Biodiversity - strategic framework: consultation analysis

Section Seven: National Parks

Summary

• Overall, there wSas general agreement with the need to review the legal framework for National Parks. Whilst the majority of respondents agreed with the proposed amendments to the purpose, aims and principles of National Parks, there were several organisational respondents who had specific points of disagreement.
• There was a positive sentiment regarding the suggested changes to the role of public bodies operating within National Parks. Clarity was sought as to how these duties would be enforced in practice.
• Respondents broadly agreed with the suggested changes to the general powers of National Park Authorities, with challenges noted with regard to implementation and consistency in enforcement.
• There were mixed responses relating to the governance of National Parks. There was some agreement with the streamlining of processes and the strengthening of biodiversity expertise on boards, as well as some strong opposition amongst some organisational respondents to proposals on board size, composition, and the appointment process.

Purpose of National Parks

This section relates to question 7a (closed response n=184 and open-text response n=130).

The current purpose of a National Park Authority in Scotland, as set out in the 2000 Act, is 'to ensure that the National Park aims are collectively achieved in relation to the National Park in a coordinated way'. The Scottish Government are proposing that the statutory purpose specifically refers to nature restoration and tackling climate change.

Overall, respondents were positive about the suggested change to the purpose of National Park Authorities, as set out in Figure 7.1 overleaf, with nearly three quarters (72 per cent or 132/184) agreeing and 15 per cent (27/184) partially agreeing with the suggested change. In addition, three per cent (5/184) partially disagreed and eight per cent (14/184) disagreed with the suggested change, with six responding with 'Don't know'.

Source: Strategic Framework for Biodiversity Consultation, Scottish Government (2023)

Overall, respondents broadly agreed with the suggested changes, with a range of positive comments received in relation to the leadership role currently played by National Parks as well as the potential to strengthen this role in relation to nature restoration and tackling climate change.

'Amending the purpose in National Parks in stature would send a clear signal that our parks are expected to lead in tackling our ecological emergencies, providing clarity of focus for National Park Authorities, public bodies, local communities, and the whole organisations and people operating in the parks.' (Plantlife Scotland)

'National Parks could be our standard bearers for biodiversity.' (Individual response)

Ten organisational respondents partially or wholly disagreed with the suggested changes, noting that the National Parks' leadership role in nature restoration and tackling climate change should not override the collective achievements regarding the National Park aims. Some stated that this focus was sufficiently covered through proposed changes to the aims, whilst other stakeholders raised concerns surrounding the prioritisation of nature and climate over wider purposes relating to farming, land use, and the rural economy within National Parks.

'National Parks have a role that ultimately is bigger than just biodiversity. It is pivotal but needs to be considered in line with other issues surrounding the socioeconomic and cultural and well-being activities that the National Park should be delivering.' (Dumfries and Galloway Council)

'Whilst we agree about the importance of nature restoration, we believe that this is covered by specific amendments to the aims themselves and [that] the purpose should remain the collective pursuit of those aims.' (Cairngorms Business Partnership)

'We would like to emphasise the importance of food production and farming to Scotland's rural economy, and believe this should not be forgotten or ignored when it comes to the purpose of National Parks. Farming and food production are undoubtedly key drivers of the local community and landscape management that will draw in other opportunities around it.' (NFU Scotland)

Amongst the six respondents who provided a 'Don't know' response, a few suggested that this was on the basis of limited information and that they could not form a definitive opinion without confirmation of the specific wording to be included in the proposed legislation.

Four National Park Aims

This section relates to questions 7b (closed response n=182 and open-text response n=123), 7c (closed response n=180 and open-text response n=121), 7d (closed response n=172 and open-text response n=113) and 7e (closed response n=172 and open-text response n=104).

To support the proposed new purpose of Scotland's National Park Authorities, the Scottish Government are proposing to make some changes to the statutory National Park aims. The specific changes are set out against each of the four aims.

Table 7.2 overleaf sets out the responses to closed-answer questions relating to each of the four aims, suggesting that there was broad agreement with the proposed amendments. At least 80 per cent of respondents agreed or partially agreed with the proposed amendments for each aim.

Source: Strategic Framework for Biodiversity Consultation, Scottish Government (2023).

Please note that not all percentages will total 100 per cent due to rounding.

First National Park Aim

This section relates to question 7b (closed response n=182 and open-text response n=123).

The table below sets out the proposed changes to the first National Park aim.

Table 0.1: Proposed changes to the first National Park aim

Original aim	New proposed aim
Conserve and enhance the natural and cultural heritage of the area	(i) Protect, restore and enhance the natural assets, biodiversity and ecosystems within the National Park; (ii) Protect and enhance the cultural heritage and historic environment assets within the National Park

Respondents broadly agreed with the proposed amendments to split and reword the first National Park aim, with over half of respondents agreeing (58 per cent or 105/182) and a quarter of respondents partially agreeing (25 per cent or 45/182). Fifty respondents made specific positive reference to splitting the aim, whilst several open-text responses gave general agreement with the importance of nature or the environment as an aim for National Parks.

Responses which were positive about the impact of splitting the aims gave reasoning such as ensuring that the challenges associated with delivering impact for the environment and heritage could be appropriately separated. In some cases this approach was to give favour to (i) nature over (ii) heritage and in others it was to ensure that the heritage aspect was appropriately considered and not sidelined.

'The challenges that face natural and cultural heritage are very different and in our experience the emphasis is currently weighted strongly toward natural heritage, with cultural heritage a secondary consideration. We therefore agree that the first aim should be separated so the two different issues can be dealt with individually, with their own unique challenges acknowledged and addressed.' (The Highland Council)

'The proposed new wording should clarify that natural assets [include] the quality and character of the landscape, which has been a significant consideration to the reasons for designation.' (Loch Lomond & The Trossachs National Park)

Amongst respondents who disagreed (nine per cent or 16/182) or partially disagreed (four per cent or 7/182), 11 made specific reference to not splitting the aims, with a further 11 noting that the separation could potentially cause conflict between the aims. Eight respondents gave details relating to the need for simplicity and succinctness in the first aim, stating a preference for the original wording. For some respondents, this was due to the reasoning that the natural environment and historic environment are closely intertwined, and to separate these aims would undermine this principle.

'The current aim, in my opinion, encapsulates the proposed two new aims — better to have a general [and] single and overarching aim.' (Individual response)

'The proposed separation of the natural and historic environment is in conflict with what we think is a key principle: that a holistic approach should be taken to the environment, encompassing historic, natural and cultural aspects.' (Historic Environment Scotland)

Nine respondents (five per cent) provided a 'Don't know' response. Respondents who both agreed and disagreed with the proposed changes to the first National Park aim gave specific comments relating to the wording of the aim, including:

• Positivity relating to the stronger language of 'protect, restore and enhance', negativity towards the coherence of 'restoring biodiversity', and alignment with English and Welsh National Park legislation regarding 'preserve'.
• Negativity relating to use of the word 'asset' in contrast to 'heritage' due to the implication that nature and heritage are commodities, favouring 'natural heritage' (which is the wording used in other legislation).

Second National Park Aim

This section relates to question 7c (closed response n=180 and open-text response n=121).

Table 0.2: Proposed changes to the second National Park aim

Original aim	New proposed aim
Promote sustainable use of the natural resources of the area	Promote sustainable management of the area's natural resources to maximise the benefits for the environment, climate, economy and people

Overall, there was agreement with the proposed changes to the second aim, with over half of respondents agreeing (58 per cent or 100/180) and a further 28 per cent partially agreeing (50/180) with the proposed approach. Thirty-three respondents gave comments relating to the balance of benefits for the environment, climate, economy and people, demonstrating the range of perspectives relating to the priorities of National Parks and their users and residents. A few respondents were positive about the inclusion of this list.

