National Parks Advice to Ministers - February 2023 - Annex C
Online Events – Attendees; summary of the discussions and key outputs.
Return to the main National Parks Advice to Ministers - February 2023
Published: 2023
This annex provides a summary of the online events that were held as part of the consultation, including information on attendees, content and discussion and feedback generated. There are three sections: A – event attendees, B – event meeting notes, C – meeting concept-boards.
1. Welcome and introduction
The chair welcomed everyone to the webinar and gave a short introduction to the event.
2. Ministerial video and participants’ poll
The chair introduced the video from the Minister for Biodiversity, Circular Economy and Green Skills, Ms Lorna Slater. This video set the scene about why these consultation events were taking place and why the government are looking to establish more national parks in Scotland. Whilst listening to this video, participants were asked to fill in a single-word poll to describe their feelings about the establishment of one or more new National Parks in Scotland.
2.1 Ministerial video
The Minister began by describing the current condition of the environment in terms of the twin interlinked crises of climate change and biodiversity loss. This is the decade in which urgent action needs to be taken to redefine our relationship with nature. Without this, the degradation of our natural environment and the effects of climate change will have gone past the point where they can be managed. The Scottish Government have therefore committed to halting further declines in biodiversity by 2030. Measures are being taken to protect 30% of Scottish land for nature by 2030 and to restore 250,000 hectares of peatland by 2030. The multi-year Nature Restoration Fund will support vital programmes of work, including species on the edge, halting the loss of Scotland’s rainforest and developing nature networks.
Scotland’s National Parks will need to play a very important role in leading action for nature restoration and the just transition to net zero. The two existing National Parks, in the Cairngorms and Loch Lomond and the Trossachs, already are doing essential work to restore our natural environment, tackle the climate crisis, manage visitor facilities, promote responsible access and develop sustainable communities. Building on this experience will ensure that existing and new National Parks can drive the transformation that is needed and deliver more for nature. Engaging with the people who live and work in these areas, as well as the visitors who enjoy them so much, is crucial.
The Minister described the narrative of loss - another loss of an ecosystem, another species extinction, the gradual degradation of our environment - that must be turned around to make it a story of abundance and gain. So that our children and grandchildren will be left a much better legacy than has been left to us, so that they can live and grow up in a world of abundant nature. An example of this exciting work that has already began includes the reintroduction and translocation of beavers around Scotland. The reinstatement of a species that has been extinct for hundreds of years is the kind of significant change that is exciting for the children of Scotland. They will now grow up alongside beavers and consider this a part of their natural environment, something children haven’t had for hundreds of years in Scotland.
The commitment to protecting 30% of Scotland by 2030 is game-changing. There is a lot to discuss here, in terms of what land, where and what does protected for nature mean, especially where we have communities working and living alongside this nature. How do those pieces of that puzzle come together so that nature and people can thrive alongside one another? And what should be the contribution of our National Parks to this?
The Scottish Government has committed to the designation of at least one new National Park in Scotland by the end of the current parliamentary session in 2026. This event is not about where the new National Park should be located, that will follow later in 2023 when communities and interest groups are invited to submit nominations for areas they wish to put forward for National Park status. This event is an opportunity for participants to provide their thoughts and ideas on three key things: firstly, how the designation of a new National Park can drive nature restoration, tackle climate change and promote sustainable land use; secondly, what the selection criteria should be for new National Parks in Scotland; and thirdly, how best to support existing and new National Parks to do more for local communities and visitors, as well as deliver for nature and net zero.
The Minister thanked everyone for participating in these events, which are part of the important national discussion of the future of our National Parks. She welcomed everyone’s views and ideas and looked forward to receiving feedback from them.
2.2 Poll results: What word describes how you feel about the establishment of one or more new National Parks in Scotland?
This infographic shows the results of the word poll for the south event (a); north event (b); and the national event (c).
Click for a full description
The poll from the south event received mixed responses which included 'concerned', 'positive', 'optimistic' and 'undecided'. The most frequent response was 'excited'. The poll from the north event received largely positive responses which included 'supportive' and 'timely'. The most frequent responses were with 'excited', 'optimistic' and 'hopeful'. The national event received mixed responses which included 'timely', 'intriguing', 'cautious', 'progress' and 'responsibility'. The most frequent responses were 'excited' and 'hopeful'.
3.Explaining the process
Building on the Minister’s video, Pete Rawcliffe, Head of People and Places at NatureScot provided a brief overview of the consultation, its process and purpose.
A key message to emphasize is that no areas at present have been identified for the new National Park. Nominations will be encouraged in 2023 from all parts of Scotland who think their area can meet the selection criteria. The statutory proposal for a new National Park will not come until 2024. The minister’s aspirations are for a genuine, bottom-up nomination process. The minister wants to see a good number of strong nominations come forward from across Scotland, even if this will make her life difficult when selecting a preferred candidate or candidates in 2024.
The existing legislation allows for different arrangements for our National Parks. This means a new National Park could be very similar to the first two or it could be very different. This is especially the case if a new National Park covers just one Local Authority area or extends to the coastal and marine environment. New National Parks could also be designated for different reasons that the first two. Whether it be to do with large-scale nature restoration, restoring populations in fragile areas, or helping to rebalance visitor management pressures. The consultation asks questions around these issues.
The National Park will be established in 2026. This may seem a long-way off but there is a lot of work required to establish a new National Park. The main stages of work fall into two parts. The non-statutory phase, which we are currently in, is when potential candidates for new National Parks are selected. This will be followed by a formal, statutory phase that will develop the detailed arrangements for the new National Park and put those arrangements in place in terms of secondary legislation.
This consultation is the first of many that are required to create a new National Park. NatureScot is expected to provide advice to Ministers in January. Scottish Government will then consult on a draft selection process and associated guidance in the first half of 2023. Scottish Government will then finalise the selection process and seek nominations for new National Parks during the latter half of 2023.
Following the evaluation of these nominations, Scottish Ministers will in 2024 then make a statutory proposal for a specific area and ask the reporter – previously NatureScot - to develop and consult on a detailed proposal for a specific area or areas. Once the reporter has provided their advice, Scottish Government will develop and consult on a draft designation order for that area or areas. This draft order will set-out the final detail of the area, powers and governance. Finally, the Scottish Parliament will discuss and approve the designation order and a new National Park will be established in early 2026.
