SECTION 4 – CONSIDERATION OF POSSIBLE LOCATIONS FOR COASTAL AND MARINE NATIONAL PARKS IN SCOTLAND
This section sets out SNH’s advice on possible locations for coastal and marine National Parks in Scotland.
1 SNH was asked to make ‘recommendations on which
area, or areas, Ministers should consider as the leading candidates for
designation’. In developing this advice, the following factors were
addressed.
- No areas were initially ruled in or out – the whole of Scotland’s coastal and marine environment was considered.
- The National Parks (Scotland) Act 2000 contains three ‘conditions’
for designation which need to be met, namely:
- a) the area is of outstanding national importance for its natural heritage, or the combination of its natural and cultural heritage;
- b) the area has a distinctive character and coherent identity; and
- c) that designating the area as a National Park would meet the special needs of the area and would be the best means of ensuring that the National Park aims are collectively achieved in relation to the area in a co-ordinated way.
- Two specific factors were also highlighted by the Minister, namely:
- that possible areas should be, or have potential to be, generally accessible to the population of Scotland; and
- that designation of the area would make a significant contribution to the social and economic development of its communities.
There was no precedent for this analysis and it was necessary therefore to develop the methodology for the task. Because of the relatively short period of time available, the work was largely reliant on data that already existed. In addition it was recognised that some areas would be proposed by others and that it was important that these should be considered as part of the process.
2 The assessment framework needed to be as comprehensive as possible, taking account of all the factors above, and make the best use of the information that was available. Critically, the approach adopted needed to be seen as fair and transparent by stakeholders.
The Assessment Framework
3 The assessment framework developed for this task comprised three separate stages, summarised in the table below. Feedback and information from stakeholders at the two national stakeholder seminars and from the meetings of the national stakeholder group have also contributed to this process. A summary of this material is presented in background paper E.
| Stage | Process |
Outcomes | Completion | |
| 1 | Identification of broad areas of search
|
A strategic assessment of Scotland’s coastal and marine environment to identify extensive areas of outstanding national importance based on their importance for biodiversity, landscape, enjoyment and recreation and the cultural heritage. |
Broad Areas of search | By mid Nov 2005 |
|
2 |
Generation of more specific proposals for areas
|
More specific proposals for possible areas were then generated drawing on the second ‘condition’ from the legislation. Key considerations were the coherence and collective identity of the area (defined in terms of social, economic, cultural and environmental characteristics and the commonality of relevant management issues), and the potential for a Park to manage it. |
A long list of more specific proposals for areas |
By mid Dec 2005 |
|
3 |
Assessment of, and reporting, on specific proposals for areas
|
Using a range of criteria drawn from the third ‘condition’ from the legislation, the possible areas generated at Stage 2 were evaluated to identify a relative ranking. Other proposals which have come forward from other stakeholders were also assessed. A particular focus at this stage was on the special needs that a Park designation could address and the added value that it could bring to the management of the area. |
A short-list of more specific proposals for areas |
By mid Feb 2006 |
Stage 1 Methodology and key highlights
5 Stage 1 consisted of a strategic assessment of all of Scotland’s coastal and marine environment in terms of its importance for natural heritage, historic environment and enjoyment and recreation. To allow for quick mapping of the available data, Scotland’s coastal and marine environment was divided into 16 divisions, based on a previous analysis of coastal seascapes. A summary of the Stage 1 assessment is contained in background paper C, including details of the judgements required in applying the individual data sets underpinning each of the themes, and also in bringing them together collectively to identify the broad areas of search. Throughout this exercise, the main limitation was the lack of consistent national data sets, particularly for the landscape, enjoyment and recreation and historic environment assessments. Historic Scotland also believed that the approach was less relevant to the cultural heritage because, in their view, the relative values of these interests cannot be used to differentiate between or rank different parts of Scotland.
