National Access Forum - 14 February 2024

National Access Forum – 62nd meeting on Wednesday 14th February 2024, 10:30 – 13:20

Hybrid meeting – In-person at Battleby and Virtual via MS Teams

1. Welcome, introductions and apologies – Don Milton – 10:30 - 10:45
    
2. NatureScot CEO – Francesca Osowska – 10:45 - 11:25
    
3. Charging for access/access for education – Don Milton – 11:25 - 11:35
    
4. Resources for Access sub-group update – Rona Gibb/Helen Todd – 11:35 - 11:45
    
5. Snowsports touring code and managed resorts – Davie Black – 11:45 - 12:00

Comfort break – 12:00 - 12:10    

6. Managing access in areas of wildlife sensitivity – Caroline Fyfe – 12:10 - 12:30
    
7. Fires Messaging – Bridget Jones – 12:30 - 12:50
    
8. NAF/LAF 2024 meeting – Helen Todd – 12:50 - 13:00
    
9. Minutes of previous meetings, action points and matters arising – Don Milton – 13:00 - 13:15

AP 56/5: NatureScot to investigate the legal position on liability for third party promotion of paths. On-going: Feb 2023 update: Bridget Jones confirms NatureScot has prepared a draft brief and will be seeking legal advice, using our legal advisors, with a response anticipated by early spring - on hold

AP 61/1: NAFSec to make link to UKFS consultation responses available to members - discharged

AP 61/2: Members to self-nominate to be part of the sub-group by end of October, contact NAFSec - discharged

AP 61/3: Members to identify areas with issues, similar to that in the Pentlands with regard to organised events, in their regions/memberships to determine if this is a local or national issue. Provide details by correspondence to NAFSec ([email protected]) - discharged

AP 61/4: NAFSec to add clarifying statement of ScotWays position to minutes of 60th NAF meeting - discharged 

AP 61/5: Members to identify more context about where/why issues regarding access for education arise. Provide details by correspondence to NAFSec ([email protected]) - discharged

AP 61/6: NAFSec to distribute VMS update presentation to members - discharged

AP 61/7: NAFSec to give feedback on fires from Co-Ordination group after next meeting - discharged, agenda item 7

10. Forthcoming meetings and agenda items – Don Milton – 13:15 - 13:25

• NAF meeting – 5th June 2024 – Battleby
• Agenda Item – SOAC Education Resource Pack

11. A.O.B. – 13:25 - 13:35

• Nick Cole - Request from Angus LAF
• John Urquhart
• Helen Todd

Close 13:35

Following increasing concern over wildfires during the 2023 season, the visitor management co-ordination group has considered what changes are needed. The following two actions are proposed and are of direct interest to the National Access Forum as they relate to SOAC based fires messaging and to the NAF endorsed “Lighting Fires and Access Rights…” guidance paper last updated in 2016.

1. Revise the approach to fire messaging – develop messages for 2024 and deliver via the Education and Marketing and Visitor Operational Sub-groups.
    
2. Replace/update NAF guidance on the management of recreational fires – retain SOAC focus but develop to cover wider visitor management considerations. 

Annex A sets out the final recommendations for 1, including the agreed parameters, the legal context, and proposed approach to messaging.  

The proposals in Annex A have been subject to significant input and discussion by both the VMS co-ordination and operational subgroup. The revised approach provides a much clearer basis for fire messaging than existed previously, though further work is needed to ensure SFRS are fully engaged in communicating fire risk. The framework is intended to be complementary to any of the options for fire management being considered by CNPA at present though care will be needed to make to ensure we communicate this effectively.  

No changes to SOAC or the access legislation underpinning it have been considered. 

The Visitor Management Steering Group met on 5th February 2024 and approved the two actions proposed for 2024, along with a third action to consider the case for making a legislative amendment to the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982 i.e. adding in wildlife alongside people and property. 
 
The National Access Forum are now asked to note, discuss and sign off the two proposed actions and approach to messaging set out in Annex A, subject to any final comments they may have.

Bridget Jones
NatureScot
February 2024

Annex A – Revised approach to fire messaging 

1)    Parameters and principles for the messaging

Terminology and definitions:

Legislative basis for messaging:

Style and tone of messaging:

2)    Fire messaging – agreed approach 

The 2 status approach is:

1. No fires 
   
   Scenario A – no fires in habitats/sites of fire risk at any time
    
   Scenario B – no fires at times of high fire risk
    
2. Fires
   
   Scenario C – Fires provided for, managed or within access rights

Note that scenario B will over-ride scenario C at times of high fire risk. 

The messaging options for each scenario are set out below.

No fires

Scenario A – no fires in habitats/sites of fire risk at any time

For use at any time and relating to these specific situations, i.e. habitat and site-specific areas that carry a year-round fire risk or at risk of damage due to fire (SOAC lists types/areas) and communicated as appropriate:

• National and local message options for use in all types of communication media e.g. socials, print etc.
• National and local signage messages for use on site-based signs, roadside variable message signs (character count limit) etc.