Scottish Government has asked NatureScot to provide advice on aspects of this non-statutory process including the selection criteria. The current consultation asks questions about the selection process and focuses on six potential selection criteria: outstanding national value; size and coherence; need; added value; degree of support; and strategic contribution.
Ministers are also keen to refresh the role of National Parks and particularly see a role for National Parks to lead on the action required to deliver nature recovery and just transition to net zero. One theme that has been derived from discussion with stakeholders is that National Parks should be exemplars or blueprints for what we want to see elsewhere in Scotland. How can these aspiration be converted into how parks operate? The consultation seeks to gather insight on this role and how it can be translated into legislation and policy. It will also gather insight into whether the aims and powers of parks need to be reconsidered, and whether there should be different arrangements for the governance and management of parks.
Scotland has come relatively late to establishing National Parks compared to most other countries, partially due to the mixed opinions on the need for them. When considering these issues it is important to recognise that National Parks are tools, and like all tools they have strengths and weaknesses. In these discussions there has been a particular interest in the social and economic impacts. On the positive side of the equation, we know from experience in Scotland and across Europe that investment in National Parks makes general economic sense and brings money into the local economy. This is particularly the case in Scotland because we have parks with aims which require them to think positively about sustainable social and economic development of communities. The current parks do a lot of work to address many of the potential challenges over issues such as visitor pressures and local housing. There is also broad support from the business sectors in both parks. At the end of the day, an area that wants to nominate themselves next year will need to come to their own view on these issues and whether the positive outcomes outweigh any concerns.
4.Q & A session
4.1 South event
The chair welcomed the chief executive of Loch Lomond and the Trossachs National Park Authority, Gordon Watson, alongside Pete Rawcliffe, to the virtual panel to take questions from the participants.
Gordon was asked to reflect upon his experience of the past 20 years and any lessons learned from the establishment of the Loch Lomond and the Trossachs National Park. Gordon answered that it is best to stick to a few priorities and do them well. There is also an expectation that these would be achieved very quickly, so managing expectations is important. When it comes to the designation of a new National Park, it is also important to consider what area a National Park Authority would make the most difference to.
The panel was asked to explain in more detail what powers and functions a new National Park could potentially have. The panel noted that there is a lot of flexibility to vary the functions of the National Park, and the Act also include the ability to modify it in relation to marine areas. The consultation asks specific questions about powers in relation to the aims, and whether changes are needed to existing powers or new powers needed – for example in relation to biodiversity, visitor management, housing and the socio-economic development of the area. The Minister also wants views on whether new powers are needed in relation to climate change.
The panel was asked about the opportunity for more innovative governance for National Parks given the current financial constraints and also the need not to overlap with the existing role of Local Authorities. The panel discussed that this innovation will be essential to the designation of one or more new National Parks especially if these only covered a single local authority area. There is a lot of flexibility within existing legislation to have smaller boards and different approaches to staffing. In the current National Parks, there are local elected members which was an innovation of its time and still is, as National Parks are the only non-departmental public bodies to do so. This means that the local voice is very strong. The blend of Local Authority presence and ministerial appointments is valuable because it connects National Parks to government and national priorities. In contrast to other national public bodies, National Parks are very connected to local communities and need to bring together national priorities with local concerns.
4.2 North event
The chair welcomed the chief executive of Cairngorms National Park Authority, Grant Moir, alongside Pete Rawcliffe to the virtual panel to take questions from the participants.
The panel was asked what would happen in the case that no areas are identified and what the back-up plan would be. The panel discussed that there is currently no back-up plan as NatureScot/Scottish Government are hopeful for nominations. It is fair to say that some areas have previously been discussed by communities and stakeholders already as there are campaigns for National Parks in specific parts of Scotland, most notably in southern Scotland in Galloway and the Borders. The minister is genuinely wanting to see good quality nominations from across Scotland. There are no preconceived ideas and they are very much looking for a raft of proposals.
The panel was asked about key lessons learned from the establishment of the existing National Parks. Grant Moir spoke on his experience in the Cairngorms National Park Authority from the past 20 years. Establishing a National Park does take time and the transition or handover of work is not the smoothest: managing expectations is important here. One of the crucial things is how the National Park actually comes into being. How power is handed over between different organisations to a new National Park authority and how the board for the park is formed – these sorts of things need careful choreography. National Parks are quite different tools than they were in the early 2000s. The budget for Cairngorms has increased massively since 2003– they have become significant vehicles for investment into the areas for nature conservation, visitor management and rural development. They are important for helping to retain a working-age population in rural areas which are key sites for nature restoration work, and protected areas like 30x30.
The panel was asked about what kind of group they envisage would be preparing local nominations. This issue is part of the consultation, and there is not a simple answer to it – though obvious candidates would include community councils and groups, land management bodies and local authorities. It is difficult to be prescriptive, given Scotland has an incredible diversity of local organisations and the way localities are managed. It will most likely remain quite open but views are welcomed on this.
The panel was asked what support was available for communities to come forward with nominations and how will it be ensured that all communities get an equal shot at this. The panel noted that this was a key issue we want to hear views on today – examples include financial support to book venues, technical support in terms of capacity to help write something, or to provide information. It is important to remember that different communities in different places will want different things. The experience from the first two National Park designation processes is that it is essential to put time and effort into building up community capacity. This will be further picked-up as this work moves into the statutory phase.
4.3National event
The chair welcomed the chief executive of Loch Lomond and the Trossachs National Park Authority, Gordon Watson, alongside Pete Rawcliffe to the virtual panel to take questions from the participants.
The panel was informed of concerns regarding a marine National Park raised by fishermen in the Mallaig area where there is already too many spatial constraints on the fishing industry. The panel discussed that this is a bottom-up process, so in any community there will be discussions about whether the area wants to put themselves forward for a National Park nomination. Fishermen as well as other businesses will have the opportunity to be part of those conversations if they want to. Another thing to consider is that these issues are very familiar and were previously considered in preparing advice on coastal and marine national parks in 2006. We will need to build on this advice, taking into account the changes in the planning and management of the marine environment that have happened since then. Another thing to consider is that National Parks are different both to the new proposals for Highly Protected Areas and other existing Marine Protected Areas. Three of the four aims of the National Park seek positive change for people and communities.
The panel was asked about the building of a sustainable economy with particular regard to visitors and visitor management. The panel noted the serious community concerns over high visitor pressures within existing National Park areas and also other parts of Scotland. While National Parks would attract more visitors, they would also have powers and funding for visitor management. The panel also noted the importance of building an economy in and around National Parks that is based on sustainable use of, and investment in, natural assets rather than over-exploiting them.
The panel was asked about the criteria of local support and what steps would be taken in the instance an area is nominated that has very polarised views on National Parks. The panel noted that there was not an agreed approach to this yet, and the consultation was seeking views on this. It is envisaged that the nomination process will facilitate those discussions within communities to be able to work out whether it is for them or not. Ministers would need to take these discussions into account in deciding on a statutory proposal.
Given the proposed changes to the legislation, there were concerns over the lack of clarity on the framework for the new National Park(s), as it makes it difficult to engage with communities effectively on this. The panel noted that at this stage NatureScot are trying to keep the process as open as possible and will want to narrow down and prioritise this to help potential applicants.
The panel was asked about the contributions from the UNESCO Geoparks and whether they have been included thus far in discussions. The panel welcomed the chance to talk further with Geopark organisations. A Geopark could provide an alternative approach to National Park designation for an area, but at present they have no statutory or policy basis or funding. There is a similar discussion to be had in terms of other alternative mechanisms to National Parks such as Biosphere Reserves, National Scenic Areas or Regional Parks.
5.Workshop 1 – Refreshing the role of National Parks
The recorded outputs from this workshop are presented in part C workshop 1 concept boards.
6. Selection criteria
Pete Rawcliffe gave an overview of the selection criteria to help set the scene for second workshop. The criteria have been presented in the form of questions in the consultation paper. Four of the criteria are based on the three legislative conditions in the National Park Act: outstanding national value; coherence and identity; and need. The other two criteria are new – degree of support and strategic contribution – and are also very important.
Each of these criteria raises important issues. For example, a key question on selection is where a new National Park should be: in an area which is already the best of Scotland’s nature and landscape, or where it would be more about the potential of an area. Or should there be a balance between these? Should it be primarily about protecting what is already there, or restoration; and should it be about current land-use or future land-use?
Another dimension is visitor accessibility - can we make our National Parks accessible and inclusive? - and how can we reduce carbon emission from visitors? Does this require more prominence in the criteria?
Another area which we have been thinking about is the role of National Parks as an exemplar of nature recovery and a just transition to net zero.
While the criteria in themselves look relatively straightforward, when they are combined and we begin to assess areas against them, it quickly becomes a complex picture. One of the challenges about this bottom-up approach is getting the balance right regarding the level of detail which will be needed to evaluate nominations. Too much detail and nominees will be put off, and it will require much more time from them as well as a lot of technical support to deliver it. On the other hand, too little detail will make it really difficult to compare fairly between potential areas.
6.1 Poll: rank the criteria in the order of importance
This infographic shows the results of ranking the proposed selection criteria poll for the south event (a); north event (b); and national event (c).
Click for a full description
The poll from the south event shows that 'outstanding national value' was considered to be the most important; and 'size and coherence' the least important. Of the other criteria, 'need or added value', 'degree of support' and 'strategic contribution' ranking 2nd, 3rd and 4th respectively. The poll from north event shows that 'outstanding national value' was seen to be the most important; and 'size and coherence' the least important. Of the remaining criteria, 'need or added value' ranked 2nd, closely followed by 'degree of support' and 'strategic contribution' which ranked the same. The poll from the national event shows that 'outstanding national value' was considered to be the most important; and 'size and coherence' the least important. Like the north event, the other criteria of 'need or added value', 'degree of support' and 'strategic contribution' ranked 2nd, 3rd and 4th respectively.
Outstanding national value was seen to be the most important; and size and coherence the least important.
7.Workshop 2 – Selecting new National parks
See workshop 2 conceptboards.
8. Feedback and final Q&A session
8.1 South event
The panel was asked about the size and coherence criteria and whether any thought had been given to a multi-clustered approach for National Parks, where different areas/zones of the National Park could be used for different purposes. The panel discussed experiences from abroad. The standard European approach is prescriptive, in that a National Park should be of a certain size. Parks that have zoning systems as part of their approach will have x amount for nature restoration. It begs the questions of what should it be for other things such as socio-economic development. This is a difficult conversation to have at this stage because the location has not been decided. The discussions that form this part of the consultation will be interesting.
The panel was asked about next steps for the consultation. The panel answered that it is currently live on the website and will be until the 30th November 2022. Alongside the advice NatureScot are producing for the end of January 2023, there will also be a report on all the discussions through stakeholder events and the stakeholder advisory group as well as the consultation. Everyone will be able to see this. The minister will be able to see all the information that has been recorded to ensure that is has been represented fairly even if NatureScot does not necessarily agree with it. This information will be available in February.
The panel was informed of concerns regarding the lack of reference to the private/business sector in the consultation. This sector will be critical to the delivery of any future National Parks and its key aspirations. The panel thanked participants for raising this point. The panel noted that there has been various levels of consultation with landowners and the business sector as they are a part of the stakeholder advisory group, so their views are represented there.
8.2 North event
The panel reflected on discussions throughout the plenary and in the breakout rooms. One area was to keep the nomination process as simple as possible, while supporting areas that want to put nominations forward in the most effective way with the challenge of tight timescales. The panel asked participants what sort of support they think would be useful in nominating specific geographies. The participants suggested that it would be a good idea to figure out how to bring together multiple and different local communities, if a National Park were to stretch over multiple communities. The participants also discussed that it would be useful to employ someone in an area of interest to help garner support and disseminate information to communities. This would be useful as there are a lot of organisations that don’t necessarily want to come out as “pro National Parks” but wish to be able to go out to the community and ask whether they would be supportive of a National Park in their area. The participants discussed the importance of having organisations who are leading the nomination process in their area to have the cultural values of the area instilled within them. The community needs to be well-heard through these organisations.
