The Cairngorms National Park Authority (CNPA)’s consultation on their draft National Park Partnership Plan (NPPP) officially closes on Friday, apparently at 5pm. So far, I have only considered the draft plan from a climate and nature conservation perspective but will continue covering other aspects of the plan after the consultation closes. Before that, however, I wanted to touch on the implications of the NPPP for people’s ability to exercise their access rights in the National Park.
The treatment of access rights in the NPPP
After all everyone has gone through with Covid-19 and the number of people visiting the countryside as a consequence, one might have expected that access rights would play a central role in the draft NPPP. But it makes not a single reference to access rights in the plan despite a report to the Cairngorms Local Outdoor Access Forum in August showing what appears to be a record number of access cases (136 for 2021 compared to 105 in 2019 (see here).
The Transport and Access fact sheet accompanying the draft NPPP (see here) provides a map of long distance trails in the National Park, the location of two non-motorised watersports centres and a link to the core paths plan. That’s it! There is nothing about access rights generally or any facts about outdoor recreational use in the National Park
There is a reason for this. Access is dealt with under the “Place” section (C) of the NPPP. In Objective C6 the CNPA attempts to re-define its statutory duty to promote public enjoyment of the countryside so it is limited to paths:
Don’t be mislead by “Provide outstanding opportunities”. If you stick to the path you will miss most of them. But directing people to “promoted path networks”, whatever they are, limits people still further. It is effectively saying that the Park bureaucrats should decide where people go.
The implication of the objective and its stated rationale is that CNPA staff believe that the public have “adverse impacts” when wandering, as is their right, off the path. As I have pointed out in a post last month (see here), there is not a single mention in the NPPP of the much more extensive damage to habitats and disturbance to species cause by the use of All Terrain Vehicles across the National Park.
A good illustration of where this objective is leading was given by the Cairngorms Capercaillie Project in a post yesterday:
Earlier in the year I commented on how the Cairngorm Capercaillie Project was exhorting people to stick to the path and keep dogs on a lead from April until mid-August (see here). Now they have extended that message to cover the winter too. How long is it until they start trying to tell people to keep out the of Caledonian Pine Forest all year round?
It is precisely because of bossy organisations like the Capercaillie Project that access rights are so important and why people should be very concerned about the draft NPPP. In effect incorporating “keep to the path” into CNPA policy will legitimise landowners from all over the National Park putting up signs to this effect, as they have been doing with the Welcome to the Moor Signs (see here). The gamekeepers who continue to kill raptors in large numbers within the National Park will be absolutely delighted – if they know where people are, they have even less chance of being caught.
The attack on access rights continues in the policy section of the NPPP:
Re point 3, under access rights you have a legal right to light a fire and the Scottish Outdoor Access Code sets out where this can be done responsibly. Now, I accept that lighting fires in many places within the National Park is not responsible because of the peat soils, risk to the Caledonian Pine Forest. But the CNPA is proposing something that goes well beyond that, a no open fires or barbecues policy across the whole of the National Park.
Andrew Painting in his book Regeneration about Mar Lodge, where there has been a serious fire caused by a camper, gives a good description of the issues and concerns. But he nevertheless concludes that lighting a fire on a shingle beach by the River Dee poses very little risks and that the Mar Lodge Ranger Service – who have promoted a no fires policy – should take that into account.
There are two major problems with the CNPA policy proposal, besides it being contrary to the letter of the law. The first is that the CNPA is taking what appears the easy option, saying “no” rather than educating people. That is contrary to the whole spirit of the Scottish Outdoor Access Code, but it also won’t work. People don’t stop doing things because some bureaucrat says so and the experience of the Loch Lomond and Trossachs National Park Authority is people won’t stop doing things just because byelaws have been passed either. The second problem is the hyprocrisy. Elsewhere in the NPPP the CNPA take a policy position that muirburn is acceptable anywhere where the peat is less than 30cm thick. This means that the draft NPPP is saying that landowners can light fires, however much carbon they release into the atmosphere and however much damage they do to habitats (see here), but the public can’t.
