National Access Forum - 8 June 2022

National Access Forum – 57^th meeting on Wednesday 8 June 2022, 10.30 am - 13:20 (virtual and in person at Battleby)

1. Welcome, introductions, apologies – Don Milton – Convenor - 10:30 – 10:40

2. Minutes of previous meeting, & action points and matters arising – 10:40 – 11:00 - (Revised unconfirmed minutes from the virtual meeting 2 February 2022 attached).

• AP55/3: FLS to finalise the guide and send it to the secretary to circulate and to add to the SOAC website (Discharged). The guide has been finalised, a link will be provided on the SOAC webpages.
• 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 (Discharged item 3).
• AP 56/2: ‘Access and Roads’ NAF working group to prepare a final draft of the guidance for circulation to the Forum for comments (Discharged – item 5 Mark Wrightham).
• 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 (Discharged - Update Mark Wrightham).
• 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 (Discharged – Update Mark Wrightham).
• AP 56/5: NatureScot to investigate the legal position on liability for third part promotion of paths (on- going – Update NatureScot).

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 (On- going item 9).

3. Outdoor Access with E- Bike, Research Findings – Graeme MacLean – Developing Mountain Biking in Scotland – (Executive summary to be provided after the meeting)  – 11:00 – 11:30

TEN MINUTE COMFORT BREAK

4. Wild Deer Management and Access – Tom Turnbull & Frank Spencer-Nairn  - Association of Deer Management Groups - (paper attached) – 11:40 – 12:10

5. Roads and Access Rights– Draft NAF Guidance Note (attached) – Mark Wrightham– NS - 12:10 – 12:30

6. Guidance on the publication of routes – Don Milton – (discussion paper attached) – 12:30 -12:50

7. Membership Review – Phase 1 – Janice Winning – NAFsec – (Summary paper attached) – 12:50 – 13:00

8. Future Resources for Access – Don Milton 13:00 – 13:10

9. Forth coming meetings & agenda items -  Don Milton (updated work programme attached) 13:10 – 13:20

• NAF meeting – Wednesday 21 September – Battleby & online
• NAF/LAF Joint meeting – Autumn – date tbc – Battleby & online
• NAF meeting – Wednesday 1 February 2023 – Battleby & online

10. Any Other Business (please inform the secretary of any substantive items) – 13:20 – 13:30 

Close - 13:20

Association of Deer Management Groups. Wild Deer Management and Access

The Association of Deer Management Groups was established in 1992 to represent its member Deer Management Groups and has been an active member of the National Access Forum since it began. ADMGs role is to:

• Represent members at UK Government, Scottish Parliament, and Local Authority levels on all matters relating to the management of wild deer in Scotland.
• Regularly liaise with appropriate Government agencies and Non-Government Organisations.
• contribute to and coordinate research in all matters relating to wild deer.
• participate with other industry bodies in the development of Best Practice and promote training among professional deer managers.
• promote a coordinated approach to the marketing of wild venison.

Deer Management Groups

Deer Management Groups (DMGs) have developed as a collaborative structure at which deer can be managed on a landscape scale. Our membership includes deer managers with an ever-increasing variety of management objectives including environmental, sporting, agricultural, forestry and tourism. Membership of a DMG is voluntary but we currently have fifty member groups representing around 500 landholdings managing deer over three million hectares of the highlands. (see below map showing our member groups shaded green)

Some of the important roles that DMGs undertake include coordinated deer counting, Herbivore Impact Assessments, deer culling and providing publicly accessible Deer Management Plans www.deer-management.co.uk . Collaboration and working at a landscape scale, has enabled deer managers in the highlands to take an evidence-based approach to sustainable deer management that takes account of the public interest particularly in regard to deer welfare and habitat management.

Deer Managers

Deer managers in the highlands are making an increasingly important contribution to meeting the targets set by the Scottish Government in the light of the climate and biodiversity crisis, including tree planting and peatland restoration. Deer management is vital if we are to successfully deliver on these targets. There is no doubt that the message from Scottish Government is that they want to see fewer deer and reduced browsing pressure and we will be tasked with continuing to reduce deer numbers where it is perceived they are too high.