8.3 National event
The panel did not receive any further questions. The chair thanked everyone for their contributions.
9. Next steps
The chair thanked everyone for their participation in the event and reminded everyone to respond to the online consultation. She acknowledged the importance of these events, as all three have garnered wide-ranging views and discussions. Notes from these online events will form part of the analysis of the consultation and inform NatureScot’s advice to the ministers.
C. Concept boards
Workshop 1 – Refreshing the Role of Scottish National Parks
1.a) What do we Want a National Park to Achieve?
Workshop 1 – Refreshing the Role of Scottish National Parks
1.a) What do we Want a National Park to Achieve?
All comments made were recorded on a concept board by a scribe. To provide a broad indication of the range of comments in the suggestions provided, we have used the following colour coding for all the contributions made.
Designation process
South
- Too often designations are imposed - recognise this is not happening in this process.
- Countryside is managed by landowners, farmers etc. who need to be considered for new national parks so that they feel involved and comfortable.
- Again, crucial that landowners are on board. Needs to be run with such stakeholders in mind and involved.
- Important to listen to the aspirations of people of the area.
North
-
National
- National Parks to have flexible boundaries in future.
- A chance to develop a 21st Century national park with community involvement.
- Opportunity to think about an ideal national park without the constraints that currently exist.
Purpose and Aims – general
South
- Important role of the designation will be to raise the profile of and draw attention to the value of such areas - which are largely overlooked.
- Clear targets for National Parks to achieve in relation to climate change mitigation.
- A National Park could demonstrate successful networks - e.g. between farmers and police. Such networks would need to be local while also communicating across boundaries.
- National Parks have to collaborate to reduce emissions from the parks in relation to visitor and land management - e.g. LLTNP is more than 50% privately owned.
- Opportunity to consider land-use in relation to biodiversity loss and climate change and adaptation
- Opportunity to do something different. A wider opportunity to have “jewels in the crown” within any new park but also reduce climate change - the potential of an area should be key to the selection.
- Balancing land-use to make it more sustainable for all activities. Ensure the visitor economy compliments the local community to ensure circular economy; such as local food produce for visitors. National Parks should be an exemplar of this.
North
- Current priorities - nature (50% of park managed for ecological restoration by 2045), people (have a working age population and get the right jobs in the park; visitor management and access, sustainable tourism), and place (housing and transport; 75% of any new build in the park to be affordable by 2030; active travel).
- National Parks act as exemplars - in education and climate change.
- As NPA don't own land, it’s unclear how they can provide 'leadership', but recognise best practise can be demonstrated.
- Wording around Just Transition - serve climate without leaving folk behind; current wording outdated - update aims.
- It is essential to have a long-term plan in place i.e. what will this place look like in 100 years? More numerous but smaller national parks could be a better idea than few large National Parks? National Parks closer to where people could help with net zero.
- Genuine sustainable development. Currently, a lot of conflict over inappropriate development and resulting biodiversity loss. Also, visitor management is muddled up - ensure actions and aims address these issues.
- National Parks need to focus beyond short-term visitor management to look long term on how to connect people with nature, culture, heritage and language.
- They are National Parks not local parks. They need to fit the vision for national nature recovery. Need to consider what this looks like in rural areas. There is a local plan for Dumfries and Galloway; it would tackle poverty in Dumfries and other rural issues in Stranraer.
- Current legislation provides a lot of flexibility. The new park needs to provide a long-term vision that goes beyond short-term funding cycles. The current vision is very flexible. It might need more focus on nature recovery.
- To unleash the potential of an area. People live in and recognise that the land has a great amount of value. All while addressing Just Transition to net zero and the biodiversity/climate crises. There will be a huge change in the way the land is managed.
National
- National Parks to act as ‘big siblings’ to local authorities. They should be exemplars of excellence, innovation and good practice.
- The proposals and aims should be for outside of National Parks too. To prevent loss of benefits that could be achieved outside of park boundaries.
- Stability that designation of a National Park can provide.
- Generating finance, parks can help join-up and coordinate private sources of funding.
- Opportunity to develop new model of a national park.
- Balance between playing a positive role for biodiversity/climate and socio-economic aims.
- The challenges of where development (that benefits communities, i.e. wind farms) may come into conflict with biodiversity and climate changes priorities.
- Greater clarity on duty to have regard to the national park plan. This will help when different agencies with different views regarding planning in the new National Park.
Climate and nature
South
- Address biodiversity loss and have clear recovery targets.
- The potential for National Park land to reduce and mitigate emissions.
- There is conflicting data on biodiversity loss and unintended consequences.
North
- Nature restoration and enhancement has to be front and centre with climate change. Visitor pressure has been immense in the highlands since covid. The highlands have huge landscape and ecological value. How can this be enhanced all whilst people still benefitting from it/ using it?
- Climate and nature restoration need to be priorities. NPs are at the front face of this. It is not an either or - NPs can prioritise climate AND help economic development, jobs, carbon finance in local businesses. People risk being forgotten about which is the wrong message.
- Overarching purpose should be nature recovery and net zero in consultation survey. Wording and message needs to be clear so that the interpretation of nature and climate does not come at the expense of people and bringing together diverse communities with nature.
- Nature Restoration is key. To make Scotland’s landscape work better in terms of carbon capture and climate change mitigation.
National
- Enable people to live in rural areas. Attracting younger people to address changing demographic.
- Helping to deliver Net zero. This is not specifically stated in the aims.
- Biodiversity and restoration projects that ripple outside national park boundaries.
- To protect the environment (including flora and fauna) while also promoting restoration.
- Change in terms of policy and legislation regarding restoration.
- Marine protection in Scotland is far behind other countries. More research and attention to these areas are required. Policing and management need to be considered.
Land-use
South
- Concerns about constraints on daily business e.g. implementation of capercaillie conservation funds has not prevented their continued decline. How can we ensure that we're not contributing to further biodiversity loss by constraining land managers/users?
- Concerns about restrictions e.g. unable to expand dairy due to planning issues or might not be able to create holiday lets etc.
- In the drive to control deer numbers, deer is not being utilised to its best advantage. The lack of abattoirs and meat processing facilities, as well as transportation of carcasses is not economical or sufficient.
North
-
National
- The concept of 'Dualchas' Cultural Inheritance - people driving together; the connection between land and living.