Improving path networks – the challenge the NPPP fails to mention
Compared to the question of people’s right to walk off path, the objective for the path network is much better: although how the CNPA or anyone else would be able to tell whether the path network is the best in Scotland is not explained. The CNPA has been doing a lot of work trying to link up communities, e.g. challenging Transport Scotland to provide a proper off road cycle route between Carrbridge and Aviemore as part of the A9 upgrade and appears committed to continuing that. So far, so good.
The problem with the objective, however, is it leaves out almost every hill path in the Cairngorms, very few of which are included in the core path plan (see here). With the Mountains and the People Project coming to an end almost two years ago, apart from the conservation owners there is now almost no investment in maintaining hill paths despite their importance. “Keep to the path but we are not going to maintain it” seems to be the message! Neither part of that message is coherent.
Funding for hill paths is a major challenge but it should be a priority for the CNPA over the next five years and there is an opportunity now the Scottish Government has agreed to dedicate a proportion of Scotland’s transport budget to active travel.
Other infrastructure to support access
The final objective relating to access is concerned about the infrastructure needed to support visitors and is generally sound:
“Basic campsites” should be added to campervan facilities: places, for example, where there are firepits for people to light fires safely! Providing such infrastructure would be far more effective than the proposed “No fires” policy.
In terms of spreading demand, there are enormous swathes of ground in the National Park with hardly any visitors at present and where increased numbers would hardly be noticed. But for people to enjoy those areas and spread their personal impact they need to walk off path!
Actions in the NPPP related to access
In the section of the NPPP entitled actions there are some things that are not mentioned elsewhere. After a section containing three actions on e-bikes, there is this to cover the three objectives considered in this post:
It is possible that a Strategic Tourism Infrastructure Plan could include investment in hill paths but if so that is not clear.
The action to develop “Managing for Visitor Plans”, an awkward phrase, is broadly welcome. “Managing for visitors” has a different meaning and is better than “managing visitors” and a far more welcome message than “Keep to the promoted path” and “No fires!”.
Overall policy position
This is set out in B3 which brings together the good and bad aspects of the NPPP as it relates to access and outdoor recreation:
There is too much emphasis in the first sentence on the negative impacts of access and recreation. The impression it gives is that negative impacts are almost the necessary corollary of outdoor recreation. That is just not true, and even less true if you compare the impacts with most land-management in the National Park. It is too almost as though the CNPA don’t understand that the communities living in the National Park enjoy outdoor recreation too. Words are important and rephrasing the clause “whilst limiting negative impact on wildlife and communities WHERE IT OCCURS” would make a real difference
Point 4 takes me back to where I started this post. At least the CNPA acknowledges that it should promote responsible behaviour both among those who enjoy access and those who manage it. But “promotion” won’t deal with those land-managers who obstruct access by locking gates etc. The CNPA needs to re-affirm its duty to uphold access rights. Moreover, since the CNPA elsewhere in the NPPP states the responsible thing is to keep to the path, clearly it is saying that it will never act against all those Welcome to the Moor signs which tell people to do just that. That has to change.
If you want to understand this failure to uphold access rights, just look at the “List of organisation and groups included in the plan”. In six and a half pages of organisations there is just one, Paths for All (I used to be Director) which can in any sense be said to represent outdoor recreation outside of field sports. There are no mountaineers, no ramblers, no cyclists, no canoeists, no paddle boarders, no natural history societies, not even a campervanning association. By contrast on the land management side: Association of Deer Management Groups; British Association of Shooting and Conservation; Crown Estate Scotland; individual Deer Management Groups; East Cairngorms Moorland Partnership; Game and Wildlife Conservation Trust; National Farmers’ Union of Scotland; Scottish Gamekeepers Association; Scottish Land and Estates and its subsidiary Wildlife Estates Scotland. It’s no wonder the draft NPPP undermines access rights (and indeed is so vague on conservation issues).
If the CNPA is to take sides it should be supporting the public, not landowners.
Nick Kempe: “Basic campsites” should be added to campervan facilities: places, for example, where there are firepits for people to light fires safely!”
