Mull Coastal & Marine National Park Debate

DRAFT Notes of the Debate held at Craignure Village Hall. Thursday 7^th December 2006 at 6.30pm

Organised by Mull & Iona Community Trust and MAFA with the support of the Mull Community Council

(These are notes, (not minutes) designed to convey the general discussions which took place. We apologise if not all names are correct but in a full debate in a packed village hall it is not always easy to note every detail! Anyone seeking further details on the presentations or speakers should contact the speakers direct. Enquiries can be made via enquiries@mict.co.uk )

Q = Question    A=Answer   S = Statement

Attendees who ‘signed in’:  Nick Turnbull, Nicola Welsh, David & June Winfield, Chris Baker, David Greenhalgh, Tony Proud, Nic Davies, Pat Morrison, Rae Tiernan, John Cable, Eddie O’Donnell, Andrew Oldacre, Chris James, Bill Langford, Alastair Mackie, Alistair MacDougall, Paul Knight, James Knight, Michael Ackerley, Nick Mawhinney, Eilidh Young, Tim Capper, Naomi Knight, Iain MacKay, Jimmy Wilson, Gordon Turnbull, David & Liz Potter, Helen Wilson, Gren Roberts, Bill & Suzanne  Patterson, Ian Bartholomew, John Addy, John Morrison, Jilly Giffen, Angus Stewart, Laura Mandlerg, Brennen Fairbairns, Steve Barlow, Robert Barlow, Peter Stevick, James & Nicola Harmer, Kenneth & Anne Gibson, Stuart Maidment, Maggie & Allan MacLean, Keith Robbie, Charles Pease, George Martin, Colum Scott, Susan Campbell, Derek Crook, Arthur & Pam Brown, Cath & Mike Mayo, Fiona Quarmby, Erika Hearn, Keith Chesney, Andy Johnston, Lisa Kirsop, John Kirsop, Neil Hutton,  Douglas Wilson, Joy Caskie, Gari Beet, Peter Hall, Sandy Brunton, Bob Lawson, Hugh MacPhail, A MacLean, Cameron Maclean,, Mary Van Heerden, John MacDonald, Alex & Cynthia MacFadyen, David Woodhouse, Anne & Richard West, Maureen Hilder, John Mitchell, Susie Calderan, Fiona Kirsop, Rory Forrester, John & Gerry Wilson,  Wilf Loynd, Brenda Galbraith, Colin Morrison, Andrew Stevens, Jim Traynor, Tula Rowley, Lee Hendrick, Andy & Helen Mortley, Moira Owers, Andrew Evans, Steve Maker, Cara Ross, Ian Drake, Linda Borrill, Caroline Wood, Barbara Hartley, Jan Dunlop, David Sexton, Sheila & Charlie Weir, Alan Hodson  

James Hilder of Mull & Iona Community Trust welcomed all present and outlined the programme for the evening

Nick Turnbull, chair of the Marine and Aquaculture Fisheries Association gave a brief history and aims of  MAFA a description of the SNH consultation and MAFA’s key concerns. (Presentation available at www.mict.co.uk)          

David Greenhalgh – the CMNP will happen somewhere.  There are lots of potential, disadvantages and advantages. If we are to reap the benefits we should apply now and state how it should be run. If the vote is no, don’t be envious of the area which is chosen – it is going to happen.

Chris James – in the days of HIDB, who were based in Inverness, they considered the people of Mull did not do anything for themselves.  We actually do a lot for ourselves, with very little help from Europe, Scottish Exec etc. It might not be easy for us to say NO to the proposed CMNP.  We shouldn’t slam the door on a CMNP if it helps our children and our grandchildren find work and remain on Mull. But – we must get our roads sorted and an adequate housing stock.  Mull is the same size as Dartmoor with 1/10^th population and there is plenty of room for more people.  If the community is to vote for a CMNP the Executive must make a commitment to sort our infrastructure for us.