Deer management takes place throughout the year but for many of our members primarily during winter for the red deer cull. At times it can be an extremely challenging job undertaken in the most difficult weather conditions for days at a time. Deer can be very sensitive to human presence and disturbance can cause problems for successful management.

Access

Our membership come from a wide variety of backgrounds and welcome responsible access takers to the hills, with many members providing camping, bothies, and car parking areas to enable people to enjoy the scenery of which we should all be so proud in Scotland.

Most of the year and across much of the highlands deer managers and access takers seldom come into contact but there are times and sites where the chances of this do increase. With more emphasis on deer management from Scottish Government to manage deer, the need for access takers and deer managers to liaise is increasingly important.

ADMG is very clear that the introduction of the SOAC has been very successful and we feel it is vital that those managing deer and accessing the countryside engage in a positive conversation about how we can lessen the chances of any negative interactions on the very rare occasions that they occur.

Covid

It was clear to many working and living in the countryside that there was an increase in what might be considered ‘antisocial’ access, usually at a localised level and adjacent to roads, littering increased in many areas and so did ‘dirty’ camping that sits well outside the SOAC. It is clearly a positive thing that people are accessing and learning about the countryside for the first time but how do we encourage people to learn about the SOAC and the responsibilities that come with access? Education is vital and it should be considered as part of the school curricula perhaps NAF could help to facilitate this?

Recognition of Change

It is clear that in the years since the implementation of the SOAC we have seen considerable change and many more people are enjoying the outdoors and the benefits that access to the landscape provides.  From the perspective of the deer manager there have been three more changes that we feel need to be considered in how we can engage with access takers.

• Deer Management: Whilst the letting of deer stalking is still important to many deer managers, the emphasis now is often on the culling of deer following best practice in a collaborative and sustainable way. Deer Management Groups now have publicly available Deer Management Plans and endeavour to manage deer in the public interest. The potential introduction of statutory deer culls in Scotland will further increase the pressure on deer managers to achieve culls.
• Habitat: The majority of deer managers in the highlands undertake Habitat impact Assessments in order to monitor browsing pressure with the aim of reducing impacts from herbivores and to meet challenging climate change mitigation targets. Biodiversity protection and restoration are a priority for Scottish Government and will result in an increasing proportion of woodland in our landscape.
• Technology: Information is accessed faster than ever before, often on handheld devices. Whilst it is important to continue to use traditional methods of signage we should continue to engage with new methods of informing people when deer management is taking place in advance of their arrival in the hills, be that through more extensive use of the Heading for the Hills website or through continued messaging on social media as was undertaken by NatureScot in 2021 (see below).

Learning from experience

In preparation for this meeting, we asked deer managers to provide some of their experiences of access, both positive and negative. It was clear to us that much of our membership do not have any serious issues related to access other than the occasional disrupted stalk. What we did discover is that we are experiencing ‘hotspots’ at which access takers and deer managers can be in conflict with one another’s interests. Shortages of car parking availability and increased deer movements due to access at particular times of the year were cited as problematic in some areas and a shared issue for deer managers and access takers alike

There is little doubt that the pressures from access can also cause issues for deer managers at specific times of the year. For red deer management the last week in September and the first three weeks in October are of particular importance. This is the culmination of the cull for stags and for many deer managers the time of the year when it is possible to offset the costs of deer management through the revenue generated by the letting of sporting stalking. The necessity to control numbers through culling and to maintain a skilled workforce who are able to undertake the work means that the letting of stalking and associated venison income are vital. There is also added pressure towards the end of the red deer hind season which finishes on 15 February each year, when deer managers are completing their all-important hind cull in often very challenging conditions. We would hope that it might be possible to further raise the awareness of deer operations over these peak times and to try to resolve potential difficulties between deer managers and recreational visitors before they arise.

There also appears to have been an increase in commercial use of the countryside with people using paths, tracks and hill routes to guide people into the countryside whether this be on foot, by bicycle or electric bike. Again this is a positive thing and provides access and opportunities to learn more about the countryside that we all have available to us. There are however some issues where commercial access is undertaken during busy stalking times of the year without liaison with deer managers and this has been reported as a problem for some estates.

How can things be improved where problems occur?

The Heading for the Hills website has been reported as extremely helpful by many of our members who have seen increased usage of this tool. On the website deer managers can input stalking dates and possible alternative routes when deer management is being undertaken, contact details are provided so that access takers can liaise and find out where access may not be an issue. We understand that it is equally important for deer managers to provide up to date information on the Heading for the Hills website and we are in a position to encourage members to undertake this whenever possible.

Information will be vital in this process and a further look at what information should be provided by deer managers on any signage, would be helpful. In this way we could continue to ensure that all the relevant information is provided that walkers find useful. We could perhaps also receive backing from NAF membership organisations and their logos could be included on signage along with NatureScot and where appropriate National Parks.

We were encouraged last year by the useful signage provided by NatureScot and associated social media message that encouraged access takers to follow reasonable signage and to avoid crossing land where deer management operations were undertaken. We felt this was extremely helpful and we understand that this will be rolled out again on social media this year.

Where we have hotspots at which access can be problematic for deer managers would we be able to ask the NAF members for support to resolve these issues through information provision, appropriate signage and even help with gaining funding for improved car parking facilities and their associated management. It is a common site to see cars parked on trunk roads which in some circumstances could be seen as a threat to road safety. None of these issues are new but, in some areas, have been exacerbated post Covid by increased visitor pressures.

ADMG would also be keen to explore routes whereby we could engage with new access takers of all ages to encourage them to study the SOAC and engage where possible with the Heading for the Hills website. It would be extremely helpful to endeavour to improve public awareness of SOAC and the responsibilities that come with accessing the countryside. Equally we would like to encourage those earning a living from commercial access to liaise regularly with land managers and deer managers in order that problems can be avoided.

Proposals

We feel that there may be three key areas that may need some further consideration:

1. Busiest times of the year: We would like to consider a recommendation that during the relatively short busiest times of the year deer culling should be increasingly recognised as the priority consideration when accessing the hills. While access would by no means be forbidden, the importance of deer culling should be considered as vital and signage and messaging should always be checked when accessing the hills.
2. Where the few ‘hotspots’ are found and problems can occur, we would like to encourage Scottish Government, hopefully with the support of The National Access Forum to further consider ways in which extra resources could be provided for solutions, for example signage, improved parking facilities and pathway creation or repairs. This would be hugely beneficial to deer managers and access taker alike.
3. Where organisations are undertaking commercial operations that require access and, in some cases, might be in breach of the SOAC for example in not obtaining the permission of the landowner, consideration needs to be given to how the responsibilities of the SOAC can be implemented and if needed be reinforced. 

Conclusion

ADMG would be keen to participate in constructive conversation with those representing access takers and ourselves so that we can ensure that walker and stalker can coexist to the benefit of all concerned.

Would it be possible to create a small stakeholder group who could consider some of the issues outlined in this paper? The pressure on deer managers to achieve culls will increase, particularly in the light of the Scottish Government’s Climate and biodiversity targets. ADMG and our members will continue to welcome access takers who operate under the SOAC and would like to endeavour to set up a constructive partnership with other organisations that would like access and deer management to sit side by side.

Thank you very much for the opportunity to present this paper. ADMG look forward to continuing to play a part as an active NAF member.

Purpose

This paper presents a draft NAF guidance note on roads and access rights.

Action

Members are asked to:

• discuss, and if appropriate approve, the current draft, and;
• consider how best to promote this to the key target audiences.

Background

The June 2021 Forum meeting discussed some of the tensions between the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003 (LRSA) and the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984 (RSA) and agreed to develop concise guidance to highlight these issues to key stakeholders, including staff in roads authorities. This work was taken forward by a sub-group chaired by the Convenor and including British Horse Society Scotland, Cycling UK, NatureScot, Police Scotland, Scotways, Transport Scotland and the Forum’s local authority/SOAN and local access forum contacts. A draft guidance note is now attached for consideration by the Forum (see annex).

A number of sources already provide detailed technical guidance on provision for non-motorised users and active travel, so the draft NAF guidance aims to be concise and focused and avoid overlap. Because the legal relationship between the LRSA and RSA is not entirely clear, the guidance cannot offer definitive solutions, and aims instead to raise mutual awareness of these two legislative frameworks among relevant professional staff and encourage a pragmatic, case by case approach to resolve these tensions. The guidance also notes the need to approach these issues from the perspectives of recreational users and active travellers, assuming minimal knowledge of the underlying legal frameworks.

