National Access Forum - 2 February 2022

Agenda and papers for 56th meeting on 2nd February 2022.

Agenda

National Access Forum – 56th meeting on Wednesday 2 February 2022, 10.00 am - 13:15 (virtual)

1. Welcome, introductions, apologies – Don Milton – Convenor - 10:00 – 10:10

2. Minutes of previous meeting, action points and matters arising – 10:10 – 10:20 - (Unconfirmed minutes from the virtual meeting 22 September 2021 attached) Please email comments on the minutes to Secretary by 28 January.

  • AP 55/1: Members interested in participating in a small meeting to discuss paths and IPA future funding issues are requested to contact the secretary (Discharged).
  • AP 55/2: Forum members are requested to highlight any omissions or changes required to the existing list of full and corresponding members (Discharged).
  • AP55/3: FLS to finalise the guide and send it to the secretary to circulate and to add to the SOAC website (On-going).

3. Access and Roads Working Group Update- (note of the working group meeting 9 December 2021- attached) – 10:20 – 10:40

4. Cumulative Impacts of Camping – Mark Wrightham – NatureScot – 10:40 – 10:50

5. Woodland Consultations and Access – Hugh McNish & Ian Cowe (Scottish Forestry) – 10:50 – 11:25

TEN MINUTE COMFORT BREAK

6. Access and Wildlife Disturbance – Mark Wrigtham – NatureScot (discussion paper attached) – 11:35 – 12:15

7. Scottish Paths  Project – Update  - Helen Todd (Ramblers Scotland) – 12:15 -12:25

8. NAF LAF Joint meeting 25 November - Feedback from the Forum (Summary note of the meeting attached) – 12:25 – 12:45

9. Forthcoming meetings & agenda items – (NAF work programme attached) – 12:45 – 12:55

Forth coming meetings & agenda items – (NAF work programme attached) – 12:45 – 12:55

  • NAF/LAF Joint meeting – (22 or 29 April) ideas for the draft programme
  • NAF meeting Wednesday 8 June -  Battleby
  • NAF meeting – Wednesday 21 September - Battleby

10. Any Other Business (please inform the secretary of any substantive items) – 12:55 – 13:15

  • Update on SOAC engagement with schools – NatureScot (to note update paper attached)
  • Restrictive signage on Core paths

Close

Reviewing guidance on access and wildlife disturbance

Purpose

This paper from NatureScot proposes a review of the Forum’s guidance on access and wildlife disturbance, noting some points that it would be helpful to address.

Action

The Forum is asked to comment on the paper and consider how a review could be taken forward.

Background

Scottish access rights provide vital opportunities for people to connect with and enjoy nature, which is important for health and well-being, brings significant economic benefits and can help build support for action to address the biodiversity crisis. There is consequently a strong overall synergy between nature and outdoor recreation, which is reflected in the aims of some recreation and conservation bodies.

Against this positive background, however, localised pressures can arise where concentrated demand for particular recreational activities coincides with sensitive habitats or species. The Scottish access framework provides a range of management approaches which can be used to address these pressures, and the Scottish Outdoor Access Code has an important role in helping people to enjoy nature in a responsible way. The key guidance in the Code is summarised in Annex 1.

The Forum has developed guidance on managing these issues in the context of access rights, which was originally published in 2014. This focuses on disturbance of ground-nesting birds by poorly controlled dogs, but provides a loose hierarchy of management approaches which is applicable to all wildlife disturbance issues. These broadly comprise:

  • site planning and design, including the provision and location of paths and other visitor facilities;
  • promoting responsible behaviour under the Code;
  • additional informal measures (variously described in the Code as “agreed local information or guidance”), and;
  • formal regulatory measures such as enforcement of wildlife legislation.

These approaches are underpinned by a number of broad principles including engagement with key stakeholders, particularly when proposed measures are likely to be contentious, to maximise support, ownership and compliance. Linked to this, the guidance also encourages an evidence-based approach – and the implications of this are considered further below.

This guidance has informed access management in a range of locations since 2014. The management framework for access in Scotland has not changed significantly during this time and these options remain valid. The wider context has however evolved since this guidance was published.

There has been growing recognition of the benefits of outdoor recreation and a progressive increase in participation, which has been amplified during COVID by an increase in staycations and as new audiences have “discovered” Scotland’s outdoors. The wider benefits of connection with nature are likely to have followed a similar positive trend. NatureScot’s COVID recreation survey in October 2021 indicated that 33% of the population experienced “increased enjoyment of wildlife” while outdoors compared to two years ago. 54% of regular outdoor users agreed that they would like to do more to help look after local wildlife (as opposed to 20% of non-outdoor users), and 38% (as opposed to 11%) were willing to consider volunteering to help nature, in each case representing an increase by comparison with active outdoor users surveyed in 2020.

Increases in recreational activity have also been associated with growing concerns about disturbance of wildlife in some places, which became particularly pronounced during the pandemic. These issues have been highlighted in various settings, sometimes in places that were previously relatively little visited. Key locations have included a number of inland water bodies which have attracted greatly increased levels of water-based recreation, often in places where few alternative options are available. As with the benefits noted above, these pressures may also assume greater significance in the context of the wider biodiversity crisis.

Against this background it would be timely to review the Forum’s guidance on managing access to safeguard sensitive species to ensure that this remains appropriate, balanced and proportionate.