Iain Morrison –  I see no advantage, only problems with excess tourism, until the infrastructure is improved and we learn to manage what we have. Balamory has brought a theme park mentality and a CMNP will go further in that direction. There is not only tourism, but a huge marine industry here which musts be protected.  We need a proper and prolonged consultation and must make sure it works for us.

David Woodhouse – in six months time the decision may be in favour of Ardnamurchan and Skye.  In 10 years time we will be clamouring to get into a CMNP because everything will shift. This is a tremendous opportunity which we should be grabbing.

Q Chris Baker – questioned the mathematics of the make up of the National Park Authority as quoted n difference sections of the consultation document.   The percentage of local representation did not add up.

A This must have been a typo.  This is just an outline of how it could work.

Q Nick Turnbull – how much of the £5m annual will be administration, & how much to the park area.

A  David could give details immediately, but later in the meeting advised the costs of Loch Lomond & Trossachs NP:

Cost of board        £   250,000

Cost of salaries     £5,700,000

Amongst other things, staff are employed to support community projects.

David  was questioned on what would happen if there were still objections, or residents were beginning to object.  David advised that Scottish Ministers will listen and could if they wished decide to take the park elsewhere.

Q  Bob Lawson  - Ross Finnie stated that the park would not be imposed if the population did not want it.  How can they know who is for or against unless there is a referendum.

A  Minister have not said there will be a referendum.  They are encouraging local people to send in their response

Q  Nic Davies – a lot of people are looking less favourably on a CMNP, but if it happens we must accept it and get fully involved.  In the interest of the whole process there must be input from the people.  Will there be provision for a review with an opportunity after 5 – 10 years to de-designate if the park is not working.

A  all public bodies will have a quinquennial  (5 yearly) review of need.

Q  Andy Johnston (?) – is there an aim to support agriculture in CMNP- still no idea what a CMNP is

A All aims will be in the Park Plan developed by a Park Authority. Agriculture matters may or may not be included. The Authority must follow the aims

Q  James Knight – 1) are you aware of any national park in England or Scotland ever being abandoned.  2) There are expressions of substantial disadvantage from people living in national parks.

A  not aware.  Scotland’s national parks are very young and have not reached the quinquennial Review.

Q  Douglas Wilson – worried that Hugh Raven and some MSP’s have said no fishing zones might be introduced

Fishermen are rightly concerned that this will lead to increased pressure on the boundaries of No Take Zones. All this is very worrying.

A  Hugh Raven is not speaking for the Scottish Executive. Inshore Fisheries Management Groups will manage fishing interests and these are made up mainly of local fishermen.  Where clear conflict with Park aims exists - yes natural heritage has precedent over social and economic aims.  It is a question of balance.

Q  Rory Forrester – CMNP will also have terrestrial areas. Which is very significant for farmers, who, apart from Forestry Commission are the single protectors of the terrestrial environment There is nowhere on Mull which is more than 4 miles from the sea. What has been decided regarding designation of land.

A  We acknowledge that fishermen and farmers will be stewards of the area.  The consultation asks for peoples views on the boundaries as this has not yet been decided upon. Eg. How much of an island would be included, the landward boundary on the mainland etc. This would be a feature of the next phase of consultation.

Q  Keith Chesney – if conservation take precedence, who decides if there is any conflict?

A  Once the plan  is produced it will be put to the Ministers who have National and International responsibilities in sea area.  They will take an interest in striking a balance. Scottish Ministers have ultimate power over activities but aim is for the Park Authority to create the Plan, avoiding conflict and to implement it.

Q  John MacDonald – these proposals indicate arrogance on the part of the Executive with an emphasis on conservation and apparently not much on social and economic issues.  It would be a social catastrophe for the native population.

S  Chris Baker – The recent Council Local designated Calliach Point for fish  farming.  It is an unsuitable area and they should have known this.  The local community have corrected this. How can a Park Authority know what plans to prepare if only 5 people are elected from the local area.

