|
Back to ENVIRONMENT Homepage
Why is Loch Lomond National Park
not working properly?
Who runs it?
James Irvine
Teviot Scientific, Cultybraggan Farm, Comrie,
Perthshire
Filed 13 Dec 04
©www.land-care.org.uk
On Monday 6th December the Glasgow Herald
carried an article by its environment correspondent, Vicky Collins
entitled "Loch Lomond dream turns sour" (1).
The following day the Herald published a selection of the flood
of letters they had received under the heading "Much work
is needed to reverse decline at Loch Lomond" (2),
and carried a further article by Vicky Collins, "Fishermen
threaten to block Loch Lomond shoreline" (3).
Also on 7th December the Daily Mail carried an
article by Jonathan Brocklebank, "By yon manky banks: National
Park is a rubbish-strewn haven for city neds, say locals"
(4).
On 29th October of this year the Scottish Executive
announced an increased budget for Scotland's two National Parks:
£20 million over the next 3 years for Loch Lomond and Trossachs,
and £13 million for Cairngorms National Park (5).
We were reminded that Loch Lomond and Trossachs National Park was
established in July 2002, and the Cairngorms National Park in March
2003. The purpose of the increased funding was:
"to allow the National Parks to fulfil their statutory aims
to:
conserve and enhance the natural and cultural heritage of the
area
promote sustainable use of the natural resources of the area
promote understanding and enjoyment (including enjoyment in
the form of recreation) of the special qualities of the area
by the public"
Loch Lomond is one of Scotland's icons, especially
in the minds of international tourists. It looks as though Loch
Lomond is going to suffer the same damage that has befallen other
Scottish icons through the fine words of the Scottish Executive
being accompanied by poor administration.
Who is responsible for running the Loch Lomond-Trossachs National
Park?
The Loch Lomond & Trossachs National Park
is run by the National Park Authority (NPA) and it employs 4 directors
to carry out its instructions.
The Convener of the NPA is Councillor Gillie Thomson
(Stirling), nominated by the Local Authority: and the Deputy Convener
is Sir Peter Hutchison, appointed directly by the Scottish Executive.
The Board of the National Park Authority has 25
members and is made up as follows:
Five members elected by a postal ballot of the local electorate
Ten members appointed by Scottish Ministers
Ten members appointed by Scottish Ministers following recommendation
by the Local Authorities within the Park boundaries
The details of who fills these posts are given
on the NPA's website (6). The Scottish Executive
invites councils to nominate or re-nominate members.
It was more difficult to find out who the 4 directors
are, but the information can be traced to a News item within the
NPA website dated 25 November 2002.
The Chief Executive came from Dumbarton District Council's planning
department.
The Director of Planning came from West Dumbartonshire Council's
planning department.
The Director of Park Resources is described as a chartered planner
and also came from West Dumbartonshire Council.
The Director of Corporate Services came from a senior management
post at the Department of Work and Pensions - but once upon a
time he was a shepherd in the Lake District, we are informed.
Presumably this last piece of information was included to give
some credibility to the NPA as having some understanding as to
how the countryside works.
Twenty out of 25 of the Board members require
the formal approval of Scottish Ministers to enable the appointments
to be ratified.
Therefore Scottish Ministers, through the Scottish
Executive, have the responsibility to see that the constitution
of the Board is appropriately balanced so that the Board is capable
of working properly. Clearly Scotland's National Parks are run by
a combination of Scottish Central and Local Government at taxpayers'
expense. It is also becoming clear that, after more than two years
in control, things are not working as they should.
What is the NPA going to do about the public's concern?
The press office of the NPA informed Land-Care
that the Board (Chief Executive Bill Dalrymple) will take action
and discuss the issues once the Park Plan is published. But the
draft plan, which was due out this autumn, is not expected to be
published until May 2005. After that the plan will go out for public
consultation.
It would therefore appear that there is an inbuilt
inertia of serious proportions, presumably based on what is passed
as being politically correct, but in reality is politically inept.
It is fine to have idealistic aspirations, but they are worse than
useless if the practicalities of their realisation are not properly
considered or effectively managed.
To make matters worse the public have lost faith
in Consultations carried out by the Scottish Executive and its agencies,
such as Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH). Such consultations have
come to be regarded as largely a sham (7,
8). A new disease - "stakeholder fatigue"
- has set in which is made worse by the realisation that the government's
fashion for stakeholders meetings provides single interest groups
with an ideal platform to influence government thinking (9).
Speed boats, anglers, the general public's
litter, conservation vandalism and inappropriate commercial development
With regard to more immediate matters, Bob Aitken
(Chairman of the Park Authority's leisure and recreation committee)
is quoted as saying:
"High-powered craft have been an issue for decades and if
there was an easy solution it would have been found well before
the park was set up" (4)
But those responsible for the National Park at
Lake Windermere in Cumbria have acted by introducing speed restrictions
of 10 mph for such craft. This apparently lead to advertisements
being placed encouraging the frustrated speed boat fraternity to
come up to Loch Lomond where no such restrictions exist. Such is
the mess the NPA has got itself into that Scotland's First Minister
has had to step in with the pledge that he will stop this happening
(10).
Bob Aitken is also quoted as saying:
"The authority is working with local groups to deal with
the litter problem" (4)
The same Bob Aitken is vice-chairman of what is
called the Scottish Countryside Activities Council (SCAC). In that
capacity he served on the SNH Access Forum when the Land Reform
(Scotland) Bill (now Act) was being debated. SCAC states that it
played an important role in drawing up the Access Concordat (11).
The SCAC claims to represent some 20 organisations
and individuals who each pay a minimal subscription(£10 -
£30) - but more if they wish to. The membership includes the
Ramblers Association, the Scottish Rights of Way Society, the Mountaineering
Council of Scotland, the National Trust for Scotland, the Scottish
Countryside Rangers Association - all of which are also members
of Scottish Environment LINK (12). According
to their own website, SCAC is a voluntary organisation, is not a
registered charity, has no paid employees (at least in 1999 which
is the latest information made available).The website gives little
information as to how SCAC actually functions. It would appear to
be - at least in part - a mechanism whereby certain organisations
can achieve duplicate representation at the negotiating table where
matters that are of interest to them are being discussed at an advisory
level with Government.
The chairperson of SCAC is Dr Dorothy Breckenridrge,
who is a director of the company CNDo Scotland Ltd. The company's
business is walking holidays in Scotland with partnerships in continental
Europe, Iceland and Greenland. From SCAC's website address (11)
it would appear possible that there could be a conflict of interest
between those who claim to represent the interests of the voluntary
organisations that make up the 20 or so members of SCAC and the
financial interests of the company, CNDo Scotland Ltd. What the
relationship is, if any, between Bob Aitken and CNDo Scotland Ltd
is not known. He has been described as a human geographer (whatever
that is) and also as an
"Edinburgh-based consultant in recreation and tourism research
and survey, planning and management, with a particular interest
in mountain country" (13).
SCAC's mission statement as quoted from its website
is:
"To gather information affecting the use of the countryside
for leisure activities:
to spread knowledge about about the countryside: to reconcile
conflicting interests in its use, and
to represent agreed interests to persons and authorities having
responsibilities for the countryside"
However, from statements recently made by Bob
Aitken it would appear that in his capacity as spokesperson for
- and vice-chairman of - SCAC that he may not be fulfilling the
mission statement of his organisation.
Thus:
It is not helpful in terms of spreading knowledge about the countryside
to antagonise those who look after most of the countryside (i.e.
farmers of one kind or another) by downgrading their agricultural
efforts (14)
It is not helpful to ignore the persistent warnings that increased
access to the countryside needs to be controlled, rather than
conveniently assume that the public will be willing to behave
responsibility, or will know enough about the different aspects
of the countryside to know what responsible behaviour is (15,
16)
On that basis it has to be wondered how it is
that he is Chairman of the NPA's leisure and recreation committee.
It is interesting to note that SCAC does not include
any reference to anglers who take access to the rivers and lochs
of the countryside. Nor indeed does the larger umbrella organisation
Scottish Environment LINK include any representation from anglers
within its 36 member organisations (some of which - as mentioned
above - overlap with SCAC). Nor does either of these umbrella organisations
have any representation from those who wish to pursue activities
on the water - be it yachting or noisily and dangerously careering
about in speed boats with the disruption of the recreational activities
of others.
There can therefore be little surprise that strife
has broken out at Loch Lomond between the anglers and speed boat
fanatics (with or without water skiers in tow) who are apparently
beyond control.
Is control of a Scottish National Park by local government likely
to work?
In effect the two Scottish National Parks are
being run by a new type of landlord - a combination of central and
local government, with emphasis on the local variety. It may sound
politically correct, but is it likely to be practically effective?