Some key issues

Scope of the guidance

As noted above, the current guidance is explicitly focused on managing access with dogs to safeguard ground-nesting birds, reflecting the concerns that were most prominent in 2014. This focus tends to disguise the broader relevance of the guidance, and it would be helpful to revise this to emphasise its applicability to other wildlife disturbance issues and provide any specific advice which may be useful in these wider contexts. It would also be helpful to make the guidance more concise and give greater prominence to the key messages.

Updating the advice on promoting responsible behaviour

The first two levels in the broad management hierarchy (site planning and promoting responsible behaviour) can often be the most effective ways to reduce wildlife disturbance, and it would be helpful to refresh and update these sections, in part to encourage site managers to give due weight to these options. Until recently, national SOAC campaigns did not prominently feature wildlife disturbance, but activity in this area is now gathering considerable pace (with much scope for further development) and an update would be timely. Linked to this, it would be useful to emphasise the potential reach and impact of approaches based on social media, which have increased substantially since 2014, providing greater access to audiences that would otherwise be difficult to engage.

Additional informal measures/agreed local guidance

Where necessary, the Code notes the possibility of local guidance which asks people to limit their use of access rights in various ways on a minimum time, minimum area basis. Demand for such measures has progressively increased, in particular to respond to visitor pressures and new recreational trends during the pandemic. Future demand for such measures is difficult to predict and will depend on changes in recreational behaviour post-pandemic, including the extent to which trends in, for example, water-based recreation are sustained in the longer term. Recent and current measures of this type are summarised in Annex 2.

Such measures can be contentious and their effectiveness depends in part on ensuring sufficient ownership among stakeholders. It would be helpful to consider at least two related issues.

  • The Code suggests that such measures will be used “in a small number of areas and for very specific reasons” (para 3.46), and this is of course subject to the usual principles of minimum necessary extent and duration. It would be useful to ensure that there is still consensus around the growing use of this approach under current circumstances.
  • It would also be helpful to directly address the relationship between evidence-based and precautionary action. The current guidance emphasises the importance of a clear evidence base, both to objectively assess potential issues and to demonstrate to other stakeholders that measures are justified and proportionate, increasing the likelihood that recreational users will support and comply with them. In practice, however, the case for action is often precautionary to some degree, for example because it is difficult or impossible to provide definitive evidence, or at least to do this quickly enough for timely action. The guidance needs to address this issue, which perhaps underlines the importance of appropriate engagement with stakeholders, being clear about both the evidence and the uncertainties, and a timescale and review process for agreed precautionary action.

There may well be other aspects of the guidance that could usefully be considered, and comments from the Forum would of course be very welcome.

Next steps

It would be helpful to consider how a review of the guidance could be taken forward. A suggested approach might be to convene a small sub-group and support this process with wider consultation on a draft, at the appropriate stage, by correspondence.

As with the original version of the guidance, the review will be informed by input from NatureScot access, species and protected area specialists. It will also be important to ensure full engagement by interested eNGOs. The Forum’s correspondence network should facilitate this input (with the expectation that the full member body representing “conservation” interests could act as a contact point in the usual way), but it would also be helpful to encourage more direct input from this sector as needed.

This review could also be relevant to a wide range of recreational user groups, some of which are not currently represented on the Forum. These groups include open water swimmers and perhaps, to some extent, stand-up paddleboarders. The process should also therefore aim to engage with these users.

NatureScot

January 2022

 

Annex 1: Some relevant extracts from the Scottish Outdoor Access Code (footnotes omitted)

Note: these extracts focus directly on the natural heritage. The Code also contains specific guidance on particular activities, including camping, fires and access to inland water, which refers to the need to avoid wildlife disturbance or wider environmental damage.

Natural heritage

3.43 Scotland’s natural heritage contributes greatly to people’s quality of life and health, and awareness and enjoyment of their surroundings. It adds to local identity and sense of place. The physical environment provides outstanding opportunities for active pursuits. Opportunities to experience the natural heritage are a key part of an improved quality of life for everyone. This, in turn, can help to build people’s awareness and appreciation of its value and importance.

3.44 The diversity and importance of Scotland’s wildlife means that we must look after the special features of our natural heritage, such as rare birds, plants and animals. Looking after these special features can involve management and, in some particularly important places, protection through various national and international designations.

3.45 In enjoying the natural heritage, you can help by remembering that some plants can be easily damaged and that some birds and other animals can be easily alarmed or distressed if you do not take care. Also, be aware that other people might have exercised access rights in the same area before you – repeated visits may result, for example, in a nesting site being abandoned. In exercising access rights, therefore, you must take proper account of the features of the land and water, including the natural heritage, and land being managed for conservation. You can best do this by:

  • not intentionally or recklessly disturbing or destroying plants, eggs, birds and other animals, or geological features;
  • not lingering if it is clear that your presence is causing significant disturbance to a bird or other wild animal;
  • following any agreed information aimed at preventing significant disturbance to protected plants, birds or other animals, or at preventing the spread of erosion in more sensitive areas;
  • taking extra care to avoid disturbing more sensitive birds and animals, particularly during their breeding season; and by
  • taking your litter away with you.

