Why the Galloway national park simply cannot go ahead as planned

Eradicating child poverty, growing the economy, misogyny laws, and the dreaded Heat in Buildings Bill grabbed the headlines, but the Natural Environment Bill (NEB) was in there too, the plans to establish a new framework for protecting and restoring nature.

Preparations for the new bill should be well advanced because the reforms have been in the pipeline for some time and a three-month consultation closed at the end of 2023. But over a year later, the draft legislation has still to be tabled. Even with the likely support from the Greens, only at a push will any bill become law by the end of this parliament in June.

The NEB consultation contained an extensive section about reform of Scotland’s two national parks, but the problem is the Scottish Government’s ambition for this bill cuts across another Green-inspired policy, the creation of a new national park, which last summer the Scottish Government announced would be in Galloway.

Cross-party support

Following a long-running campaign by the Galloway National Park Association (GNPA), Galloway was selected from a list of five applicants, four of which encountered varying degrees of resistance, so this was supposed to be relatively uncontroversial, especially as creating a Galloway National Park was a Scottish Conservative manifesto commitment, also had local Labour party support, and the GNPA claimed its aims had overwhelming public support.

But as soon as the decision was made, a grassroots opposition campaign quickly gathered pace, and just as quickly discovered that the basis for the GNPA’s position seemed to be a survey of less than 500 people over several years. The result is an issue which by common consent has become as divisive, some would argue more bitter, than the independence referendum. Local councillors report packed email inboxes which are 50-50.

It is possible the proposed contents of the NEB were not fully considered when the decision to proceed was taken, but it is certainly surprising that with the Scottish Government’s intentions for national parks clearly spelt out in the NEB consultation, it was not mentioned at all in the Galloway National Park consultation which closes on February 14.

It is therefore likely that most views about such a major decision have been formed without knowledge of what the NEB aims to do, and that includes councillors from South and East Ayrshire councils, who have both voted to support the park’s creation. In a draft response prepared by Dumfries & Galloway Council officers due to be discussed by councillors in a special meeting this Wednesday, there are no references to the NEB, an extraordinary omission if councillors are to make a fully informed decision.

‘Biodiversity and climate change’

Whatever the pros and cons of a national park may be, any decision to support or otherwise must surely be based on a firm idea of how it should work, so common sense would dictate conclusions cannot be drawn until there is certainty about the legal basis for something which has far-reaching consequences for local decision-making and accountability, and will itself need new legislation. Only yesterday, the Scottish Parliament’s Public Petitions Committee wrote to Rural Economy Secretary Mairi Gougeon to make this point.

So, what does the NEB seek to achieve? The Scottish Government spelt out that “given the urgency of the biodiversity and climate crises, and the leadership role of national parks, we are proposing that… the statutory purpose specifically refers to nature restoration and tackling climate change”. In other words, biodiversity and climate change could become legally binding priorities, which might suit lots of people, but cannot have been subjected to local scrutiny because the proposed law has not been drafted.

Further, it proposes significant changes to the way parks work with other authorities, again introducing legally binding requirements to follow agreed management plans. “We propose that this duty on public bodies should be strengthened so that public bodies operating within the national park have an obligation to actively support and contribute to the implementation of national park plans, for example in relation to expanding woodland, restoring peatland and important habitats, maintaining the fabric of historic buildings, developing nature-based jobs and skills, encouraging nature-friendly farming, addressing housing needs, managing visitor pressures, improving public transport and active travel and increasing accessibility.”

Changing rules halfway through game

Despite claims to the contrary, this represents huge alterations and restrictions to local councils’ powers. It appears to make a mockery of claims the new Galloway National Park will be shaped for local people by local people, especially as the Scottish Government intends to directly appoint both the park authority convener and deputy. Agree or disagree, the consultation closed six months before Galloway and Ayrshire councillors knew this was coming their way and it seems they still don’t.

Set aside the justifiable claims of inherent bias in the NatureScot-run Galloway national park consultation ─ an organisation which openly supports the principle ─ it all amounts to a legislative dog’s breakfast, because a new national park is being sold on the basis of the 2000 National Parks Act which is about to be reformed through legislation no one has seen.

A major protest in Dumfries is planned for this Wednesday before councillors meet to debate the council’s response, but how can councillors know what they are responding to? As the previously supportive Conservative MSP for Galloway and West Dumfries, Finlay Carson, recently wrote to Ms Gougeon, it is “changing the rules halfway through the game”. Maybe it’s time to take the teams off the pitch.

Former Scotsman editor John McLellan has been advising the No Galloway National Park campaign