Bog Myrtle & Peat

In a recent poll to identify the best place for a new National Park in Scotland, Galloway beat a number of other options by a country mile. That poll was more like a rhetorical device than any real attempt to measure public opinion, but it suddenly seems like we’re first in line with a real chance of designation fast approaching.

I did some work for the National Park Association several years ago. They’re good and they want the best for this place, but I don’t hear much support for the idea from people I meet and work with nowadays. In fact when it comes to farming friends, I find a fair measure of opposition to the idea, and many people who didn’t even know it was up for discussion. Perhaps the arguments in favour of a National Park are clear for tourism, but the case for other industries is almost completely unmade.

There’s no question that Galloway is under terrific pressure right now. The landscape is falling apart, and biodiversity is in freefall. Working with the two other National Parks in Scotland on a range of projects, I have often looked enviously at their access to support and resources, but these places were designated as National Parks to protect them from their own success as tourist destinations. Galloway has the opposite problem; there are no tourists here, and the principal threats arise from the ramped-up commercial interests of government backed industries.

I bemoan the collapse of Galloway, but from a strategic national perspective, this place is doing just fine. We pour money into the Scottish economy, and it has suited several consecutive Governments to ignore what that cash has cost the people on the ground. A handful of individuals are making a lot of money out of this place, so it seems unlikely that the Government would create a National Park with sufficient powers to upset that applecart. Talking to employees of the Cairngorms National Park Authority earlier this week, I also came away with a sense that people overestimate how much power National Parks really have anyway. They can focus and facilitate good practices, but this work is based more on carrots than sticks. Discussing issues around the conservation of wading birds in the Cairngorms, it became hard to see how a National Park would help us to address similar problems here in Galloway. Elsewhere in Scotland, Loch Lomond and the Trossachs National Park has failed to conserve wader numbers since its inception, leading to a point where the Authority is now initiating a pivot away from formerly iconic species like lapwings and curlews. I often take too narrow-a-view on wading birds, but it seems clear that National Parks are nothing like a panacea for challenging conservation issues.

Following these concerns, the worst outcome of all would be a National Park in Galloway that is created as an apologetic sop to the southwest. A watered down park like that would be little more than an exercise in branding – like putting icing on a cowpat, providing money to develop tourism but without the power required to create the sustainable future we urgently need. It’s time for a root and branch rethink of what Galloway is for, but in promoting caravan parks and walking routes, the discussion has fallen far short.

At a more foundational level, I’m also uncomfortable with a model which leads us towards a more binary countryside, protecting “good bits” of a landscape and forgetting everything else. Even if a National Park was designated in Galloway tomorrow, it would not cover the entire area. It would fix on the Glenkens or the Dee down to Kirkcudbright; one of the well-provided-for pretty bits where good things are already happening. I live in one of the dowdy bits of Galloway, away from the National Scenic Areas. There’s a nasty sense that if we receive some high-profile designation in Galloway, it will permit decision makers to dust their hands and feel like they’ve done their bit for the southwest, allowing the slightly needy to access resources ahead of the downright deprived.

So far the proposals have been extremely elastic, centring on an attempt to establish the principle that designation is what we want. That makes sense; it’s an open consultation. But recent political developments have brought the issues into very short timeframe, and it’s no longer enough to accept every suggestion of policy, power or proposed boundary with the inclusive but rather vague confirmation that “anything is possible”. I can’t be the only one who finds it hard to endorse an idea before it’s really been blocked into shape, and while clamour grows to claim “our” designation, it’s not easy to see if this is a genuine groundswell of enthusiasm or just something that’s been made to look like one.

Chewing this over, I realise that I’ve moved from initially positive to undecided, and now I find myself a little against the idea. I’m completely convinced we have problems; my doubt is that a Park would solve them.