With the nomination process for those seeking to create a new national park open until tomorrow (February 29), NFU Scotland has been repeating its opposition to the creation of new parks.
This is based on the experience of many farmers and crofters currently living and working in either the Cairngorms National Park or the Loch Lomond and Trossachs National Park.
In recent consultation with members, responses indicated that existing parks had failed to make a positive contribution to farming and crofting. Specifically, most members felt that the creation of new parks:
• Will increase bureaucracy and stifle growth, innovation and development.
• Will result in an increase in access-related issues. Increased visitor numbers could also price out the local population from accessing accommodation.
• Bring no additional benefits over and above existing policies and legislation.
• Prioritise tourism and visitor access over local farming and crofting businesses. This could be of detriment to the rural economy, as well as the natural environment.
• Go against the principle of a just transition: there will be winners and losers as to who receives funding. This is inequitable.
NFUS is calling for independent evidence of the value that existing parks bring to farmers, crofters and the local community and a similarly robust case why the national park outcomes cannot be achieved by other existing funding programmes such as VisitScotland and regional enterprise bodies.
The nomination process for new national parks is causing grave concern and confusion for members with regards to what it means for them and their area, as highlighted by several protests in existing and proposed park areas.
Farming and food production are the core of Scotland’s rural economy and are the key drivers of the local community and landscape management that draws in other opportunities. This must be a major consideration when assessing nominations for new parks.
Meaningful involvement of the local community at each stage in the nomination process is key but that is not being delivered by many of the proposed bids. Feedback from members in existing national parks is that there has not been enough focus on local views and where community involvement was present, it was tokenistic. That must not happen this time round.
Wider community views must be considered and not just the views of the nomination group being presented when bids go in for the creation of new parks. This is necessary to avoid polarised views within a community leading to groups feeling disenfranchised and that a national park is being imposed on them.
We are concerned that there is no detail on how any new national park is to be funded. We are also concerned that at a time when public resources are under strain - for example, in the health service, education, ferry provision, road infrastructure and social care - a new national park is not a priority for the public. We want to see vital services being delivered, rather than a new national park, which is not seen as essential in this current economic climate. We would much rather see proposals that are cost-effective and where the benefits could be shared across the country.
In the concerning absence of any detail on how new national parks are to be funded in the face of the current national fiscal pressures, and the potential that another layer of complexity and bureaucracy will be laid on farmers and crofters, we believe the means to achieve the outcomes being sought are already in place and the creation of new parks is unjustifiable.
Alasdair Macnab is NFU Scotland Vice President
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules here