Could National Parks Play A Role in Land Use Change?
The land use of the Glenkens and wider Galloway is undergoing change at a pace and scale that has not been seen since the creation of the Forest Park.
Many of these pressures for change are national with ‘nature recovery’ and ‘climate change’ as the headlines, but with many more acting locally and in some cases dramatically.
Farmer Robert McTurk with Casfad Loch and Glenkens hills in the background.
National parks in Scotland were only enacted in 2000, with the first two being created soon after (Loch Lomond & Trossachs and Cairngorms). Scottish national park legislation differs from that south of the border. It shares the aims of ‘conserving and enhancing the natural and cultural heritage’ and ‘promoting understanding and enjoyment of the special qualities’ but adds two further aims - ‘sustainable use of the natural resources of the area’ and ‘promote sustainable economic and social development of the area’s communities’. Uniquely in Scotland there is no presumption that in the event of conflict the first aim will take precedent. You can view the full wording of the purposes at www.gallowaynationalpark.org
Like much legislation, the National Parks (2000) Act makes no specific reference of climate change or the biodiversity crisis, though this may be considered in the current review of the national planning framework. The Act already allows considerable scope to include them and intentionally provides the flexibility to tailor the national park to more closely reflect local circumstances, aided by a management board where local elected representation is in the majority.
National Parks influence land use in their area in one of four broad ways:
1) Through the production of a National Park Plan
2) Through encouraging and assisting land managers to deliver the vision set out in the Plan and directing them to possible funding incentives for this.
3) As the planning authority it can control inappropriate development
4) Through a Ranger service which helps manage access and visitor conflicts.
National Park’s don’t have a different planning system to the rest of the country but are using the same system to deliver the more targeted vision agreed in the National Park Plan.
The ‘carrot and stick’ approach above is not designed to produce ‘a one size fits all’ solution. It is more effective in practice than it appears on paper, in part because a significant amount of rural land use is influenced by various forms of government incentives. It provides more and new alternatives to land managers on what they might do with the land where these options deliver the aims of the National Park. The ‘Cairngorms Connect’ and ‘Great Trossachs Forest’ projects are examples of this being carried out at a landscape scale through collaboration with many land managers in a way not seen outside National Parks.
Perhaps the biggest, though possibly least tangible, influence that a National Park can have is the certainty of the future vision for the area. Many rural land use changes are long-term and the rewards gradual. Over the last 70 years, new National Parks have been created in the UK and existing ones extended but none have ever been disbanded.
A National Park won’t solve all of Galloway’s challenges but, done well, it can make a really positive contribution to a vibrant and sustainable future for the area.
Rob Lucas