There has been some discussion about the addition of case studies as an annex and these might, if carefully chosen, help to emphasise the key points in the guidance note. If on the other hand these simply demonstrate general good practice in the design of shared use infrastructure, they could muddy the waters (obscuring the key points) and overlap with existing guidance that is available from other sources. In any event, no suitable case studies have so far been identified. Rather than prolonging the process (and the guidance), it may therefore be preferable to finalise and circulate the guidance in its present form.

Any further comments on the draft (and the potential merits of case studies) would be very welcome.

Roads and access rights: an advice note

Purpose

This brief guidance note summarises Scottish outdoor access rights and their importance for a wide range of non-motorised users, particularly in urban and peri-urban areas. It is particularly intended for officers in local roads and planning authorities, and may also be useful to access officers and Police Scotland. This note has been produced by the National Access Forum, which brings together all relevant interests to advise on access rights and access management in Scotland.

Scottish access rights

The Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003 has established statutory rights of access to most land for recreation and related purposes, subject to responsible behaviour as set out in the Scottish Outdoor Access Code.

• These access rights extend to all non-motorised users (NMUs), including walkers, cyclists, horse-riders and wheelchair users, and include motorised vehicles “constructed or adapted” for users with disabilities (Access rights are generally taken to include road legal e-bikes as these are pedal-assisted rather than self-propelled, but these rights do not include e-scooters). These users all coexist on the basis of responsible and considerate shared use in line with the Scottish Outdoor Access Code.

• These rights apply to all land with some exceptions, such as buildings and associated land (including a garden or the curtilage of a commercial building), or land which is excluded from access by other legislation.

• Local and National Park authority access officers have key roles in supporting access and helping to manage any issues, with advice from local access forums.

These access rights are now the default expectation among non-motorised recreational users in most outdoor settings, ranging from hill and coastal areas to urban paths and greenspace.

Relationship with roads legislation

Scottish access rights are integrated with most other areas of policy and legislation, and are an important consideration in development management under the planning system. The relationship between access rights and roads legislation, in particular the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984, is however less clear. The Roads Act specifies various categories of route for different types of users, including:

• “footways” associated with carriageways (more commonly referred to as “pavements”), which are only for use by walkers;

• “footpaths” away from a carriageway, for walkers only, and;

• “cycle tracks” for cyclists, with or without walkers.

None of these categories is equivalent to the broadly inclusive multi-use model that applies under Scottish access rights, and the Roads Act states that it is an offence to use these routes by modes other than those specified above – so cyclists, for example, could not legally use either a “footpath” or a “footway”, which is associated with a road. This approach is echoed by the Highway Code. These types of route are sometimes clearly demarcated, for example on paths marked for shared use, but the distinctions between them and their boundaries with land where access rights apply may not otherwise be obvious to users. There is particular scope for confusion around the urban fringe, as the existence of access rights is particularly widely understood and recognised in rural settings.

Many types of route, including minor roads, can be designated as “core paths” under the Land Reform Act. This has the effect of overriding the above restrictions so that access rights apply along the route. It is however unclear which Act takes precedence in more typical situations where there is no core path.

Key issues

The complex and poorly understood relationship between these two areas of legislation results in differences of interpretation between local authorities and a number of associated issues.

• The position is confusing for the public, particularly in urban and peri-urban areas, where signage may restrict the range of users in some locations, while apparently similar routes elsewhere are available to all users under access rights. The UK Highway Code also takes a restrictive approach in line with the Roads Act and does not refer to Scottish access rights. There have been cases in which users (in particular horse riders) have been charged with an offence under the Roads Act in places where access rights might have been expected to apply.

• Unnecessarily restrictive design features, such as selective barriers and tight curves, are sometimes adopted for paths and other infrastructure that would otherwise be suitable for a wide range of users. Such approaches may be inconsistent with equalities legislation and wider policy objectives for health and active travel.

• Further legislation could help to clarify the relationship between the two key Acts, although there are no current proposals to do this (Annex 1 summarises some key issues which could usefully be addressed in this way). For the moment, these issues will therefore need to be addressed by a pragmatic approach.

