National parks – are they more of an opportunity than a threat?
Written by Trees for Life CEO Steve Micklewright, who is a board member of Cairngorms National Park Authority. Originally published in the Press and Journal, 4 March 2024
Local consultations during recent weeks about the creation of at least one new national park in Scotland have been met with strong opposition from some landowners, farmers and crofters. Meanwhile, farmers recently gathered en masse with tractors outside the offices of Cairngorms National Park Authority ahead of a farmers’ forum meeting ‘to make a point’.
Such concerns contrast with wider public opinion, with 89% of people supporting the need for new national parks, and 74% wanting more nature restoration in them.
Are battle lines being drawn between ‘traditional ways of life’ and the ‘green agenda’? Is conflict over the future of the precious landscapes we all care about really necessary, not least given the need to tackle the nature and climate emergencies, on which our farmers, crofters and growers are finding themselves increasingly on the sharp edge?
The Scottish Government has promised at least one new national park by 2026, and over the past few weeks, 10 areas have been in a first round of public consultation over whether to explore the possibility of being considered for national park status. Following this initial step, formal nominations had to be submitted to government by 29 February. Ministers will now proceed to select official candidates, followed by detailed statutory consultations.
Many feel the initial local consultation process has been too hurried. Partly as a result, some consultations, alongside wholly legitimate and understandable questions and concerns, ran into confusion and even disagreements over what national park status might mean for rural communities and livelihoods.
So, what are the pros and cons of living and working in a national park? As a member of the board of Cairngorms National Park Authority since last summer, I have seen the benefits and also where the fault-lines lie.
One major advantage for farmers and crofters is the additional funding that can be secured to support them. Cairngorms National Park Authority has provided funding over and above national schemes to 60 farms in the last two years. This will be especially important during the uncertain period ahead, as agricultural subsidies change to tackle the climate and nature emergencies, and for food security.
Listening to and understanding farmers’ and crofters’ views are vital. While more needs to be done, national parks do provide a framework that can enable the right support and advice to be delivered. Hence the reestablishment of the farmers’ forum in the Cairngorms.
Many landowners are concerned about possible new restrictions. Yet here, national park authorities have no more control over how land is managed than a local authority has. They can only encourage change – not force it to happen.
National parks do scrutinise significant planning applications, with their own committee of board members, and wind farms are not permitted within our existing parks. But the Government has already indicated the position in a new park will be more permissive, likely because of the contribution windfarms can make towards achieving net zero.
More visitors are attracted to national parks, bringing significant economic advantages, but sometimes also problems with managing numbers in popular beauty spots. Our existing parks employ rangers to engage with visitors, and investment in infrastructure helps manage impacts. So, for areas already experiencing many visitors, the additional resources that come with national park status can help ease pressures.
Another concern is second homes and holiday lets. This can increase house prices, making homes unaffordable for those who already live and work locally. This is difficult to control in an unregulated housing market, but there are solutions. Cairngorms National Park Authority has powers to require 45% of all new homes in areas of shortage – such as Aviemore or Braemar – to be affordable. This has resulted in 175 new affordable homes built since 2017, much higher than in other rural areas, with more planned.
Could a new park lead to more rural depopulation as traditional jobs, such as deer stalking, are lost, because of more emphasis on nature? Actually, nature restoration creates more job opportunities. Reducing deer numbers to allow woodlands to regenerate requires more people with deer stalking skills. Restoring peatlands creates a whole new workforce.
New rural businesses can mean new livelihoods and repeopling in currently depopulated areas. The population in the Cairngorms has increased by 12.5% since 2003, and is predicted to rise by another 4.5% over the next 20 years. This is one of the highest increases in the Highlands, and is happening amid significant nature restoration.
Some fear disempowerment of local communities in decision-making. But Scotland’s national park boards include members appointed by government and local representation. The Cairngorms board includes people directly elected by the community, and local councillors, so a significant majority is locally elected in some way.
Support for communities in the Cairngorms includes funding of community development officers; direct funding for projects; and ongoing support for Community Led Local Development Funding, with over £1million of investment over the past two years.
Park authorities also leverage significant additional finance to support local people. The Cairngorms 2030 initiative has recently secured £10.7million from the National Lottery Heritage Fund to support communities, farmers and land managers in delivering net-zero and nature restoration.
Communities are at the heart of Cairngorms 2030, which shows the power of the national park brand, and having a dedicated organisation to advocate for the area.
Taking into account the huge public support for national parks and their undoubted overall benefits, it is unfortunate that the tight deadline set by the Government to submit a nomination for the Scotland’s third national park has prevented detailed and extensive discussions with the farmers and crofters who feel they have most to lose from a new park.
As a result, their vocal opposition appears to have contributed to potential national park nominations being withdrawn. The consequence is that nature, local communities and especially the farmers and crofters themselves have all lost out.