Fire risk – applies all year
National and local messaging 

Pro-active message:

• No fires, BBQs or fire bowls in areas such as forests, farmland, or on peaty ground.
   
• No fires, BBQs or fire bowls near buildings, or in cultural heritage sites.
   
• Follow local advice provided.

Fire risk – applies all year
Signage messages

For use in the following areas/location types at any time of year:

• forests/woods
• farmland
• on peaty ground
• near buildings
• in cultural heritage sites

Wording option 1:    No fires

Wording option 2:    No fires or BBQs

View image of symbol examples in a new browser window

No fires

Scenario B – no fires at times of high fire risk

For use at times of high fire risk (SOAC refers to prolonged dry periods) and communicated as appropriate:

• National and local message options for use in all types of communication media eg socials, print etc.
• National and local signage messages for use on site-based signs, roadside variable message signs (character count limit) etc.

High fire risk
National and local messaging 

Pro-active message option:

• Never light a fire (including portable fire bowls/meshes and/or BBQs) at times of high fire risk.

Live message option:

• High Fire risk – do not light a fire (including portable fire bowls/meshes and/or BBQs) 

High fire risk
Signage messaging 

Wording option 1:
    
High fire risk
No fires

Wording option 2:
    
High fire risk
No fires or BBQs

View image of symbol examples in a new browser window

Fires

Scenario C – Fires provided for and managed or under access rights

Adaptable messages for use where fires are provided for and managed or are under access rights. Will normally not apply in habitats or sites covered in Scenario A, and not at times of high fire risk, Scenario B.

Positive messaging to ensure the public know what to do in circumstances when or where they can responsibly have a fire.

• No signage design is provided as the relevance and/or appropriateness of the messages in respect to location and provision will vary from place to place, as will communication methods. 
• Include a link to a fire risk website/webpage if available ***
• Option to incorporate the SOAC banner.

Low fire risk
Local or site-based messaging
 
Locations/sites that can provide for or accommodate fires/BBQs eg beaches/shoreline.

Amend to reflect local circumstances:

Never have a fire if there is a high fire risk, but if you do:

• Follow any local advice on signs or from (rangers)
• Use a portable raised fire bowl/mesh stand or BBQ stand
• Use areas provided for (BBQs/Fires).
• Bring (your own wood/or use wood that is provided…)
• Don’t gather deadwood or cut down trees 
• Keep fires small, under control and supervised
• Dispose of used matches responsibly.
• Ensure the BBQ/fire is fully extinguished before leaving
• Dispose of BBQ/fire ash in (e.g. metal bins provided)
• Leave no trace

To find out what the current fire risk is in the area you are visiting: www.***

Purpose

This paper review’s the Forum’s guidance on access and wildlife disturbance one year on from its publication. 

Action

The Forum is asked to note the findings of this 1-year review of the guidance, agree to the minor updates proposed by NatureScot, suggest any further amendments to the guidance (including additional online case examples) and continue to assist with promotion of the guidance.

Background

In 2014 the Forum published guidance on ‘Managing access with dogs in protected areas to safeguard breeding birds’.  While the context of the guidance was quite narrowly focused on poorly controlled dogs and breeding birds such as capercaillie, the guidance included a framework of management approaches that was more widely applicable to other wildlife disturbance issues.

In February 2022 the Forum initiated a review of this guidance to reflect the wider applicability of the general principles and various management measures to wildlife disturbance issues. The aim was to help site managers, access officers and other staff involved in local access management deal with a broader range of issues impacting on sensitive species and important habitats, particularly in the light of recent increases in recreational activity and in view of the nature and climate crisis.

A sub-group undertook the review, chaired by the NAF Convenor and comprising representatives from: BASC, Cairngorms NPA, Canoe Scotland, Cycling UK, Kennel Club/Scottish Kennel Club, LAFs rep, Mountaineering Scotland, NatureScot, Ramblers Scotland, RYA Scotland, RSPB, Scottish Land & Estates and Scottish Raptor Study Group. 

The Forum considered the updated guidance at its meeting on 8 February 2023 and agreed to its publication before the start of the bird breeding season. NFUS indicated it would like more time to consider the guidance, and it was proposed that a review was undertaken in the light of experience of using the guidance, with any updates required made to the online publication. 

Guidance - Managing public access in areas of wildlife sensitivity in Scotland 

Review findings

There were 753 views of the above web page, and 449 downloads of the guidance document, from 16 February 2023 to 26 January 2024.

Promotion of the guidance included:

• mentioned by RSPB at Recreational Disturbance conference organised by Natural England & RSPB on 21 February 2023 with link to guidance provided to all participants
   
• post on Scottish Outdoor Access Network (SOAN) Knowledge Hub used by many Access Officers and other access professionals in Scotland
   
• post on NatureScot internal communications channel; webinar to NatureScot NNR staff; response to queries (NatureScot Area staff re: Aigas Gorge and Firth of Forth; NTS re: St Kilda)
   
• Exploring without disturbing wildlife web page on Outdoor Access Scotland website

Use of the guidance included:

• discussions between NatureScot, RSPB and The Highland Council about management approach at Loch Ruthven to protect Slavonian Grebes from disturbance from water recreation activities during the breeding season
   
• provided in response to enquiries about dog walker disturbance and birds

The guidance has been well received by a range of organisations over the last year and, to date, NatureScot has not received any specific comments for amendments to the guidance.

