SECTION 3 – HOW A COASTAL AND MARINE NATIONAL PARK COULD WORK IN PRACTICE
This section sets out SNH’s advice on the powers, structures and running costs of a coastal and marine National Park
1 Within the existing legislative framework provided by the National Parks (Scotland) Act 2000, the powers, functions, structure and governance of any Park Authority can be tailored to meet the specific needs of each Park area. For coastal and marine areas, Section 31 of the Act provides further scope for specification, though new legislation would be required to provide the Park Authority with additional powers or a very different approach to its governance. There are also some activities for which a coastal and marine National Park in Scotland will not have a clear and direct locus. These include those areas where powers are reserved to Westminster or covered by international laws and conventions, such as shipping, offshore fisheries, oil and gas licensing and some aspects of port and harbour functions.
Planning and Managing the Park Area
2 The core powers and functions of a National Park Authority are contained in the National Parks Scotland (Act) 2000. These fixed elements of this framework include:
- the preparation and implementation of a National Park Plan (sections 11-14);
- a town and country planning function (section 10);
- the introduction and enforcement of management agreements (section 15); and
- a range of general powers and functions (schedule 2), including the ability to employ staff, make charges, provide advice and assistance, undertake research, give grant, purchase and manage land, promote or oppose private legislation, make and enforce National Park bylaws, develop management rules, enter into contracts, carry on any business or undertaking, form or promote private companies and partnerships, and accept gifts or contributions etc.
3 The Act requires a Park Authority to prepare and submit (to Ministers’ timescales) a plan setting out its approach to:
a) planning and managing the National Park; and
b) exercising its own functions, and the functions of other public bodies
and office-holders, in so far as they affect the implementation of Park
Plan.
4 Section 14 places a duty on Scottish Ministers, the Park Authority, local authority and any other public body or office holder, in exercising functions affecting a National Park to ‘have regard to’ the adopted Park Plan. This section applies to both Scottish and UK departments and public bodies operating within Scottish waters.
5 Within the existing legislative framework, the implementation of the Plan by the Park Authority would be facilitated in several ways.
- By the Park Authority undertaking a range of specific functions provided in Schedule 3 of the Act, such as: conservation, recreation and visitor management; research, survey and monitoring; awareness and education programmes; and demonstration projects.
- Through the Park Authority’s programme expenditure on specific initiatives and capital projects, either separately or in combination with others.
- Through the Park Authority drawing up concordats, voluntary agreements, codes of conduct etc.
- Through the Park Authority entering into management agreements and drawing up and enforcing byelaws and management rules for its area.
- Through the Park Authority becoming a statutory consultee to existing regulatory processes.
- Through the Park Authority entering into voluntary agreements with local authorities and public bodies by which it could undertake to discharge their powers and functions.
- Through direct regulation, where the Park Authority might take over full responsibility from others for the operation of their current functions. The main options in practice here include the local authority planning function, its access authority role and possibly its harbour and coastal protection functions.
6 Other options - such as providing the Park with equivalent ‘works licensing powers’ which apply in Shetland and parts of Orkney, or by extending existing planning controls below MLWS for activities beyond aquaculture – could be envisaged. However, these options would require new legislation and the case for them may only become clear once a Park Authority has prepared a Park Plan and tried to implement it in practice.
Possible approaches to the role of the Park Authority
7 The precise approach and balance of effort between the elements outlined in paragraph 5 would be specific to each Park, depending on the management issues that a Park Authority needs to address and its powers and functions. It is also related to the overall approach to the Park model itself. Given the challenges of planning and managing the coastal and marine environment outlined in Section 2, the following three approaches can be envisaged depending upon the emphasis placed on the role that a Park should play and the scope for it to simplify and add value to existing arrangements.