Although the 25 member strong NPA Board for Loch Lomond-Trossachs
National Park employs 4 directors to carry out its wishes, how much
practical experience does the Board have in running such an enterprise?
Perhaps its ability to deliver should be reassessed.
For example, it is noted that Perth & Kinross
Council is represented on the Board. But this Council has demonstrated
just how they can get management of the countryside seriously wrong
(17).
For some time Perth & Kinross Council have
experienced serious problems with regard to irresponsible behaviour
on the part of the public (18), but little
has apparently been done by the NPA to control the same problems
happening at Loch Lomond.
Failure of SNH to educate the public and to arrange effective
control of public behaviour before advocating opening up the countryside
to such extensive access.
The problems over how SNH handled, through its
Access Forum, the drafting of the Scottish Outdoor Access Code were
highlighted in the review of the proceedings of the SNH Conference,
September 2000, entitled "Finding the new balance between rights
and responsibilities" (19). These
problems were also highlighted in the account of the SNH press conference
on Access to the Countryside held at the Royal Highland Show, Ingliston
in June 2000 (20).
To this day SNH has failed to mount a credible
education programme as to how the public should behave in the countryside.
Rather SNH prefers to place the burden on each individual to assess
for themselves what is and what is not responsible behaviour (21).
In the absence of the public having adequate knowledge to make a
such a judgement this is a disingenuous manoeuvre based on ideology
in the absence of pragmatism.
It has been customary for the SNH Access Forum
to liken their access Code to the highway code, neither code in
itself having legal standing. What the SNH Access Forum continues
to conveniently omit to mention (in spite of much prompting over
the years) is that the highways are heavily policed so that transgressions
can rapidly lead to severe penalties under such headings as careless
driving which are well covered by law.
The present Board of NPA is unlikely to be effective
While the integrity and good intentions of the
Convener and the Deputy Convener of the NPA for Loch Lomond and
Trossachs are not in doubt, it should be asked whether they are
the most suitable individuals to be at the helm of an organisation
that is effectively a the new type of landlord: a landlord who has,
for the past two years, controlled these gems of Scotland's countryside.
Councillor Gillie Thomson is convener. According
to the NPA website (news item 15/07/2002) he is "Stirling's
Council spokesperson on sustainability and Chair of the Council's
Planning Panel". These are laudable positions, but do they
make him a good landlord? There must be few in the land who regard
Council Planning Departments as the Mecca for well managed and creative
initiatives. Oddly one of the charges laid against the NPA is their
approval of far too many commercial concerns, such as hotels, a
golf course and chalets at the expense of the environment. Anyway
what does "sustainability" mean in this context (22),
other than sounding politically correct?
The vice-convener is a distinguished horticulturist,
Sir Peter Hutchison. He was formerly chairman of the Forestry Commission,
but perhaps there are not too many admirers of what that Department
of the Scottish Executive (or its predecessor the Scottish Office)
has achieved in the past, or indeed is currently achieving.
Sir Peter was involved in organising the Royal
Society of Edinburgh's conference held on 30th September 2004 entitled
"Scotland's Land". Sadly the conference was so biased
in terms of promoting government policies that it failed to take
adequate account of the opinions and problems of those who in reality
are very largely responsible for looking after it (23).
Also, one wonders why it is necessary for the same people to so
commonly appear to rotate in tight little circles from one quango
to another. Is Scotland so bereft of talent?
Finally, the concept that local people should
look after their own environment is ideologically correct. But are
there many of Scotland's council tax payers who think that Local
Councils are run either economically or effectively?
Before the Scottish Parliament thinks of creating
any more National Parks it should take a hard look as how the present
ones are run.
©www.land-care.org.uk
References
1. Collins, Vicky (2004). Loch
Lomond dream turns sour. Glasgow Herald, 6th December
http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/29230.shtml
2. Much work is needed to reverse
the decline at Loch Lomond. Glasgow Herald,
7th December
3. Collins,
Vicky (2004). Fishermen threaten to block Loch Lomond shoreline.
Glasgow Herald, 7th December
4. Brockehlurst, Jonathan (2004).
By yon manky banks. National park is a rubbish-strewn haven for
city neds, say locals. Daily Mail 7th December.
5. Scottish Executive (2004).
Budgets set for National Parks. News Release 29th October 2004.
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/News/Releases/2004/10/29135848
6. National Park Authority. www.lochlomond-trossachs.org
7. Mitchell, Ian (2004). The state
of Scotland's National Parks.