'Sometimes the purpose of National Parks is lost in terms of public perception, which can often be that [they are] skewed towards more recreational pursuits, rather [than being] a working sustainable landscape which attracted the designation in the first instance.' (Individual response)

'This adjustment underscores a commitment to a holistic and integrated approach, recognising the interconnectedness of ecological, economic and social considerations in the stewardship of our natural landscapes.' (Dr Lee Roberts, University of Dundee)

'There is inherent tension between each of these based on present-day lifestyles and economies, which makes an aim to 'maximise' each of these unrealistic.' (John Muir Trust)

Overall, four per cent of respondents partially disagreed with the proposed changes (8/180), a further eight per cent disagreed (14/180), and eight respondents said 'Don't know'. Equally, a range of respondents provided specific comments relating to the wording of the aim, including:

• The proposed inclusion of the term 'community' or 'local community' in the list
• Concern surrounding the word 'maximise'
• A suggestion to add wording related to future generations to strengthen 'sustainable'
• A preference for the wording 'ensure' (rather than 'promote')
• Both positive and negative sentiments relating to the term 'use' in comparison to 'management'.

Third National Park Aim

This section relates to question 7d (closed response n=172 and open-text response n=113).

Table 0.3: Proposed changes to the third National Park aim

Original aim	New proposed aim
Promote understanding and enjoyment (including enjoyment in the form of recreation) of the special qualities of the area by the public	Promote public understanding and enjoyment of the area's natural and cultural assets, supporting sustainable tourism and visitor management, inclusion and improved accessibility for all

Overall, respondents were positive about the proposed amendments to the third aim, with over half of respondents agreeing (57 per cent or 98/172) and over a quarter partially agreeing (27 per cent or 46/172). Responses from individuals gave comments relating to concerns surrounding the impact of recreational activity on the natural environment of the park, with a few noting that improvements in biodiversity can only be achieved by limiting disturbance by the public. Twenty responses provided comments relating to the balance between the protection of nature and sustainable tourism.

'People do need access to the natural surroundings in order to relate to nature, to learn about it and to gain the health benefits. This must be provided in a safe and sustainable way — what is needed is for the public to respect nature and not cause further erosion of the natural environment and adverse impacts such as littering.'(Individual response)

'There needs to be greater consideration of how recreational access can impact nature, with proper provision for spatial refugia for disturbance-sensitive species which may be affected by noise and other stimuli at significant distances from the activities themselves.' (SCOTLAND: The Big Picture)

Thirteen respondents expressed positive sentiments towards the inclusion of the wording relating to inclusion and accessibility for all, with comments relating to improving access to nature for benefits relating to mental health and well-being and to encourage people to support the protection of nature and the environment within National Parks. One organisational response gave a comment relating to the provision that 'sustainable' tourism may make in relation to public transport and, therefore, accessibility.

'We particularly like 'inclusion and accessibility for all', as the NPs are fantastic assets for Scotland and they should be active in this.' (The Conservation Volunteers)

'We support an aim that supports sustainable tourism, where this means more visitors can travel into National Parks by public transport and travel around parks on foot, bike or bus. Better public transport links into National Parks could also support inclusion and improved accessibility.' (John Muir Trust)

Amongst the respondents who either partially disagreed (five per cent or 8/172) or disagreed (six per cent or 11/172), a few respondents supported the retention of 'enjoyment and recreation' in the aim, highlighting that some recreational use of the park may not be considered 'tourism' or that this may serve to over-commercialise the enjoyment of National Parks. One response also referred to the specific wording of 'assets', with a preference for the retention of 'special qualities', which has a wider definition relating to the quality and character of the landscape.