NatureScot’s check of the guidance identified some broken web links and other updates that could be made:

Recommendations

1. NatureScot to update the guidance on the Outdoor Access Scotland website ahead of this year’s bird breeding season, based on the proposed amendments in this paper and any other comments provided by NAF members by 28 February 2024.
    
2. NAF members to continue to promote the guidance and provide any feedback to NatureScot.
    
3. NatureScot to continue to undertake periodic reviews of the guidance, particularly checking weblinks, removing any outdated information and adding any new material.

NatureScot
February 2024
 

Purpose of the Paper

The purpose of this paper is to advise members of the National Access Forum of a revision to the Snowsports Touring Code of Conduct that has been prepared by Mountaineering Scotland in conjunction with the Snowsports Touring Advisory Group (STAG) and the Association of Scottish Ski Areas (ASSA).

Background

The increasing popularity of snowsports touring in Scotland brings more people into and through Scotland’s five managed ski areas, often because the approach roads and availability of car parking for back-country skiing are at high altitude: Cairngorm, Glencoe, Glenshee, the Lecht and Nevis Range.

The Scottish Outdoor Access Code states (section 2.7) that “active pursuits such as ...ski touring, ski mountaineering…” are included in recreational purposes, and are therefore included in the access rights, but goes no further than this regarding what is responsible behaviour for taking passage through ski centres.  

In September 2016 a Snowsports Touring Code of Conduct was presented to the National Access Forum for discussion. A specific Code was thought necessary as there had been a few incidents the previous winter, between those taking access through the ski areas and some of the centre staff, partly due to poor awareness and understanding of access rights and responsibilities. 

After discussion with NAF members the Code was broadly welcomed and printed as a small, concertina-folded brochure and distributed to the ski centres and key retail outlets. 

In 2021 instead of reprinting the concertina brochure, a simple infographic with the key points was produced, with a QR code directing viewers to the Code of Conduct on the Mountaineering Scotland website.

Current context

The Mountaineering Scotland guidance on exercising access rights responsibly while taking passage through managed ski areas was reviewed in 2023.  

This was prompted by a series of incidents last winter at Glenshee between visitors and ski patrol staff, which led to a meeting to discuss the interaction between snowsports tourers and winter walkers, downhill skiers and the management activities at ski centres in Scotland.

There were specific matters particular to Glenshee that were discussed, but it became apparent that there were issues more widely applicable across all ski areas in Scotland.  The main factors were taking access on pisted slopes, day and night; damage to uptracks being used as navigation lines; dogs not under proper control; and numbers of unticketed skiers descending slopes in variable snow conditions.

The feeling was that the existing Snowsports Touring Code of Conduct was generally helpful, but with the recent huge interest in the activity, by new entrants to the sport, who may not be steeped in the ethos of ski mountaineering, more specific targeted advice was required.

This is not just a matter of a right to take passage, but what is responsible behaviour in taking passage, taking account of the interests of other users and land managers.  It is not so much the effect that an individual has in exercising their access rights in a managed ski area, but it is very much now the cumulative and sequential impact that a series of individuals and groups can have.  

To aid tourers navigating their way through managed ski areas in Scotland, Mountaineering Scotland reviewed the existing guidance on its website, in light of the discussions around the current visitor management situations at the different ski areas.  Opinions on access rights was sought from both Access Authorities with ski centres in their area: The Highland Council and the Cairngorms National Park Authority.

In addition to revision of the text of the Code, a new initiative that is being developed by STAG and the ski centres is identifying signed ski touring routes to aid passage through the managed areas, identifying routes that snowsports tourers would want to follow from and to car parking. 

In consultation with the STAG, which includes representatives from Mountaineering Scotland, Snowsports Scotland, the Association of Scottish Ski Areas, Glenmore Lodge and the ski touring community, and the three big ski clubs in Scotland, a position statement was produced, clarifying rights and responsibilities for snowsports tourers and winter walkers taking passage through managed ski areas in winter:

In recent years with the growth in popularity of snowsport touring allied to a lack of snow, problems have occasionally arisen between different user groups & the operators of the five Scottish ski centres. Please follow the guidance below when passing through ski resorts.

Where signed or promoted touring/walking routes exists, please follow the route markers or reasonable advice from the ski patrol. If that is not available, please stay outside of obviously managed areas, and avoid using prepared or obviously managed areas such as uptracks and groomed slopes.

For your own safety and the safety of other users, avoid crossing or going uphill on managed slopes whilst downhill skiing is taking place. Avoid ascent and descent of slopes while the surface is being groomed.

