National Parks have a global reputation signifying recognition and protection for the best examples of the natural world. While (on closer inspection) this reputation may not be fully merited, there can be little doubt that, for most people, this is where they begin. Scotland was one of the last nations on Earth to designate its first two National Parks, more than two decades ago. But Scotland’s Parks, along with the others in the UK, do not pretend to represent pristine examples of untrammelled wilderness. On the globally recognised IUCN classification, all these fall into category 5 – protected landscapes – in which a mix of ownership (private and public) includes a variety of land management and human communities. These contrast with the parks in the highest categories which are generally in public ownership and with little or no human habitation across large geographical areas.
Scotland’s National Parks legislation, passed by the (then) new Scottish Parliament in 20001, recognises four complementary purposes for these designations:
- to conserve and enhance the natural and cultural heritage of the area;
- to promote the sustainable use of the natural resources of the area;
- to promote understanding and enjoyment (including enjoyment in the form of recreation) of the special qualities of the area; and
- to promote the sustainable social and economic development of the area’s communities.
Although it is obvious that alignment of these four varied purposes will be challenging, there has been little recognition or debate around the trade-offs between them in either Loch Lomond & the Trossachs or the Cairngorms. This silence has allowed different interest groups to assert that one or another of these purposes should be dominant. There’s some support in the legislation for the idea that the first takes precedence – the ‘Sandford Principle’2 – but hard to see how that has operated in practice. In general, the authorities maintain a convenient pretence that these purposes need not be in conflict. Adding to these multiple purposes, the Scottish Government has declared plans to: “strengthen the leadership role of National Parks in tackling the interlinked crises of climate and biodiversity”3. New legislation is proposed which will, among other things, amend the established four purposes4.
Debating the multiple purposes of our National Parks is one thing, but how are these purposes actually achieved? The 2000 Act gives Ministers powers (but not a duty) to establish a new public body – a Park Authority – for each National Park. These are now costing some £24m per annum, employing nearly 300 staff across two Parks. Can we say that this commitment of scarce resources represents value for money? No review has taken place of the effectiveness of the National Park Authorities. A review process was started in 2008, leading to publication of an initial report reviewing the organisational arrangements5, but the planned subsequent stages were never completed. We have no considered assessment of the role played by the Park bodies in the planning system or their track record in managing the pressures from growing outdoor recreation and visitor management, the latter notably dominated by use of private cars. These two absorb a large proportion of effort, but neither directly addresses the (allegedly) core purpose of conserving natural heritage. This unavoidably requires a focus on land management, dominated by agricultural support over which the Park Authority has no specific influence. For these, and other reasons, there’s a question to be answered about the powers of National Park Authorities to achieve any of their statutory purposes. How any of this can address the ‘interlinked crises of climate and biodiversity’ is unknown.
Proposals for a new National Park in Scotland have been under discussion for several years. Most recently, there has been a consultation led by NatureScot, detailing proposals for a new Park in Galloway6. These broadly follow the established pattern of setting up yet another public body with a Park Board and supporting employees. It isn’t clear how this new National Park can aid the numerous challenges facing rural Galloway7, or how key specific issues (such as the spread of windfarms, with associated infrastructure, or the dominance of industrial-scale coniferous forestry) might be tackled. There’s a plethora of publicly funded initiatives in the area – examples include a ‘South of Scotland Natural Capital Innovation Zone’8, a ‘South of Scotland Responsible Tourism Strategy’9 and a ‘South of Scotland Regional Land Use Framework’10. How a new National Park Authority might find a valued place within this crowded institutional landscape isn’t clear.
Consulting on proposals for a new Park seems ill-timed when the governing legislation is under review. Even if it is then concluded that another Park is a worthwhile investment of scarce resources, it cannot be right simply to replicate the separate Executive NDPB model of our existing park authorities without some review of their performance. Little wonder that a Parliamentary Committee has been considering a petition: “Stop More National Parks in Scotland”11. Cool appraisal of the pro’s and con’s – and how best to protect Scotland’s natural heritage – is being lost in a polarised hubbub. So…constructive tension, eh?
For the record, my responses to some of the questions in the recent NatureScot consultation are set out below. I had also commented on two previous consultations12
Q1 – To what extent do you support the idea of a new National Park being established in south west of Scotland?
- Tend to Oppose
Q1b Please tell us the main reason(s) for your opinion.
It really isn’t clear how the creation of a National Park will address the many challenges facing rural Galloway. The consultation concedes (above) that many of these issues are systemic across rural Scotland, so at least there needs to be a proper review of the performance of Scotland’s two existing National Parks in addressing these same challenges over the last two decades. This evidence is missing.
The debate around this consultation has highlighted how the term ‘National Park’ means quite different things to different interest groups. This confusion is reinforced by the diverse purposes of a National Park in the present legislation, and exacerbated by statements from Scottish Government suggesting that National Parks may, in addition, address the ‘climate and nature emergency’. Current proposals to amend this legislation make it even more difficult to understand what the implications might be for a Galloway proposal.
Q2 Are there any alternatives to a National Park in Galloway that you would support? Please explain your answer.
The three alternatives listed have been selected from a much longer list of relevant initiatives in the area, for example the Natural Capital Innovation Zone. Perhaps the Regional Land Use Framework would form a sound foundation for the collaboration across diverse interest groups which is required, successfully to address the challenges described.
Q2b What are the advantages of your preferred alternative(s) over a National Park?
A new National Park risks adding to the confusion of organisations and initiatives which already exists. Scotland’s two existing National Parks are an expensive commitment of limited Scottish Government funds without clear added value. Priority should be given to funding practical projects yielding real world benefits rather than yet more salaries, plans, partnerships and position papers.