3.46 Some types of irresponsible behaviour towards wild birds, animals and plants are an offence under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and related legislation (see Annex 1 for further details). For example, you must not intentionally disturb specially protected birds while nesting, or their young, and you must not intentionally uproot any wild plant. In a small number

of areas and for very specific reasons, such as to protect a rare plant or bird, you might be asked to follow a specific route or not to exercise your access rights. In these areas, management might take several forms (see Part 6 of the Code for more information on the types of management that you might encounter):

  • Voluntary agreements between land managers and recreational governing bodies or clubs. For example, climbers might be requested not to climb particular cliffs or sections of cliffs during the breeding season through the voluntary agreement of the land manager and recreational groups.
  • Scottish Natural Heritage might have put up signs asking you to exercise access rights in a particular way or to avoid a specific area or route in order to protect the natural heritage.
  • A local authority or other public body, such as Scottish Natural Heritage, might have introduced byelaws or other measures designed to prevent damage or to help conserve the natural heritage.

To exercise access rights responsibly, follow any requirements placed upon you and this will help you to avoid causing significant damage or disturbance.

3.47 Some places are more prone to damage from recreational activities and so you might need to take extra care. For sensitive natural habitats, such as riverbanks, loch shores, marshes, blanket and raised bogs, mountain tops, steep slopes and coastal dunes, the key need is usually to prevent damage, such as erosion, as much as possible.

3.48 Broken glass, tins and plastic bags are dangerous to people and animals and are unsightly. You must take your litter away with you. Doing so will reduce the hazard to people or animals, and will add to people’s enjoyment of the outdoors.

 

SOAC engagement with schools - update paper

Discussion at the Forum has frequently highlighted the strategic importance of working with schools to promote the Scottish Outdoor Access Code, and this has been re-emphasised in the context of visitor management during COVID. This audience can be difficult to engage in view of multiple pressures on the curriculum, and the operating circumstances of schools during the pandemic effectively made this impractical. However, we are now re-initiating this work – and this note summarises our proposed approach and work to date.

SOAC Education resources were produced by NatureScot (SNH) in 2007. These have been well-used and remain popular, but are now somewhat dated in style and are not fully consistent with current teaching methods. The initial objective of this project is to review these, in consultation with teachers and other providers of outdoor learning, and update them for use in schools in the Spring and Summer terms in 2022.

The main audience for this work is the formal education sector (schools and colleges), but outdoor educators working in less formal contexts are also an important target group. In each case the aim is to develop/reinforce educators’ understanding of the Code and provide them with the resources needed to promote it to young people.

While NatureScot will lead this work, we see this as being co-designed with a range of partners including those involved in the VS-chaired VMS sub-group on education and marketing.

This project is overseen by Dougie Pollok and Mark Wrightham with Susan Webster as the Access Education Project Officer.

Thus far we have had communications with and from -

  • Members of the NAF – for which thanks for your responses -  Scottish Land and Estates, Ramblers, Council Access officers and Rangers.
  • Members of the Scottish Advisory Panel for Outdoor Education
  • Loch Lomond and Trossachs National Park
  • Duke of Edinburgh Award Scheme
  • East Ayrshire Learning Outdoors Support team
  • Wild Scotland
  • Big Pond –currently contracted by the Scottish Outdoor Access Network to produce CPD for those involved in delivering Outdoor Access work.
  • John Muir Award
  • Education Scotland

A survey has gone out to Ranger services via SCRA (18 responses thus far) and a blog for teachers will go into the next Education Scotland newsletter. Both of these appeal for views and advice with regard to the types of resources that are effective in practice and which we could provide. It is intended to set up two focus groups to help inform us as we go forward.

 In the light of feedback to date, we are currently proposing to:

 

  • update the current activity packs to strengthen their links to the curriculum and make them more accessible in an online and interactive format for use in classrooms – Education Scotland have advised that Powerpoint and Sways are good formats for use by teachers
  • produce a useful poster sized infographic on the access code for use on notice boards in schools – rangers and teachers have indicated that printable posters are ideal for use in and out of the classroom
  • link to a range of resources including good quality up to date images of good and bad practice, and existing material such as the Young Scot videos
  • promote these resources widely in conjunction with Education Scotland and through other channels.

Feedback suggests that we should aim to create an authentic, quality resource which teachers and groups can interpret and respond to in different creative ways. This should foster conversations and encourage interaction and engagement, with less focus on a fixed product and more on a process, with the SOAC being the source of information for these activities.

Any comments and feedback from Forum members would of course be welcome – to Susan Webster ([email protected]).

Confirmed Minutes - 56th Meeting

Virtual meeting: 2nd February 2022

 -

Representatives

Organisation

1

Don Milton

Convenor - National Access Forum  (NAF)

2

Janice Winning

Secretary - National Access Forum  (NAF)

3

Frank Spencer-Nairn

Association of Deer Management Groups (ADMG)

4

Helene Mauchlen

British Horse Society Scotland (BHSS)

5

Paul Timms

Cycling UK Scotland

6

Lois Bayne-Jardine

Historic Houses (HH)

7

Stephen Jenkinson

Kennel Club / Scottish Kennel Club

8

Angus Duncan

Local Authorities

9

Nick Cole

Local Access Forum (LAFs)

10

Davie Black

Mountaineering Scotland (MS)

11

Gemma Cooper

National Farmers Union Scotland (NFUS)

12

Sue Hilder

National Park Authorities (LLTNP)

13

Alan Macpherson

NatureScot

14

Mark Wrightham

NatureScot

15

Richard Armstrong

Paths for All Partnership (PfA)

16

Insp. Alan Dron

Police Scotland

17

Helen Todd

Ramblers Scotland (RS)

18

Duncan Orr-Ewing*

RSPB

19

Jonathan Kitching

(SAPOE)

20

Stephen Reeves

Scottish Countryside Rangers Association (SCRA)

21

Hugh McNish

Scottish Forestry

22

Bob Frost*

Scottish Forestry

23

Amy Nicolson*

Scottish Forestry

24

Ian Cowe*

Scottish Forestry

25

Malcolm Duce

Scottish Government (SG)

26

Simon Ovenden

Scottish Land & Estates (SLE)

27

Stephan Hennig

Scotways

28

Gillian Kyle

Sportscotland

29

Roger Scrutton

The Scottish Sports Association (SSA)

30

Roy Barlow

The Woodland Trust

 *in attendance as additional representatives or guests.