We would encourage snowsports tourers to consider taking advantage of any touring ticket offers for ease of uplift through the managed areas and descent on the piste.

In summary, you can walk, ski or snowboard wherever access rights apply but only where this does not interfere with the running of the business or downhill skiing use of ski resorts.   Please minimise your impact on the environment, on other users, and with ski resort management operations.

The Code of Conduct for snowsports touring and walking in managed ski areas in Scotland can be found on the Mountaineering Scotland website.

The development of the Code would not have been possible without the co-operation of STAG and ASSA, and their input has been gratefully received.

Mountaineering Scotland
January 2024

Hybrid meeting: 14^th February 2024

Present:

Item 1. Welcome, introductions and apologies

1. The Convenor welcomed and introduced the attendees of the meeting, both virtual and in person.

Apologies: Eileen Stuart (NatureScot), Sue Hilder (Loch Lomond & the Trossachs National Park Authority)

Item 2. NatureScot CEO - Francesca Osowska

2. Francesca last attended a NAF meeting in 2018 and expressed her enthusiasm to be at another meeting. She began by giving the forum some context for NatureScot’s work going forward. In the face of the dual nature and climate emergencies, NatureScot released a new corporate strategy in 2022 - the three main themes are restore, protect and value. The co-operation agreement between the Scottish National Party and the Scottish Green Party has put nature on a better footing. 

3. NatureScot recognises that the NAF is concerned about the visibility of outdoor access amongst ministers and in Scottish Government; Francesca wished to reassure the forum that the importance and value of access is recognised by ministers. NatureScot has received a budget increase for 2024/25; however this is in the context of an increased ask of the organisation e.g. delivering of the Scottish Biodiversity Strategy, legislative changes and more demands on NatureScot as a regulator. The increased budget is more than accounted for by the additional tasking and it may represent a high-water mark going forward. 

4. There will be no Better Places Fund in 2024, which is disappointing, however the fund was established as an emergency response and was not intended to be long-term. Francesca sits on the VMS Steering Group; all of the member organisations recognise the loss of BPF and are looking to their own organisations to work out how they can resource visitor management and rangers for 2024/25 and beyond. Francesca noted the important role of local authorities while acknowledging many of them are struggling with their own budgets.

5. Going forward, NatureScot will convene, influence and work with other organisations to deliver on access, even if the organisation’s ability to deliver directly is reduced. It is the organisation’s goal to see the continuing increased connection of people with nature. The Economics of Biodiversity: The Dasgupta Review, ranked education alongside finance as two massive contributors to green solutions. NatureScot will continue to work on nature-based careers, skills and outdoor learning, the organisation has very good connections with Education Scotland.

6. With regards to campaign work on nature and responsible access, evidence shows that social media is proving to be more effective than TV adverts, and this year see’s the launch of NatureScot’s Outdoor Ambassadors on social media channels promoting examples of good practice and behaviour in the outdoors.

7. With the Government’s commitment to the formation of another one or more national parks, NatureScot recognises that this may bring opportunities for recreation and access. NatureScot also facilitates other access and recreation related forums e.g. Upland Paths Advisory Group and the Long Distance Routes Forum, and will be continuing to provide and update access related advice and guidance e.g. camping, wildlife disturbance and deer management. 

8. In terms of delivery on the ground, NatureScot has benefitted in recent years from EU funding streams such as the Green Infrastructure Fund and the Cultural and Natural Heritage Fund; as well as funding linked to the Visitor Management Strategy work borne out of the Covid-19 crisis.

9. The upcoming Land Reform Bill and Agriculture Bill both provide opportunities for access as a consideration, as is the potential for the Visitor Levy to support investment in visitor management at a local authority level.

10. Francesca highlighted that 2025 will be the twentieth anniversary of the Scottish Outdoor Access Code. There are often calls for a review, but there is currently no appetite for wholesale revision from government. There may be potential to look at specific areas, NatureScot is considering what the options might be. Francesca closed her presentation by asking the forum, what is the SOAC that we need for Net-Zero in 2045? 

11. Nick Cole highlighted some of the issues faced by some Local Access Forums. LAFs are often seen as being anti-access, local authorities lack resources and LAFs are not a statutory consultee for planning. It can also be challenging getting land-owners to join LAFs. He asked whether it would be possible to facilitate councils/LAFs taking action without legislative changes, and could there be a central organisation to take the lead on LAF/council issues? It was also highlighted that education needs to target all ages, not solely aimed at children. Finally, he raised an issue with social media campaigns - how can they reach people who do not engage with these channels? Simon Ovenden echoed issues with LAFs and highlighted that there can also be considerable variability in levels of access related knowledge and expertise amongst LAFs and their membership. 

12. Francesca recognised the challenges faced by LAFs and wondered if there is an opportunity to seek change via the current Land Reform Bill consultation? She encouraged Nick to think about what could be in the bill that would give LAFs more footing. It was noted that if LAFs were statutory consultees for planning, this would create a significant resourcing requirement and may detract from the LAFs core purpose. The point about education was noted and SOAC related social media campaigns are designed and aimed at a variety of audiences young and older and often complemented by radio/written print to extend the reach.

13. Adam Streeter-Smith highlighted the challenges of the biodiversity/climate crises and how these can compound issues around wildlife disturbance; there is a need to strike a balance between recreational activity and enjoyment and looking after wildlife and habitats. In the Cairngorms National Park issues around access are often very complex. We need to look ahead to 2030 to decide where we want to be with this issue. Francesca agreed with this point and highlighted that the 2030 goal of halting biodiversity loss applies to habitats as well as species; increasing habitat restoration should help drive species recovery.

14. Stuart Chalmers highlighted that the NatureScot corporate plan gave the impression that the organisation is pulling away from access. Davie Black also highlighted that visibility of access is very low and all but absent from the corporate plan. Francesca reassured members that NatureScot is not pulling away. In 2022, NatureScot was given ministerial direction to focus on nature restoration as it is the lead organisation, rather than on areas like access where it is not the leading organisation. NatureScot will continue to deliver on two key areas relating to access: promoting/overseeing SOAC, and facilitating the NAF with Ali Tait as Secretariat. NatureScot is still committed to its statutory role around responsible access and visitor management, but multiple organisation involvement is needed.

15. Simon Ovenden highlighted the potential of the new Visitor Levy which could bring an opportunity for funding to support visitor management, but there is concern about exactly how income generated will be spent. Is there an opportunity for NatureScot to influence this and support use on visitor management and SOAC related activity? Francesca reported that this is being considered by the VMS Steering Group and NatureScot is looking at what potential influencing opportunities there might be. Bridget Jones highlighted that while we can influence and make the case, it will be for local authorities to decide on how Visitor Levy income is spent in their areas. Malcolm Duce reported that this area of work is being led by SG Tourism colleagues and he would share with them these minutes. 

16. It was suggested that the NAF/LAF planning group be used as the basis for a sub-group to look at potential influence on the Visitor Levy.

17. Helen Todd highlighted that resources for access have declined, but it is very difficult to quantify without any factual evidence or data - is there a way for NatureScot to investigate this? The Scottish Government access monitoring framework has not operated since pre-covid 19, and key work such as the National Parks and the Scottish biodiversity strategy will not be able to deliver properly without the resourcing of outdoor access.

18. In terms of an evidence base, Bridget Jones highlighted SPANS as a good source of evidence on people and access and nature, and asked SG what the future of SG led monitoring of Land Reform Act access functions was and if there was any thinking about how or when it might be done? Malcolm Duce (SG) advised that access authorities can be asked to provide data via a Freedom of Information requests. It was pointed out that there are 34 authorities and where there are no access staff in place this work does not get done. Francesca agreed about the importance of proper resourcing for access work, but highlighted that NatureScot has to operate on a risk prioritisation basis.

19. Helen Todd of Ramblers suggested cutting agricultural subsidies for access infringements by land managers. Malcolm Duce responded section 14 of the Act was considered very carefully by the Justice 2 Committee around purpose or main purpose of obstructions, and that he was not sure there was anything further to be done there.

20. Eleisha Fahy reported that ScotWays would like to see NatureScot take leadership with regards to over-seeing access management and the undertaking of duties and use of legal powers and highlighted that access work needs to be more overt. ScotWays would like to know how to address the situation when some public bodies do not work in the spirit of LR(S)A. Francesca requested that Eleisha get in touch after meeting to discuss further.

AP 62/1: Scotways to contact NatureScot to discuss issue of some public bodies not working in the spirit of LR(S)A.

21. Steve Jenkinson recalled that NatureScot used to provide sharing good practice events, which helped share knowledge and experience which could lead to the avoidance of costs down the line and would be helpful for people in access posts who are lacking resources. Overall, there are good comms at a national level, but sometimes lacking at a local level. NatureScot will investigate how good practice can be better shared, noting that NatureScot does provide a lot in published guidance and SOAN does a lot of work in this area through events and a knowledge hub. 

AP 62/2: NatureScot to look into better ways of sharing access related knowledge and experience at a local level.

22. Frank Spencer-Nairn asked what is the vision for expanding ranger services? And following National Park consultations, how can other land-based designations be highlighted?

23. Francesca suggested that the VMS Steering Group or Co-ordination Group could be used to capture the national picture for seasonal ranger provision in a visitor management context, and any consequences of not having BPF. She agreed that highlighting existing designations such as NNRs and NSA’s can be a powerful tool in encouraging the people of Scotland outdoors, and the ambition is that everyone will be close to and able to benefit from natural spaces.

24. The Convenor thanked Francesca for attending the meeting and engaging in the discussion around NatureScot’s role in access going forward.

Item 3. Charging for access/access for education

25. No feedback was received after the previous NAF meeting regarding national issues relating to access for education.

26. Willie White (new SAPOE rep) apologised for the gap in attendance and reported he was not aware of charging for access being a national issue. However, in order to properly assess he would like to set up a system of reporting these issues over a year within SAPOE to get a full picture.

27. The Convenor gave an update on the Pentland Hills/Skyline Race - Meeting convened by Pentland Hills Regional Park officers 25 January for key stakeholders including PHRP officers, event organiser community representation, two office bearers of the Pentland Land Managers Association (PLMA) and a member of NatureScot staff. Despite limited resource to support these tasks, the work of PHRP staff was commended for being extremely helpful in facilitating constructive engagement between event organisers and land managers and in coordinating proposed events in the Pentlands. 

28. Important outcomes were:

• The PLMA events guidance document no longer applies and will be taken down from the PLMA website. Proposed events should now follow the Pentland Hills Regional Park Events Policy and Guidance. This document was written in 2015 and is in the process of being reviewed by the PHRP with the intention that the revision will be signed off by the PHRP Joint Committee (the governing body of the PHRP) in June 2024.

• PLMA no longer charging for event permission. The PHRP Guidance already encourages a financial contribution by event organisers to a dedicated fund to improve paths and infrastructure. This encouragement is likely to be strengthened in the revision of the PHRP Guidance.

• Permission for events remains the prerogative of land managers. The Events Working Group (EWG) is a forum for discussion of proposed events between land managers, PHRP officers and the event organiser community. The EWG will seek to develop its process for considering events so that it facilitates productive negotiation between event organisers and land managers where needed.

• The Convenor stated that he was pleased to hear that in the Pentlands positive working relationships have been developed, the meeting identified ways forward and that future discussions are likely to progress in a constructive manner. Member responses have not evidenced that there is a National issue with either unreasonable charging for access for events or education, although we should continue to monitor these situations to ensure that potential precedents are not being copied. He proposed that, for these situations, there is no immediate requirement for NAF action although future developments should be monitored to confirm that the positive work in hand results in successful, long term arrangements in the Pentlands and that issues with educational access and arrangements are dealt with suitably at a local level.

29. Steve Jenkinson asked if there had been any further update about paid access at Callanish Stones (HES) - no update.

30. The Convenor also reported that the NAF has been informed of a significant mountain bike event planned for this year partly in the Cairngorm National Park and across neighbouring estates. Organisers have stated this is a ‘commercial event’ and land managers have highlighted concerns around the proposed timing of 2,000 bikes traversing areas where there will be ground nesting birds. There is quite a lot of guidance available on access and wildlife disturbance in SOAC and the NAF Guidance published last year. The one year review of this guidance is at Agenda Item 6. The rather older Guidance on commercial access to the outdoors in Scotland - local management (March 2014) is aimed more at commercial businesses but has also got some good points that are relevant to the organisation of “events”. Is there a need for routine review of NAF guidance?

31. Adam Streeter-Smith reported that the CNPA is aware of the event. With regards to the guidance, a review could provide an opportunity to highlight when event organisers are required to carry out an EIA and promoting it as good practice among event organisers.

32. The FLS guidance for event organisers was highlighted, with timescales for different types of events. It was also raised that motorised events have a standard process that they follow when events planning, potentially this could be useful for large non-motorised events also.

Item 4. Resources for Access sub-group update

33. Helen Todd reported that there has not been a meeting of the sub-group since the last NAF meeting due to staff capacity. Rona Gibb is leading on potential engagement with COSLA and a ministerial visit.

34. The sub-group did not put together a response to the Agriculture Bill as wasn’t needed, and the Land Reform Bill has been delayed.

AP 62/3: NAFSec to set up meeting of sub-group within next two months.

Item 5. Snowsports touring code and managed resorts

35. Davie Black presented a paper on the revised Snowsports Touring Code of Conduct that has been prepared by Mountaineering Scotland in conjunction with the Snowsports Touring Advisory Group (STAG) and the Association of Scottish Ski Areas (ASSA). An issue arose, mainly at Glenshee, when it was identified that some ski-tourers take passage through managed ski resorts, using groomed runs and ski centres cited interference to their businesses. To aid tourers navigating their way through managed ski areas in Scotland, Mountaineering Scotland reviewed the existing guidance on its website, in light of the discussions around the current visitor management situations at the different ski areas. Opinions on access rights were sought from both Access Authorities with ski centres in their area: The Highland Council and the Cairngorms National Park Authority. 

36. Adam Streeter-Smith reported some issues that have arisen in the Cairngorms National Park (which has the majority of the Scottish Ski centres), and highlighted the difference between historical ski-mountaineers, and ski-tourers who are newer to the activity. He also reported that there have been issues with dogs getting injured on the slopes. Steve Jenkinson suggested that better information relating to dogs could be provided at ski centres to encourage responsible behaviour. The Convenor asked Davie to consider whether more emphasis on dogs and slope crossings is required.

37. The NAF approved the paper presented by Mountaineering Scotland.

Item 6. Managing Access in Areas of Wildlife Sensitivity in Scotland

38. Caroline Fyfe presented a paper on the updated version of the 2023 guidance - Managing Access in Areas of Wildlife Sensitivity in Scotland. NatureScot would be interested to hear of any examples of use/promotion of the guidance from 2023. Some of the links in the guidance were broken and have now been updated and Caroline has proposed a few additions. The guidance includes habitats as well as species.

39. NatureScot is also in the process of producing guidance on drone flying around wildlife.

40. Caroline asked that the NAF agrees to the changes and provides any feedback/suggestions by the end of Feb ahead of the bird breeding season.

AP 62/4: NAF members to provide any feedback to Caroline Fyfe by end of Feb, and to continue promoting the guidance within their organisations.

41. Colin Mair asked whether Caroline felt most access-users are unaware of their potential negative impact. It was also highlighted that not only “wild” areas experience these issues, farmland can be impacted by wildlife disturbance also. This was reinforced by Pete Creech, who reported having feedback from international visitors who are surprised by the presence of dogs in protected/sensitive areas. Pete also commented that we can’t rely solely on electronic communication of guidance. 

42. Caroline responded that most people are aware of their potential impact. NatureScot is continuing to produce graphics, webpages, and rangers on the ground to increase awareness. Yes, much of the focus is on iconic species and there is more work to do on farmland species. Also highlighted that this guidance is for access-professionals not the general public/access-users.

AP 62/5: NAFSec to send link to Managing Access in Areas of Wildlife Sensitivity guidance out to NAF members.

43. Adam Streeter-Smith reported that the CNPA website is about to be updated which may affect some of the links in the updated guidance. He also highlighted the “Lek It Be” campaign for photographers in the National Park to reduce disturbance at lek sites. 

44. Adam also reported that there is a misunderstanding about NatureScot’s role when it comes to management agreements - it is down to the access authority to sign off any access related elements. Also highlighted that the NAF could improve how this guidance links to the NAF outdoor events guidance. 

45. Adam also cautioned using the term, “quiet areas for wildlife” as it is not reflective of the aims of the CNPA. 

46. The NAF approved the updated guidance.

Item 7.  VMS Fires Messaging

47. Bridget Jones introduced the updated fires messaging framework for 2023 following on from the September NAF meeting update. The process of developing an updated fires messaging framework began in Aug/Sep 2023 with the messaging aiming to clarify its parameters and to improve with short, clear and simple messaging that is easy to communicate, and with the potential to also use symbols.

48. The messaging framework has been informed by all the partners in the visitor management groups, including national parks, Forestry and Land Scotland, local authorities and NGOs. Following a number of drafts agreement was reached and endorsed by the VMS Co-Ordination group and the VMS Steering group. The NAF was asked to approve the messaging framework and to provide 1 or 2 reps for a combined NAF/VMS sub-group to review the existing Fires and Access Rights guidance 2016.

49. Bridget guided the NAF through Scenarios A, B and C in the guidance framework. The messaging is deliberately in simple language, which is easy to understand.

50. It is hoped that there will be good comms from SFRS in terms of what “high fire risk” is and when it applies.

51. Stuart Chalmers commended the framework and asked that FLS be involved with the sub-group; Scotways may also be able to take part in the sub-group.

52. Davie Black reported that overall the framework is good, but requests more time for review in the future. Mountaineering Scotland (MS) would prefer the negative messaging of “no fires” to be balanced with positive messaging around use of alternatives e.g. stoves. MS also feels the hierarchy is inverted and would prefer to see the least restrictive approach first and for muirburn to be acknowledged.

53. Bridget thanked Davie for the helpful feedback, and highlighted that the framework is for land and visitor managers/rangers to use as appropriate at their specific sites, and as a basis for communications campaigns led by the VMS Education and Marketing Sub Group.

54. An error was highlighted in Annex A, “never have a fire in times of high fire risk…but if you do…” This was an editing error and will be amended. It was also raised that “cultural heritage” is a broad term not readily understood by the public. It has been used as the framework is based on SOAC wording; Steve Jenkinson highlighted that SOAC wording is not always the most effective wording and it is important to make it easy for access-users to do the right thing.

55. Adam highlighted the cairngorms fire management consultation that is taking place. The main challenge within the park is that there aren’t many areas where people could have a responsible fire.

56. Discussion was had about stove use and the need for inclusion in guidance more widely than alongside wild camping. It was also noted that while the main aim of the framework is visitor management, the framework can inform other areas e.g. for education groups.

57. The two proposals were approved by the NAF.

AP 62/6: Bridget Jones to compile a “Terms of Reference” for the fires and access rights guidance sub-group and NAFSec to disseminate and organise first meeting.

Item 8. NAF/LAF Annual Meeting

58. Helen Todd gave details of the upcoming NAF/LAF meeting. The meeting will be entirely online on the 20th March 2024. The three main themes will be training, forestry and communication, with Hugh McNish giving a talk about the UKFS. There will be two break-out sessions; The Convenor highlighted that the sub-group is aiming to achieve what the LAFs want out of the meeting, so providing plenty of time for discussions is key. 