| Approach |
Implementation of the Park Plan |
| 1) National Park as planner and enabler This model envisages a Park whose main remit is to plan for its area, to integrate and co-ordinate the efforts of others, to resolve conflicts and to facilitate the implementation of initiatives and projects on the ground. Such a Park would be a statutory consultee on town and country planning issues, and have the basic Park functions in respect to conservation and recreation. Apart from this no additional powers or functions would be envisaged. The Park Authority could be relatively small (say 15-25 staff), but it would have sufficient programme spend to undertake research and to initiate and take forward projects with others. |
By the Park Authority undertaking a range of specific functions provided in Schedule 3 of the Act Through the Park Authority’s programme expenditure on specific initiatives and capital projects, either separately or in combination with others. Through the Park Authority drawing up concordats, voluntary agreements, codes of conduct, etc. |
| 2) National Park as planner, enabler and manager This model is similar but envisages a more formal role for the Park as managing authority and as a consultee on other regulatory processes to ensure compliance with the Park Plan. This could include a call-in mechanism for the Park Authority or Scottish Ministers when there is disagreement between them and one of the regulating bodies. A larger staff would be required to service this consultee role, though it could still be a relatively small body (say 35-45 staff). |
As above, plus Through the Park Authority entering into management agreements and drawing up and enforcing byelaws, management rules and agreements for its area. Through the Park Authority becoming a statutory consultee to existing regulatory processes. |
| 3) National Park as planner, enabler, manager and regulator This regulatory model sees the Park subsuming many of the powers and functions of other public bodies and the local authority, including its planning, access and marine functions. The staffing requirement of such a body would be significant (say 65+) to ensure it had the necessary expertise and capacity to deal with regulatory casework. Rather than employing staff directly, it could enter into service agreements with others to provide these functions on its behalf, though decision-making on these functions would remain with the Park Authority. |
As above, plus Through the Park Authority entering into voluntary agreements with local authorities and public bodies by which it could undertake to discharge their powers and functions. Through direct regulation, where the Park Authority might take over full responsibility from others for the operation of their current functions. |
Note. While drawn on the current experience of the first two National Parks, these suggested staffing levels are indicative only.
9 In practice, each of these ‘models’ has a number of common elements, with any option developed likely to draw elements from each. Nevertheless, it is instructive to consider the strengths and weaknesses of each.
- The regulatory ‘light-touch’ of the first approach would allow for the initial development of the Park to focus on the strategic planning of the area and on making things happen on the ground. The smaller resources required might also allow such a model to be applied more widely from the start to a larger area, or to a number of places from the outset. Such a Park could add value to existing arrangements rather than be seen as a further layer of administration. On the downside, such a Park could lack sufficient power and may prove to be ineffective in influencing the activities of other bodies or getting projects implemented. Without much of a visible presence on the ground, it may also seem distant from the communities and other stakeholders in its area.
- The second approach addresses these concerns by providing for a stronger formal role of the Park Authority in the day-to day management and regulation of the area. On the other hand, such a Park Authority may still be considered to lack sufficient power and influence, and could be seen as neither simplifying nor adding value to the existing arrangements.
- In providing for a more direct and ‘hands-on’ regulatory role for the Park Authority, the third approach is easier to understand and can be seen to be simplifying the current administrative arrangements. Such an approach also requires significant staff expertise and resources to support it, though the ‘sharing’ of these resources between the Park and the other bodies is one way to address this. Because of the energy and effort it requires, a strong regulatory function may also detract from the planning and co-ordinating role of the Park.
10 Overall, it is SNH’s view that the approach to a coastal and marine National Park should be closest to the first of these approaches, at least in the first phase of its development. Critically, SNH believes that such an approach would allow a Park Authority to concentrate on Park planning, achieving consensus on long-term priorities and making things happen on the ground. The former will be a significant task in its own right given that the concepts of an integrated coastal zone management and marine spatial planning are in their relative infancy in Scotland. The latter will require effective partnership working skills and adequate programme expenditure.
11 Once a Park plan has been developed and lessons learned in its implementation, the quinquennial reviews of the Park Authority would provide the opportunity to build-up the formal powers and functions of a Park Authority as need demonstrated. At this stage, the changes to the policy framework for the coastal and marine environment that are currently planned could also be taken into account, and the strengths and weaknesses of some of the recent measures evaluated. In this way, the concept of a coastal and marine National Park could grow incrementally and by active learning, consensus and good will.
12 Over time, such an approach could encompass the development of new arrangements for the delivery of existing functions by public bodies and local authorities within the Park under the voluntary provisions contained in Section 17 and 18 of the legislation. Options here include the transfer of the town and country planning and access functions of local authorities, together with closer direct involvement in coastal protection and delivery of port and harbour functions. The voluntary delegation of the leasing arrangements or the management of parts of the foreshore by The Crown Estate to the Park Authority could also be envisaged.