'Enjoyment and recreation should specifically be retained in the aim. This was a key part of the original legislation. The new wording "supporting sustainable tourism and visitor management" suggests a more restrictive and commercial approach to enjoying the outdoors. This potentially undermines the existing basis of recreation in these areas and the role of the National Parks in promoting that.' (Paths for All)

'The suggested changes to the recreational aim are welcome too, with references to tourism and visitor management, but we have concerns about dropping the existing reference to recreation, as the National Parks are important outdoor recreational resources, particularly at a time when Scotland is facing record levels of obesity and mental health issues.' (Organisational response)

'We are not sure the term 'natural and cultural assets' in this context adequately covers all of an area's special qualities. We would prefer the retention of 'special qualities' or using the terms 'natural and cultural heritage' instead.' (Organisational response)

Fourth National Park Aim

This section relates to question 7e (closed response n=172 and open-text response n=104).

Table 0.4: Proposed changes to the fourth National Park aim

Original aim	New proposed aim
Promote sustainable economic and social development of the area's communities	Promote sustainable economic, social and cultural development and well-being of the area's communities

Overall, respondents were positive about the proposed changes to the fourth National Park aim, with 59 per cent of respondents agreeing (102/172) and a further 21 per cent partially agreeing (36/172). For those who agreed with the proposed changes, this was driven by sentiments relating to the importance of the principle itself as well as the role of National Parks in supporting local communities. Those who gave comments relating to the rewording of the principle suggested that the rewording was more inclusive, with respondents being positive about the inclusion of cultural development and well-being.

'It is very important that the communities, both in settlements and more widely spread across the area, are respected and nurtured.' (Organisational response)

'We welcome the recognition that the natural environment is important for well-being.' (British Ecological Society)

A range of perspectives were offered by those who partially agreed with the proposed changes, whose sentiment was positive and who gave additional comments relating to the balance between the economic, social and cultural aspects of the new aim, including the primacy of the natural environment, and concern with regard to reducing the burden or undue impact on local people and businesses.

'There is a need to support rural communities to thrive […] the price for conserving nature should not fall too heavily upon them.' (Buglife)

'It is important to emphasise communities' agency when it comes to decision making and distribution of benefits in the context of natural capital.' (Scottish Crofting Federation)

'A recurring concern from our members was that existing National Parks have failed to retain local people or protect rural businesses, and that increased tourism and visitor access [have] driven up the price of property, thereby pricing out locals and resulting in an influx of wealthy second-home owners.' (NFU Scotland)

Amongst the 13 respondents who responded with 'Don't know' to the proposals (eight per cent or 13/172), a few felt unable to comment on the proposed changes without a definition of the terminology used, or without further details on the nature of 'a greener economy' (as set out in the preamble within the consultation document).

'We are in partial agreement with the proposed amendment to the fourth National Park aim. However, our agreement with this proposed amendment is based upon "a greener economy" being made up of a diverse range of sustainable industry, both on land and at sea, and not limited to "nature-based jobs and skills".' (Organisational response)

'Without a legal definition of 'sustainable economic, social and cultural development' we do not support this change.' (Organisational response)

In total, six per cent of respondents disagreed with the proposed changes (10/172) and a further six per cent partially disagreed (11/172).

National Park Principle

This section relates to question 7f (closed response n=172 and open-text response n=90).

The National Park principle sets out the provision that if it appears to a National Park Authority that there is a conflict between the four National Park aims, the National Park Authority must give greater weight to the first aim. The Scottish Government proposes retaining this principle and applying it to the amended first aim proposed earlier in the consultation.

Overall, respondents were broadly positive about the suggested changes, with 129/172 agreeing (75 per cent) and a further nine per cent partially agreeing (15/172). Many responses provided comments in open-text responses (90 in total), with 17 of all respondents querying elements of the implementation of the principle in practice. One respondent who agreed with the suggested changes sought clarity as to how the weighting will be applied in planning proposals, noting the range of powers relating to the planning of National Park Authorities.