Item 9. Minutes of previous meetings, action points and matters arising 

AP 56/5: NatureScot to investigate the legal position on liability for third party promotion of paths. On-going: Feb 2024 update: Bridget Jones confirms that NatureScot legal advisors have been commissioned and will shortly provide a short summary response.

AP 61/1: NAFSec to make link to UKFS consultation responses available to members - discharged

AP 61/2: Members to self-nominate to be part of the sub-group by end of October, contact NAFSec - discharged

AP 61/3: Members to identify areas with issues, similar to that in the Pentlands with regard to organised events, in their regions/memberships to determine if this is a local or national issue. Provide details by correspondence to NAFSec ([email protected]) - discharged

AP 61/4: NAFSec to add clarifying statement of ScotWays position to minutes of 60th NAF meeting - discharged 

AP 61/5: Members to identify more context about where/why issues regarding access for education arise. Provide details by correspondence to NAFSec ([email protected]) - discharged, NAFSec to stay in touch with SAPOE to monitor if issues do arise

AP 61/6: NAFSec to distribute VMS update presentation to members - discharged

AP 61/7: NAFSec to give feedback on fires from Co-Ordination group after next meeting - discharged 

59. The Convenor reported that City of Edinburgh Council's Transport and Environment Committee approved the formation of a combined Transport and Local Access Forum. In the discussion of this, the issue of a vacant Local Access Officer post was raised and there is apparently a wider staffing review in progress to consider this and other vacancies. While focus on access is very welcome, it will be interesting to see how successful this combined Forum works out to be.

60. The Convenor also reported that he had attended the National Forestry Stakeholder Group meeting 5th October - first meeting with Cab Sec Mairi Gougeon attending.  Topics included: future grant support, people and communities, biodiversity and environment, carbon cycle out to 2150, increasing sequestration while enhancing resilience, pests and diseases, breadth of benefit from forestry. The Convenor reports that he took the opportunity to highlight access and recreation and the many associated benefits.

61. It was also raised that NAF members will need to start thinking about a replacement Convenor as Don’s tenure will come to an end after the September meeting. 

AP 62/7: NAFSec to send out details of NAF Convenor role.

AP 62/8: NAF members to e-mail NAFSec with any potential convenor candidates.

62. The role of Local Authorities rep on the NAF is still vacant; if anyone has any ideas, please contact NAFSec.

Item 10. Forthcoming meetings and agenda items

• NAF/LAF meeting - 20th March 2024, online
• NAF meeting - 5th June 2024, hybrid, Battleby and online
• NAF meeting - 18th September 2024, hybrid, Battleby and online
• Agenda item - SOAC education pack

AOB

63. Nick Cole - Angus LAF is asking that all NAF members please highlight the need for LAF volunteers to their organisations.

64. Access for core path Maintenance – the matter, raised by John Urquhart (Convener of the Helensburgh and District Access Trust) is about a land owner/manager refusing to allow access for the maintenance of a section of the Three Lochs Way Great Trail. The Access Authority has not taken any action to support the maintenance work. A similar situation prevents improving another link in the trail. If any NAF members can offer a solution or advice, contact NAFSec.

AP 62/9: NAF members to get in touch with NAFSec if they have any suggestions regarding issue raised by John Urquhart.

65. Helen Todd is retiring in April 2024. The Convenor gave the following, “I’m sure that all members are saddened to hear of Helen’s retirement. Helen, you have been a staunch and particularly proactive member of the NAF for many years and even before becoming a full member you were a frequent attender of NAF meetings representing others. When sage common sense has been required, you have always been there to provide it. Your access knowledge and experience is broad and deep, representing a most professional approach in always seeking a true understanding of any issue. A very busy person, you have made time to be part of, and often lead, sub-groups, never letting go until the group work is complete. We are going to miss you both as a person and as a fellow member although we hope that you are not lost to Access in the future. On behalf of all members, we give you our thanks and very best wishes for everything that you plan to do. I will add a further personal thanks as I have always been able to rely upon you for anything that I have asked with your response being always full and unstinting. Thank you for all that you have done for the NAF and wider access.

AP 62/1: Scotways to contact NatureScot to discuss issue of some public bodies not working in the spirit of LR(S)A.

AP 62/2: NatureScot to look in to better ways of sharing access related knowledge and experience at a local level.

AP 62/3: NAFSec to set up meeting of sub-group within next two months.

AP 62/4: NAF members to provide any feedback to Caroline Fyfe by end of Feb, and to continue promoting the guidance within their organisations.

AP 62/5: NAFSec to send link to Managing Access in Areas of Wildlife Sensitivity guidance out to NAF members.

AP 62/6: Bridget Jones to compile a “Terms of Reference” for the fires and access rights guidance sub-group and NAFSec to disseminate and organise first meeting

AP 62/7: NAFSec to send out details of NAF Convenor role.

AP 62/8: NAF members to e-mail NAFSec with any potential convenor candidates.

AP 62/9: NAF members to get in touch with NAFSec if they have any suggestions regarding issue raised by John Urquhart.