Consideration of specific powers and functions
13 Table 2 presents a review of the relevant powers and functions in the coastal and marine environment, and broadly sets them against the three approaches discussed above. Further commentary is provided below on the town and country planning function, conservation and recreational management; and inshore fisheries management.
The Town and Country Planning Function
14 The National Parks (Scotland) Act 2000 provides three options for the delivery of this function as follows:
a). full planning authority – with the Park Authority responsible
for development planning and control; or
b). development planning authority – with the Park Authority responsible
for development planning only; or
c). other arrangements (for example statutory consultee status or development
planning and call-in powers for development proposals)
Changes to the planning system heralded by the recent Planning Bill mean that the Park Plan will in future provide the strategic planning framework for the area which is currently contained in structure plans.
15 A number of strong arguments can be made in favour of a Park being a full planning authority and for some possible Park areas these may be sufficient to outweigh the overall approach to the Park suggested above. The specific case for a Park to be a full planning authority will require consideration of the following factors.
- Scale and significance of development pressures By way of comparison the planning arrangements for the first two Scottish Parks were mainly justified on the basis of development pressures that were faced by the two proposed areas (circa 300-500 development proposals per year) and the need for the Park Authority to manage them directly. Most of the areas being considered for coastal and marine Park status are unlikely to be facing this scale of development activity. Even in these areas, the nature of these coastal developments and the new arrangements for aquaculture may suggest that they may benefit from a Park having a more direct planning role along the lines of Loch Lomond and the Trossachs (full planning function) or the Cairngorms (full planning function with call-in powers) or for certain developments only.
- Efficiency and added-value The statutory planning function requires dedicated staffing and resources and can at times detract energy and effort away from the other functions of a Park. Within the first two National Parks, there were clear efficiencies and added value of establishing a single planning function for the Park area, rather than the four separate planning functions that the local planning authorities previously provided. This balance of efficiency and added value may be different in a coastal and marine National Park because of the lower level of development pressure noted above. A Park area may also only cover a small part of a single local authority area. One option here would be for the Park to establish a service agreement with the local authority, whereby local authority staff provide the planning service directly for the Park with planning decisions taken by the Park Authority. In not duplicating the planning expertise between the two authorities, this would be efficient in administrative terms and would also assist in the integration of the planning of the Park area with the wider local authority area. However, such an approach does raise concerns over whether staff would always be able to reconcile these two roles in practice, particularly where the views of the local authority and the Park Authority may differ.
16 In considering the detailed arrangements for planning within a National Park, it is important to emphasise that the end result should be higher standards of development in the right places. To achieve this, there may be some new restrictions placed on certain types of development in certain places, perhaps through zoning. However, the planning system already steers development towards the best locations and a Park should help to strengthen this system, for example by adopting special measures to support high design standards in keeping with the special qualities of the area. These measures could include additional effort on pre-application discussions, the provision of architectural advice and also grants for meeting additional building specifications. In the longer term, this approach will benefit the area and its economy by protecting and enhancing the qualities which people come to enjoy.
Conservation and Recreation Management.
17 The Act provides for a Park Authority to undertake its conservation and recreational management functions in a number of ways across the Park:
- through the co-ordination and promotion of activity in the Park Plan;
- through the use of National Park byelaws and management agreements
- the former can be used for purposes of protecting the natural and cultural heritage of the Park; preventing damage to the land or anything in, on or under it; or securing the public’s enjoyment of, and safety in, the Park;
- through entering into management agreements; and
- through research and survey and employing staff (including Park Rangers)
18 On land, the suite of designations for biodiversity, earth heritage, and landscape provide the cornerstone of conservation effort. This suite is not as well developed in marine areas, though site-based protection for some features as part of the European Natura 2000 network is now in place. The scope for establishing a small number of more highly protected areas of high importance for their marine biodiversity within the Park could also be considered. The management and byelaw making powers provided in the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 in relation to marine nature reserves could provide the means to do this. Generally though, the key to better planning and management of the marine natural and cultural heritage of the Park area will be through the development and implementation of the Park Plan, including both Park wide approaches and also geographic and temporal zoning measures for specific interests.
