Seòmar agus comataidhean

The debate opens the next chapter in the story of Scotland’s national parks—a story that started with the spirit of John Muir, saw the cry for countryside access after the war, and continued with the birth of the first Scottish national parks in the devolution era under the landmark legislation that was introduced by Ms Boyack. Given the climate and nature emergencies, there has never been a better time to grow and develop our parks and I am delighted that, with Greens in Government, we are able to play our role in helping to write the next chapter.

As a resident of the Loch Lomond and the Trossachs national park, I know that communities are at the very heart of our parks and that listening to their voices will be critical in managing our existing parks better and establishing new ones. That is why the national conversation that the minister has announced is so important.

There is a need for parks to do a lot more, including restoring native woodlands at a vast landscape scale and tackling many of the housing issues that have been spoken about already. However, the national parks agenda must also run alongside a more radical land reform agenda that empowers communities directly. I look forward to the forthcoming land reform bill and I hope that in her closing speech the minister, Màiri McAllan, will comment on where the bill is heading.

There are warnings from our national parks story about the need to engage communities meaningfully. For example, with the initial sloppy drawing of the Cairngorms national park boundary, communities in highland Perthshire were ignored. Despite the advice from Scottish Natural Heritage, as it was at the time, the then Scottish Executive pushed ahead in 2003 and excluded Perthshire from the national park.

The community campaign that followed, which was led by the irrepressible Bill Wright, culminated in the infamous twin peaks launch of the Cairngorms national park. On the top of Cairngorm stood Labour minister Allan Wilson at the official park launch, while on the top of Carn Liath stood an unholy alliance of John Swinney, Murdo Fraser, Dennis Canavan, Robin Harper and even me, declaring the right of highland Perthshire to be included in the national park. It took a member’s bill from Mr Swinney, with our cross-party backing, to finally redraw the park boundary. That is a lesson to all ministers from all parties to work closely with communities at the outset.

The pause button on the national parks has been on for two decades now, so it felt like an historic move that, as part of the Bute house agreement negotiations last year, I and my colleagues were able to put new national parks back on the table again. I am delighted that our new minister, Lorna Slater, is now responsible for the delivery.

The community campaigns for new parks have never stopped, and the work of the Scottish Campaign for National Parks has been critical in keeping that flame alive. Its 2013 report on options is a great starting point, although it is not exhaustive. I recently ran a very unscientific poll on Twitter to gauge support for its initial seven options. I found that Galloway, Ben Nevis/Glen Coe/Black Mount and a potential marine and coastal park are very popular options. Given the success of the Jurassic coast national park in Dorset, I am really attracted to the idea of a marine and coastal park for Argyll and Mull. However, I certainly recognise the strong cross-party political support in this Parliament that is behind Galloway. It reinforces the point that national parks are strong economic drivers and that the position of Galloway, being easily accessible to northern England, could provide a really strong domestic tourism offering.

However, it is important not to lose sight of the fact that national parks are there to conserve and enhance the natural world as much as they are there to enable our enjoyment. The Sandford principle—that, where there is unmanageable conflict between public use and conservation, the environment must come first—is as important today as it was when national parks were first conceived in the UK. That will continue to raise difficult decisions that, again, need the input of communities to get right.

For example, the introduction of camping management zones in the Trossachs sparked strong debate and, I think, a genuine concern that our fundamental rights to wild camp were being eroded. In reality, however, the damage that we saw at first hand to the lochsides, for example at Loch Venachar, needed a strong response to stop the destruction, and from what I can see, it has worked without becoming a wider precedent.

Ultimately, better facilities for campers will help to manage impact. I certainly urge ministers to look in particular at how a visitor levy could help parks to fund facilities that will help people to keep coming back, including better toilet facilities, camping areas and extra rangers.

Of course, park authorities always need to strike a careful balance. As the Flamingo Land proposal for Loch Lomond rears its head again, decision makers need to go back to that Sandford principle and ask the fundamental question: “Does it get the conservation balance right?” To my mind, Flamingo Land does not, and must be thrown out again.

As my former colleague Robin Harper put it, in 2020:

“The setting up of National Parks twenty years ago must be the beginning of a process, not an end in itself. We need to see our countryside as a place where biodiversity and the environment are enhanced—our rural communities and their survival are essential to the conservation of wild Scotland.”

That must be the theme of the next chapter in Scotland’s national parks story, and I look forward very much to seeing new parks in Scotland.

It is great to hear how you are harnessing that energy from citizens. We can certainly learn from that here in Scotland.