In total, six per cent of respondents (10/172) disagreed with the suggested changes, whilst a further five respondents partially disagreed (three per cent). Amongst those who responded with 'Don't know' to the proposals (eight per cent or 13/172), a few suggested that their response was contingent on the proposed changes to the first aim. Where a respondent disagreed with the proposal to split the aim, they also disagreed with the National Park principle, but suggested that they would agree with the retention of the principle were the first aim to be retained in its original wording.

'We support the retention of the principle — whether or not the existing first (heritage) aim is amended and split or retained as [it] is.' (Organisational response)

'Retaining this principle is essential if the natural heritage is to be given the priority [it] needs to thrive and for National Parks to be viewed as part of the '30 by 30' network.' (UK Environmental Law Association)

'For the reasons outlined above, we consider that this proposal, in conjunction with the proposed changes to the first aim, would have a significant negative effect on the historic environment at a strategic level.' (Historic Environment Scotland)

Public Bodies Operating within National Parks

The table below sets out the responses to closed-answer questions 7g–7i.

Table 0.5: Response to proposed changes to the role of public bodies operating within National Parks

Response	Regard to the proposed National Park aims	Regard to the National Park principle	Duty to support and contribute to the implementation of National Park plans
Agree	121 (71%)	118 (71%)	125 (74%)
Partially agree	28 (16%)	29 (17%)	22 (13%)
Partially disagree	4 (2%)	3 (2%)	3 (2%)
Disagree	7 (4%)	7 (4%)	9 (5%)
Don't know	11 (6%)	9 (5%)	9 (5%)
Total response	171	166	168

Source: Strategic Framework for Biodiversity Consultation, Scottish Government (2023).

Please note that not all percentages will total 100 per cent due to rounding.

Regard to the National Park Aims and Principle

This section relates to questions 7g (closed response n=171 and open-text response n=90) and 7h (closed response n=166 and open-text response n=86).

To support the collective achievement of the National Park aims, the Scottish Government propose that public bodies operating within National Parks should give regard to the National Park aims and the National Park principle.

There was general agreement that public bodies operating within the parks should have due regard for both the aims and the principle, as shown in Table 7.5 above. Several respondents considered that this proposal was crucial for National Parks to be able to deliver on the National Park aims.

'It is imperative that public bodies operating within the National Parks align with the established aims and objectives. This alignment ensures a cohesive and integrated approach, fostering effective collaboration and coherence among stakeholders in the pursuit of protecting and restoring nature.' (Dr Lee Roberts, University of Dundee)

'It is fundamental to the implementation of these aims that they are given genuine attention and thought by every public body operating in the National Park.' (Organisational response)

Amongst respondents who agreed or partially agreed with the proposal, 20 sought stronger language than 'regard' for the aims, and 16 sought stronger language than 'regard' for the principle, suggesting that emphasis should be placed on multi-agency action.

Some respondents expressed concern regarding potential conflicts relating to what public bodies 'regard' the National Park aims and the National Park principle to look like in practice (16 respondents for the aims and 11 respondents for the principle). A few felt that it would be challenging to implement this in practice due to the potential conflict between the primary remit of a public body and the circumstances in which this will take precedence.

One individual sought further clarity as to the definition or criteria associated with 'due regard', noting the potential for a judicial review of such bodies' actions if they fail to pay due regard to the principles.

'The 'have regard to' terminology is too weak, especially when set against the 'primary responsibilities' of relevant public bodies.' (Individual response)

'Could there be a reference to the Land Rights and Responsibilities Statement here, and in that statement a reciprocal reference to NP aims, to make clear the element of delivering in public interest within the park aims?' (Ramblers Scotland)

Specific clarifications and suggestions were provided by the two existing National Park Authorities:

• The Cairngorms National Park Authority would like clarification as to whether the term 'public bodies' covers local authorities and organisations working on behalf of a public body (e.g. managing agents).
• Loch Lomond and the Trossachs National Park noted that revisions to the Act should make clear that any planning authority making decisions in a National Park should have a duty to consider the impacts of a development on the achievement of National Park aims. This extends to decision making on planning appeals in which the decision maker is the Scottish Government's Planning and Environmental Appeals Division or Scottish ministers.

Duty to Support and Contribute to Implementation of National Park Plans

This section relates to question 7i (closed response n=168 and open-text response n=104).

The Scottish Government proposes that the duty on public bodies should be strengthened so that public bodies operating within National Parks have an obligation to actively support and contribute to the implementation of National Park plans.

Overall, respondents were positive about the suggested amendment to the duty on public bodies operating within a National Park, as set out in Figure 7.3 above. A few respondents who agreed with the proposals raised points on the enforcement of these duties and on the interaction of these duties with other duties placed on public bodies.

'We would welcome further information on the interaction of such a duty with others which such public bodies are also subject to.' (Law Society of Scotland)

'The [National] Park Authority strongly supports the duty on other public bodies operating within the National Park being strengthened so they have an obligation to support and contribute to the implementation of National Park plans (rather than having regard to these plans).' (Cairngorms National Park Authority)

'Agree strongly to help ensure better buy-in to the National Park plans and avoid lip service approaches. Issues such as public transport [and] affordable housing provision remain huge challenges.' (Friends of Loch Lomond and the Trossachs / Helensburgh and District Access Trust (HADAT))

General Powers of National Park Authorities

This section relates to questions 7j (closed response n=158 and open-text response n=83) and 7k (closed response n=113 and open-text response n=56).

The Scottish Government proposes that National Park Authorities should be given the power to be able to enforce the contravention of National Park byelaws by issuing fixed-penalty notices.

Overall, respondents broadly agreed with the proposed changes to the general powers of National Park Authorities, with over two thirds agreeing (70 per cent or 110/158), 12 per cent partially agreeing (19/158), three per cent partially disagreeing (4/158), seven per cent disagreeing (11/158), and 14 respondents saying 'Don't know' (nine per cent).

'This has the potential to provide a meaningful difference and enable a more effective means of enforcement that deters offences […]. Consideration should, however, be given to the additional workload this would create for enforcement teams, and ensure they are adequately resourced.' (Aberdeen City Council)

Both current National Park Authorities were positive about the proposed changes to the general powers of National Park Authorities, noting that they already have experience of fixed-penalty-notice powers concerning littering offences, which are used sparingly and bring added deterrence. Equally, the power to issue fixed-penalty notices to enforce byelaws would be a more proportional approach to the current system.

'Current enforcement of National Park byelaws breaches through the court system involves significant legal work and in the case of more straightforward breaches could be seen as disproportionate, particularly where there is a risk of receiving a criminal record.' (Loch Lomond and the Trossachs National Park Authority)

'The [National] Park Authority supports that National Park Authorities should be able to enforce byelaw breaches within National Parks by issuing fixed-penalty notices (rather than referring them to local procurators fiscal.' (Cairngorms National Park Authority)

Eight respondents agreeing with the proposed changes provided specific comments relating to the limited use of the issuing of fixed-penalty notices, with some suggesting that details on their use should be added to any amendment to byelaws.

'We expect these powers to be used sparingly, as a last resort, where a problem is recurring, and public awareness is not offering a solution.' (John Muir Trust)

Fifteen respondents raised concerns regarding challenges relating to implementation, including the need for additional resources for National Park Authorities to enforce these byelaws, potential conflicts with the powers of other agencies (particularly police forces), and challenges associated with inconsistency across countryside rangers.

'Addition of such enforcement powers changes the nature of the National Park Authority, raising questions about lines of public accountability and alignment with other enforcement arrangements, notably Police Scotland. It is preferable to work through established and well-understood structures wherever possible.' (Individual response)

'An issue could arise due to differences in how rangers are employed in the parks. In Cairngorms it is likely that rangers employed by the park would be trained and deployed to enforce byelaws, while those employed by landowners would not, leading to confusion for visitors.' (Scottish Countryside Rangers' Association)

In addition to the response to the proposed changes to the general powers of National Park Authorities, respondents provided perspectives on any additional changes that should be made to these powers. Overall, a quarter of respondents agreed that other changes should be made (25 per cent or 28/113), with six respondents (five per cent) partially agreeing, three respondents (three per cent) partially disagreeing, and 10 respondents (nine per cent) disagreeing. Notably, over half of respondents provided a 'Don't know' response (66/113 or 58 per cent).

Amongst those who agreed that additional changes should be made to the general powers of National Park Authorities, these included expanded powers to support nature recovery (10 responses), either greater powers or clarity relating to powers with regard to land ownership and use (five responses), powers to ensure the consistency of rights of way and access (five responses), and issues relating to planning (four responses).

For expanded powers to support nature recovery, these included powers to ensure compliance from landowners as well as the enforcement of National Park nature recovery plans. In relation to land ownership and use, there were suggestions that National Park Authorities had powers to manage public land and to incentivise other landowners within park boundaries, as well as powers relating to the approval of large land purchases.

'National Parks are a mix of private, public and third sector ownership. This can create difficulties in delivery. To reduce these, further changes should be made to the general powers to enable National Parks to effectively work with, incentivise and/or regulate all landowners to achieve the aims of the National Park.' (Organisational response)

Several respondents noted inconsistencies in the management of rights of way in conjunction with planning powers, where the Cairngorms National Park Authority does not have access regarding rights of way (despite being the access authority). Respondents suggested a few approaches to ensuring that this approach was consistent for both current and future National Parks, including amending legislation to pass the management of rights of way to access authorities or ensuring that all National Park Authorities are also the relevant planning authority.

In relation to planning, there were mixed perspectives as to whether all National Park Authorities should hold powers relating to planning decisions, with one response advocating for extended powers for the Cairngorms National Park Authority, one seeking further clarity as to planning powers for future National Parks, and one advocating for greater collaboration between National Park Authorities, other agencies, and communities in relation to planning.

'We note that responsibility for rights-of-way management lies with the planning authority; therefore, CNPA doesn't have powers related to [rights of way], although LLTNPA does. It would be helpful to amend the legislation to pass this responsibility onto the access authority, rather than the planning authority, as we would expect all National Park Authorities to be access authorities but not necessarily also the planning authority.' (Ramblers Scotland)

'The [National] Park Authority supports powers associated with rights of way being transferred from local authorities to [National] Park Authorities. This would be in line with the [National] Park Authority being the access authority for the area. The [National] Park Authority supports revisions to management rules within the current legislation to update them and potentially allow a comprehensive suite of management rules to be adapted by each individual National Park Authority to suit the circumstances in the local area.' (Cairngorms National Park Authority)

Other suggestions included stronger duties to deliver National Park plans to ease visitor management issues, the suggestion of a duty to gather, analyse and use data on biodiversity in the National Parks, and clarity as to the funding mechanisms between National Park Authorities and local authorities in relation to a proposed tourist levy.

Governance of National Parks

This section relates to question 7l (closed response n=142 and open-text response n=91).

The Scottish Government proposes making a range of changes to the size and composition of National Park Authority boards that are designed to maximise their efficiency, diversity, and relevant skillset.

Whilst over a quarter of responses agreed with the proposed changes (27 per cent or 39/142) and the same proportion partially agreed (27 per cent or 39/142), these proposals elicited the largest proportion of disagreement amongst respondents (Figure 7.3). Some 15 per cent (21/142) disagreed and a further 13 per cent (19/142) partially disagreed with the proposed changes to the governance of National Parks, whilst 17 per cent said 'Don't know' (24/142).

Source: Strategic Framework for Biodiversity Consultation, Scottish Government (2023).

Please note that not all percentages will total 100 per cent due to rounding.

Open-text responses were mixed in relation to proposals relating to board size and composition. Several responses gave positive comments in relation to both universalising and reducing board sizes. Some organisational respondents were positive about the proposal of including expertise relating to biodiversity and climate action.

