Hansard

Establishing the national parks was one of the early achievements of the Scottish Parliament. The legislation was steered through by Sarah Boyack, who was then a Labour minister. I am pleased that she is taking part in this evening’s debate.

This year is the 10th anniversary of the creation of the two national parks: Loch Lomond and the Trossachs, and the Cairngorms. The path to establishing national parks was long. Cairngorms was first proposed in the 1931 Addison report and it took devolution to deliver the legislation and have Scotland join the global national parks movement.

The 3,500 national parks across the world recognise and protect areas of outstanding natural beauty. They strengthen international reputation and demonstrate a long-term commitment to the natural environment. Indeed, the Scottish model of national parks interests people from all over Europe, as they can see that working in partnership can deliver real change and an important focus on joined-up management across conservation, the visitor experience and rural development.

We know that although Scotland has much to offer—wild mountains, pristine rivers and lochs, ancient forests, stunning coastlines and islands that are rich with wildlife and history—we also face challenges in protecting and enhancing our biodiversity, getting the right balance between different interests so that the environment is not compromised, and using land, one of Scotland’s strongest resources, in a way that works in harmony with communities and supports sustainable development.

I thank those members who supported the motion and enabled the debate to be held. I introduced the debate to help concentrate minds on where we go next. Two parks is surely not the end of the process, and the report, “Unfinished Business: A National Parks Strategy for Scotland”, which has been prepared by the Scottish Campaign for National Parks and the Association for the Protection of Rural Scotland, gives a strong case for further designation. I thank those organisations for their work in this area. I also thank Ramblers Scotland for the briefing that it prepared for the debate.

Our experience of existing national parks shows that they can bring a wide range of environmental, social and economic benefits. The four aims of national parks, which are established in the National Parks (Scotland) Act 2000, are:

“to conserve and enhance the natural and cultural heritage of the area, to promote sustainable use of the natural resources of the area, to promote understanding and enjoyment (including enjoyment in the form of recreation) of the special qualities of the area by the public, and to promote sustainable economic and social development of the area’s communities.”

I recently sat next to Grant Moir, the chief executive of Cairngorms National Park, at a Scottish Council for Development and Industry dinner on the rural economy. I heard about the good work that Cairngorms National Park is doing, as well as some of the unavoidable challenges that it faces as the lead authority for the area.

We can see how national parks can respond positively to some of the key challenges for our rural areas, such as the economy, employment and sustainability. They are a driver for growth: the Cairngorms area has survived the recession well; it has low unemployment, a growing population and good growth. Cairngorms National Park recently launched the make it yours campaign with Cairngorms business partnership, through which businesses will come together to work on an innovative and interesting approach to promote the national park brand.

National parks deliver on nature conservation, and the Cairngorms nature action plan shows the way forward for delivering on the 2020 challenge on biodiversity—and all of us in the chamber know how challenging that will be.

National parks are also a showcase for how sustainable development can be delivered on the ground. If members want to know where they can see cutting edge and innovative solutions that are being developed to take on the tricky issues in rural Scotland they need look only at our national parks.

There is no dispute that the establishment of the parks is a good thing. The question, after 10 years, is what is next. In 2009, the Scottish Government carried out a review of the two existing parks, but the remit was fairly narrow, with a focus on the existing roles and composition. Stage 2 of the review was dropped and the opportunity to have a broader discussion was lost. In addition, although the review proposed the establishment of a national strategy group chaired by ministers, that has not materialised. Perhaps the minister will say whether such a strategy group will be forthcoming and, if so, what the timetable for that will be. I agree that a national group would be helpful and would enable discussion on a forward strategy.

We know that we are in a time of financial constraint and the national parks authorities face a significant cut in next year’s and the following year’s budget. It therefore might seem unreasonable to call for further national parks, but a strategy group would allow opportunity for future planning, to set the forward path and to be clear on Scotland’s aspirations for national parks.

The unfinished business report recommended a list of areas that are believed to be suitable for designation and set out the criteria used to identify the areas. We are some way off reaching an agreement on whether more parks are needed, never mind determining where those parks might be, but some interesting examples are included in the report. Designating the Cheviots would be an extension of the Northumberland national park. The border between Scotland and England runs along the ridge of the Cheviot hills and although the southern flank is in the Northumberland national park, the northern side has limited protection through areas of great landscape value designation. However, it can be argued that the Scotland side is more impressive—such an argument would not be a difficult one for the minister to make. That could be the first cross-border park in the United Kingdom; it has the potential to extend all the benefits of international attraction, tourism and marketing, as well as conservation interests across the border.

The unfinished business report also argues for a coastal marine national park. That was the sense of direction prior to 2007, after which the focus on broader marine issues shifted and led to the Marine (Scotland) Act 2010. In recent evidence to the Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee about climate adaptation, concerns were raised about Scotland’s soft coastline and the need for greater strategic support for coastal partnerships. I ask the minister to comment on whether he sees a future for a coastal and marine national park and how that would complement other designations.

The report also highlights the potential for a national park in Galloway that would encompass the national forest park, which is one of only four dark skies parks in the western world. Other members may want to highlight other areas for discussion.

Next year, we will commemorate the 100th anniversary of the death of John Muir, the central figure in the worldwide national parks movement. Although the debate may move on to what should or could be designated, designation is complex and community consent and support is vital in going forward. The establishment of the boundaries is also complex and, while effective governance and management are essential, they can be tricky to get right. However, this debate is not about the detail; it is, I hope, the start of a debate on how we go forward and positively progress national parks for the future of Scotland.

17:13