A day after the initial consultation (see here) about creating a new National Park in Scotland closed, there was a Scottish Government sponsored debate in the Scottish Parliament on the issue, introduced by the responsible junior Minister, Green MSP Lorna Slater. (You can view the proceeedings here or read the official report here).
While there have been other debates about National Parks since the SNP came to power, what is different now is that the SNP Government, as a result of their agreement with the Greens, has committed to the creation of at least one new National Park in the lifetime of the current parliament. The shift in position by their leadership has meant that SNP MSPs are now freer to speak out than previously and several spoke in favour of new National Parks during the debate which agreed the following motion:
That the Parliament recognises the key role that national parks are playing in tackling the twin biodiversity and climate crises, and the important cultural, social and economic benefits that they bring to Scotland; welcomes the announcement by the Scottish Government that at least one new national park will be designated during the current parliamentary session; understands the need for an open and transparent evaluation process to identify the areas to be progressed to national park designation; welcomes the start of stakeholder engagement to set the criteria for identifying the areas to be designated as new national parks; notes that there are over 3,500 national parks across the world; regrets that there have been just two national parks created in Scotland, the Loch Lomond and The Trossachs National Park, in 2002, and the Cairngorms National Park, in 2003, since the Parliament passed the National Parks (Scotland) Act in 2000; praises the work of the Scottish Campaign for National Parks, which identified at least seven further potential sites in 2013, as well as community groups in Galloway and the Borders, and elsewhere, which continue to demonstrate clear demand for new national parks; recognises that, in addition to the designation of new national parks, it is vital that the national scenic areas and regional parks are reinvigorated to help tackle the climate, nature and biodiversity emergencies, and believes that the Scottish Government must pave the way for the opening of a number of new national parks across Scotland
What was particularly welcome was that the motion recognised the importance of Regional Parks and National Scenic Areas. In other words that the Scottish Government needs not just to consider National Parks in isolation but as part of a wider suite of designations which have been neglected over the last decade (see here for Regional Parks and here for the example of the Glen Etive NSA). For example, many of the areas suggested for new National Parks in the recent consultion (eg Ochils/Carron Valley, Lomond Hills and Loch Leven, East Neuk and landward Fife, M8 corridor) would be much more appropriately considered as new Regional Parks, while a very interesting proposal for restoring Ravenscraig might be considered for a new Country Park.
The motion, however, failed to mention what I believe to be the most important thing that needs to be done before Scotland creates any new National Parks and that is to consider how far our two existing National Parks have met their statutory objectives: to conserve landscape and nature, promote public enjoyment and understand, ensure wise use of resources and promote sustainable development. Read almost any post on parkswatch and I would hope it is clear that our National Parks have been falling well short of delivering their statutory objectives and have failed to take serious action to address the climate and nature emergencies.
There has only been one partial review of Scotland’s two National Parks and that was in 2008. It was originally supposed to be in two parts, the first dealing with governance and administration, with the second looking more at performance, ie what the National Parks had actually achieved. In the event, after the publication of the Stage 1 report (see here) – whose main recommendation was to reduce the number of Board Members – nothing further happened. A change of Minister, from Mike Russell to Roseanna Cunningham, probably did not help. But I suspect a more important factor was that the then Scottish Government had no intention of creating new National Parks and no real vision for the existing ones. For the civil servants responsible, carrying on with the review therefore appeared work unlikely to go anywhere. Hence why it was quietly abandoned.
Conducting a proper review of the Cairngorms and Loch Lomond and Trossachs National Park Authorities is therefore as much unfinished business* as the creation of a new one. A review is required to ensure any new National Park is fit for purpose and is urgently needed if our existing National Parks are to deliver anything like their potential. The parliamentary motion was therefore a missed opportunity for MSPs to recognise there is a need to take a critical look at how our existing National Parks are doing and to consider critical issues that impact on this, from the availability of resources to landownership and the power of landowners.
[*Note. Unfinished Business is the title of the report from the Scottish Campaign for National Parks (SCNP) which made the case for new National Parks in Scotland and was mentioned in the parliamentary debate. I served for a time on the Executive Committee for SCNP and consistently argued we needed to make our existing National Parks work as well as advocate for new ones].
Spot on. I visited the Trossachs last week for the first time in many years and due to the oversized Camping Zone (shouldn’t that be No-Camping Zones?) signs I felt very unwelcome. I believe the Cairngorms National Park is doing better but perhaps because I live in it I can see the positives as well as the negatives. But you are correct, any new National Park debate needs to move away from ‘potential economic benefits’ and start prioritising landscape and wildlife conservation. That, surely, is what National Parks are about. That is why areas like the Ochils, Lomonds, Galloway are being touted as potential National Parks. The people behind these proposals want economic benefits. Personally I oppose any new National Parks in Scotland. They are extremely costly, with large overpaid staffs and little tangible benefits to local people or the nation in terms of conservation. The ‘draw’ of National Parks, at least here in the Cairngorms, is that places like Aviemore and Glenmore are now polluted – with people! A proper national debate is required, but I’m not convinced the urban, central-belt SNP Government, is best suited to organising it.
Indeed Cameron, and though we both come from the same neck of the Central Belt, a half century + living in the Highlands has unshackled us from its perceptions and prejudices that would appear to be still inherent in many MSPs from that airt. Like you, I am opposed to any more national parks, especially if they are merely to be repeats of the current failing farce and as you know, I prefer the option of national wildlife refugia as outlined in an earlier article on this site.