Item 1 – Welcome & Introductions:

The Convenor opened the virtual meeting welcoming everyone to the Forum. He introduced a number of guests joining the meeting: Ian Cowe; Bob Frost; Amy Nicolson (Scottish Forestry); Duncan Orr Ewing (RSPB) and new representatives Sue Hilder (LLTNP) and Hugh McNish (Scottish Forestry).

Apologies: Andrew Hopetoun (Historic Houses Association), Colin Shedden (BASC), Gordon McKilligen (NFUS), Rona Gibb (PFA), Eileen Stuart (NatureScot), Victoria Brooks (Wild Scotland), Adam Streeter-Smith (CNPA), Grant Dollier (SCA).

Item 2 – Minutes, Action points and matters arising from previous meeting

1. Minutes: - the revised unconfirmed minutes of 22 September 2021 previously circulated were approved with one clarification (para. 24) the growth in dog ownership: 48% was a UK figure.

2. Action points: –

AP 55/1: Members interested in participating in a small meeting to discuss paths and IPA future funding issues are requested to contact the secretary. Discharged: names of those who were interested had been passed to Bridget Jones and a meeting was likely to take place in mid-March.

AP 55/2: Forum members are requested to highlight any omissions or changes required to the existing list of full and corresponding members. Discharged: no changes were reported.

AP55/3: FLS to finalise the guide and send it to the secretary to circulate and to add to the SOAC website. Partially Discharged: the finalised guide had been received from FLS although discussions were on-going on where to host the guidance on the SOAC Website or via a link to the FLS or Kennel Club website. A link would be circulated to members once this was complete.

3. Matters arising: -

E bikes – The Convenor reported on feedback from Graeme McLean on the final stages of the UK wide research on E- bikes where a survey of riders has just been completed. Graeme offered to come to the June meeting to discuss the findings of the research.

AP56/1: NAFsec to invite Graeme Mclean to the June meeting to discuss the E- bikes research.

Convenor Update - The Convenor reported on two meetings he had attended; the National Forestry Stakeholder Group meeting on ’decarbonisation’ where he emphasised the importance of forward thinking, engagement and early consultation to ensure minimal disruption for responsible access and the first of a number of National Beaver Strategy workshops. No direct Access issues were raised at this workshop and it was attended by several organisation which also have NAF membership. 

Membership Review – The NAF secretary reported that there had been some slippage in commencing the first stage of the membership review. The review would commence shortly starting with the recreation and land management bodies and the findings brought to the NAF meeting in June 2022.  

Item 3 - Access & Roads working group

4. The Convenor provided an update on the work of the ‘Access and roads’ NAF working group which had met for a second time on 9 December to discuss the content of the proposed NAF guidance (note of the meeting previously circulated). He explained that concise draft guidance produced by Mark Wrightham had now been circulated to the working group and comments received. Mark explained that the guidance aimed to ease the tensions between the 2 sets of legislation. The intention is to keep the guidance brief, refer to more detailed guidance and to focus on key messages about access rights and multi-use. The guidance is aimed at local authority roads and planning staff involved in the development of access routes and active travel especially in urban and peri-urban areas. It will need to refer to changes in the Highway Code and give examples of positive integrations of access rights. It would be important to engage with others as necessary to promote the guidance to these audiences.

5. In discussion, Simon Ovenden asked about reference to the responsibilities of the access taker. Mark confirmed that access responsibilities especially in relation to multi use access and treating other users with respect would certainly be covered. Sue Hilder, mentioned her experience of working within a council transport planning team and offered her input to the working group. Jonathan Kitching made reference to single track roads as a useful example of the hierarchy of road users, especially in light of the recent Highway Code revisions. The Convenor confirmed that the working group would prepare a final draft of the guidance which would then be circulated to the Forum for comments.

AP 56/2: ‘Access and Roads’ NAF working group to prepare a final draft of the guidance for circulation to the Forum for comments.

Item 4:  Cumulative impacts of camping

6. Mark Wrightham highlighted an issue around the cumulative impact of camping, which had been identified at the Visitor Management Strategy Co-ordination Group, and sought views from the Forum on how this issue might be tackled for example by identifying changes to messaging and or local management. He outlined possible communication ideas such as national messaging aimed at individuals e.g. ‘Is your tent one too many?’ to help avoid cumulative impacts, or encouraging access authorities to provide guidance on capacity at particular local places. Mark offered to provide a background paper initially to the NAF camping sub group for consideration and the group would then provide recommendations to the Forum on a way forward.  Initial comments were sought from the Forum.

7. Davie Black welcomed this proposal saying that clear communication on this issue would be helpful. He mentioned a couple of scenarios to illustrate cumulative impacts i.e. a few campers in the same place over multiple visits, to lots of campers in the same place at the same time. Simon Ovenden said that current communication focused on visitors once they have arrived in the area while communication and raising awareness needed to be made further in advance. He questioned how should we ask people to move on and what consideration should be given to the potential impacts of displacement in new areas. Malcolm Duce stated that LLTNPA are partnering in the development of an app to help provide information to campers to help avid hotspots before they arrive.

8. Mark agreed that it was extremely important to provide national messaging in advance and that this could be backed up by local messaging and measures where required, including provision of suitable managed facilities for camping. He added that displacement impacts could be avoided if people were directed to suitable locations. Sue Hilder highlighted the organisational effort around the implementation of camping bylaws at Loch Lomond from collecting funds, managing the camping and the numbers of staff involved to make this work. The Convenor said that LLTNP reports did not show much evidence of displacement, and that the camping management bylaws have had some success. Alan Dron mentioned that East Lothian Council were also considering bylaws in relation to camping along the coast. He added that there had been displacement into the Pentland Hills when these coastal areas are full.

AP 56/3: Mark Wrightham to circulate a paper to the camping sub group to look at the cumulative impacts of camping; potential actions could then be considered by the Forum.

Item 5: Woodland consultation and access:

9. Hugh McNish thanked the Forum for the opportunity to follow up previous discussions on woodland consultation and access. His colleague Ian Cowe, outlined Scottish Forestry’s woodland consultation process, (Scottish Forestry - Consultations) for applications including; woodland creation, historic approvals, forest planning and EIA requirements. New arrangements are in place with the onus on the applicant to engage with consultees at the earliest stage, with stakeholders notified and comments invited when applications are published on the public register. He emphasised that forests are managed for multi-purpose; for social and environmental benefits including public access as well as for timber production.

10. Ian went on to demonstrate the application processes on the following consultation pages where consultees can access all the relevant information about applications including EIAS on the three Scottish Forestry - Public registers. Stakeholders are notified of all new applications and these are published on the register (support and regulation sections) for a 28 day period where comments are invited. Individual applications are listed along with boundaries and forest plans/maps and further detailed information can be requested from local conservancies. It was not a planning portal style system at present but that work was underway to improve the process.

11. In discussion, Nick Cole confirmed that the recent consultation changes with Scottish Forestry staff were working well, but developers were still not contacting some Local Access Fora (LAFs) where advice on for example: boundary fences; use of gates and impacts from harvesting on local access were all areas where earlier engagement would be helpful. Davie Black agreed saying proposals from consultants were often a bit late. He explained that desk studies might pick up the main Munro routes but that other informal popular routes were often missed including safe routes required to descend mountains in poor weather or in emergencies. This was particularly relevant to the inclusion of sufficient crossing points along deer fencing. Ian confirmed that the grant scheme provided for gates in deer fencing and associated costs so there were no major cost implications for landowners. He agreed to highlight better provision for access routes, including safe routes off the hill in emergencies, and would encourage case officers to engage with the agents on these issues. Hugh offered to share LAF contacts and user group details to applicants and encourage earlier consultation.

12. Stephen Jenkinson asked what guidance was given in relation to ‘accessibility’, saying it was important to not only consider who is taking access now but also who might be taking access in the future. Provision of sufficient gates was an issue for horse riders but also those with mobility issues and he suggested we need to get the best outcome with public money. He also asked about other opportunities to make new loops suggesting using data from apps like ‘Strava’ to identify possible new routes. Ian confirmed that providing accessible gates for all users was their standard, whereas case officers could only influence rather than specify the inclusion of new routes perhaps with the exception of more urban settings with higher usage where funding of new routes was encouraged. Roger Scrutton asked what powers Scottish Forestry had to ensure gates were implemented to the correct standard. Ian replied that they had a lot of influence due to the significant values of the grants awarded and that gates were checked during an inspection programme with payments withheld for significant breaches.

13. The Convenor reported that consultation with LAFs varied between regions and asked if this related to new staff and training. Ian confirmed that consultations were over seen by 2 senior staff and that a programme of training all new officers was ongoing. The principle that each office was adopting should be the same but he agreed to look into any regionally specific issues. He added that the new process was still bedding in and that more could be done to encourage up front consultation within the sector. Helen Todd mentioned a new SOAN training course designed to look at access rights for anyone with access in their job remit. Ian said he would promote this amongst SF staff and their agent network.

Item 6: Access and wildlife disturbance:

14. Mark Wrightham introduced this item and sought the views of the Forum on a review of the NAF access and wildlife disturbance guidance. He said that this issue, whilst not new, had increased in profile recently especially on inland water bodies with the rise in paddle boarding and open water swimming. He referred to relevant sections in the Code saying that the current NAF guidance was aimed primarily at access with dogs to protect ground nesting birds, but suggested that it could be broadened out to cover other types of wildlife disturbance.

15. A review would identify which parts of the guidance was relevant in the current context of the biodiversity crisis etc., and consider the hierarchy of management options including infrastructure provision, passive non-promotion of areas, promoting messages from the Code, agreed local guidance and finally regulatory approaches. He mentioned the importance of an evidence base to demonstrate disturbance, but also the challenges that can arise when evidence is unavoidably limited. Precautionary approaches are sometimes therefore proposed at sensitive sites and the guidance needed to reconcile this tension. He suggested shortening the current guidance to ensure that key messages came through and thinking about how to promote the guidance widely. He welcomed views on this approach and volunteers to be part of a sub group including additional stakeholders. Malcolm Duce asked whether we should be bringing responsible lighting of fires into this piece of work, action on which would seem precautionary rather than evidence based.

16. The Scottish Wild Land Group (by correspondence) welcomed the review of the guidance and consideration of ways to get the messages across recommending it should be included within the school curriculum. They highlighted disturbance from access with dogs in coastal areas, particularly the intertidal zone when over wintering migrant birds are present. They raised the issue of dog fouling and the damage caused to wildlife from pathogens in the faeces and suggested one example of good practice was the long established Mountaineering Scotland advice ‘Climbing on the crags’. The Angling Association (also by correspondence) highlighted the increase in paddle boarding and gorge jumping which was affecting fish spawning areas.

17. Duncan Orr–Ewing listed a number of areas of concern identified by the RSPB which included: access to inland water bodies resulting in the disturbance of very small breeding populations of divers and Slavonian grebes; access to beach areas in the breeding season disturbing terns and ring plovers, especially from access with dogs. He said there were particular issues on the islands (Western Isles and in Orkney), with disturbance of ground nesting birds, wintering wildfowl and breeding birds on beaches especially from people with campervans and dogs. Birds on estuarine sites, and capercaillie in woodlands were also vulnerable to disturbance from access with dogs and breeding raptors from climbing on crags. He recommended releasing guidance quickly as timing was critical to influence behaviour for the coming season.

18. Stephen Jenkinson offered to be on the sub group to bring experience from England’s coastal path projects where there is intense pressure on coastal areas. He also suggested including views from the Royal Yachting Association and others associated with marine access. The key was to think about managing access not restricting access, by focusing on people management, and providing positive alternatives along with good examples on the ground. For example on NNRS, e.g. Forvie and Tentsmuir where good information is provided to help people reduce potential disturbance.

19. Davie Black asked if the guidance would cover other wildlife disturbance as well as birds. He supported the proposed approach for local guidance but said that signs can be very variable and are often left up too long. Instead he recommended that measures should be proportionate and that any precautionary measures should be time limited. He agreed that the guidance on’ climbing on crags’ could be refreshed to reflect the current context.

20. Simon Ovenden highlighted problems of displacement where additional measures to restrict activities had been introduced at NNRs thereby creating significantly increased visitor disturbance pressures elsewhere, despite the conservation designations at these locations (SSSI, SAC, RAMSAR etc.). Examples given of sites where pressures had increased were; Loch of the Lowes to Loch Clunie, and Loch Kinord to Loch of Skene. Other designated sites should not be sacrificial but alternatives did need to be considered he added. Sue Hilder mentioned disturbance of fresh water mussel beds in Loch Voil from paddle boarding and swimming, suggesting it as a possible case study. Frank Spencer Nairn suggested the possibility of an app of endangered species which highlighted sensitive times of year and the types of relevant disturbance. The Convenor added that information on the locality of species depending on the time of the year could help people to understand the issues. Duncan Orr Ewing recommended a precautionary approach, stating that all wild birds and nests are protected but it was also important to raise awareness of the signs birds use when under distress such as calling loudly, aerial attacks etc.

21. Helen Todd asked to be included on the sub group adding that the delivery of the guidance is also key, it was important to have rangers on the ground to interface with the public to reduce the pressures on wildlife. Steven Reeves agreed, adding that various apps could be developed to provide alerts for wildlife sensitive to outdoor access and these could be updated seasonally. He also suggested working with Walk Highland and other website providers to flag up seasonal issues as well as working with local ranger services who could step up patrols at certain times of year.

22. Gillian Kyle suggested that there was maybe a way to contact open water swimmers through Scottish Swimming and outdoor swimming coaches although reaching paddle boarders was likely to be harder. The transfer of invasive species was an issue and the importance of cleaning equipment between uses especially those visiting multiple sites. Nick Cole volunteered to be part of the sub group and endorsed the development of a specific App but questioned whether an App could really present all the necessary information that was needed especially for new comers and single users.

23. The Convenor agreed that the best way forward would be through convening a sub group but that it should be time sensitive to have the required impact identifying what could be achieved in the short term as well as setting out longer term objectives. He also volunteered to be part of the sub group to consider this issue. Mark Wrightham reminded the Forum that existing guidance is available and remained valid pending the proposed review, and noted that current Code communication would be stepped up for the current nesting season. He also noted the importance of planning in the wider context to take account of displacement and to direct access to less sensitive areas. Alan Dron identified other possible representatives for the group including Andy Turner & Billy Turner wildlife crime co-ordinators. Mark noted the need to involve various relevant specialist in NatureScot.

AP 56/4: Mark Wrightham to set up a small sub group to revise the access and wildlife disturbance guidance and report to the Forum on any recommendations.

Item 7: Mapping Scotland’s Paths:

24. Helen Todd provided an update on the ‘Scottish paths mapping project’, which began in August 2019 with the creation of a data base to bring together datasets of all existing paths and an App for volunteers to audit these paths. To date over 200 volunteers using the APP had audited around 5,000 paths (approx. 3% of the network) and captured data on a further 1,000 paths. There has been considerable public and political support for the project as demonstrated from social media reach (more than 31,000 views of the launch video online) and widespread national media coverage – radio, TV and print including a lengthy primetime feature on BBC Scotland’s Landward programme.

25. Helen said that Ramblers Scotland (RS) was aware of concerns expressed by the National Farmers Union of Scotland (NFUS), Scottish Land and Estates (SLE) and the National Sheep Association Scotland (NSAS) and that meetings with these bodies had taken place. One concern that had arisen was to do with owners’ liability and whether the liability should rest with the path promoter. She suggested that this issue was of wider relevance than the Scottish Paths Mapping project but related to routes in guide books and promotion of routes more generally. She asked if NatureScot could revisit guidance on this matter.  

26. Simon Ovenden welcomed the increased dialogue between RS and SLE, however his main concerns centred on the unverified data sourced and presented on ‘open street’ base maps and insufficient prior consultation with landowners. He supported the concept behind the project but outlined concerns from landowners about route inaccuracies especially in busy farmyards, quarries and maintenance issues of paths. Gemma Cooper agreed that the recent dialogue with the NFUS had been helpful saying members recognise the need to facilitate responsible access but that liability was a genuine worry. She recommended a more collaborative approach prior to the listing of new paths.

27. Stephen Jenkinson highlighted other user generated content, such as Strava, which details routes people have taken and is recorded via smart phones and watches. This data is broadly available to anyone accessing the App. Land managers should be aware that all of this data exists already and that there is a right of responsible access on most land. The National Sheep Association Scotland (by correspondence) recommended more assistance for land managers to help them deal with access and education of SOAC when things go wrong. In terms of liability, Malcolm Duce suggested that every case is likely to be different and that anyone can take their own legal advice on this matter. Mark Wrightham agreed that NatureScot would investigate the legal position on owner liability around third party promotion of routes.

AP 56/5: NatureScot to investigate the legal position on liability for third part promotion of paths.

Item 10: Forthcoming meetings & agenda items:

NAF/LAF virtual Autumn Joint meeting –

28. The Convenor introduced this item referring to the summary note of the joint NAF/LAF meeting held on 25 November, previously circulated. He had received feedback from participants saying that they welcomed the greater proportion of time given to LAF issues and the opportunity to discuss these in small breakout sessions. He sought feedback from the Forum on the timing and content of the next meeting and whether it should be a virtual meeting, face to face or a hybrid and the potential venue. As the last joint meeting took place in late November he asked if an autumn meeting might give more time for preparation. He also raised the question of how best to follow up the actions raised by LAFs at the meeting not all of which related directly to the current NAF work plan.

29. Paul Timms agreed that an autumn meeting made sense. In terms of location, Battleby was very central and he supported the suggestion of a hybrid meeting. Nick Cole agreed that Battleby was a central location with good facilities and that an autumn meeting would allow for better planning. He asked if the hybrid option would allow for breakout sessions. The Convenor asked for further thoughts by email in the next three weeks and volunteers to help with the planning of the NAF/LAF autumn event, including liaison with LAFs on potential themes.

AP 56/6: Volunteers for a small working group and/or ideas requested for the NAF/LAF autumn meeting to be sent to the NAFsec.

Future NAF meetings – Ideas for future agenda items should be sent to the NAF Secretary.

Any Other Business

30. SOAC engagement with schools - The Convenor highlighted the work currently underway by NatureScot to renew and support SOAC engagement with schools and young people. A paper on this had been previously circulated.  Members were encourage to get in touch with [email protected] to discuss the delivery of SOAC advice and the resources already used or what new ones maybe required.

31. Deer Management - Frank Spencer Nairn said that the Association of Deer Management Groups (ADMG) would like to present a paper to the Forum on 8 June.  Members would be aware that the subject of increased disturbance from access (individual and commercial) during the stalking season was currently being investigated by the ADMG. Feedback from consultation with the deer groups and recommendations for changes either in general or in hot spot areas would be presented to the Forum for their views. Tom Turnbull Chair of the ADMG would attend in person along with Frank (remotely).

32. Restrictive signage - Nick Cole highlighted the proliferation of restrictive signage that was arising on core paths in Perth & Kinross asking if it was happening elsewhere. The misleading signs say; ‘Private - no public right of way’ and are not Code compliant but do deter access on a core path. He asked if there were plans to reinforce the advice on signage. The Convenor replied saying that the case law from Drumlean proved that anything that deters the user is not LRSA compliant and that the access authority should seek removal of the signs. Helen Todd mentioned that SORA were collecting examples of this type of inappropriate signage.

33. Riverside Fencing - Helene Mauchlen mentioned an issue that had been brought to the Scottish Borders LAF where fencing of large parts of the banks of the River Tweed was preventing access especially for horse riders at crossing points. The fencing had been erected 10m back from the riverbank to prevent poaching from cattle to avoid £600 fines. She asked if the Forum could write to SEPA to remind them of the access legislation. The Convenor said that he had discussed the issue with Eddie Palmer from the Scottish Canoe Association who would be investigating potential solutions and would get back to the Forum.

34. Better Places Funding - Stephan Hennig raised the lack of funds currently identified for visitor management including a Better Places Green Recovery Fund (BPGRF) for 2022. He mentioned the very positive impact that additional rangers had on managing outdoor access and asked if NAF could write to Scottish Government to ask for a reconsider this position. Malcolm Duce confirmed that all of the SG money was currently earmarked whereas other members thought that £2M was a small amount to find. The Convenor agreed to write to the minister Kate Forbes in support of funding for visitor management including the BPGRF.

Update: SG have recently confirmed that funding has been identified for NS to deliver a third round of BPGRF which will cover seasonal rangers and visitor management operational staff. An announcement will be made in March and details provided on the NatureScot website.

Close - The Convenor closed the meeting thanking the Forum for their contributions.

Date of Next Meetings -      

  • NAF – Wednesday 8 June 2022
  • NAF – Wednesday 21 September 2022
  • NAF/LAF Joint meeting – Autumn date tbc

Summary Action Points

AP56/1: NAF sec to invite Graeme Mclean to the June NAF meeting to update the Forum on the findings of the E-Bikes research.