Advice from the National Access Forum

• Scottish access rights provide the foundation for national promotion of outdoor recreation and active travel. These rights apply to most land (with minor exceptions) and are now widely recognised among NMUs. Planning, provision and management for recreation and active travel should therefore adopt an inclusive approach by default, anticipating responsible use by all users within access rights.

• If further underpinning is considered necessary to support this approach, this can be achieved by designating routes as core paths.
   
• Where full shared use is not practical, for example on busy urban footways, the more restrictive framework taken by the Roads Act may be appropriate. If choosing to emphasise this in particular places, it would therefore be important to consider the potential challenge of communicating this to the public and the risk of displacing vulnerable users onto adjacent carriageways.
• Although access rights do not depend on the availability of paths or other infrastructure, any such provision should, where physically possible, be inclusive in design to accommodate the full range of potential users. Key sources of guidance on the design of infrastructure for outdoor recreation and active travel are listed in Annex 2.
   
• It is crucial to liaise with the relevant local access officer to ensure that new developments, including new road and active travel schemes, are planned and implemented in an integrated way which respects access rights, ensures connectivity and is clear and intuitive for users.
   
• Engagement with local access forums and relevant user groups (including equestrians) is also likely to be important in conjunction with more significant developments, and this decision can be guided by discussion with the access officer.
   
• Police officers should be aware that access rights and roads legislation are both relevant when assessing whether an offence has been committed - and that the public may reasonably believe that they are legitimately exercising access rights.

About the National Access Forum

The National Access Forum advises on matters relating to Scottish access rights and includes a broad range of recreation, land management and public bodies, along with other relevant interests. The Forum has 26 full members and 66 corresponding members, with the Scottish Government attending as an observer, and is chaired by an independent elected Convenor. This advice was developed by a sub-group of Forum members comprising British Horse Society Scotland, Cycling UK, NatureScot, Police Scotland, Scotways, Transport Scotland and a local access forums’ representative.

Annex 1: Potential areas for future legislative change

The issues highlighted in this note could in part be addressed through legislative change, although there are no current plans to do this. Areas for possible consideration include:

• Amending the categories of “road” in section 151(1) of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984 to provide an option that aligns with the full range of users covered by rights of responsible access under the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003.
• Clarifying the relationship between:
• section 9(b) of the 2003 Act, which indicates that access rights do not extend to “being on or crossing land for the purpose of doing anything which is an offence”;
• section 6(1)(d) of the same Act, which indicates that access rights do not extend to land “to which public access is…prohibited, excluded or restricted” under other enactments, and;
• section 129(5)(d) of the 1984 Act, which conversely indicates that the offence under that section does not apply “where there is a specific right” allowing use of the route.

These provisions appear to create a circular relationship between the two Acts and it is not clear which would take precedence in any given situation.

Annex 2: Key sources of further guidance

Outdoor access design guide: advice on the selection and design of outdoor access furniture and structures such as gates, fences and boardwalks, published by Paths for All (2018).

Cycling by Design: detailed guidance on the design of cycle infrastructure published by Transport Scotland (2021).

Walking, cycling and horse-riding assessment and review (GG 142): UK-wide guidance setting out the process for Walking, cycling and horse-riding assessment and review (WCHAR) plans as part of trunk road schemes - led in Scotland by TS (2019).

Advice on funding and promotion of active travel from Paths for All.

Further information about Places for Everyone funding administered by Sustrans.

Reviewing guidance on the publication of route information

Purpose

This paper from FLS, SLE and the Convenor seeks Forum views on whether further guidance on:

• publication of previously unrecorded or unmarked walking, cycling (In this context, cycling is considered to include the use of E-Bikes), riding, climbing and water sports routes by parties other than the land manager (In this context, land managers includes owner)
• the periodicity of review and verification required for guidance already published

 is required and, if so, the nature of that guidance.

Action

The Forum is asked to comment on the paper and consider whether a further review and updated guidance on this issue is required.