19 Much of the day-to day implementation of the Plan will fall to a range of Government departments and public bodies, and the contribution of the key regulators – Scottish Executive, Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA), Scottish Fisheries Protection Agency (SFPA) – together with The Crown Estate and SNH will be particularly important. Such bodies will need ‘to have regard to’ this plan in their activities. The Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act 2004 also places a duty on every public body and office holder to further the conservation of biodiversity so far as this is consistent with the proper exercise of their functions. While important in themselves, neither of these requirements may always be sufficient to ensure the effective implementation of the Park Plan. The need for a last resort ‘stop’ power for the Park Authority over potentially damaging activities should therefore be considered - for example by giving the Park Authority the powers SNH has to request land management orders from Scottish Ministers under the Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act 2004.
20 In terms of enjoyment and recreation, Schedule 3 of the Act provides the Park Authority with general powers to carry out certain activities relevant to its aims, and these are summarised below.
| Schedule 3, 2 |
Local Nature Reserves |
Power to establish LNRs under the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949, as amended |
|
Schedule 3, 3 |
Information and education |
Powers to provide information, education services and facilities for the purpose of promoting the special qualities of the National Park by the public |
|
Schedule 3, 4 |
Tourism and Leisure |
Powers to provides or promote leisure facilities in the National Park and to encourage people to visit the National Park |
|
Schedule 3,5 |
Campsites, accommodation, meals and refreshments |
Powers to provide campsites etc. under the Countryside (Scotland) Act 1967 |
|
Schedule 3, 6 |
Recreational, sporting, cultural and social facilities and activities |
Powers to provide recreational, sporting, cultural and social facilities and activities in the National Park under the local Government and Planning (Scotland) Act 1982 |
|
Schedule 3, 7 |
Access to open country |
General arrangements for access, provision to make access orders and access agreements, acquire land, restrict access etc. under the Countryside (Scotland) Act 1967 |
|
Schedule 3, 8 |
Improvement of waterways for recreation |
Powers to improve waterways for recreation under the Countryside (Scotland) Act 1967 |
|
Schedule 5, 2 |
Protection and Maintenance of Rights of Way |
Powers to protect and maintain rights of way under the Countryside (Scotland) Act 1967 |
|
Schedule 5, 8 |
Traffic Management Orders |
Powers to request the Scottish Ministers to make traffic management orders under the Traffic Regulation Act 1984 |
21 The existing Scottish National Parks are both access authorities under Part 1 of the Land Reform Act (Scotland) 2003 with various responsibilities to uphold access rights, to promote awareness of the Scottish Outdoor Access Code and to prepare core path plans for their areas. A coastal and marine Park Authority will need to have similar significant involvement in the planning and management of access in its area and there may therefore be a strong case for it be the full access authority. However, this again requires further consideration of the access needs of the area in question and of the added-value of a Park Authority specifically having this function.
22 The implementation of some of these functions also raises specific issues more generally concerning the scope of ranger services in the Park. In addition to land-based rangers, there will be a need for water-borne ranger provision to assist with marine education and interpretation, carry out monitoring of recreational activity and to enforce any byelaws and management rules. There may even be scope for an underwater presence such as guided diving trips or underwater interpretive trails. A Park Authority will have an important role in promoting the Scottish Marine Wildlife Watching Code and supporting the Wildlife Crime campaign. It may also want to draw up more area-specific codes of conduct and campaigns for parts of its area. These activities raise resourcing issues relating to equipment (boats, underwater survey gear, diving kit etc.) and skills and training needed for Park staff.
Inshore Fisheries Management
23 The role of a National Park in respect to fisheries management has been one of the main areas of debate. This is to be welcomed as the international experience noted in Section 2 and reviewed in background papers A and B suggests that fisheries management is critical to the effective achievement of Park aims.
24 Current legislation provides for the full range of management measures that could conceivably be applied within a coastal and marine National Park, ranging in scope from relatively minor restrictions on gear specifications to complete closure of areas from fishing activity. Measures under the Sea Fisheries (Shellfish) Act 1967 can also be employed for stock enhancement or for the control of effort in a shellfish fishery. Within this legislative context, the Scottish Executive Strategic Framework for Inshore Fisheries in Scotland (March 2005) is looking to put in place better arrangements for the planning and management of inshore fisheries in collaboration with stakeholders via the Scottish Inshore Fisheries Advisory Group (SIFAG). The key components of the Framework are:
- Setting national, high-level objectives for sustainable inshore fisheries: a series of biological, environmental, social, economic and governance objectives will be set (and periodically reviewed) by SIFAG.
