Hansard

Fergus Ewing is absolutely right, but there has been a predominance of Sitka over the past wee while. It is recognised that overplanting Sitka decreases biodiversity in the relevant areas.

I will use the Loch Lomond and the Trossachs national park water vole project as an example. The removal of self-seeded Sitka spruce trees allowed grass and other native wetland vegetation to return. As well as increasing the diversity of native plants for water voles, a healthy wetland ecosystem will absorb more carbon and retain more water, thereby helping to prevent flooding downstream.

Marine diversity is also often overlooked. For example, 12 breeding seabird species declined in abundance by an average of 38 per cent between 1986 and 2016. Plankton communities have changed in response to climate change, which impacts fish and birds higher up the food chain. The management of marine environments by Marine Scotland is often indiscriminate, which does not allow for the targeted and effective management of our blue resource.

Siloed management of our environments on the whole drastically reduces our management effectiveness. Organisations from non-governmental organisations to fisheries unions are calling for more integrated management on land and at sea. There is a lack of data from Marine Scotland to allow them to make better management decisions. However, third-party groups have done considerable research that is publicly available for them to adopt and use.

National marine parks could help to establish Scotland’s blue economy and blue carbon, much as national parks have aided Scotland’s rural economy and peatland carbon sequestration. Using national parks in that way would help with sustainably developing that economy and would increase collaboration with local stakeholders through the park authorities. We can put the management of such areas back into the hands of local people with traditional knowledge.

Farmers and landowners play an important role in that. Conservation efforts need to be based on co-operation and collaboration, not on unilaterally imposing restrictions. National parks represent an opportunity for farmers to diversify their businesses and make the most of opportunities in tourism and direct-to-market sale of local produce. Indeed, a number of farmers in the proposed Galloway national park are supportive of that proposal. A national park should empower farmers and give them more opportunities to farm sustainably, earn a better living and be even more effective custodians of the countryside.

Members will know that it is a rare speech by me that does not manage to include a reference to health and they will be delighted to know that this one is no exception. The motion acknowledges the cultural, social and economic benefits of national parks. However, it is equally important to recognise the substantial contribution that they, and Scotland’s rural areas more widely, can make to public health.

I do not wish to be accused of bias, of course, but there are few places in the world better suited to walking and cycling than the Scottish countryside. The benefits of physical activity of any kind—from walking to mountain biking—are well recognised. Regular physical activity can help to prevent illness, aid recovery and improve mental health.

National parks, and Scotland’s countryside more widely, are an incredible and undervalued asset in the fight to improve public health. Many communities in rural areas are already recognising that and taking action.

Any action that we can take that encourages people to make the most of what our countryside has to offer will inevitably make a difference to public health. At a time when our NHS is under pressure like never before, it is incumbent on us to promote steps that people can take to prevent illness and encourage a healthy lifestyle.

There is no question but that Scotland needs more national parks. We in the Conservative Party are clear that we support the Galloway proposal, and I am sure that my colleague Finlay Carson will expand on that. However, a successful bid from Galloway should not be the end of the discussion of national parks for another two decades. The Scottish Government cannot go two days without making demands for new powers, but it has managed 20 years without using the powers that it has to designate national parks.

As our amendment sets out, we want the definition of what constitutes a national park to be as wide as possible. We should be thinking about what other options are available to areas smaller than national parks to give our rural communities the opportunities and the tools necessary to protect their local environment and capitalise on local assets.