'It is right that there's a balance between local and national interests on a park board. The range of eight to 15 sounds about right, given that [the] new [National Park] may be within one local authority area.' (Organisational response)

'We support explicit reference to board members having national perspectives in relation to biodiversity and climate action. We suggest adding landscape beauty and character to this list.' (Organisational response)

'The board needs to be of an effective functional size and with the necessary skills, expertise, and diversity of representation (as outlined in the proposal).' (South of Scotland Enterprise)

There was opposition amongst several organisational respondents to the proposed changes to board composition and the appointment process. Several respondents raised concerns that approximately half of a board's membership should be directly appointed by ministers, with nearly a quarter of responses disagreeing with the proposed approach to the selection process (22 per cent or 31/142), and 15 responses highlighted the importance of effective local representation on boards. Points of disagreement in this regard included the principle of ministerial appointments to boards as well as disagreement with the proposed proportions for ministerial appointments, elected members, and local authorities.

In addition, 24 responses (17 per cent) provided details on their disagreement with the principle that the Convenor or Deputy Convenor would be appointed by the Scottish Government (rather than being elected by the board itself). This was due to a range of factors including ensuring the balance of local and national interests in park leadership, ensuring the independence of National Park Authority leadership from government, and aligning with wider biodiversity and climate strategies which advocate for a 'bottom-up' approach to delivery. Moreover, several respondents cited that the leadership role should be available to elected appointments to support good functioning of the board and ensure that the Convenor and Deputy Convenor would have the support of the wider board.

'We can see the case for a slight reduction in board numbers but not at the expense of excluding local businesses, communities and residents having membership access. The boards should be robustly independent [and] more locally accountable, not less, which will be the result of these proposals.' (Friends of Loch Lomond and the Trossachs / Helensburgh and District Access Trust (HADAT))

'One of the posts of Convenor or Deputy Convenor should be from the directly elected members of the board (rather than appointees of the Scottish Government). This is with a view to reinforcing the message that people in the local area have a meaningful role in the governance of National Parks.' (The James Hutton Institute)

'We support the need for a diverse membership of the National Park Authority boards, but the divide between nominated, elected and appointed individuals does not add up.' (Scottish Wildlife Trust)

One respondent noted the potential effect of the proposed changes on the operational committee structure, noting that currently all locally elected members automatically are part of the planning committee and, therefore, bring an understanding of the impact of a planning decision on a local community. They raised concerns that reducing the locally elected element of the strategic board risks unbalanced decisions being made at this planning committee, which would be detrimental to the balance of the National Park aims.

'Should the strategic board be amended as proposed, then the methodology to appoint to subcommittees should also be amended. There needs to be a greater opportunity for local representation at this more operational level.' (Organisational response)

Respondents were broadly positive about the statement on achieving greater diversity across board membership, with comments relating to the inclusion of younger voices, socioeconomic background, and ethnic diversity. Several respondents noted the importance of training or compensation to encourage board membership, highlighting that it was a long time commitment which may serve as a barrier to participation.

'It is also important that there are effective actions taken to ensure that boards include a proportion of members who are from younger age groups […]. Young people's voices need to be heard loud and clear on these boards.' (Individual response)

Finally, neither of the current National Park Authority boards supported the proposed changes, as outlined below.

'The [National] Park Authority board does not support a reduction in the size of the board nor a change in the split of the proportions from the different appointment processes. This is especially important, given the presence of five local authorities within the boundaries of the National Park.' (Cairngorm National Park Authority)

'The [National] Park Authority board strongly believes that the roles of Convener and Deputy Convener should continue to be elected from within the board membership. [We] recognise the importance of — and challenges in achieving — diversity in board membership and are committed to working with the Scottish Government and wider partners to address this challenge within the existing governance structure.' (Loch Lomond and the Trossachs National Park Authority)