So, where are people going to get their firewood from in such places? By removing dead, and possibly live, wood from the surrounding countryside and woodlands. Dead wood is an important component of woodland, providing food and habitat for invertebrates and fungi and recycling nutrients into soils in the process.
It is grossly irresponsible to promote fire pits in campervan sites, as if the only problem is the safety of the resulting fire.
Hi Roy, your point would be true if the basic campsite was located in an area of Caledonian forest and people are left to search for their own wood. There is no reason however why people shouldn’t bring their own wood like they bring their own charcoal. There are also places where there are non-native species where wood could be provided (for a price) or where scavenging for wood would not be an issue, in fact could be desirable. This is all about education, not blanket bans.
Deadwood is a resource for fungi and invertebrates in all woodlands, including those with non-native species, not just Caledonian pinewoods. Besides, campervan sites, existing and proposed, adjacent to ancient woodlands is very much a present issue in the Cairngorms National Park. People on an extended tour will not be able to bring their own firewood. Charcoal is a separate issue, and providing charcoal braziers for barbecues is not the same as providing firepits for bonfires.
Hi Roy, I accept there is a logic in arguing that no dead wood should be burned and it would be better left for nature – although in my view there are exceptions to this, eg the branches that are typically left after clearfell cutting out light from the ground arguably add to the damage those plantations caused in the first place – but following your argument to its logical conclusion shouldn’t we be banning all woodburning stoves in the National Park and elsewhere? The amount of carbon and damage done by people lighting camp fires is surely miniscule compared to the wider wood burning industry? Nick
“shouldn’t we be banning all woodburning stoves in the National Park and elsewhere?”
No, I don’t think so. The collection (or purchasing) of firewood by residents is a very different matter. Such firewood collecting (or purchasing) is usually restricted to live wood (because time is available to allow the wood to season), where trees are felled as part of a programme of management that can actually benefit biodiversity, though I accept that is not always the case.
In my own case, for example, nearly all of my firewood comes from pine trees that I have thinned from a pine woodland that is in need of thinning, and it is done during parts of the year when, for example, birds are not nesting. This thinning operation, as well as benefiting broadleaved trees (birch, rowan, willow, that are never felled) and juniper that thereby receive more light, also benefits the remaining pines enabling them to develop broader crowns, that benefits birds like capercaillie, blackcock and crossbills as well as the ground flora, including twinflower. I suspect such thinning may also (though I don’t have any data to confirm this) actually increase the rate of carbon sequestration by allowing the remaining pines to grow more rapidly. So, it not only improves biodiversity but also, possibly, increases carbon sequestration as well. Moreover, I know where there are sensitive areas such as patches of rare twinflowers or wood ant nests, where particular care is needed.
For people gathering firewood for their own immediate use from woods about which they know almost nothing, the situation is very different. For one thing, they need to take deadwood to have much chance of getting it to burn (not that that stops the cutting of livewood entirely). So, deadwood is gathered along with all the invertebrates living in it. In my case also, there is deadwood close to a road that has twinflower sprawling over it, that would be torn up and damaged were such firewood collected, along with all the trampling associated with such activities. Even where management involves much less sensitive large scale commercial felling, the motivation for the operation is not for firewood production, so it would occur whether or not some produce was sold as firewood.
The main argument against woodstoves appears to be concerned with air pollution, but in sparsely populated rural areas I don’t think that is a problem, as the pollutants in woodsmoke are rapidly dispersed before being washed out of the atmosphere by rain or oxidised to CO2 and water.
Many years ago I restored a bothy on the west coast for the Mountain Bothies Association and although there was driftwood available, that did not prevent the hacking off of limbs or entire felling of the nearby oak trees that had managed to survive on the deer and sheep inaccessible crags. I’m afraid I long ago lost the rosy expectation that a constant stream of visitors to places with a fireplace would not have pretty devastating consequences for local biodiversity.