Until there is genuine consensus in response to these two fundamental (sequential) questions there can be no wise progress towards any fresh land designations in Scotland as National parks.
1) What is National park designation supposed to achieve for Scotland , which could not be done by modifying existing authority at local and national level anyway?
2) Is the imposition of yet another tier of tax funded “governance” (in a shiny new park HQ) on full expenses , the most cost effective way of achieving whatever outcome is defined in response to 1) .
I have previously used Nicks blog to point up the way I see Scottish authorities seeking to micro manage every aspect – use subdivision to impose rules. Split everything into little compartments with little accountability. Who can see which official is ultimately responsible for anything important? Always the school playground excuse is rolled out: .”the big yin did it and scarpered”. ( The inept chaos has generated plenty of well-heeled jobs on interminable public enquiry teams …and within Audit Scotland… but only for the very select few?
Why would anyone want another National Park when the Cairngorms National park has been a total disaster for the local Community and businesses, and after millions and millions of tax payers money, it is only getting worse.
It’s sad but true that the National park to locals feels like the Highland clearances, £420,000 for a house in the old pony field in the villiage, ex council house being sold for over £250,000 for air B@B, what chance to local kids born in the village have.
Every business looking for staff or having to close a few days a week, staff sleeping in converted vans because the rental market is beyond belief, not even a play park for locals and visitors to enjoy, street lights cut down years ago in the middle of the village covered in cheap electrical tape for years.
I am now hoping to convert my garage into a little place for my son, born in Aviemore and 8 yrs waiting for council house, he hasn’t moved on the list in……. 8yrs, while he see’s houses being sold beyond what he could ever afford in his lifetime in the village,thanks National park for making it a rich playgound for second home owners, that’s one thing you have excelled at.
With the poor visitor management in the area, i am willing to bet it’s only a matter of time before Glenmore or Rothiemurchus is on fire, the only thing that might stop that is the amount of human waste in the trees.
What a disaster Aviemore and Glenmore have become since the national park was formed.
Hear hear.
The Angus glens just goes thesame. Any cottage 250k min and they choose not to live in it.
If holiday let they wonder why no one wants to staff the change overs.
So what do you think about the deserted estate houses in Glen Esk?
I would agree that a review of the existing parks should come before any more are designated. I was involved in responses to the Glover review on the parks down south. It was quite critical around the lack of progress on protecting nature, though in truth when the act for designating these parks went through in 1949 it was tied up with post war access legislation. Without the access element I’m convinced they wouldn’t have been designated at that time. The aims of the two Scottish parks place more emphasis on biodiversity with specific reference to natural heritage but there still needs to be more focus on biodiversity and it’s enhancement in the face of a crisis for the natural world. The elephant in the room with the Glover review was the lack of any solutions for the difficulties that local communities face around housing and employment. I largely agree with Gordon the parks offer little for local residents, but that’s because on the terms they are designated they are primarily for visitors and their economic spend.
Hi Andy,
but that’s because on the terms they are designated they are primarily for visitors and their economic spend.
It is not very visitor or business friendly when cafe’s/ and shops can’t open because of the lack of staff, lots of youngsters would love to stay and work in Aviemore, which would be the future heart and soul of any village, but monthly long term rentals at £800 per month for a small 2 bedroom house or flat just ain’t worth working for.
The National park has been a joke and not a funny one, the only people who can afford a house in Aviemore, are the National Park staff, which in turn is funny as almost all of them are from outside the Cairngorm National park.
I once met the CEO of the National Park, he was more than happy to tell me he has visited Aviemore since the 60’s, that was, i guess his qualification for the Job, i had to tell him i had been living in Aviemore since the 60’s, i guess he was a pal of someone in the SNP, nice work if you can get it.
I watched online, part of the debate held in the parliament in Edinburgh, re.’ national parks’ and was dismayed to see so few MSP’s present in the chamber. Perhaps this shows the lack of interest in this subject as far as the Scottish Parliament is concerned. I don’t expect there to be much change made in the near future. It is really a case of ‘status quo’: no proper regulation about the burning of heather, lack of prosecutions re. the poisoning of birds of prey on grouse moors owned by absentee landlords. etc., etc.
If wish I could be more optimistic about the situation!
The current National Park model has limited budget like any organisation, this limits it expertise to the best available for a price which is often short of what is needed, but what makes it less effective is that they will not entertain other experts often with better credentials. They don’t even consider third party expertise offering free knowledge and due diligence, this trait seems to be an SNP one. Since the structure is not democratic its hard to fix. Lucky we don’t need any ferries!
Thanks for your comment, Gavin. What worries me now is that were Scotland to become independent, would this help or hinder any issues re. the national parks.
With the present Scottish Parliament, it seems to me to be an issue which is at the bottom of the list, re. priority.
I have never heard Nicola Sturgeon mention anything about land use in Scotland.
I think there does seem to be a lack of interest in anywhere beyond West Central Scotland by the First Minister and others in her administraion, but that’s a problem of the limited horizons of individuals. There is no reason to suppose that it would necessarily be significantly worse or better with independence. There is an opportunity for Lorna Slater to make her mark here, but I see little evidence of any inclination to do so thus far, and the Environment Directorate has been in the hands of deeply cautious and conservative senior officials for about a decade.
Just think what Andy Wightman might have been doing in the role Lorna Slater has now – but I suspect that would not have been allowed to happen.