Hansard

I was proud to be involved in the original scrutiny of the National Parks (Scotland) Bill and the subsequent setting up of national parks in Loch Lomond and the Trossachs and in the Cairngorms. That was some time ago and it is only right that after a time the parks should be reviewed, but to my mind they have been a great success.

I remember the concerns of the community in the Cairngorms. People were worried about what the setting up of a national park in their area would mean. Those communities had worked the land and protected the environment for generations. Because of those concerns, the aims of the parks were set out with equal weight to give communities the reassurance that the appropriate balance between their needs and the needs of the environment would be protected.

The aims of the parks 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 the 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.

A perception in the Highlands and Islands is that the environment is often given greater weight than the needs of local communities. That is why it was crucial to move SNH nearer to the people that it works with, so that it could build an understanding of their concerns and work more closely with the communities that it serves. People who live in beautiful rural areas have the same needs as their urban counterparts: jobs and public services. We need to protect our beautiful environment but we must also protect the people who live and work there and ensure that their needs are met.

I am pleased that when the National Park (Scotland) Bill was drafted, sustainable economic and social development were built in. That has led to the success of our national parks. The bill also left enough flexibility to deal with local circumstances and needs. The concern in Loch Lomond and the Trossachs was that their area was overheating and risked being spoiled by too much development, while the Cairngorms required more sustainable development.

Planning powers were different for both parks, as local circumstances were taken into account. That was hugely contentious, but it has worked well. Some have called for the same planning arrangements to be put in place for all parks, but I believe that we need to be alive to local concerns when we create new parks and that there should be flexibility in how planning is carried out in the parks.

One fear in the Cairngorms was that the park board would be run by faceless people who were not interested in or aware of the needs of the community. That fear has not been borne out and the park board works well with its communities.

Professor Neil Kay seemed to suggest in his review of environmental governance last year that SNH should run national parks in Scotland. That would be a disaster. We need to bring governance to the people and the current set up does just that. I would be against asking SNH to run the parks, because that would have the opposite effect. It would jeopardise the future economic and social development of the areas and local democracy would be lost. Local people and local councillors would no longer be involved and planning powers would be centralised. Those were the fears that had to be allayed when we first set up the national parks.

SNH works closely with park boards, as it should do, but its role is very different to that of the park board. SNH brings its own expertise to the table, as do other bodies who work with the park board. It is then for the park board to balance the requirements of those organisations with the requirements of the board as laid down in the 2000 act.

It is crucial to involve local communities. The Cairngorms national park has started community needs assessments, which involve listening to the needs of each small community and including those in their planning. Ramblers Scotland points out that the park has limited finance to carry out the communities' wishes, but the exercise is also helpful to the other public bodies that work with the board. There is a duty on other public bodies to work with the park authority to implement the national park plan. The community consultation work enables the park authority to feed back local needs to those bodies, which allows them to work together to fulfil local ambitions. The park board sets up the park plan and all the public bodies need to implement it. The work with local communities informs the way forward for the board and the other agencies that work in the area.

Another initiative that the Cairngorms National Park Authority is pursuing is the park brand. That was raised when we worked on the legislation. We discussed the economic benefit to producers in the park versus the restrictions and costs that are involved in implementing stringent guidelines. Use of the park brand is conditional on meeting the standards that the board sets for quality and environmental impact. The branding has been successful with the tourism industry and local producers are beginning to use it. When a business meets the standards, use of the brand is free. That enables small businesses to use the park brand in marketing and promoting their products.

Similar marketing has taken place with the creation of destination management organisations. Those small businesses are assisted by VisitScotland and the park board to market the area, to involve local people in working in tourism, and to highlight the importance of tourism to the local economy.

I welcome the review, but I sound a note of caution. The parks have worked well, and they have certainly exceeded the expectations of many of the communities that they serve. It is important that the review builds on that and does not throw away good practice or the developments that have taken place. I hope that the review will also examine the boundaries. I note what the minister said about the southern boundary of the Cairngorms national park, but I sincerely hope that that does not mean that anyone who wants to talk about the other boundaries cannot feed their comments into the review.

The boards must continue to be rooted in their local communities, working with local people to ensure the success of the national parks.