The Scottish Government

« Previous | Contents | Next »

Listen

PART 2

Chapter 3: The case for a Coastal and Marine National Park: added value and benefits

3.1 Opportunity and need

The consultation responses reflect support in principle for the proposal to designate Scotland's first Coastal and Marine National Park, with 72% of respondents expressing broad agreement (see Figures 3.1-3.3). 50% of respondents to the consultation that was conducted as part of Developing a Strategic Framework for Scotland's Marine Environment (2004) supported the establishment of a Park.

The principal drivers for a Coastal and Marine National Park identified by respondents, mirror those outlined in the National Parks (Scotland) Act 2000, and may be summarised as managing the balance of:

• conserving biodiversity;
• threats to the coastal and marine environment; and
• benefits to local communities of sustainable development.

10% of respondents expressed opposition to the establishment of a park. This group largely falls into four broadly related categories, namely those who:

1. consider the case has not yet been made for the benefits a Coastal and Marine National Park could bring, above and beyond existing policies and initiatives (20 respondents);
2. view a Park as an unnecessary tier of bureaucracy;
3. express anxiety over the impact of designation on their local businesses and community; and
4. require more detailed, evidenced proposals, followed by an extended, widely inclusive public consultation.

12% of individual respondents and 40% of consultee organisations were undecided (see Figure 3.3), or declined to take a firm position on the need for a Coastal and Marine National Park. For organisations, most submitted opinions on the issues raised by this consultation without committing themselves to a position that would be dependent on the outcome of the consultation. For undecided individuals, the majority expressed a wish for more detailed proposals.

Figure 3.1. Support for a Coastal and Marine National Park. Opinion of respondents regarding the designation of a Coastal and Marine National Park, expressed as a percentage of all responses: comparison of responses to Developing a Strategic Framework for Scotland's Marine Environment (2004) and this consultation (2007).

Approximately 50 respondents specifically emphasised the importance of local support in shaping and progressing these proposals, and ultimately in delivering the aims of a Coastal and Marine National Park.

To capture local residents' views on the designation of their area for each of the 10 candidate locations, responses suggesting that no Coastal and Marine National Park ought to be established were aggregated with those opposed to the designation of their local area, ensuring that all those that were opposed could be identified. Those expressing no clear position as to Park location, including unanswered and don't know responses, were assigned an undecided position. The remainder, including those who advocated, in principle, that a Coastal and Marine National Park be established in their local area, were assigned the 'for' position.

90% of individual respondents located in Orkney and the Moray Firth candidate regions expressed support for designation of their region, with no noted opposition. Solway and the Firth of Clyde (see Figure 3.2) both showed 80% support from individual respondents and 60% support from respondent organisations. The greatest opposition to local designation from both individuals and organisations was noted from the Ardnamurchan, Small Isles and South Skye candidate area. 5 responses from individuals and 3 from local organisations were opposed; 10 responses from individuals and 1 local organisation supported designation of the area. It should be noted, however, that the total number of respondents from this area was low. A simple count of the overall number of responses from all individuals and organisations suggests that this particular region is the third most supported site for a Coastal and Marine National Park, after that of the combination of this region with the Argyll Islands and Coast, and the Argyll Islands and coast region in isolation (see Figure 4.4). The significance of this observation is developed further in Chapter 4.

As is to be expected from a proposal encompassing such a complex range of issues, the responses reflected significant variation in the opinion of organisations. Compared with those of individuals, the views of respondent organisations tended to be more cautious in offering outright support for the proposal. Agriculture was the only organisation interest group for which those opposed outnumbered those in favour. The greatest support was shown by cultural heritage and tourism groups, 85% of both expressing support, at least in principle, with no noted opposition (Figure 3.3). Organisations representing recreation and conservation interests were largely split evenly between those expressing support and those reserving their opinion. The largest degree of opposition was seen from those representing the fishing industry, agriculture and business concerns, although, as highlighted above, only for agriculture ( n =3; see Figure 2.1) were the number of consultees opposed to designation more numerous than those expressing support. For each of these three organisation interest groups, those undecided represented the mode.

Figure 3.2. Should my local area be designated as a Coastal and Marine National Park? Opinion of (A) local residents and responses from (B) organisations regarding the designation of a Coastal and Marine National Park in their area. Note: no local organisations responses received from Orkney and South Uist and Barra.

Figure 3.3. Overall support for a Coastal and Marine National Park: Opinion of (1) individuals and (2) respondent organisations regarding the designation of a Coastal Marine National Park, by interest group.

3.2 Potential benefits of designation

The consultation paper drew together advice regarding the potential outcomes of a Coastal and Marine National Park, outlining the broad themes of added value a Park could bring, above and beyond that which may be delivered by existing policies and strategic frameworks, including:

• opportunities to enhance understanding, enjoyment and care of the area, including conservation of natural and cultural heritage;
• better planning and management;
• social and economic benefits; and
• best practice and innovation.