Roy, this sounds like an argument against people being able to collect wood rather than against lighting fires? Nick
I have written this elsewhere: perhaps in not such strident tones but I make no apologies for repeating myself. In my view, as simply a citizen who uses the land for my recreation and my business, the National Park Authorities seem to be self-perpetuating (possibly self-indulgent and self-serving) vehicles for bureaucracy with multiple layers of reviews, papers, reviews and representations. I will also repeat that they seem to devour vast sums of investment (https://cairngorms.co.uk/resource/docs/boardpapers/10092021/210910AuCtteePaper2Annex1CNPADraftAccounts20_21%20without%20audit%20report.pdf yet constantly appear to resent Scots and visitors alike from experiencing and enjoying the freedom to explore (responsibly) the vast tracts of their estate.
But my points here relate more to the three issues;
1) Where has the £12.5m awarded by the Lottery gone (Press and Journal / July 2021)
2) How can the CNP reasonably expect folk to take them seriously if the apparent massive extent of muirburn is, through weasel wording, be allowed
3) How can the CNP expect folk to take them seriously (that is the authority board, not the hard-working Rangers and staff on the ground) if they remain averse to tackling the royal estate which seems to set an example to others?
…AN OUTSTANDING NATIONAL PARK.ENJOYED AND VALUED BY EVERYONE,WHERE NATURE AND PEOPLE THRIVE
TOGETHER…
What a load of tosh and i’m being polite, i can only speak for the area of Aviemore but this Park has done nothing unless you want to own airb@b property that no local could ever afford, house for the Rich with wages for the poor should be the CNP slogan.
I have spent time in many National Parks in Canada over mant years, and to be honest this Park can only be described as an
embarrassment and complete failure in so many departments.
Go to https://gocanmore.com/canmore-parks-centennial-park.html and see what what is provided for Locals and Visitors, fire pits at the Park with kindling and firewood provided, 360 view of the swing park, skateboard park, mountain bike course and lots more, sheltered facilities so it is used all year round, and it’s free for everyone to use.
Aviemore has another useless band stand, street lights cut in half years ago with blue tape around them that have never been repaired, making the village at night like driving or walking on the dark side of the moon.
As for Raptors in the CNP,…. if you want to see Raptors go to Spain, 3 times as many Golden Eagles as Scotland, again they know how to manage and protect Raptors with little to no cost to the Public purse.
The way to manage land around Aviemore seems to be to build more holiday homes, you would swear some one was getting a few quid in the back pocket.
Cairngorms Capercaillie Project´s “winter advice” presented above is concerning for someone living in Carrbridge. You also asked a very timely question, Nick: How long is it until they start trying to tell people to keep out of Caledonian Pine Forest all year round?
I can tell you that Cairngorms Capercaillie Project are already working on it, assisted by CNPA Access Authority.
They appear to go for segregation rather than following NatureScot´s guidance for integration of access in areas with ground nesting birds. This project is not only aiming to make residents and visitors to the Carrbridge area stay on promoted paths, they want them to stick to the village path network (quoting from their Spring 2021 Newsletter):
“Part of the Carrbridge Capercaillie Conservation Strategy has always been about enhancing the path network around the village to draw people away from capercaillie areas, allowing the birds the space they need to survive and providing residents and visitors with even more enjoyable paths and outdoor spaces in the heart of the village”.
CNPA Access Authority´s choice of words in a response to a resident who pointed out that steps to integrate access in capercaillie areas had been skipped makes me wonder if they have forgotten that access rights extend further than the village borders (quoting from the response): “In the context of capercaillie conservation across the Park we have not skipped a step in the approach to managing disturbance. Examples of steps taken are: Creation and promotion of a community path networks to provide sufficient and reasonable access around communities . . . “
Your comment that CNPA should be supporting the public, not landowners if they were to take sides is also very timely.
Whenever I have raised locked gates issues with CNPA Access Authority, I have been met with arguments aimed at supporting land managers decisions to keep gates locked.
They are simply following the lead of LLTPA who have “weaponised” the wildlife laws to get round access rights and buoy off ever increasing areas of Loch Lomond “to protect Ospreys” (which obviously took up residence before the restrictions existed), under threat of draconian penalties for non compliance.
There are also information boards on all the islands discouraging people from leaving the beach area because of Capercaillie, which it has been suggested are not in fact present.