Here is an honest and genuine analysis by one of our key community individuals who feels passionately that “Doing nothing” is not an option and whatever action we take, that Scottish National Parks have advantages and disadvantages but unless we can come up with a better solution, we need to make Our National Park work for us

The conversation about the proposed National Park (NP) has sadly often been reduced to a simple ‘yes/no’ debate.  It has also highlighted the very real issues already facing our region and its future generations, including declining school enrolments, youth migration, an aging population, rising house prices, biodiversity loss, increasing tourism, and the unrelenting commercialisation of our countryside.

What seems clear from the discussion is that we need a coordinated vision for the future.  We can’t just say no and do nothing as these things are already happening.   And if that vision does not include a NP, what are the well-considered and costed alternatives?  Here are some thoughts as we navigate these turbulent waters.

Funding & Economy: Delivery of any future vision will require substantial long-term funding, with or without a NP.  But nothing comes for free.  Existing Scottish National Parks have core budgets of £10 million annually and attract additional funds due to their NP status. In return they deliver benefits (e.g. the Cairngorms National Park contributes £400 million a year to the regional economy) and impacts (e.g. increased tourism).  If not a NP, where does the funding come from? 

Governance: Even the best visions can fail with poor governance. Cabinet Secretary Mairi Gougeon emphasises that any NP should be “designed by the people of Galloway for the people of Galloway.” As such any vision should centre around inclusive local governance, targeted delivery and learn from previous experiences to avoid bureaucratic and project inefficiencies.  With the authority to require all government agencies to support its objectives, and backed by an Act of Parliament and statutory powers, could a well-structured NP deliver solutions more effectively than existing entities? And if not co-ordinated by an NP, who should deliver this responsibility and with what authority?

Housing: Rising house prices, second homes, and a lack of affordable housing are already significant issues in southwest Scotland, and could be exacerbated by a National Park.  Delivering solutions is the responsibility of Regional Councils, whether or not there is a NP. Various strategies that already exist could be implemented.  Councils in Wales, for example, have increased rates on second homes and Airbnbs. Scotland’s existing NPs have set higher targets for affordable housing (>60%) than the national target (25%). We should all ask our councillors what strategies they are implementing to address this urgent issue, with or without an NP.

The Young: Young people are leaving the region and should be at the heart of any vision for the future. Strategies to enable them to stay in the area should be coordinated across all agencies and work in partnership with all sectors to optimise local benefits and a circular economy, including apprenticeship programs linked to further education courses developed in collaboration with our existing world-class business sectors (e.g. farming, forestry, renewables, and tourism, and technology).

Nature & Culture: communities & nature should be at the centre of any governance table.  Scotland is “one of the most nature-depleted countries in the world” (Nature Scot). Many vulnerable areas for biodiversity and cultural identity lie outwith current designated areas, and tourism is not the only threat. Existing extractive land management practices across the region, including our seas, cannot be overlooked. As a national designation, a NP has significant status in development planning, including for new wind farm applications (current Government policy states that ‘development proposals for wind farms in NPs will not be supported’) and conifer plantation schemes (an NP is defined as a “Sensitive Area”).  But it should also be required to work proactively with land managers to develop win win solutions with respect to the competitive pressures on our countryside. 

Tourism: Tourism brings both positive (e.g. economic, jobs) and negative (e.g., traffic, rubbish) impacts. It is already on the rise in the region, with second homes and visitor pressures clearly evident. In the Cairngorms NP, tourism has risen by 30% since its creation 25 years ago, and it employs up to 50 rangers to help manage pressures.  Delivering any sustainable tourism strategy requires long term funding and coordinated, regional, and location-specific thinking. Rangers, similar to the Loch Ken Rangers, should be embedded in communities across the region to listen and respond to local needs. Any strategy should be developed across a wide area to minimise seasonal and locational pressure points. 

Summary: We need a vision for the future.  A NP, delivered “by the people, for the people, nature, and the future”, and with sufficient funding, could offer a once-in-a-generation opportunity to deliver long-term solutions to some of the issues we already face as a region.  It is for us all to decide.  And if the answer is no, what are the alternatives, as whilst nothing comes for free, doing nothing also has a cost.