I will also ask you about your sustainability goals, which I think have been in place for a long time now. How do those influence policy making? Do you have a sustainability framework that you apply to policies? How do those goals influence the individual discussions that politicians and others are having?

Thank you for that.

I will move on to another question. I was interested to hear earlier that you are a forester by background. Can you say a little more about how municipal forests are helping to achieve Freiburg’s net zero targets and to restore biodiversity?

I think that we would call them nature networks. They involve the restoration of nature at landscape scale. What role does the municipality have in that? Are there issues with land ownership if some landowners prefer traditional agricultural use of land, rather than rewilding or creating new, large-scale habitats?

I have a final question about the links to your work on forests. I see that you are doing a lot of work to develop biomes. I think that, in English, we would interpret that to mean nature networks.

I am sorry—yes, “biotopes” is the word.

Can you give a specific example of where there has been conflict between the sustainable development goals and how that was resolved? Is it ultimately for politicians to resolve that conflict?

Do you see there being a role in a more sustainable supply chain for wood fuel biomass for heating, or is that a diminishing part of the energy mix?

It is really interesting to hear your evidence, Franziska. I will pick up on your last point about how engaged citizens are in Freiburg. Will you talk me through the formal mechanisms for engaging citizens? Is there a danger of what we call consultation fatigue, as a result of people being constantly asked about public policy? What sort of mechanisms do you have for engaging citizens? Are there citizens assemblies or particular referendums or discussions on particular issues? How does such engagement manifest itself?

I join other members in thanking Colin Smyth for his cross-party leadership on animal welfare at Holyrood, and also join him in thanking our animal welfare charities for their relentless work in this area.

I think that the ethical principles that we are discussing hold a mirror up to our relationship with the natural world. They highlight where wildlife management has moved on to a better footing but they also point to where traditional and often anti-scientific practices are unfortunately still the norm. They also reveal that the way that we treat our domestic animals can be dramatically different to the way that we treat some wild animals that are still, sadly, viewed as pests and vermin to be eradicated. The study from the League Against Cruel Sports, showing an estimated 250,000 wild animals killed each year on sporting estates, demonstrates how far there is still to go. The estimates that half of those animals are non-target species, such as hedgehogs or domestic cats, shows how cruel and indiscriminate practices such as snaring can be.

In recent years, we have seen numerous wildlife reviews led by eminent chairs—Poustie on wildlife crime and sentencing; Werritty on driven grouse moors; Bonomy on hunting with wild dogs—as well the critical report from the deer working group that is now being acted on through the Green-SNP agreement. Each of those reviews has moved the dial a little, but there is still a need for a consistent approach in relation to how we manage wildlife.

The position statement on wildlife management from Scottish Natural Heritage in 2014 and the later concordat that was signed were a really good first step. The SGA signed up to that concordat, as well, but, eight years on, I think that we are all agreed that there is a need for further reform. I welcome the debate on the principles, and the fact that the framework has already been adopted by Parks Canada tells me that it can probably work here too.

As Colin Smyth outlined, the seven principles are largely common sense. Take the first principle that we should look into the root causes of conflict of wildlife. It is obvious that, for example, many of the problems that we have gulls in town are due to rubbish and food waste collection issues. The gulls are really trying to tell us something about the need for a much more circular economy. The mentality of seeing certain species as pests is deep-seated and needs challenge. I was saddened to hear calls from the National Farmers Union Scotland recently for lethal controls on protected white-tailed eagles.

Although sea eagles can scavenge for dead lambs, it is a small proportion of their diet, and it is quite clear from the research that incidents of eagles taking live lambs are rare and that better husbandry, including lambing taking place under shelter, would address the real causes of the quite horrific levels of black loss that we see in sheep farming. Of course, many of the techniques to minimise that black loss are being trialled by farmers and crofters under the excellent sea eagle management scheme that is run by NatureScot, which is delivering welfare benefits to sheep as well as eagles. However, there is no need or justification for the culling of sea eagles, and those who persecute them illegally are quite clearly criminals.

The framework acknowledges that the culling of some species might, in some circumstances, be justified but it rightly demands systematic plans with clear objectives to be considered rather than the habitual culling of animals such as foxes that often results in populations just bouncing back again. Clear objectives are important and I think that OneKind is right to point out in its briefing for this debate that the badger cull in England failed to meet its objectives to curb bovine tuberculosis.

The debate on these principles is welcome and timely, and I very much look forward to hearing from the minister later about how the Scottish Government can embed them further into policy, practice and, ultimately, the law.