6 The overall conclusions to stage 1 are presented below, and further detailed in Table 2 and Table 3.
| Definitely worth consideration at Stage2 |
Argyll Coast and the Islands Lochaber and Skye Western Isles |
| Probably worth consideration at Stage2 | Solway Firth Firth of Clyde Northwest Coast North Coast Shetland Orkney Inner Moray Firth East Grampian Coast Firth of Tay Firth of Forth |
| Least likely to be worth consideration at Stage 2 | North Moray Firth East Moray Firth Berwickshire |
7 These conclusions differentiate between the three ‘highest’
and three ‘lowest’ ranking divisions, but also produce a long
list of ‘medium’ ranking areas. Overall, the highest ranking
areas are to the west, with the middle group more mixed and containing
both islands groups and Firths. The lack of separation between the divisions
overall is not unexpected given the natural heritage qualities of much
of the Scottish coastline, although as a result the process had not narrowed
down the areas of search that significantly at this stage.
Stage 2 Methodology and key highlights
8 Stage 2 was concerned with the generation of more specific geographic proposals. It is focused on the second legislative condition concerning the coherence and collective identity of an area from a heritage and management perspective. Key criteria considered included the following:
|
What is the distinctive character of the area? |
1. landscape character, seascape and historic land-use and marine assessments 2.historical and artistic associations 3.local traditions and language |
|
Does the area have a coherent identity? |
|
|
Can the area be effectively managed by a single Park authority? |
|
9 Bringing together data across this range of issues required judgement as well as analysis. This process was facilitated through a series of internal SNH meetings involving a range of relevant staff. The two national stakeholder seminars and discussion of papers at the national stakeholder group also provided further information and views to augment the internal analysis. Based on this work, an approximate delineation and naming of each of the possible areas was developed. A reassessment of the outstanding national natural heritage importance of these possible areas was also undertaken. This confirmed the stage 1 results, even where areas on this long-list were significantly different from the stage 1 divisions.
10 The long-list of the 10 possible areas which emerged from the Stage 2 exercise are illustrated in Map 1 and described further in Annex 1. More detailed area profiles for each of the areas on this long-list are also provided in background paper D. The maps used to illustrate these areas are indicative only. No proposal for a coastal and marine National Park in these areas has been made, though this advice may be the basis for Ministers to do this. Local consultation will be an essential part of the next stage in the development of any such proposal, and these maps have only been prepared to facilitate this.
11 International experience reviewed in background paper A suggests that larger areas are more suited to designation as Parks where wider aims and management have to accommodate a range of existing and future uses. The geographic coherence of the coastal management unit and the ease with which it is possible for a single Park Authority to manage an area, are also significant considerations. Taking into account these factors, the areas identified at Stage 2 were generally between 3,000 and 9,000 km2 in extent. Where in this range an area fell depended on the geography of the coast and also the extent of the seaward element of the Park – for example the indicative area suggested for Shetland extends to nearly 14,000 km2 if the seaward boundary extends to 12nm. These sizes compares with the current Cairngorms National Park area of 3,700 km2, the largest marine Natura 2000 site of 1510 km2, and the largest coastal NSA area of 1453 km2.
12 Identification of discrete areas along the West coast between Wester Ross and Kintyre has proved particularly problematic, though Ardnamurchan point and Skye provide possible cartographic break-points. Equally, it has been difficult to develop specific proposals for individual parts of Shetland and, to a lesser extent, Orkney. Much larger areas, such as the Minch, were not considered to be as appropriate for the Scottish Park model, with their management needs better addressed at the national level. It was also concluded that due to the more developed and intensive land and shipping use of much of the east mainland coast, there are no really viable areas of any suitable scale for a National Park based on current expectations and legislation. Other smaller discrete areas were also excluded. The exception to this is Fair Isle, which is only potentially 560km2 in size, but which was assessed at Stage 3 because of the long-standing support for a Park by the local community.
