Contents

Draft Management Strategy for the Wester Ross National Scenic Area

The Wester Ross NSA is one of 40 in Scotland designed for their scenic beauty. A pilot project has been running, to describe the landscape of Wester Ross and prepare a management strategy to protect and enhance it.

A draft strategy has been issued for consultation with responses to be returned by mid July 2002. The document can be obtained from:

Lynn Kettles, Wester Ross NSA Officer
Unit 2, Achtercairn, Gairloch, Wester Ross IV21 2BH
Tel. 01445 712571, Email: lynn.kettles@highland.gov.uk

The Group has submitted this response to the draft strategy:

Response to the Wester Ross NSA Draft Management Strategy

The Group welcomes the opportunity to comment on the draft. We have not seen earlier versions therefore these comments are solely based on the document dated May 2002.

PART A SECTIONS 1-5

There could perhaps be more reference in the description of the scenic qualities to inland waters i.e. lochs such as Loch Maree and the role they play in framing the mountains and in being attractive in relation to the loch side features, e.g. woodland, plus the islands or natural and historical/cultural significance on Loch Maree.

In section 4, Wild Land, we have concerns about the clause 'it should be recognised that the continued existence of these wild areas is as a result of the past and present policies of those who own or manage them'. This we believe can give the wrong impression, i.e. imply that these areas are still wild is solely due to past and present landowners/landmanagers and their (implicitly) good policies and practices. It could be argued by us, and others, that these areas are wild due primarily to their inherent location and character, yet some of the policies of landowners (e.g. allowing significant numbers of deer on the hill) reduce the quality of the wildness (e.g. by overgrazing). It is also the case that the hydro scheme in Sheildaig Forest is presumably being permitted by the landowner and is in our opinion a great threat to the wild land in that watershed area.

I think if you are going to comment on this then you need to expand the 'Wild Land' section so as to look at the different forces that can reinforce or undermine wildness etc.

We feel that the comment about the concept of wildness being used promotionally by tourist businesses is a valuable and important comment. It should be highlighted more and not just be part of a longer paragraph. The point needs to be made very clearly that if the landscape characteristics, scenic qualities and wildness are undermined then a major adverse impact will be felt by local recreational and field sports businesses.

This has been seen clearly with the impact of foot and mouth in 2001, where the loss to rural businesses from the closing down of tourism far outweighed the financial losses made by farmers. It may be worth weighing up in Wester Ross how much of the local economy comes from tourism / outdoor activities in comparison to what may have been seen as the mainstay of the rural economy i.e. farming and deer shooting. If tourism is clearly the bigger money spinner then policies to support, protect and enhance this sector and the landscape/wildness it depends upon must be given due priority even if it requires changes in practices from farmers and deer managers.

PART A SECTION 6

We believe that the current threats and adverse influences could be highlighted more, as some of the potential major impacts are listed alongside smaller ones. We feel that major man-made/controlled intrusions and changes should be identified as key issues, rather than just being one of a long list of changes. Obviously what are key issues for our Group may not be quite so key for other organisations or individuals, but we still believe some threats should be highlighted more.

In particular there is the 'Shieldaig' hydro scheme being proposed in the Shieldaig Forest river system which is very controversial. However much it is blended in, it will always be a man made intrusion into a very wild area, and have a significant visual impact, especially in periods of drawdown.

Other key issues which we believe affect significantly the landscape and its scenic qualities are: overgrazing by deer and sheep; fencing, especially for forestry schemes; bulldozed and forest tracks. These all have a major adverse impact on the landscape and erode many of the key qualities of the area.

It would be good to organise research into topics such as the extent of overgrazing and the main sources of the problem - e.g. sheep, deer, goats. It would be good to have some more areas of the NSA where this overgrazing is reduced considerably or removed, so as to generate natural regeneration.

PART A SECTION 7

As regards the boundaries, we would wholeheartedly support the proposal to include the western half of the Applecross peninsula, and the area around Redpoint. These are clear omissions of the original designation. As regards the other proposals, these should be explored further at some stage, as, whilst in general we would want more landscape protected, we are aware that we do not wish to lose the focus that the currently defined NSA has. Time and energy could be diluted arguing about boundaries when the key issues are about protecting and enhancing the existing NSA area.

PART B SECTION 8 TO 10

The vision is good, being a partnership between the landscape and the people, with the landscape being the first thing that must not be undermined.

The Strategic Aims are generally very good, with due prominence to landscape and wild land issues. We also support strongly the aim of promoting the NSA more, both as a general designation and also for Wester Ross in particular. We also welcome the promotion of 'quiet enjoyment' as an aim. This is something that is often missed out in grand plans for areas.

We are concerned about some of the jargon which arises in the report. In particular the phrase 'increase the capacity of the landscape for change' is something which we do not know what exactly it means or implies. What change; change for good; change for the worse.

In 10.1.2 when you talk about 'ensuring that people's experience . are safeguarded and enhanced', this needs more than guidelines and explorations. Strong planning policies and robust policies from SNH and others are needed to ensure adverse developments are countered and scenic qualities protected.

In Aim 10.3.2 we believe there is not enough emphasis on reducing deer numbers to much lower levels, to reduce overgrazing and to reduce considerably the need for fencing. We believe that deer / grazing management should be a key topic on its own, not a sub-aim of woodland management.

In 10.7.2 the proposals are much too weak to protect the NSA from intrusive renewable energy schemes. There should be a recognition that within the core wild land areas, there should be no renewable energy schemes. Existing guidelines we believe are not strong enough to protect the landscape of this or any NSA. We believe the same criticism could be levied at 10.7.5 in relation to the proposals and guidelines for telecoms masts.

PART B SECTION 11

We have a worry that the implementation matrix contains a whole raft of actions which look good, but dilute the focus away from certain key ones. There should be a clear delineation between major and minor ones, clarification as to who is leading the action (not just which stakeholders are involved) and ideally some idea of what outcomes, targets or measures are to be used to ensure that the key actions are being taken and are achieving results.

We appreciate that the Draft Action Programme is beginning to address this, but we believe that refining the actions to key ones and key leaders and prioritising them in terms of time and activity is crucial.

We believe it is important for there to be some identifiable short to medium term actions which the NSA strategy can promote and monitor and record successes. There is a danger with the current action plan that there is a huge number of potential projects, and people and organisations will be put off by the number and complexity. We also feel that the NSA team need to be able to produce good results, and not just end up calling for more research, more joint working, more funding bids, etc. which local people and organisation do not see any initial results from.

Clearly one key target to aim for is that people, both local and visiting, are clear that the landscape and its scenic qualities are what has made this area a draw and has made it a NSA.

CONCLUDING COMMENTS

As you can see we have concerns about trying to do too much on too many tasks or outcomes. We are also slightly worried that the Strategy could become a rural development programme document, rather than a document that puts the protection and enhancement of the landscape that is the NSA as the number one priority.

Overall this is a good document, which, with more emphasis on key issues, and some alterations as suggested above, would serve the NSA very well. It is a good starter strategy for NSAs in Scotland, and with some beefing up, could serve as a good model.

Alistair Cant
STEERING TEAM CO-ORDINATOR
SCOTTISH WILD LAND GROUP
4 July 2002