55% of respondents considered that Coastal and Marine National Park designation could result in both better environmental management and marine planning, 50% with increased tourism, and 47% with a better understanding of natural and cultural heritage (see Figure 3.4). 36% of respondents thought that a Park could lead to new types of tourism businesses, 33% better tourist attractions and 31% more profitable local businesses.

Consultees were invited to rank any benefits they considered designation could bring by importance. Both individual respondents and respondent organisations considered that a Coastal and Marine National Park could deliver, in order of importance or likelihood (see Figure 3.5):

• improved environmental management and planning;
• increased tourism; and
• better understanding of natural resources; and development of the local economy.

For the final benefit category, individuals emphasised better understanding of natural resources while organisations stressed the development of the local economy.

In broad terms, individual respondents emphasised potential benefits for the environment, tourism and public understanding, as did conservation groups and organisations representing tourism interests particularly emphasised the benefits for tourism.

Figure 3.4. Benefits of a Coastal and Marine National Park. Percentage of respondents showing a degree of agreement that Coastal and Marine National Park designation could have the indicated benefit. Note: where respondents indicated agreement with more than one benefit, all these are represented above.

Figure 3.5. What benefits is a Coastal and Marine National Park most likely to bring? Relative degree of agreement that Coastal and Marine National Park designation could bring the indicated benefits, by (A ) individuals; (B) organisations. Note: weighted according to respondents' preferences.

Figure 3.6. What benefits is a Coastal and Marine National Park most likely to bring? Contour plot showing distribution of relative degree of agreement that Coastal and Marine National Park designation could bring the indicated benefits, by potential benefit, and interest group. Note: weighted according to respondents' preferences.

3.3 Further analysis

11% of respondents suggested that no added value would result from designation over and above that which could be achieved by existing provision. Other individuals and organisations clearly articulated the potential benefits that might specifically result from designation. These responses contrast with the lower number of responses from those who opposed designation because they considered the case for benefits had not been made. The first group, who articulated benefits, may be differentiated as identifying potential improvements for:

These categories of responses specifying benefits are considered in more detail below.

3.3.1 Regulation

2% of respondents specifically noted that a Coastal and Marine National Park could lead to more coherent integration of regulations and regulatory authorities, in contrast to the 1% of respondents who suggested that designation will inevitably result in additional bureaucracy.

In particular, the first group of respondents noted that a Coastal Marine National Park had the potential to:

• bring together and reconcile the diverse aims and shift the strategic focus of those involved in the area with conservation, sustainable development and public enjoyment;
• integrate working, management and delivery, offering conservation leadership for a variety of business sectors and interest groups; and
• simplify existing disparate regulatory structures, helping to focus resources on more effective policy delivery; for example, by joining up the wide range of existing planning and consent systems.

3.3.2 Communities

Some respondents expressed concern regarding impacts on communities and businesses. Other respondents considered that a Coastal and Marine National Park could directly benefit the local community in which it is sited (see Figure 3.4). In social development terms, respondents emphasised that a Park had the potential to:

• foster closer working with local groups and provide a way of unlocking social capital in community partnerships;
• place the local needs of fragile communities, such as the need to improve physical infrastructure, including for transport, on a national stage; and
• foster community development through a sense of local ownership of the environment, reflected through increased involvement in decision-making.

In economic terms, respondents considered that a Park might specifically:

• unlock additional funding sources for local projects, above and beyond the direct funding that would flow from designation;
• offer direct support for local initiatives and structures without interfering with their day to day operation, such as providing dedicated research resources that could assist Inshore Fisheries Groups ( IFGs), and offering existing local projects grants and advice; and
• lengthen the local tourist season, and drive the sustainable development of new business types.

Two respondents noted that the information pack provided to supplement the consultation paper outlined that, as things currently stand, a Coastal and Marine National Park authority would:

• advise, but not direct, Inshore Fishery Groups;
• be driven by the priorities of both sustainable development and conservation, which other examples suggest will lead to long-term economic growth; and
• be constituted of, at the very least, 20% locally elected representatives, along with additional representation of local interests; in fact, if similar authorities are any guide, Ministerial and local authority appointments would result in the majority of such a Board comprising people working and living in the Park area.

3.3.3 The coastal and marine environment

Several respondents questioned the drive for establishing a Coastal and Marine National Park given the existing policies and strategic framework already in place to safeguard Scotland's marine heritage. However, several respondents identified that designation might provide a singular opportunity to achieve one or more of the following:

• pilot novel projects, showcasing best practice in Marine Management such as No Take Zones, and achieve synergy with Marine Spatial Planning;
• develop more comprehensive scientific studies, utilising the unique infrastructure and resources of the Park, leading to improved understanding of the marine environment, and the impact of climate change;
• rationalise and complement existing designations within a well-known National Park brand, and develop more rigorously evidence-based policies to deliver the Sandford principle in the context of growing, modernising communities; and
• attract attention to Scotland's enduring pride for its coastal and marine environment on a global platform.

« Previous | Contents | Next »