Area and Boundary considerations
13 Further work will be needed to refine these possible areas and to consider in more detail the possible extent of their seaward and terrestrial area and specific boundary. Inland boundary considerations should also be subject to detailed consultation at the local level with communities and land managers.
14 Within the existing legislative framework, the 6nm (from baseline) boundary for inshore fisheries management is perhaps the maximum that a Scottish Park should extend to at present and in places there may be case for less than this. A specific challenge is presented in the Minch where the marine area of any Park is contained partially or totally within the baseline. For the purposes of broadly defining the possible areas, a pragmatic approach involving mid-points and set distances was chosen, though this could be augmented by other approaches. To ensure that a Park does not divide important marine features, a more detailed benthic survey may also be required.
15 Defining the terrestrial extent of Park has been particularly challenging, and a mixture of approaches has been used. The maritime focus of a coastal and marine National Park means that its inland boundary may be drawn relatively tightly in places. Along developed coasts and industrial areas and major ports and harbours, a boundary at MLWS or even further out may be considered appropriate. Elsewhere, coastal habitats and landscapes with a strong coastal character have generally been included, though more detailed survey may be needed to determine the precise location and extent of these. As a result, islands and peninsulas are likely to be included within a coastal and marine National Park, together with relevant parts of coastal NSAs. Coastal communities closely linked to the sea should generally also be included, though they may be a case for excluding larger settlements provided that any gateway role they play is recognised in planning their future development.
16 Even with these general principles, it is not certain how far inland a Park should extend to ensure effective management of the coastal zone. This uncertainty applies equally to larger islands and the mainland. At this early stage in the development of possible proposals, we have therefore looked to simply define the inland extent of the indicative areas using a pragmatic approach based on MLWS, MHWS, coastal roads and the inland boundaries of NSAs. We recognise that the use of these features does not relate to identifiable community demarcations in some places, and further debate is needed locally on whether these areas should all be included or excluded from the Park. Further detailed assessment is also needed on the merits of these features to define the inland extent of a Park area, or whether other features such as the watershed should be used. There is also a case for considering to what extent more extensive areas of outstanding natural heritage significance, which are contiguous to the coast but which are not strongly coastal in character throughout, should be included. NSAs may not be a good guide to this, given the maritime focus of a coastal and marine National Park.
Stage 3 Methodology and key highlights
17 Stage 3 was concerned with the evaluation of the strengths and weaknesses of the case for National Park status of each of the long list of possible areas identified at Stage 2. The focus here was on the third legislative condition, which addresses the special needs of the area, and the Minister’s requirements to consider the added value of a National Park, its accessibility and social and economic benefit. The criteria proposed for this stage are detailed in Table 4.
18 The use of these criteria relied on SNH expertise and experience of the areas on the long-list and also:
- a summary of the stage 1 assessment (biodiversity overview and area summaries, accounts of the landscape, enjoyment and recreation, historic environment assessments)
- a summary of the stage 2 assessment (detailed area profiles from SNH area teams, plus summaries of discussions from SNH specialist groups);
- social and economic data extracted from the Scottish Coastal Social and Economic Scoping Study (Scottish Executive, 2002); and
- a review by Historic Scotland of the historic environment interests of the divisions used during stage 1
While it may have been helpful in confirming some of the judgements made at this stage, SNH has not undertaken a more detailed evaluation of the social and economic profiles of these possible areas. The challenges in such an evaluation across all the proposed areas on the long-list are not to be underestimated but that is something that could be considered in taking forward specific proposals for one or more of them.
19 The results of this assessment are detailed in Table 5 and Table 6, with a short-list emerging of the following areas:
- Solway;
- Argyll Islands and Coast;
- Ardnamurchan, Small Isles and the South Skye Coast;
- Wester Ross and North Skye Coast; and
- North Uist, Sound of Harris, Harris and South Lewis.