S  Eddie O’Donnell – Several years ago Mull Community Council turned down the proposal (for an SSMEI) It all seems to be talking of more tourists but this  doesn’t help youngsters get housing.  We are at saturation point with tourism.  If  you think infrastructure will be  improved with £5m go back and think again.

S  Paul Gallagher – What are you feeling from the meeting so far after hearing these views?

S  David Woodhouse – the local Island Voices Survey in 2004 revealed twice as many people are for CMNP as against. The local Council’s Citizen’s Panel of 1000 people also answered positively. 

S  James Hilder clarified that there were 300 responses to the Island Voices survey and just over 50% were in favour, but it was a long way short of being indicative.

S  Cllr Alastair MacDougall – advised that the Council’s Area Committee Meeting has been postponed until next week to hear the  outcome from tonight’s meeting.  This indicates that the Council are listening. He read out a ‘wish list’ of key infrastructure improvements that are required on Mull & Iona if we are to be in a National Park. He said he would be looking for at least some of these including:

Road improvements, new road between Torness and Glenforsa,  pier refurbishments, new harbour for Fionnphort & Iona, Tobermory ferry linkspan, new waiting room and toilets at Iona ferry terminal, a Visitor Tax, etc.

Q  Jilly Giffen – is there an option to delete the proposal if no-one wants a CMNP

A  it won’t be imposed. If this is the best course of action – may decide.

Ian advised that LAMP were concerned about SNH’s involvement in the CMNP and felt they had an institutional bias against people. Lochaber Community Council asked Ian to go to a meeting at Inverness.  The primary aim of the CMNP is conservation and this will put a burden on the community.  Loch Lomond and Trossachs National Park was set up in 2002 and does not yet have an adopted park plan, and have had 4 years of management limbo. SNH were asked by Ministers to find a suitable area by consulting with stakeholders in business, community and “stakeholder groups”. They only consulted with Scottish Executive agencies and umbrella groups.  They did not consult with any communities, and with any transport agencies, which is a major problem for access to the proposed CMNP areas.

The proposed areas have an ageing population and affordable housing needs disproportionate to urban areas.  The question is – is a CMNP the best way to address these problems.  It is not the only option, we could choose the status quo.  CMNP closes down your options because they are not within the aims of the park plan.  Every person has different needs in the area they live. The proposed £5m will bring in investment, but we already have investment in our areas.  Its about keeping your community going.  The national park will put a greater burden.  They do not provide housing associations and other parks have not provided affordable housing. They will be responsible for putting on greater constraints on quality and standards.  They will have ‘no take zones’ for no reason, which is not an efficient management of fishing, putting fishermen out of business. Local fishermen are not fishing endangered species.  Scallops are more sustainable. It is important that all industries are represented are managed and looked after. Common complaints from residents in national parks in England and Wales are lack of affordable housing, planning constraints and evidence of who is representing you.  The agencies have an agenda, regardless of communities. Scottish Exec have effectively excluded communities from the debate so far and yet Ministers will ‘choose’ an area in a few months time.  Once the 10th January consultation deadline is passed, it will be more difficult alter decisions than in the early stages consultation?  The Scottish Exec is holding up CMNP as enhanced local involvement in decision making.

S Iain MacKay – there have been no questions, so obviously, everyone agrees with you.

Q Chris James – do you think the Scottish Executive will give us help with housing?  Could the park provide investment? 

A  It is unacceptable to accept a national park just in order to get better roads, housing etc. If anyone had studied access properly they would see that the original SNH advice is flawed. We should reject the proposal because we do not have the infrastructure.

Q Brenda Galbraith – I agree and don’t like the idea of a national park, but we could set up the governance to suit the community.  Everything must come from the community first.  Can we strengthen, for example Mull Community Council to get our points listened to.

A (J Hilder) This is not on offer. National park will have only 20% elected representation.  The role of the CMNP has not been finally decided, nor has the area. This leads to confusion.  There is a petition at the back of the room if you wish to sign it to request a local referendum for everyone to have the opportunity to say yes or no. The petition will be lodged to the Petition Committee by 17^th January.

Q  Eddie O’Donnell – how many members represent Mull & Iona?

A  The membership is around 80 at £10 per membership. Members join as individuals – there is no ‘representation’.

Q  Stewart MacDougall – 55% of Scotland is sea, what percentage of the sea bed is fished? Surely there is plenty for everyone?

A fishermen have huge access across most areas.  Surveys show huge areas of devastation.  Lets look carefully at users and encourage local involvement in decisionmaking.

Q  Ian MacKinnon – there are specific areas where it is illegal to fish for scallops. Scallop Fishing is already stopped with no compensation to the fishermen.  How popular would it be in the tourism industry if the Park Authority banned tourists from areas for six months of the year with no compensation.  Surely this is not the way forward – we have a unique biodiversity and tourism has increased why have a CMNP ?

A  There is room for everyone.  If we don’t do anything we will have problems in the future – we have to look ahead. If local fishermen and tourism interests work together we can get sensible solutions. Doing nothing is not an option.

Iain MacInnes : ‘There are 24 Communities in and around the Park which is divided into 4 Area Networks, and as Chair of the Community Partnership I visit them all from time to time.

All those 24 Communities did their action Plans back in 2001 and 2002 supported by the Park Authority Community Futures Programme, involving consultants Colin Roxburgh and Alan Tuffs. The communities were therefore active in compiling the Park Plan.

What’s Good

The aims of the Area Networks which are held Quarterly and facilitated by Community Partnership Directors with support from Community development trusts are:

1/ To assist Communities to identify common needs, and aspirations across the area through there action plans.

2/ To assist Communities to work together to progress joint priorities for action

3/ To be a focal point for consultation and information about park or area wide programmes, and policies.

In addition to  current common issues of working together, areas of interest are as follows:

Argyll Forest Planning Landscape Partnership, a Marine Access Strategy,  Forestry developments, Improved Transport, Play Parks, Roads, Trust Training (Strengthening Communities), Apprentice Scheme, Health Improvement and a Red Squirrel Conservation group. All this is Led by Community representatives, and the Community Partnership – supported by The National Park, and partner agencies – Argyll & Bute Council, SNH, Forestry Commission, and AIE.

The Apprentice Scheme is supported by The National Park, Scottish Enterprise Network, Lomond and Rural Stirling Leader + Programme.

Access to the National Park has been improved in a £3 million Project over the last 5 years in upgrading recreational facilities across the Argyll and Queen Elizabeth Forest parks and was lead by Forestry Commission Scotland.

The LLTNP Community Partnership  is made up of :  8 directors from the community, 4 council reps (1 from each Council), 4 National Park reps and 4 co-opted directors, representing 24 communities. 

All 24 communities. Set up in 2002, they assisted the communities to identify common needs for the action plan and to get progress on joint priorities.  They are the focal point for consultation on policies. 

In addition the NPA will be drafting a new Local Plan using the Community Action Plans as a basis so the Communities must have got it right when they did them back in 2001/2.

What is Bad.

?          Planning is one of the main issues that is still to be overcome, but with support from Planning Aid Scotland in January next year, who are going to run 2 all day workshops, this I hope will bring better understanding between the Communities, and Park planning, and a step forward for the future. This I hope will take the bad taste a way, although planning has problems country wide, not just in the National Park.

?          There are instances when the planning authority has been overruled by the community – if you work together you get better solutions.

?          Litter is another problem in some parts of the park, but could be said a part of our of our own success story bring more Tourist, and walkers into the area, but to overcome this problem we have a litter campaign and pick working with the Community partnership, National Park, and Forestry. Though Litter was there before the Park came to being, (but now more highlighted)

Do Differently?

We have learned by mistakes - ours and others. It takes a great deal of time to get the right people in place to and get communities involved. Things have only really moved forward in the last two years, but it pays off if you have the right people in post / volunteering.

