With the nomination process to find a new National Park open until 29 February, NFU Scotland has been repeating its opposition to the creation of new parks writes Vice President Alasdair Macnab.
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, the majority of members felt that the creation of new parks would:
- increase bureaucracy and stifle growth, innovation and development.
- increase access-related issues.
- reduce housing availability for the local population.
- bring no additional benefits over and above existing policies and legislation.
- prioritise tourism and visitor access over local farming businesses to the detriment of the rural economy and the natural environment.
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.
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.
Many are also asking where the funding for a new national park will come from at a time when members are dealing with poorer local services, unacceptable ferry provision, and deteriorating roads and infrastructure.
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.