- National Parks can benefit community wellbeing (investment, culture, employment).
- National Parks could be a threat to farming; farming makes up a large part of rural life.
- National Park status could result in bureaucracy for farms.
- Opportunity to provide education on farming.
Visitor management and tourism
South
- High visitor pressure can result in biodiversity loss. Rangers are needed to monitor areas to prevent such loss.
- Funding to support visitor management – currently being left to land managers in some cases.
- Visitor management in a new National Park should be introduced at an early stage to mitigate issues being seen in current parks - opportunity to learn lessons.
- How do areas make visitor management, and increased visitor numbers sustainable? Including aspects of sustainable transport among others.
- Relating to Just Transition, there are concerns that promotion of woodland activities like grouse shooting could be impacted. The downstream impact from grouse shooting is considerable. Local employees would contribute to rural areas.
- Concerns over visitor access vs wildlife. Regional parks have issues with dogs off the lead and huge visitor numbers impacting bird species. Concerns over infrastructure being unable to cope.
North
- National Parks can act as a mechanism themselves to manage visitors - can speak on fires, parking, responsible engagement with outdoors to encourage good behaviour.
- Parks to develop mechanisms to cope with increased tourism, e.g. rangers for management.
- Protecting environment from significant visitor pressures. Address infrastructure for visitors/visitor management and experiences. Economic opportunities and development should be at the front of a National Parks aims.
National
- Reflecting on existing national parks: Investment in visitor management and pathway networks have been beneficial.
Community development
South
-
North
- Building communities and retaining employment in the communities so people do not get left behind.
- NPs should be great places to live, work and enjoy. NPs need to create employment and places to live and have long-term planning visions.
- NP to underpin a pride of place/sense of belonging 'Happy places to visit must first be happy places to live' NPs to be places for local communities as well as for all of Scotland.
- Reflections on current parks and what they have achieved: Young people - lack of affordable housing for younger people e.g. people who leave but look to return are unable to do so.
- Whatever the main vision is it has to provide positive outcomes for the local communities (regarding infrastructure, housing, and energy) – they need to grow and be responsive to any of the proposed changes.
- Accommodating young people in affordable housing and jobs is essential.
- National Parks in Scotland aren’t meant to be wilderness parks. They need to be about sustainable development - balancing the needs of sustainable developments and meeting the needs of local communities.
- From an Islands/Orkney perspective. There is a lot of economic development happening but there is a lack of connection and depopulation is occurring. There is not an equal spread of sustainable development and economic value.
National
- National Parks contribute to the re-generation and normalization of Gaelic. Embedded in Scotland’s cultural heritage.
- Deliver economic prosperity through funding, infrastructure and tourism.
- Legislation to protect affordable housing (similar to Cairngorm National Park) to prevent pressures on housing that are often associated with National Park designation.
- Aims have to show priority to benefit local communities. Develop enhanced information and case studies to share with these communities.
- Land allocation for more affordable housing to change the demographic in rural areas.
- Place-making models to build vibrant communities in rural/aging populations.
- Importance of wellbeing and future prosperity of local people and communities is key.
- National parks should be there to enhance the benefit of local communities, not detract.
1.b) How Should we Go About Implementing Such a National Park?
To provide an indication of the balance of comments in the suggestions provided, we have used the following colour coding of all the contributions made
Funding
South
- Existing funding from Loch Lomond - core funding from SG. £8m per annum which is revenue. Annual Capital of about £1.7m. Used seasonally for visitor sites, tourism infrastructure, access, nature strategy. Other funders include the lottery for community organisations and grant assistance for local communities.
- Funding analyses to determine how much of the funding is used for nature restoration and visitor management/access.
- Opportunities for funding? Sustainability comes with a package of funding - or is it more about seeking investment as it might influence aims?
North
- If there are enhanced ways of influencing land management - funding mechanisms for land managers.
- Nature restoration streamlined funding - e.g. Forestry and Land Scotland’s improving access and nature projects, had to get funding from external sources. Support from local authorities could help streamline this.
National
- Continuity and sustainability in funding. This will allow resources to be funded long-term (e.g. rangers).
- They need to be properly resourced and financed.
- In addition to Scottish government direct support, will there be funding by way of other means such as grants?
Powers and functions
South
- Visitor management in a new National park can be introduced at an early stage to mitigate issues being seen in current parks - opportunity to learn lessons.
- Need to consider the management and betterment of different areas. This may include/ require different management approaches to reflect the different areas within a National Park.
- If coastal/marine areas are considered, this brings other considerations and approaches which would potentially require changes to legislation to reflect the differences.
North
- Should we follow LLTNP or CNP models of powers or should there be a new model? Because of the pressures in Glasgow LLTNP needed a full planning authority but this was not the case for CNP. A different model could be that the National Park prepares a Local Development Plan with Local Authority planners delivering it.
- With focus on climate and nature crises, we cannot forget about local communities within and around parks - e.g. affordable housing. People getting jobs in rural locations are unable to find appropriate or affordable accommodation
- The powers National Parks should have will depend on where the National Park will be designated. Much of this is location dependent and difficult to express definitive opinions without knowing the area(s) for designation.
- Reflections on current parks show that there is a lack of affordable housing for younger people e.g. people who leave but look to return are unable to do so.
- Must consider land ownership - LLTNP (1/3 owned by private land owners, 1/3 owned by public bodies). CNP 80% private ownership 10% in charities 10% in public. Partnership Plan helps to manage and deliver at pace. Close relationships and regulatory frameworks to help manage relationships with people who own National Park land.
- Authorities have planning powers in National Parks - but development of affordable housing is not sufficiently supported by National Park Authorities.
- Will changes for the new National Park change the management of the current National Parks? This is currently still up for debate and forms part of the consultation questions. Should there be an over-arching decision on how the existing National Parks fit into the new framework/legislation.
National
- Restrictions on second sales for social housing (as in Wales).
- Council taxing on second homes within National Parks.
- Legislation for people to set-up overnight camping.
- Clear vision and governance: What does it want to achieve? What are the benefits? Who is responsible for the delivery?
- Permanent management arrangements in place.
- A new national park needs a ranger service. Rangers are a catalyst for community work, habitat restoration, biodiversity, and visitor management.