Background

The ubiquity of the internet and social media means that disseminating information about routes for all activities has never been easier.  The provision of information to access takers can be valuable in bringing previously unknown routes to wider attention and, potentially, spreading the heavy visitor load being experienced by well-known locations.  However, sources range from an individual reporting on where they have been and what they did, through websites which aggregate the work of individuals, and on to land managers and Access Authorities.  While a reader of access information should expect a reasonable degree of knowledge, care and quality control from land managers and Access Authorities, there can be no assumption of accuracy and full understanding of the risks and hazards of a location from posts by an individual who may have only a limited acquaintance with what they are describing.   Some sites, such as Walkhighlands, do make it clear that “walking can be dangerous” and that the routes listed on their site are “for general information only” and “should not be relied upon as being correct or accurate”. However, the distinction between information published by an entity with responsibility and accountability for that location and the personal views of an individual may not be clear to a casual or inexperienced reader and not all will read disclaimers and terms of use of a website.

Control of what is published on the internet or social media by an individual is effectively impossible and the land manager is unlikely to be aware of the majority of what is published relating to the land that they manage.

Land managers have identified concerns about the question of responsibility with, from the land manager’s perspective, a difference between ‘promoted routes’ and ‘suggested routes’. The former being routes that are actively promoted and managed by the land manager and requiring a higher duty of care to members of the public than on an unpromoted trail accessed under SOAC, and the latter being routes that people may enjoy but it is recognised that there is not the same duty of care for visitor infrastructure, maintenance and land manager liability as there would be for a promoted route. A key aspect is land manager involvement in the description of the route so that visitors have ‘no nasty surprises’.  The text description is also a critical safety tool as the exact route promoted can have safety implications for the land manager and visitors – such as conflict with livestock / planned works / machinery/etc. Management and maintenance effort is therefore focused principally on the trails that are promote by the land manager. FLS, for example, regards promotion as any one of the following: website, waymarking, leaflets and route panels.

Even for the sites of land managers and Access Authorities, there is no guarantee that the information provided has been routinely reviewed and updated and provides information on current, safety related activities such as tree felling, maintenance and repairs.  For Access Authorities access information requires on going liaison with the relevant land manager.  There is currently no consistent guidance on what the periodicity of review and assessment of route suitability should be.

The Forum has discussed the general issue of route promotion on a number of occasions and cited to individuals preparing access information para 3.63 of the Code:  “If you are writing a guidebook, leaflet or other promotional material about access in an area, try to talk to the relevant land managers to see if any local issues relating to privacy, safety or conservation need to be referred to in the publication.”  However, it is difficult to pre-emptively identify and target the significant and varied numbers from the limited and irregular end of the spectrum of those publishing suggestions for routes, or simply relating their experiences.

Key issues

Visitor Safety

The text description for a route, when done well, is an important safety tool. The text helps the visitor to understand the risks of the route and whether it is suitable for them. The industry standard for this approach, The Paths for All, Path Managers Guide to Grading, however is not always followed. https://www.pathsforall.org.uk/resource/the-path-managers-guide-to-grading

For mountain bike routes there is a grading scheme for routes: Blue, Green, Red and Black to show the severity of the route for the visitor.

Authority of the Promoter

The Authority of the promotor of the route is likely to influence the accuracy expectation of the visitor. For example, if a route is promoted by a local authority or a national park authority the expectation will be high that the information is accurate. Whereas there will be a lower expectation on a crowd sources resource like Strava / Walk the Highlands or the publications of an individual. Access Authorities, in particular, will be expected to provide reliable information which is current and approved by the land manager.

Definitions

There is no clear and recognised definition of what a “promoted” or “suggested/ recommended” route means and there is the additional difficulty in getting any agreed definition and understanding to the intended audience.

Liability implications

Land managers have concerns that “promoted” access routes require a higher standard than is necessary for access taken under the SOAC.  This might also apply if the promotion has not been verified or reviewed to ensure that the information supplied remains current, safe and accurate.

Guidance on frequency of review of information provided would limit potential risks associated with the information no longer being accurate and correct.

Access to information

Land managers are not always aware of what is published on the internet and social media and have concerns that inaccurate information may subject them to an increased liability.

Access takers are not always aware of the different standards of accuracy and currency of the wide variety of information available.

