better reflect the new vision and mission in the proposed national statement;
3. keeping the four Aims but include a new overarching statutory purpose of National Parks to secure nature recovery and a just transition to net zero;
4. adding additional aims e.g. “to promote the just transition to net zero” or “to  increase the accessibility of the areas for all”; and
5. reducing the Aims to the first one only and change the other three Aims to duties, thus giving the National Park a much stronger, single statutory focus on the protection and enhancement of the natural and cultural heritage.

Question 8. Are any specific changes to the existing four Aims required? If so why, and what are they?

Experience has been, over the last two decades, that our National Parks have focused on development planning and recreation management. Their role in land management (and hence maintaining “a working countryside”) has been limited by resources and overshadowed by the larger influence of other national public bodies. I’m not aware of any external review of their performance in taking forward each of the four aims in a joined-up way. There’s no obvious requirement to change these Aims unless the proposed National Statement clarifies the mission for our National Parks.

Question 9. Which of these possible options, or mix of possible options, do you think would help strengthen the focus and contribution of National Parks, and why?

Of the five options, only the last provides greater clarity of purpose, but begs the question of how much sign-up there would be among the many stakeholders. Options three and four risk even greater confusion, potentially adding an ‘alphabet soup’ of additional jargon hindering overall clarity of purpose.

Question 10. Are there other options that could be considered? If so, what are they?

It isn’t helpful to be considering the vision and mission of National Parks in isolation.  The ‘national discussion’ earlier in the year revealed a diversity of perspectives and proposals, some of which might well be better handled in another way.  A statement clarifying where our National Parks fit in to a wider framework of countryside management (including measures addressing land management, development planning, sustaining local communities and protection of natural and cultural heritage) would add value.

5. The Statutory Aims of National Parks (continued) (Q11-12)

Other public bodies are also bound by these statutory Aims when they are exercising functions within a National Park through the duty on them “to have regard” to the Park Plan.

Section 14 – The Scottish Ministers, a National Park authority, a local authority and any other public body or office-holder must, in exercising functions so far as affecting a National Park, have regard to the National Park Plan as adopted under section 12(7)(a).

This wording does not itself require action by public bodies.  While the track record of partnership working by public bodies in National Parks is strong, issues can arise between policy objectives which may slow or block delivery of the Park Plan.  To address this, there may be a need to strengthen the effect of this duty so that public bodies exercising functions within a National Park are required to positively support delivery of National Parks Plans.
 

Question 11. Do you think there should be any changes to the wording in the Act to require public bodies to support delivery of National Park Plans? If so, what would you propose?

In the absence of any external review showing positive effects of this duty, it seems likely that such vague exhortations are ineffective. But other public bodies cannot be expected to support a Park Plan which cuts across their respective roles. The ‘have regard’ duty appears to be an empty gesture which fails to address the underlying tensions.

Question 12. Do you have any other suggestions for improving partnership working to support the implementation of the National Park Plan by all?

Other public bodies must exercise their distinct functions consistently across Scotland, and /or across a range of functions beyond the remit of a National Park, so the Park Plan can never itself be the sole reference point. Greater clarity of these interactions and relationships, how they are managed and how they bear upon implementation of the Park Plan, would help foster a sense of shared purpose.

6. Powers and Functions of National Park Authorities (Q13-14)

At present, the Act provides the following powers and functions to all National Park Authorities These include:

• general powers of non-departmental government bodies (charges, advice, research, grant-aid; land acquisition and compulsory purchase etc.);
• natural heritage functions of local authorities and NatureScot (for example for countryside management, ranger provision, nature reserves, compulsory purchase and grants etc.); and the
• planning and access authority functions of local authorities.

Through the designation order, these powers and functions can be further specified to meet the needs and circumstances of the area. 

All National Park Authorities also have general powers to make bylaws and management rules in relation to the achievement of the National Park aims.  While not yet used, the legislation also contains unique powers for Scottish Ministers and public bodies to transfer their functions and powers to a Park body and vice versa.
 

Question 13. Could any of the existing powers and functions be used more effectively? If so, which ones and how? There’s an unavoidable tension between a focus on joined-up working within the Park boundary and the need for coherent, consistent and effective management of various functions across a wider area, often extending to Scotland as whole. It is surely significant that the powers to transfer functions and powers to or from a Park body have never been used over two decades. Such powers must be used judiciously, if at all, bearing this in mind. But greater clarity of how these tensions can best be managed and resolved would be beneficial.

Question 14. Are any of the existing powers or functions redundant or unnecessary? If so, which ones and why?

There’s no evidence that removal or restriction of powers and functions would aid the effectiveness of National Parks in delivering their mission.

7. Powers and Functions of National Park Authorities (continued) (Q15-16)

To take forward a refreshed “vision and mission”, National Park Authorities may require strengthened or new powers and functions in relation to the following areas

• Improving protection, enhancement and enjoyment of nature
• Delivering Net Zero
• Better management of land or sea
• Funding
• Community well-being and development

Question 15. What, if any, changes to the powers and functions in these areas should be considered and why?

In the absence of a clear National Statement for Scotland’s National Parks, as proposed earlier, it’s hard to say what changes to powers and functions might be required.  As long as the scope of our National Parks is aligned with IUCN Category 5 (protected landscapes) and the areas designated contain a variety of ownership types and human communities which must be sustained, then the present powers and functions are largely fit for purpose. Improvements then depend on better co-ordination of effort across the range of public bodies and stakeholder interests. To date such co-ordination has been patchy; it’s not obvious that better co-ordination can be imposed from above, or by enhanced powers to the Park Authority.

The five areas listed are all important, but none are uniquely relevant to our National Parks. It is wrong to argue that National Parks can fulfil some sort of ‘pathfinder’ role, because they cannot then model responses required where no National Park has been established.

Question 16. Are there any other areas where strengthened or new powers and functions will be needed by the National Park Authority? If so, what are they?

If a new National Statement gives rise to significant amendments to the vision and mission for all, or some, of our National Parks then corresponding revised powers and functions will be essential. For example, if a third National Park were to be designed to meet IUCN Category 2 (large natural or near-natural areas) then enhanced powers would be required to reflect a different balance of the wider public interest in protecting large-scale ecological processes along with provision of appropriate cultural, spiritual, scientific, educational, recreational and visitor opportunities.

8. Diversity in approach (Q17-18)

In thinking about powers and functions, a key question is the extent to which we want all our National Parks Authorities to be similar. Consideration may also be needed in relation to their governance and management.  It could be that a new National Park Authority will need to be similar to the existing ones.  Alternatively, very different approaches could be developed though bespoke arrangements set out in the individual designation order for each new National Park Authority which reflect the needs and geography of its area and its administration. 

Any changes to the statutory Aims of National Parks and the powers, functions and governance of National Park Authorities will require amendments to the legislation and will be the subject of further consultation by the Scottish Government. 

 Question 17. Should the powers and functions of National Park Authorities be decided on a Park by Park basis? Should any apply to all National Park Authorities? If so, which ones and why?

A piecemeal, park by park, approach seems unlikely to succeed. The new National Statement needs to place our National Parks in context of wider protection measures corresponding to each of the four statutory aims (plus any amendments). Any bespoke arrangements for a specific Park would then have to be formally and carefully set in this wider context to avoid confusion.

Question 18. Are there any changes you would want to see to the governance and management arrangements of all National Park Authorities?

The prevailing model, of a self-standing executive NDPB for each park, does not look sustainable especially as a third and subsequent Parks are established.  The merits of a Scotland-wide Park Service, with the economies of scale this offers, should be explored. But at the same time, each Park must have clear lines of accountability to the local communities within its boundaries and to its key stakeholders.

9. Section 2 – Criteria for selecting National Parks

This section considers the issues that need to be addressed in selecting new National Parks.  While NatureScot has been asked to provide advice on how it should be done and what it should comprise, the Scottish Government will lead the development of the evaluation framework and the nomination process itself.

Contents

• Developing a nomination process for National Parks
• Criteria for nomination and evaluation
  • Outstanding national importance
  • Size and coherence
  • Need or added-value
  • Degree of support
  • Strategic contribution
• Selection Criteria – other issues

10. Developing a nomination process for National Parks (Q19-21)

Scottish Ministers have committed themselves to an open, transparent and bottom-up nomination process for selecting new National Park areas rather than the traditional expert-led, top-down approach.  This fits well with new thinking about “co-production” in protected areas approaches, conservation practice and public policy more generally.  

Key elements of the approach envisaged by Scottish Ministers include:

• Development and publication of an evaluation framework to assess nominations;
• A request for nominations to be made with clear guidance and within a timeframe that encourages nominations from all parts of Scotland;
• The provision of advice and other support for potential areas to prepare nominations;
• An open and transparent evaluation of the nominations based on the agreed framework;
• Decisions on which area or areas to progress made by Scottish Ministers based on recommendations following this evaluation.

Question 19. Are these the key elements of an effective nomination process for National Parks in Scotland?

[As Section 2 sets out proposals for a nomination process along broadly the right lines, I haven’t answered these detailed questions 19-37 so as not to repeat points made in Section 1. I have offered some general comments in a response to Q38.]

19. Section 3 – Other issues and respondent information (Q38)

This final section covers other issues and respondent information

This consultation has focused on proposals for the role, powers and functions of National Park Authorities and the criteria for selecting new National Park areas. Future consultations from Scottish Government will follow, seeking views on the detail of any legislative changes Ministers consider are required and on a draft evaluation framework for selecting new National Parks.  Following the finalisation of this evaluation framework, a call for nominations for specific areas will then be issued by Scottish Ministers.

Question 38. Are there any other issues about either Scotland’s approach to National Parks or the selection of new National Parks you would like to raise in your response at this stage?

The most striking omission in this detailed consultation is the question of affordability. A third National Park along similar lines to its predecessors will cost, say, £5m per annum in round terms. Is such a sum available without further erosion of related budgets (eg for NatureScot)? Where is the best added-value from a commitment of this scale?

As noted in earlier responses, there’s general confusion around the role and purpose of National Parks, and how they fit into a bigger picture. A new National Statement is the opportunity to set out this wider context, the relationships of Park bodies with other public authorities and the organisational structures required for a third and subsequent park designations. The National Statement is also an opportunity to set out the terms of the wider public interest where private investment in natural capital is being encouraged.