Q3a. If a National Park was to be designated, which of the three options presented in Map 4-1 and Table 4-1 would you support?
- None
Q3b. Please give your reasons.
Consultation on boundary proposals is premature when the case for creating a National Park is unproven.
Q7. Are there any further existing functions and powers from recent legislation that would be beneficial for this Park Authority to be able to draw on and why?
This question is hard to answer while proposals to revise the relevant legislation remain unresolved. The risk is that the National Park Authority adds cost and delay to established processes without adding value.
Q8a. Do you agree with the need for a bespoke approach suggested for the planning function for a National Park authority in Galloway?
Don’t know
Q8b. Looking at the possible options in Box 5-2, how do you think this should work in practice?
We need a proper review of the planning experience of Scotland’s two established National Parks, and relevant lessons from the similar Parks in England and Wales. A new National Park Authority must have strong planning powers which clearly sets out the respective roles of the Park Authority and the three local planning authorities.
Q9a. Do you agree that the National Park should in principle become an access authority for its area?
Yes.
Q11a. Do you agree with these [forestry and renewables] arrangements?
Maybe
Q11b. If not, what alternative approaches should be considered and why?
It is essential that the National Park is more than simply a spectator on decisions such as these. Becoming a statutory consultee would only be effective if the Park Board is able to refer contested applications for Ministerial consideration.
Q12a. Do you support these proposals for the potential size and composition of a National Park Board in the Galloway area?
No.
Q12b. What do you think would be the advantages or disadvantages of these suggested arrangements?
Based on experience of Scotland’s two National Park boards, and other similar public bodies, the Board should be smaller. In my view, too much is expected of a Board seeking to embrace all the different interests and constraints (as detailed in the proposals) within itself. Having directly elected representatives is important to ensure an informed local voice on the Board. Similarly, having nationally appointed representatives (by Ministers) ensures that wider national perspectives are heard. Adding in numerous local authority representatives results in a Board which is too unwieldy, but there’s a powerful argument that strong links are needed to the mandate represented by local authorities whose boundaries overlap with those of the National Park.
Q12c. What alternative options could be considered and why?
It is disappointing that there is no proper review of Scotland’s National Park experience over the last two decades. The 2000 Act provided a fair starting point, but an assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of the Board arrangements (in the light of experience) is long overdue.
Some of the earlier National Parks in England and Wales (eg Northumberland) were governed by a committee of the relevant local authority, but these proved problematic and have been replaced with structures rather similar to those proposed here. How have these overcome the unwieldy nature of large Boards?
What is required is some mapping of the confusing plethora of public bodies with responsibilities impinging on the functions of the National Park. Where (if at all) would a National Park Board best fit in, and how would this add value? Further work is required.
Q13a. Should Scottish Minister appointments to the Board include expertise on nature, farming and forestry?
Don’t know.
Q13b. What other areas of expertise would the Board require, and why?
These, and other, areas of expertise must be available to the National Park, but further work is required to establish whether Board appointments is the best or only way to achieve a balanced perspective. For example, such work would establish and map out the various ways (Board appointments, staffing, retained consultants etc) the National Park can access the range of expertise it needs, with associated costs and benefits.
Q14. Do you have suggestions for the topics that National Park sub-committees and advisory groups should be created for?
There’s already a plethora of national and local bodies with an interest in this geographical area. Any new sub-committees or advisory groups must not add to the resulting confusion of overlapping interests. From a practical perspective, it is increasingly difficult to populate additional groups; relevant expertise and experience is at a premium. How is this best brought together?
Q17a. What options for using the existing public sector staff and resources to undertake the work of the National Park Authority should be considered and why?
National Parks should be an opportunity to establish a joined-up approach to delivery of the Parks’ aims. The 2000 Act has led to two National Park Authorities each with more than 100 staff, carrying a substantial total salary cost. Yet these bodies are too small to be self-standing in terms of essential corporate services (especially IT, for example provision of online management and monitoring of grant awards). Many of the areas of technical expertise (in planning, rural land management, access and outdoor recreation) are also required across other relevant public bodies. Simply appointing additional staff to a National Park Authority is the wrong approach.
Q17b. Are there any benefits or drawbacks to these options which need to be considered?
There is a long-standing failure to secure joined-up working across the relevant public bodies, due to conflicting responsibilities and priorities, exacerbated by diverse terms and conditions upon which staff are employed. Too often, organisational cultures cultivate a ‘tribal’ approach to relationships with potential partners. Experience over two decades from Scotland’s two established National Park Authorities suggests they have been unable to overcome these factors, but no proper review of this experience has yet taken place. New thinking is needed.
Q18a. What level of staffing do you think is appropriate for the area, powers and functions and governance arrangements being considered?
A team of around 25 seems far too small, when compared to over 100 currently in the Cairngorms and 175 in Loch Lomond and the Trossachs. The risk is that the new Park Authority would be too small to address the many challenges driving the Park’s establishment. Of course, this difficulty might be mitigated by successful adoption of a co-operative approach utilising staff capacity and expertise contributed from other relevant public bodies. In turn, this begs questions about the skills and balance of effort that would be needed. These staffing proposals are inadequate in the absence of proposals to achieve such co-operation.
Q18b. What other areas of work would require further staffing and why?
What is the range of roles fulfilled by the 275 staff of the first Scottish Park authorities? How will competent and effective corporate services (finance, audit, HR, IT, facilities management etc) be delivered – and at what cost?
Q20. Do you have any other comments you wish to make here which are relevant to the proposal?
In summary, this proposal seems premature in the absence of proper review of Scotland’s National Park experience and bearing in mind Scottish Government proposals to amend the relevant legislation.