Next steps

The Forum is requested to:

Consider if the issues, above, are of sufficient concern to undertake further investigation and review of the subject and, if so:

Advise on how best to provide land managers and access takers with the understanding necessary to exercise their responsibilities in the appropriate manner.

NATIONAL ACCESS FORUM – Paper on the first phase of the Membership Review

Purpose

This brief paper outlines the action taken to review the membership of the National Access Forum as instructed by the NAF on 22 September 2021 and according to the NAF operating principles which require a review of membership every four years.

Action

Members are invited to note the progress with the first phase of the membership review and the resulting changes to full and corresponding member status.

Background

The first phase of the membership review focused on two groups; Recreational bodies, and Land Management bodies. All current full and corresponding members of these groups, totalling some 29 organisations, were contacted by email in March to ascertain if they wished their status to remain the same. See Annex 1 for groupings and members.

Within the Recreational Bodies grouping, five of the current full members wish to remain as full members (British Horse Society Scotland, Cycling UK Scotland, Mountaineering Scotland, Ramblers Scotland, Scottish Canoe Association) whereas Scottish Sports Association wishes to move from full to corresponding membership. Only one of the corresponding members Scottish Cycling wished to be considered for full membership. Some of the other corresponding members have yet to reply and are missing named contacts due to changes in personnel but will be retained on the corresponding members list in the meantime.

Within the Land Management Bodies grouping, all of the current full members wish to remain as full members (Association of Deer Management Groups, British Association for Shooting and Conservation, Historic Houses Scotland, NFU Scotland, Scottish Land and Estates and Confederation of Forest Industries). Only one of the corresponding members, the National Sheep Association Scotland wished to increase their status to full membership. The review also picked up a couple of name changes and a couple of corresponding member organisations have yet to confirm.

Outcome of the Review

Forum members are requested to note the membership responses from the Outdoor Recreational Bodies and the Land Management Bodies groupings. Within the Outdoor Recreational Bodies the Forum is asked to consider the request from Scottish Cycling (represented by Graeme Maclean of Developing Mountain Biking in Scotland) to take up the place vacated by the Scottish Sports Association.

As no places were vacated by existing full members in the Land Management Bodies grouping, and to retain a broad balance, it is suggested that the NSAS remain as corresponding members but develop a closer working relationship on access matters with their counterpart organisations, SLE and NFUS. The Forum is asked if they support this approach.

Future action

The review has been particularly useful in identifying the changes in bodies listed and updating the contacts for other corresponding members. It also indicates that the current full members of the Forum continue to actively represent all the major sectors of these two groupings. The second phase of the membership review will focus on the remaining groups namely: Public bodies, Other bodies (educational, commercial and tourism, conservation), Other relevant interests and Professional bodies. This will commence in the summer with a report to the NAF meeting in September.

In person at Battleby & virtual meeting: 8 June 2022

 *in attendance as additional representatives or guests,

Item 1 – Welcome & Introductions 

The Convenor opened the hybrid meeting welcoming everyone to the Forum. He introduced guest speakers; Tom Turnbull (ADMG), Graeme McLean (DMBinS) and a new representative April Armstrong (Confor). He also thanked departing Forum member Jamie Farquhar from Confor. On behalf of the Forum he thanked both Mark Wrightham and Janice Winning, who were both retiring, for their long service and support to the Forum.

Apologies: Andrew Hopetoun (Historic Houses Association), Angus Duncan (Local Authorities), Gordon McKilligen (NFUS), Sue Hilder (LLTNP), Victoria Brooks (Wild Scotland), Grant Dollier (SCA), Jonathan Kitching (SAPOE), Simon Ovenden (SLE).

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

1. Minutes: - the revised unconfirmed minutes of 2 February 2022 previously circulated were approved with no further amendments.
2. Action points: –

AP55/3: FLS to finalise the Dog Sport Guide and send it to the secretary to circulate and to add to the SOAC website. Discharged: the finalised guide is now on the SOAC website in the ‘Be a responsible dog owner’ section and members are requested to promote it within their organisations: https://www.outdooraccess-scotland.scot/practical-guide-all/dog-walking/dog-sports

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. Discharged: agenda item 3.

AP 56/2: ‘Access and Roads’ NAF working group to prepare a final draft of the guidance for circulation to the Forum for comments. