NEMT response to Scottish Natural Heritage (June 2003)
Mark Wrightham
National Strategy
Scottish Natural Heritage
2 Anderson Place
Edinburgh
EH6 5NP
National Access Forum for Scotland - Response to Consultation
Dear Sir,
The North East Mountain Trust represents well over 13,000 climbers and walkers, mainly resident in Scotland, but including some in other areas of the United Kingdom. Its primary focus is North-East Scotland but it has always taken a keen interest in outdoor access and conservation issues affecting other parts of Scotland. As such, the outcome of this consultation is very important to it. The Trust believes that there is a clear need for a National Access Forum to continue to fill a role similar to that which it performed in the run-up to the recent access legislation. We would like to comment specifically on the following points from the Consultation Paper.
Key functions (para 5.4)
The key functions outlined in paragraph 5.4 of the consultation document seem to us to be suitable and appropriate. It seems to us that those functions are more than likely to keep the Forum fully occupied, particularly in the immediate future as recreational users and land managers adjust to the new realities introduced by the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003. The remit of the forum should, however, be sufficiently flexible to allow the Forum to take on additional functions in the future if a need becomes apparent.
Working with local access forums (para 5.5)
If the removal of uncertainty from public access which was one of the aims of the legislation is to be delivered, then there must be a consistent national approach to the issues. The role of local access forums on the ground will be critical in this. There is therefore a compelling need for effective two-way communication between local and national forums so that guidance on best practice can be widely disseminated and SNH in turn be kept up to date with the issues which arise, the solutions which are developed and the problems which prove particularly difficult to resolve. Direct liaison between national and local forums will be essential. An association of forums is an idea with some merit but it may represent an excessive commitment for many of the individuals likely to be involved at a local level. An annual conference would be less demanding and may offer a better platform to focus on important issues. Direct representation of the local forums may be an idea difficult to realise in practice. How would the local forums organise themselves to appoint/elect such an individual and how easy would it be for the various forums to communicate with the representative? It would probably be better to concentrate on ensuring good two-way communication between the national forum and each of the individual local forums.
Structure (para 5.6)
We would favour option c (para 5.10) a single national Access Forum, which would meet every three months or so, but conducting much of its work through two or more standing committees. This seems to us to be the most satisfactory solution as it enables the benefits of a single representative body to be combined with the widest possible representation and expertise in relation to more specific issues.
Who should be represented? (para 5.11)
Credibility and effectiveness are both essential if the National Forum is to play a useful role and we recognise the potential conflict between the two in relation to membership size. In this respect, the model outlined in para 5.10 seems to offer good possibilities for increasing involvement while achieving a forum size which can work effectively. A membership in the region of twenty may well be appropriate but we would not wish to be too prescriptive here. We agree that there needs to be equity between recreational and land management interests. From our point of view, however, we would have concerns about a Forum on which neither the Mountaineering Council of Scotland nor the Ramblers Association was directly represented. We would also suggest that the conservation groups who are also landowners have particularly useful experience of reconciling land management, conservation and access issues and that therefore representation from one or more such groups could well prove valuable. The idea of non-fixed membership in some areas may well be worth exploring but it should not result in an imbalance of fixed membership between one key sectoral interest and another.
Selection of Chairman (paras 5.22, 5.23)
We would favour continuing the existing situation where a member of SNH Main Board chairs the National forum. This would seem appropriate to SNH's lead role and would avoid the possibility of conflict if a Chairman has to come from one sectional interest or another. We do not think it would be useful to have an independent Chair from outwith the key interests. Rotating the role among the main interests might work but it would be essential that the individuals selected could be shown to have the confidence of all sectors and would not necessarily avoid the potential for dissension.
Secretariat (para 5.24)
We suggest that SNH should continue to provide the secretariat but consideration should be given to how sportscotland can continue to assist. We do not think it would be helpful for the National Forum to establish its own secretariat.
Openness (paras 5.26 - 5.28)
We recognise the validity both of the argument for greater openness and also of the disadvantages of debating contentious issues under the public gaze. Perhaps a suitable compromise might be for the forum itself to meet in public but for standing committees to deliberate in private. We would support all the suggestions made in 5.28 and recommend that the fullest use be made of electronic forms of communication. A distinct website for the National Forum, hosted perhaps by SNH or sportscotland and linked to prominently by all interested organisations combined with an email alert service which notified subscribers of updates would be helpful here.
Communication (para 5.29)
Ensuring effective communication is always difficult. All the organisations involved must accept responsibility for keeping their memberships informed and for feeding members views back into the National Forum if it is to play an effective role in an access strategy which secures for Scotland's people and our visitors the customary right of access to the countryside while addressing the legitimate concerns of land managers.
In conclusion we hope that the consultation will lead to the successful implementation of the recent access legislation.
Will Campbell and Donald Thomas
For and on behalf of the General Council
North East Mountain Trust
Please let the webmaster know if there are problems viewing these pages or with the links they contain.