- Establishing Inshore Fisheries Groups (IFG): To take account of regional variability around Scotland it is anticipated that up to 12 IFGs will be created. The boundaries and constitution of the IFGs are currently subject to final confirmation via discussions in SIFAG. However the IFGs are likely to involve a core Executive Committee of fishing interests with an Advisory Group comprising other stakeholders.
- The IFGs will be the focus for developing and proposing management measures tailored to their local conditions. To facilitate this, the Framework requires each IFG to prepare a management plan and a set of local objectives for their area. Currently two IFGs have been established in South East Scotland and the Western Isles.
25 These arrangements deal exclusively with inshore fisheries (e.g. within 6 nautical miles [nm] from baseline). This is a devolved area of policy. While a Park established under the National Parks (Scotland) Act 2000 can technically extend to 12nm, such a Park would need to engage with fisheries management issues at the UK and EU level, including the new Regional Advisory Councils established for areas such as the North Sea. The added value of this involvement is perhaps questionable, suggesting that a more sensible seaward boundary of a Park is a maximum of 6nm. This issue is discussed further in the next section.
26 Irrespective of its seaward boundary, the area of any coastal and marine National Park will overlap with one or more of the new inshore fisheries groups. The clear view emerging from the Scottish Executive and fishing interests is that these should continue to be the main vehicle for the planning and management of fisheries within the Park area. SNH supports this view, provided the inshore fisheries groups prove effective in delivering better management arrangements in practice and work to actively support the implementation of the Park Plan.
27 A Park Authority could provide direct support to the work of the inshore fisheries groups within its area, for example by funding the necessary research or monitoring, or demonstration projects and initiatives. Through the Park Plan, it could also add value to the work of these groups by bringing together the management of fishing activity with other marine and coastal activities. The option of formally incorporating the inshore fisheries groups in to the structure of the Park (for example, through the creation of a formal advisory group or a subject based forum) should also be considered, though this will very much depend on the area of the Park and the nature of the inshore fisheries group/s within it. As a minimum, a Park could provide administrative support to the group or groups in its area.
Aquaculture
28 Any coastal and marine National Park located on the west coast, or the Northern and Western Isles, is very likely to contain some form of marine aquaculture. Policy and practice in this sector is currently changing as a result of the Strategic Framework for Scottish Aquaculture, published by the Scottish Executive in March 2003. Under the Water and Environment and Water Services (Scotland) Act 2003, planning control of fish-farms will transfer to local planning authorities in 2006, and a statutory instrument to implement the detailed arrangements is currently awaited. To guide future development, local planning authorities have been strongly encouraged to prepare local aquaculture framework plans for their area. A number of other bodies are also involved in the aquaculture consents process, including The Crown Estate, SEPA, SNH, the Scottish Executive and local planning authorities.
29 Given the forthcoming extension of planning controls to marine aquaculture development, it may make sense for the Park Authority to assume the planning function for this activity - even if it does not for other developments. Again, much will depend on the area chosen and, in particular, the relationship between the Park area and the local authority area and the extent to which aquaculture development exists in both. If the Park Authority does not subsume the planning function for aquaculture, possible options include the following.
a) The local authority and existing regulators would continue to manage
aquaculture in the Park, but be guided by the Park Plan and local frameworks
for aquaculture prepared by the local authority and endorsed by the Park
Authority; or
b) As a) above, but with the Park Authority preparing the local frameworks
for aquaculture jointly with the local authority; or
c) As b) above, but with the Park Authority also becoming a statutory
consultee to the local authority on casework.
30 Option c) has the potential to add to the complexity of current arrangements and on that basis could be set aside. Options a) and b) seek to avoid additional complexity in the handling of aquaculture case work by limiting the Park’s role to setting the wider strategic framework for aquaculture. Option a) is the minimal approach but requires the local authority, The Crown Estate, the other regulating bodies and the industry to actively manage aquaculture developments in accordance with the Park Plan. Option b) provides for an extended formal role for the National Park Authority in the development of local framework for aquaculture. Both of these options could be augmented by a call-in power for the Park Authority for aquaculture development.
31 In addition to these formal arrangements, a Park Authority could bring together those involved in the planning and management of the sector in an advisory group or forum, or could look to support the work of the local management group or groups in its area. As with any of the options discussed above, how this would work in practice could only be considered once the Park area had been identified.
Governance of the Park
32 The Board of the National Park Authority is the principal decision-making body of the National Park Authority and directly accountable to Scottish Ministers for its actions. The National Parks (Scotland) Act 2000 sets two main rules in relation to this Board. First, it can be no larger than 25 members in size. Second, Ministers can only reserve places on the Board for a number of nominees from local authorities. All other places on the Board must therefore be filled by competition under Nolan rules or by direct election. The detailed arrangements for the composition of the Park Board are contained in Schedule 1 of the Act, though these can be substantially amended by Section 31 of this Act in relation to coastal and marine areas.
The Current Approach
33 The composition of the Boards of Loch Lomond &
the Trossachs and the Cairngorms National Parks is the same. These arrangement
are complex but can be illustrated as follows.
34 These arrangements effectively guarantee that 15 members will either live within the area or represent the people within the Park or local authority area/s that the Park lies within. In practice, representation on both Boards from people who live or work in these areas is greater than this. The Board of the Cairngorms National Parks currently has 22 of its 25 members based within or very close to the Park. The benefits of this approach are clear as people with both local interest and knowledge are seen to offer direct local accountability. The national interest in National Parks is also of course important, but in addition to Board membership this can be achieved through the role of the Minister in setting budgets through grant-in aid and by approval of the Park Plan.
Specific considerations for coastal and marine National Parks
35 Implicit in these existing Board arrangements is the recognition of the need to have strong local representation on a Park Authority. This principle applies equally to a coastal and marine National Park and should underpin the approach to its governance. At the same time, such a Park is likely to face a number of different governance issues depending on its location.
- Size of population The possible areas for a National Park considered in Section 4 have very different populations, ranging from between 1,800 to 45,000 depending on the precise area selected. This compares to the populations of between 16,000 and 23,000 for the existing Parks. The principle of direct elections for coastal and marine National Parks remains highly relevant, though practical difficulties in undertaking them for smaller, more dispersed or very unevenly distributed populations will need to be addressed.
- Number of local authorities. Scotland’s current Parks each cover four local authority areas. The number of local authorities covering the possible areas considered in section 4 varies but ranges between one and five depending on the area selected. For a coastal and marine National Park which only covers part of one local authority area, the share of local authority nominations to the Board could be reduced, and other means of ensuring effective local representation strengthened. Alternatively, as the local authority represents many of the coastal communities which draw their livelihoods from the Park area through fishing, farming, crofting and tourism, it could be required to specifically nominate individuals with expertise and experience in these areas in addition to councillors.
- Range of relevant experience and expertise. With the exception of the local authorities, no stakeholder interests are specifically allocated places on the Board. Scottish Ministers can seek to use their appointments to ensure that the Park Authority includes a range of relevant expertise and experience. This range of relevant experience and expertise is a key issue for the reporter to consider as part of the statutory designation process, but the preliminary review set out below suggests that a much wider range of expertise will be required by a coastal and marine National Park Authority. Given the importance of inshore fisheries management, aquaculture and maritime shipping/ports and harbours within a coastal and marine National Park, special care will be needed to ensure that the Park Board can draw on a range of experience and expertise in these areas.
|
Park Aim |
Relevant experience and expertise in existing Parks |
Relevance to Proposed Coastal and Marine NP? |
Other experience and expertise and interests likely to be relevant |
|
Natural and Cultural Heritage |
Biodiversity |
Y |
·coastal and marine science |
| earth heritage |
Y |
||
| Landscape |
Y |
||
| built heritage and archaeology |
Y |
||
| local history, language and culture |
Y |
||
|
Sustainable use |
water and wood land management |
Possibly |
·inshore fisheries ·aquaculture ·energy development (including renewables ·maritime shipping |
| food and timber production |
Possibly |
||
| field sports |
Possibly |
||
| fisheries management |
Y |
||
|
Enjoyment and Understanding |
informal recreation and access |
Y |
|
| Sport |
Y |
||
| environmental education |
Y |
||
|
Sustainable Economic Development |
Tourism |
Y |
·port and harbour authorities · minerals |
| commerce and business |
Y |
||
| community development |
Y |
||
| planning and development |
Y |
- Wider involvement of stakeholder interests Each Park Authority can also establish a number of fora, advisory groups and sub-committees to ensure greater involvement of stakeholders in specific issues. The statutory requirements for involvement and consultation in the preparation of the Park Plan provide a further opportunity for this. Within a coastal and marine National Park, these approaches will be particularly important in ensuring that the wide range of stakeholders - including those who gain their livelihood from the area but who do not necessarily live in it - can contribute to the planning and management of the area. They will also be important in ensuring the close involvement of staff from a number of key statutory agencies at both the Scottish and UK level, including SEPA, SNH, The Crown Estate, Defence Estates, the Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA) and SFPA.
Emerging Principles and Practice
36 The governance arrangements for the Park Authority can only be considered once a more specific area is identified. However, SNH considers that the following principles should underpin the approach to governance in a coastal and marine National Park.
- The board should comprise direct local representatives; local authority nominations and national appointments.
- A clear majority of individuals on the Board should live or work within the Park area or represent those who do.
- National appointments should be selected on the basis of relevant experience and expertise rather than because they represent specific interest groups.
- The formal arrangements for the governance of a Park should be complemented by a number of fora, advisory groups and sub-committees reporting to the Park Authority and advising on specific issues, topics or areas.
- There should be a strong commitment by the Park to build up capacity for local communities and other stakeholders to engage actively in the planning and management of the area.
37 At the same time, a coastal and marine National Park throws up a number of challenges for governance. These could be addressed as follows.
- Within a coastal and marine National Park, there may be particular issues surrounding the viability of direct elections and alternative approaches may need to found to ensure direct representation. For larger islands, the use of ward councillors may be a more viable option.
- A Board will need to draw on a wider range of experience and expertise in planning and managing coastal and marine areas. To ensure this is possible, the balance between local authority nominations and Scottish Ministerial appointments may need to be considered further, particularly if a Park is proposed within a single local authority area. Alternatively, local authorities could be encouraged to nominate people living with the area with relevant expertise and experience but who are not necessarily elected councillors.
- It will be particularly important for a Park Board to include expertise and experience on inshore fisheries management, aquaculture and maritime shipping/ports.
- Finally, the role and composition of advisory groups and committees needs to be explored to ensure that those working in the area but who do not live in it have an effective input to the planning and management of the Park. The remit and membership of existing working groups or consultative fora may also need adjusting to minimise duplication of effort.
The principles of representation outlined above suggest that a maximum size of Board is likely to be required for some of the areas being considered, though there may also be some opportunity to reduce it in others depending on the powers and functions of the Park.
Possible Running Costs
38 At this stage in the development of the proposals, it is difficult to quantify the likely running costs of a Park as this will depend on the area chosen, the specific powers and functions of the Park Authority and its governance arrangements. Nevertheless some of basic costs can be identified from the experience of the first two National Parks from 2004/05.
|
|
Loch Lomond & the Trossachs |
Cairngorms |
|
Staffing (FTE equivalents) |
||
|
planning function |
16 |
7.5 |
|
total staff |
110.8 |
45 |
Key running costs (£million) |
||
|
Board |
0.25 |
0.24 |
|
Core |
5.73 |
2.14 |
|
Programme |
0.89 |
0.94 |
|
Total |
6.84 |
3.36 |
39 Within a coastal and marine National Park, we could expect relatively higher costs to be associated with research, survey and monitoring, together with related equipment. Additional spending would be also be required to support a marine ranger service, one or more dedicated boats, and some of the marine programme and capital costs. Experience from SNH, SEPA, SFPA and the MCA will be most relevant here.
40 None of this suggests that a coastal and marine National Park would have higher running costs than the first two Parks. Indeed, because of the lower staff numbers likely to be involved running costs could be lower. In line with the ‘Efficient Government’ and ‘On the Ground’ Government initiatives, there is also considerable scope for a Park to share corporate functions with other public agencies, thus reducing costs further. Authorities in new Parks should be encouraged explicitly to share support services with existing organisations