Each of these areas has a different balance of strengths and weaknesses, though at present it would seem that the strongest all round case is for the Argyll Islands and Coast area and the Ardnamurchan, Small Isles and South Skye Coast area. A combination of these two areas (for example taking in Mull, Coll, Tiree, the Sound of Mull, Ardnamurchan, the Small Isles and the South Skye Coast) would also be a strong candidate, spanning two local authorities but with less obvious administrative coherence as an area.
20 There is not much to choose between four of these five areas in terms of their overall accessibility, though clearly the North Uist, Sound of Harris, Harris and South Lewis area is notably weakest in this respect. Of the other areas, the Argyll Islands and Coast area is closest to the central belt in terms of travelling time by road. Along with the Ardnamurchan, Small Isles and South Skye Coast area and the North Skye and Wester Ross area, it also has a train link. The Solway Firth is well served by the M74 and A75. It is also accessible to the large population centres of Northern England.
21 The Solway and North Uist, Sound of Harris, Harris and South Lewis are perhaps the areas which have the greatest potential for delivering social and economic benefit for their areas.
22 The long-list areas which did not make the short-list are clearly of national importance for their natural and cultural heritage interests and there may be merit in further assessment being undertaken for part or all of these areas. From the preliminary work SNH has now undertaken it can be concluded that these are not the strongest areas to consider for National Park status at present.
23 Both the Clyde and Moray Firths did well in the stage 3 assessment, in part because of the range and intensity of activities in these heavily populated areas and because of their accessibility to large population centres. On balance though it was considered that these areas were of overall lower quality in terms of their natural heritage than the other leading areas, and their designation as a National Park would be less appropriate. This is not to say that parts of these areas do not merit improved and more integrated management which focused on their outstanding natural heritage and recreational qualities. The existing coastal partnerships that are in place may provide the basis for this to be explored further, particularly if these were given security of funding and increased status as the mechanism for integrated coastal zone planning. Where there is local support, consideration of other approaches, including coastal Regional Parks, could also be considered.
24 Like the Western Isles, Shetland and Orkney were both considered to be relatively remote areas for a coastal and marine National Park. While significant challenges in the planning and management of the coastal and marine environment of these areas exist, the extent to which a Park would add to them was less clear, particularly for Shetland which benefits from existing legislative and administrative provisions. The social and economic data we used also suggest that these island groups are not as fragile overall, or in need of additional support, as some of the other areas being considered. A Park covering either of these areas could be attractive and would bring economic benefit to these locations, though it does not emerge from the current work as being a priority.
25 The local enthusiasm on Fair Isle for a Park has been very evident during the development of these proposals. The work involved in this assessment has not considered other areas of such small scale, largely because the Scottish model of National Parks is less well suited to them. The additional requirements for planning and for a Park Board seem more suited to areas with more significant issues and opportunities. As a result, Fair Isle did not emerge from this process as a strong candidate. This does not mean to say that the conservation management of Fair Isle and its inshore waters could not be improved, or is not deserving of greater effort, only that the current Park model is not likely to be the best or most appropriate mechanism.
26 In this, Fair Isle is similar to a number of other much small areas of island and sea, such as Arran, Loch Torridon, the Treshnish-Staffa-Ulva ‘Archipelago’ and the islands of the Forth. Rather than a National Park, we consider such places could merit further consideration as a new form of locally-led management initiative. For areas of high biodiversity importance, a marine reserve could also be explored. Management of these areas would address conservation, enjoyment and community development aims, and perhaps deliver the local management of fishing activity. The scope for the existing legislation to deliver such an approach would need further exploration, though the establishment of the inshore fisheries groups as part of the Inshore Fisheries Strategy may alleviate some of the previous difficulties encountered.
Table 2 Overall Conclusions from the Stage1 Assessment – the broad areas of search
Table 3 Overall Conclusions from Stage 2 – the long-list of possible areas
Table 4 - Stage 3 criteria
Table 5 Stage 3 scorings of each of the long-list of possible areas
Table 6 Overall conclusions from Stage 3 – the short-list of possible areas