- This national park needs to be proportionate to the size of Scotland (reflects that Scotland is a small country).
- Coherence is more important than size.
- This needs to be considerate of NPF4 (National Planning Framework).
- In relation to planning and development powers – we need evidence of what has and hasn’t worked well given the two existing NPs respective roles in this regard.
Best practice
South
- A new National Park should be an example of best practice. To show how it can reduce energy costs, support local economies (active travel, agriculture, food industries). Things need to be done in a different light regarding visitor economy and zero carbon economy.
North
- Following by example of Wales National Parks and how they are linking it to the Welsh language
- Legislation and powers enable a vision but the vision comes first. Part of the vision for the new area(s) is coming from Cairngorm Connect and other similar organisations but not out of the National Park itself. Cairngorm Connect was setup by public agencies. Managing the needs of visitors and measuring the impacts on local communities.
National
- Following by example of Wales National Parks and how they are linking it to the Welsh language.
- Flexibility to change. Ability to adapt and change if a certain approach isn't working for the local community.
- How to utilise the National Park brand to not only encourage large-scale investment but also smaller, more circular economic investment.
- Initiatives such as virtual local farmers’ markets and ‘live well locally’. How ‘net zero’ impacts planning and how people live.
- Creation of new jobs within national parks, i.e. including communicating changes in climate change. UNESCO sites are already doing this.
- Branding; signage (entrance, boundaries, roads); geopods; touring toolkit; welcome for visitors; pebble routes; guide books; educational engagement officers.
- How can we ensure best practice for initiatives such as net zero or biodiversity?
- What is the USP ‘unique selling point’ of this National Park?
- Clarity of roles and avoiding duplication. Currently, there is confusion about what services are provided by the NP service and the local councils in the area.
- National Parks could/would have to help areas that already experience transport/visitor pressures.
Partnership working
South
- Currently, we don't utilise intermediaries and coordinators to broker collaborative approaches and decision making - e.g. between land managers and statutory bodies – to support targets and aims of national parks.
- Important for everybody to be aware of everyone - which is not necessarily the case just now. Grouping with different interests etc.
- Parks to build on existing partnerships.
North
-
National
- To consider the right scale of how to do the work of National Parks and associated sectors, with boundaries being flexible (i.e. fish travelling from different areas).
Governance and engagement
South
-
North
- Interesting to look at National Park's having more community involvement. On the bureaucracy side - especially from community side - this should be reduced. More streamlined planning.
- There are no young people on local community council - important to get to the root of the local community which is currently in flux. Communities are changing i.e. with 2nd home owners etc.
- How will this be taken to a community to kick-off conversation/engagement? It is difficult to start off conversations with communities when the commission is so open. This poses challenges with accelerating the through landownerships as not all landowners have the same vision.
- The importance of the bottom-up approach is vital. With a new National Park it is likely to come under many landowners, so it is essential to have this bottom-up approach embedded to create this joint-up implementation.
- How does this also connect with the governments community land ownership initiatives?
National
- A new designation title might be useful to help people cope with a change of use of NP, also will help to manage public perception/expectation.
- Bottom-up approach to consider if local residents are keen for a NP. Necessary to have strong community input to feel a sense of stewardship and see benefits.
- In Geoparks, 7 community councils manage the park but there is a feeling of lacking capacity to help with work.
Staffing and expertise
South
- Most important tool especially at the outset is the core team. They are key to facilitating goals/objectives and the skills of these individuals will be crucial.
- Using underpinning science to inform decision making. The way a park collects and uses evidence both on a local and national scale.
- Learning from other organisations about how to effectively share information with NGOs, landowners etc. - especially focussed around a local region/area.
North
-
National
- How is biodiversity and nature restoration measured? How is success tracked? This should be part of the toolkit for national parks.
- Metrics are important, however balance is needed to avoid measuring things that are just good to do and where time is limited.
- To consider policy of the parks working with academia and other organisations (natural history, NatureScot etc.).
- What the identity of the park is (LLTNP – lochs; CNPA – mountains). This will influence the skills required for rangers and land managers.
- Communities should not be adversely affected. How can NPs help with re-population and keeping young people in the area?
2. Workshop 2 – Selection and Support
2.a) Why did you rank the criteria as you did?
South
OUTSTANDING NATIONAL VALUE
1. Range of approaches should be considered. Enhance areas to make them more attractive and so that they develop over time.
2. If an area has a wind development, would it still be seen as an area of outstanding national value? This could be a potential conflict.
3. Areas should NOT be penalised for having wind developments. They are important for meeting net zero goals. They should be recognised as part of the countryside and should not negatively weight applications.
4. There may be a balancing act between national value and need (i.e. nature restoration or just transition).
SIZE AND COHERENCE
1. Is this about new NP or existing ones? If this is about new NP and how we might like nominations to be judged against the evaluation framework.
2. One size does NOT fit all, there are interdependencies. We should consider a variety of options, i.e. an area that has an identity.
NEED OR ADDED VALUE - nature recovery and a just transition to net zero
1. Concern over how consultation process will be designed and delivered - there has been a great shift over to climate change. Want to ensure that any process looks at community wellbeing, land management etc. and not de-prioritised as part of selection process.
2. Respect what minister has said about biodiversity loss etc. but we're not going to fix that by creating one new National Park.
3. Using national parks as exemplars for land use across Scotland as a whole.
NEED OR ADDED VALUE – is level of investment necessary or are existing approaches sufficient?
1. Opportunity to invest in areas as a result of National Park?
2. Areas with highest proportion of agricultural land and businesses need to ensure this is reflected in criteria for selection.
DEGREE OF SUPPORT
1. It is important that community wellbeing and land management are to be key to the selection process.
2. In selection of regional parks, there has been surprise that those managing the land don’t have greater say than those in the wider region.
3. Local representation on the National Park Authority can be addressed in the consultation and is part of the consultation considerations.
4. When we talk about local support - would people actually know what they were in support of/against? E.g. you can have support for x but if landowners are not on board, it will not be achievable.
5. From the existing campaign in D&G, local representation has been very strong. It is important for the Local authority and community to be involved in decision-making. Locals must be represented by local community groups for issues to be debated and addressed in a fair way.
6. This is a fundamental criteria. How would this be evaluated, Majority rule?
7. What factors will determine level of support? Public support, majority?
8. How do you propose developing a weighting? An area should not be penalised for having lukewarm support from local landowners/ land-users/ farmers.
STRATEGIC CONTRIBUTION
-
Other observations
- Are the criteria too general? Discussed concerns over climate change and net zero reducing importance or consideration of community etc. However the group discussed how all such areas are interconnected, while recognising the wider changes that will be required as a result of biodiversity/climate change. Very hard to differentiate between criteria how we present criteria as they are all interlinked.
- The criteria seems to cover the main points to consider.
North
OUTSTANDING NATIONAL VALUE
1. This is at the top of the list; this is the starting point.
SIZE AND COHERENCE
1. Needs to be coherent with other National Parks.
2. Questionable to have an entirely different type of National Park without a degree of coherence i.e. the quality of the landscape that is being protected.
3. Coherence relating to urban parks, is this to be considered part of this discussion?
NEED OR ADDED VALUE - nature recovery and a just transition to net zero
1. Selection could potentially be based on habitat/species type.
NEED OR ADDED VALUE – is level of investment necessary or are existing approaches sufficient?
-
DEGREE OF SUPPORT
1. How much support is enough to demonstrate local support of having a NP nomination?
2. To launch something so large, local support is key. This extends beyond 'some voices in some communities' it must be across wide range of communities and voices.
3. There has to be a clear steer of direction and ask community if they actually want it.
4. Some areas, e.g. Skye, may not be keen owing to potential additional pressures of visitor numbers/management.
5. Areas that are not advanced in their planning/thinking for a new National Park may find it difficult to gain support.
STRATEGIC CONTRIBUTION
1. Climate and nature restoration will be a driver to bring people into rural areas.
2. Economic development and green skills for communities; this could lead to population growth (without population growth not a target in and of itself).
3. Different models around land ownership (e.g. Harris community owned) - could impact on the exemplar model.
4. Should the process look at spreading the pressures to lesser visited areas?
Other observations
Outstanding national value - was considered the most important criteria of the poll. Everything else was given pretty equal weight.
National
OUTSTANDING NATIONAL VALUE
1. If it did not have outstanding national value, why else would you establish one?
2. Do you establish a national park in an area because it is already good OR to develop it into an exemplar? If a National Park is chosen because of existing significance should there be a second tier for areas that aspire to be National Parks?
3. If we wish to improve biodiversity, it should be somewhere of outstanding national value to demonstrate.
4. How much of the park should be outstanding national value?
5. National parks will be able to raise the profile of actions taken and initiatives.
6. Potential of an area could be a consideration. However, potential should not be 100% of the designation.
7. We are looking at places where there is less protection of assets or opportunities to protect such assets.
8. Will the degree of threat to the national importance (e.g. through development) be considered?
9. Areas with sensitive/at-risk habitats or species should rank higher.
10. This need to be clearly defined as to what is actually meant by ‘outstanding national value’.
SIZE AND COHERENCE
1. Where are the boundaries? Local Authority areas or geography?
2. What does coherence mean? Infrastructure, environmental, political?
3. Considerations and challenges of size and coherence rather than a top criteria.
4. Expanding or changing park boundaries is an interesting option.
5. Areas just beyond parks could benefit from inclusion. Could parks expand to include biodiversity?
6. Mapping what exists already (character mapping) and how that can be utilised.
7. Size and coherence are very different; coherence is more important than size.
8. Coherence should be applied to degree of support too (community, land management, business etc.)
NEED OR ADDED VALUE - nature recovery and a just transition to net zero
1. Areas such as the highlands are in essence barren. NPs are an opportunity to do more in such areas.
2. Existing natural resources should exist alongside nature recovery.
3. How would a National Park help achieve this criterion?
4. Consider the potential for nature recovery in terms of location of designation and linking with what exists in proximity already
NEED OR ADDED VALUE – is level of investment necessary or are existing approaches sufficient?
1. What is a National Park bringing to this area? What can it bring?
2. Increased resources may be required to deal with increased visitor pressures.
3. Communities shouldn’t be adversely affected. This may need to be mediated through investment.
DEGREE OF SUPPORT
1. Needs to support any and all stakeholders involved – if they are for or against.
2. Without this, achieving what you want is much harder
3. How do we measure it? How big is the area? How many communities are a part of this?
4. Community voice has real strength. Ministers made decisions based on community recommendations in addition to advice from NatureScot (then, SNH).
5. This could conflict with outstanding national value. If local community don't want a national designation, it shouldn't go there.
6. What does support mean in the grand scheme? How do you measure/provide support in an accurate and measured way?
7. Sight of support/opposition will need to be included in representations to the minister.
8. Some areas have limited resources compared to others with well-thought through campaigns.
9. This is need to be clearer. Support from whom; to what degree; and how is it demonstrated?
10. Is Local Authority support required to submit a nomination?
11. The campaigns that are already well established will be prepared and equipped to demonstrate support, whereas others will not be as primed.
STRATEGIC CONTRIBUTION
1. Wider business decisions within New National Parks would have these aims, with innovative investment opportunities that will be safeguarded in a way that avoids "green washing".
2. How will this new National Park fit in with other policies such as 30x30?
3. Private investment and leadership opportunities to trial landscape initiatives etc.
4. Longer term funding guarantees (e.g. 10 years) rather than 1 to 3 year terms.
Other observations
None
2.b) What sort of support would be useful for your organisations/group to develop a nomination for your area?
To provide an indication of the balance of comments in the suggestions provided, we have used the following colour coding of all the contributions made
General
South
- Support for group making the proposal, i.e. access to thoughts/experiences of landowners in existing National Parks; ensuring access to resources if localities did want to submit a proposal; robust means to financial support.
North
- It is important that nominations are assessed against the criteria and not against other nominations.
- Will the process be in stages/rounds?
- A staged process prevents communities going to huge amounts of effort to not receive a nomination.
- Look at regional land use partnerships and the challenges they face in coordination - level of support that's needed is not currently in place.
- As simple a process as possible e.g. with Local Authority/Council support.
- Who determines how much support there is for a designation?
National
- A ‘note of interest’ stage first and then some capacity support could be provided to do more facilitation?
- Several rounds may be useful but this takes a lot of time and may make us miss the National Park delivery deadlines.
- There will be different priorities based on an array of factors even within communities.
- Try to gauge pros and cons, opportunities and threats, for establishing National Parks in communities rather than in numbers (e.g. 50% support, 50% oppose).
- Make the process personable - relatability is important.
- Different localities will need different approaches: in-person vs online; bullet pointed information for public vs lots of detail for those particularly
- Invested.
Engagement in process
South
-
North
- If National Parks are going to be a large area, how will they be coordinated between all the different communities? How do they coordinate between themselves?
- Should there be regional consultations to try bring it all together?
- It would be helpful to define the boundaries to determine which communities are/aren’t involved.
- Clarification where the boundaries are when submitting a bid.
National
- Local Authority support.
- Federation of businesses, i.e. support for crofters.
- Community councils. It will be a lot of work to get this kind of engagement.
Funding
South
- Assistance with consultations and venue hires. There is risk of energy costs preventing sourcing of suitable venues.
- Development grants to be made available to groups to put together nominations.
North
- Some areas will have greater funding if they have interested eNGOs available.
- The criteria is very open to interpretation i.e. what is coherent geography? Greater clarity could be provided through templates or a set of contactable advisors? People need to be focussed on where they can make the biggest impact.
- Financial support and funding to bring people together to support the development of a new National Park.
National
- Funding/funding for nomination coordinators and host organisations.
- Funding for venue facilities to host meetings and will allow groups to meet face-to-face. This will help with engagement and make people feel valued by having a person-led approach, leading to partnership approach.
- Felt there didn't need to be a national-led effort to provide local support, e.g. meeting places etc. should be provided by the organisations looking to make a nomination.
Template form
South
-
North
- A basic form that allows people to say in their own words. Good examples can be taken from the National Lottery. Tools that can help localities in facilitating discussions: venue hire, financial resource to help do these consultations.
National
-
Written guidance
South
- Guidance notes on application process and financial help. One size does not fit all in terms of applications.
North
- Maybe not in the format of a form - they can get out of hand. Clear guidance on what the potential area would be assessed against, so people understand exactly how the assessment process works.
National
- Some guidance.
Information and advice
South
-
North
- Give the local communities and stakeholders the information to they can take forward a discussion and decision. Simple infographics would be useful to help people proposing national parks.
- Awareness material on biodiversity and climate issues, as well as financial support for co-ordinators.
National
- People will want to understand what's in it for them based on what's important to them - e.g. fishery managers would want to know what tools of support they would gain to support their sector.
- Help in raising awareness of what National Parks are and what they mean for people (particularly in Scotland vs National Parks seen as being elsewhere in the world), e.g. like a core pack of info
- Must make local communities/authorities fully aware of the meaning of a designation in their area and the possible responsibilities (more so for Local Authorities) that would come with the designation of a National Park i.e. nature recovery
Attendees and Event Meeting Notes
| Type of Organisation | Total | Organisations |
|---|---|---|
| Individual landowners/ managers/ factors | 1 | - |
| Individual companies and businesses | 1 | Glen Nevis Holidays Ltd |
| Community councils, trusts and partnerships | 9 | Community of Arran Seabed Trust (COAST) FutureAffric Glencoe & Glen Etive Community Council Isle of Gigha Heritage Trust Nevis Landscape Partnership North-West Highlands UNESCO Geopark Strathglass Community Council Torridon & Kinlochewe Community Council Wester Ross UNESCO Biosphere |
| Local authorities | 11 | Aberdeenshire Council City of Edinburgh Council Dumfries and Galloway Council Fife Coast and Countryside Trust Fife Council Highland Council North Ayrshire Council Scottish Borders Shetland Council South Ayrshire Council West Lothian Council |
| MSP/MPs/Councillors | 2+ | Councillors of Comhairle nan Eilean Siar Councillors of The Highland Council |
| National Public Bodies | 3 | Bòrd na Gàidhlig Crofting Commission VisitScotland |
| Regional/Local public bodies | 3 | Cairngorms National Park Authority Loch Lomond and Trossachs National Park Authority South of Scotland Enterprise |
| Land management interest groups | 10 | Deveron Bogie & Isla Rivers Trust Fisheries Management Scotland Game & Wildlife Conservation Trust National Farmers Union of Scotland Nature Friendly Farming Network Ness District Salmon Fishery Board Northern District Salmon Fishery Board Pentland Land Managers Association Scottish Gamekeepers Association Scottish Land and Estates |
| Marine management interest groups | 2 | North and East Coast Regional Inshore Fisheries Group West Coast Regional Inshore Fisheries Group |
| Natural and cultural heritage interest groups | 10 | Badenoch and Strathspey Conservation Group Built Environment Forum Scotland Campaign for Borders National Park Galloway National Park Association Green Action Trust John Muir Trust National Trust for Scotland Royal Society for the Protection of Birds Scottish Wildlife Trust Skye and Lochalsh Environment Forum |
| Recreation and sporting interest groups | 2 | British Horse Society Scottish Canoe Association |
| Social and economic interest groups | 4 | Cairngorms Business Partnership Scottish Rural Network Skye Connect Youthlink Scotland |
| Professional bodies | 3 | Chartered Institute of Ecology & Environmental Management Landscape Institute Scottish Countryside Rangers' Association |
| Research/Academia/Academics | 1 | University of the Highlands and Islands |
| Other | 0 | - |
| Outside Scotland | 2 | National Association for AONBs (Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty) New Forest National Park Authority |
| - | 65+ | - |
Note - This record and categorisation is not comprehensive as not all attendees provided their details and individual attendees are not also included. Some attendees also fit into more than one category.
Event Meeting Notes
Structure of events
Each event followed the following structure:
1. Welcome and introduction
2. Ministerial video and participants’ poll
3. Explaining the process
4. Q & A session
4.1. South event
4.2. North event
4.3. National event
5. Workshop 1 – Refreshing the role of National Parks
6. Selection criteria
7. Workshop 2 – Selecting new National Parks
8. Feedback and final Q&A session
8.1. South event
8.2. North event
8.3. National event