AP 56/2: ‘Access and Roads’ NAF working group to prepare a final draft of the guidance for circulation to the Forum for comments.

AP 56/3: Mark Wrightham to circulate a paper to the camping sub group to look at the cumulative impacts of camping; potential actions could then be considered by the Forum.

AP 56/4: Mark Wrightham to set up a small sub group to revise the access and wildlife disturbance guidance and report to the Forum on any recommendations.

AP 56/5: NatureScot to investigate the legal position on liability for third part promotion of paths.

AP 56/6: Volunteers for a small working group and or ideas requested for the NAF/LAF autumn meeting to be sent to the NAFsec.

National Access Forum Update - February 2022

Summary of main topics - National Access Forum virtual meeting 2 February 2022

Access & roads working group -

An update on the progress of the NAF Access and Roads working group was presented to the Forum. The group met on the 9 December 2021 where the content of NAF guidance was discussed. Concise draft guidance has now been circulated to the working group and comments received. The intention is to keep the guidance brief, refer to more detailed guidance and to focus on key messages about multi use. The guidance will be aimed at local authority roads and planning staff involved in the development of access routes and active travel especially in urban and peri-urban areas. A final draft will be circulated to the Forum for comment.

Cumulative impacts of camping -

Naturescot highlighted an issue around the cumulative impact of camping, which had been identified at the Visitor Management Strategy Group, and sought the views from the Forum on how this issue might be tackled. Possible ideas include; National messaging aimed at individuals i.e. ‘Is your tent one too many?’, and access authorities providing guidance on capacity at particular local places. It was agreed that the NAF camping sub group would initially discuss this issue and provide recommendations to the Forum on a way forward.  

Woodland consultation and access -

Scottish Forestry outlined the woodland consultation process for applications including; woodland creation, historic approvals, forest planning and EIA requirements. They emphasised that forests are managed for multi-purpose; for social and environmental benefits including public access as well as for timber production. However, the onus is now on the applicant to engage with consultees, at the earliest stage, with stakeholders notified and comments invited when applications are published on the public register. Members reported that notifications were working well but that consultations from applicants were often too late (especially with harvesting proposals) to highlight access opportunities and potential restrictions and that LAFs were often not consulted. Issues around deer fencing, crossing points for informal routes and emergency access off the hills were raised. Accessibility and opportunities to make new routes were also highlighted. Comments were welcomed and would be passed onto case officers and applicants, as well as LAF details, to encourage greater and earlier consultation.

Access and wildlife disturbance -

NatureScot sought the views of the Forum on access and wildlife disturbance guidance as this issue had increased in profile recently especially on inland water bodies with the rise in paddle boarding and open water swimming. The current guidance aimed primarily at access with dogs to protect ground nesting birds remains relevant, but it was suggested that it could be broadened out to cover other types of wildlife disturbance and a hierarchy of measures to manage this. Forum members were supportive and endorsed the setting up of a NAF sub group to work through the issues and revise the guidance.  Disturbance of wintering wild fowl on intertidal areas and to breeding birds on beaches (terns and ringed plover) were highlighted along with disturbance to breeding raptors from climbing on crags for inclusion. Members also suggested the need to use good access management examples from Nature Reserves and other areas already experiencing access pressures to demonstrate good practice. Whilst it was accepted that measures sometimes needed to be precautionary, members said it was also important that they were proportionate.

Mapping Scotland’s Paths –

Ramblers Scotland provided an update on the Scottish paths mapping project which includes; creating a database of tens of thousands miles of paths, a range of technical tools for volunteers for auditing and data capture, recruiting over 200 volunteer, auditing of 5,000 paths, (around 3% of the network) and capturing data on over 1,000 additional paths as well as considerable publicity and political support for the project. Members highlighted some of the ongoing concerns around landowner consultation, maintenance and liability but welcomed the increased dialogue on these issues.

Membership Review –

The NAF secretary reported that there had been some slippage in commencing the first stage of the membership review. The review would commence shortly starting with the recreation and land management bodies and the findings brought to the NAF meeting in June 2022.  

NAF/LAF Joint meeting –

A summary note of the joint NAF/LAF meeting held on 25 November had been prepared and feedback from the event as well as how to take forward issues raised was sought from Members. LAFs had reported that they welcomed the greater time allocated for discussion of LAF issues and that the breakout sessions had worked well. It was agreed that feedback to the LAFs on issues raised and the actions required would be carried out where applicable. Discussion centred on when and where to hold the next meeting and whether it could be a face to face or hybrid meeting. As a joint meeting had been held relatively recently, it was agreed that the next NAF/LAF meeting should be held in the autumn to give a small working group time to prepare for the event, and consult with the LAFs on the focus or themes for the event.

SOAC engagement with Schools -

The Forum was informed of the work currently underway by NatureScot to renew and support SOAC engagement with schools and young people. Members were encourage to get in touch to discuss the delivery of SOAC advice and the resources already used or what new ones maybe required.

Future NAF meetings –

The next Forum meetings are: NAF meeting Wednesday 8 June 2022 and Wednesday 21 September 2022 at Battleby and a NAF/LAF Joint meeting to be held in the Autumn (tbc).

For more information or comment on any of the above topics, please contact the NAF Secretary – Ali Tait ([email protected]; 01463 701662). Further information can be found on the National Access Forum pages.