Sue Minns advised that the Park Plan does exist and is no longer a draft. It does take 3-4 years  t prepare a Park Plan and this has now gone to the Scottish Exec for approval and adoption.

Sue gave a presentation on a number of successful community projects which have been completed in the past 4 years since our Trusts and Area Networks were formed in Cowal through Community Futures. These included jetty upgrades, play park and recreational facilities and land purchases and social enterprises.

Q  Nick Turnbull – what do you spend on administration?

A LLTNP Community Partnership receives £20K per year to be spread out amongst the 24 communities for small community projects. We ask the communities how they would like to spend the money.  They receive about £500 to run their trusts. Cannot comment on the overall Park budget.

Q  Chris Baker – National Park Authority use volunteers which looks like a cheap way to get their work done. We on Mull & Iona also tend to do it ourselves here on Mull. What has been done specifically if not through yourselves?

A Bring all 24 communities together.  A gathering would raise awareness of what each community is doing and each would have input.  We are in it to regenerate our communities. The Regeneration Unit helps us to raise funds.  Its rare that the national park funds any capital projects directly. The Community Partnership is a separate Board from the Park Authority, supporting working together. It does perhaps require a bit more recognition.

Q  Dave Sexton – Does a national park open channels to assistance?

A  Definitely yes. The Rural Regeneration Unit assist in everything to do with funding.  They know where the funds re and fill in application forms.

Q  Iain Mackay – how connected are you with the communities?  Its nice to see upgraded piers etc but there are housing problems.  I couldn’t afford to live there.

A  Housing is a problem, affordable housing a  bigger problem.  The Community Council at Balquidder bought old railway houses and let them out as affordable housing. A loan was taken out for repairs but profit goes to the trust.

In Lochgoilhead they need 20 houses.  They can get these build but Scottish Water an only supply water for 6 houses and there is only sewage provision for 11 houses. The national park can do very little directly with housing and infrastructure but it can help to put pressure on agencies.

S  Stuart Maidment – Is national park able to assist match funding? Seems that it is seeking to attract same types of funding that we can access here.

S John MacDonald – are there any people aged around 30 or under who are able to build or buy a house in Loch Lomond & Trossachs national park?

A Yes some can – but there is a shortage of land for housing. Housing Association and Forestry Commission have very little land.  The majority of youngsters move to the city so we are losing our young folk.  Fishermen retain indigenous people because they cannot ply their trade anywhere else. Anything threatening them is to be deplored. 

Q  Iain MacKay – of my generation only 3 left in Luss.  4 generations of my family lived there and now there are none because there is no housing

A  There are 4 houses being built in the Luss area by the housing association.

S – J Hilder  -the the speakers are here to explain progress in community developments which have been assisted by the park – it is not necessarily a solution to all rural Scotlands problems.

Arthur stated that although National Park status can bring extra protection for marine wildlife and environment, there are already laws and policies in place through bodies such as SEPA and the Wildlife Crime Section of the Police.

He added that he has been involved with negotiations through Europe for 35 years, and that fishing is not the only concern or issue here. Hardly any community councils named in the consultation document.  SAMS, leaders in their field – have never been consulted.   The consultants report from SNH states that the inshore fishing group are a good thing,  provided they follow the park plan - but the park plan has not been published, and will not be finalised until the location has been finalised.  Despite Arthur’s continuous correspondence with the Scot Exec, he found out 2^nd hand about the roadshows, and although he advised that the timing was not suitable – Rally weekend – the roadshow went ahead.  There were no ‘experts’ available at the roadshow, only promotions company staff with questionnaires.  These questionnaires start by assuming that you are ‘for’ a national park, but you can nominate another area!  Arthur stressed that we all need to ask for factual information on which to base our decision on.  Arthur himself, carried out a survey in Mallaig of 10,000 tourists from all parts of the world.  There was only one question in the survey – ‘Would a National Park encourage you to come to Lochaber?’  A total of 10,204 were surveyed, 8366 answered no, 1115 answered yes, the remaining 723 were unsure.  There were also a number of comments including ‘This is the only part that feels like your visiting Scotland’, ‘Why do you need a park?  This is a beautiful area anyway’, ‘Never come back’ and this was from somebody who has been visiting the area for 25 years.

The cost of setting up a national park has not been proven to attract more visitor numbers.  We can not make a decision unless we have all the information. And why is there NO referendum?  HIE have also indicated that they are not complimentary about the consultation process.  Arthur added that he has a lot of respect for David Mallon of Scot Exec, he is a paid employee who has been given a difficult job which is not of his making.  But why is David here and not Ross Finnie or Rhona Brankin?

Fergus Ewing appears to be the only MSP  to act on behalf of residents?

S  Mark Carter  (Reference his earlier presentation) The Conservation of Seals Act 1970 states when a seal can and when a seal can’t be shot, and there was an instance where a contractor was employed to shoot a seal. This contract was found to be on behalf of a fish farm.

A  Agree with a lot of what Mark has said, and that contractor and fish farm were caught, however Scottish Fishermen more proactive towards conservation and showing pictures of dead seals was inflammatory as there was no evidence to suggest that a dead seal had been killed by fishermen or fish farm workers.

S  Douglas Wilson  Presentation very interesting, but can be misleading as most of it related to fish.  Only shellfish caught in this area and can’t be directly compared.

A  There is an example of a No Take Zone in Isle of Man, which was set up to protect scallop stocks.  There has been a measurable increase in stocks  just outside the zone and fishermen are now asking for this to be extended.  Spawn was transported from Skye to the zone, DNA allows you to trace if the scallops caught just outside the zone have in fact originated from the zone.  However, if an area is not overfished, then there is no need for a No Take Zone.

S  Douglas Wilson   The scampi catch on the West of Scotland has increased, as the seabed is made up of rough ground and there are trenches which the scallop dredgers are unable to reach.

Q  Ian Bartholomew  How critical is accurate sea bed mapping to the introduction of No Take Zones?

A  Agree there is a scarcity of  quality information but modern methods will be able to map well, and a CMNP would provide funding for research to be undertaken.

S  Ian Bartholomew  Questionable quality of the Sea Bed Surveys of the west of Mull.  Tools may be missing to define the boundaries of a Marine Park.

Q  Ian MacKinnon  Are there any examples internationally of financial provision made to subsidise for the No Take Zone?  Will they pay the fishermen  who lose their income?

A  NTZ would be somewhere that was fished less. Governments are not prepared to fund the gaps. What they hope to do is encourage other industries around the NTZ. E.g. mussel farming water quality is very important.  National Park can help and give extra powers to control.

Q  Arthur Cowie  Have heard that the amount of tourists are actually damaging the Great Barrier Reef?

A  Everything needs to be sustainable. Having a Park Plan means you plan for the tourists to make sure that  the environment is protected.  Same happening in Egypt.  Eco-tourism gives added value, extra profit for the same tourist turnover.

S  Eddie O’Donnell  Instead of a National Park, why not give the fishermen £5 million to stop fishing for 5 years?

A  National Park status creates conditions were extra possibilities can be explored and new mechanisms put in place.  More money is generated which goes back into the local economy. 

S  Nick Davies  Presentation shows what can happen in extreme circumstances, and it is clear that marine life should be protected.  Having a protected area through the National Park, may actually protect against extra regulations?

David Mallon, Scot Exec thanked all speakers, and wanted to point out that he was invited to come along, not Ross Finnie or Rhona Brankin.  Dr Rupert Ormonds presentation put the finger on exactly why there is a need for a National Park.  David added that he would like to encourage everyone to get more information and respond to the consultation, whatever their views.

Nick Turnbull thanked everyone for attending, MICT for organising, James for chairing and to all the speakers.