See ENVIRONMENT Homepage, filed 07 Dec 04, www.land-care.org.uk
Click
Here to View
8. Editorial (2003). Re-drafted
SNH Scottish Outdoor Access Code plays little heid to consultation
responses.
See SOAC Homepage, filed 02 Dec 03, www.land-care.org.uk
Click
Here to View
9, Editorial (2004). BVA congress:
address by president Tim Greet.
See ANIMAL HEALTH - GENERAL Homepage, filed 14 Oct 04, www.land-care.org.uk
Click
Here to View
10. Gordon, Tom & Collins,
Vicky (2004). McConnell: we'll stop jet ski move north.
Glasgow Herald, Friday 10th December.
11. Scottish Countryside Activities
Council.
http://www.cndoscotland.com/pages/about/scac/index.html
12. Scottish Environment LINK.
www.scotlink.org
13. Irvine, James (2004). Scotland's
Land: RSE Conference 30th September 2004. Reviewed.
See SOCIAL/ECONOMIC/POLITICAL Homepage, filed 04 Oct 04,
www.land-care.org.uk Click
Here to View
14. Irvine, James (2003). The
arrogance of academics pontificating about rural affairs: are they
letting us down? Review of ECRR Conference, Scotland's Landscape
- a fixed asset? Battleby, Perthshire, 8th May 2003.
See SOCIAL/ECONOMIC/POLITICAL Homepage, 14 May 03, www.land-care.org.uk
Click
Here to View
15. Mylius, Andrew (2003). SNH
draft Outdoor Access Code Consultation: response by Andrew Mylius.
See SCOTTISH OUTDOOR ACCESS CODE Homepage, filed 06 Oct 03,
www.land-care.org.uk Click
Here to View
Also published in
LandCare Scotland (2001), Access: the reality for farmers, landowners,
foresters and rural residents. Vol 1: pp3-18.
16. Editorial (2003). Will access
to Scotland's countryside be taken responsibly?
See SCOTTISH OUTDOOR ACCESS CODE Homepage, filed 07
april 03, www.land-care.org.uk, Click
Here to View
17. Editorial (2002). Botched
flood prevention scheme: how not to do it.
See ENVIRONMENT Homepage, filed 2002, www.land-care.org.uk
Click Here to
View
18. Welsh, Andrew (2003). Residents
crackdown on Loch Earn yobs. Strathearn Herald 4th April 2003
See SOCIAL/ECONOMIC/POLITICAL Homepage, filed
april2003, www.land-care.org.uk Click
Here to View
19. Irvine, James (2001). SNH
Conference September 2000: Enjoyment and understanding of the Natural
Heritage: finding the new balance between rights and responsibilities.
A review of the proceedings.
LandCare Scotland. Vol 1 pp 25-32.
Reproduced with minor updates
See SCOTTISH OUTDOOR ACCESS CODE Homepage, filed 22 Jan 03,
www.land-care.org.uk Click
Here to View
20. Irvine, James (2001). Scottish
Natural Heritage's policy on access: Is it being mis-sold in relation
to enclosed farmland next urban communities?
LandCare Scotland: vol 1, pp 19-23
See SCOTTISH OUTDOOR ACCESS CODE Homepage, filed 07 Jan 03,
www.land-care.org.uk Click
Here to View
21. SNH (2004). The Scottish
Outdoor Access Code. Approved by Ministers in May 2004.
http://www.snh.org.uk/pdfs/access/ApprovedCode050604.pdf
22. MacKerron, D.K.L, Hillman,
R.J, & Duncan, M.J. (2003). Sustainability in agriculture.
http://www.scri.sari.ac.uk/Documents/AnnReps/02Indiv/06Sustai.pdf
(for review of this paper Click
Here)
23. Irvine, James (2004). Scotland's
Land. RSE conference 30th September, 2004. Reviewed.
See SOCIAL/ECONOMIC/POLITICAL Homepage, filed 04 Oct 04,
www.land-care.org.uk Click
Here to View
Technical Note:
The same reference appears more
than once in the above reference list. For example, one of the referenced
articles has been given two indicator numbers in the text, 13 and
23.
This is to facilitate easy access
to a reference from where it is mentioned by number more than once
in the text; and to facilitate returning to the same point in the
text where the reader left off to view the reference. This can be
achieved by pressing the back arrow on the keyboard.
Thus,
if a reference is included more than once in the text, the same
reference may carry different numbers and therefore be repeated
in the list of references.
Finis
|
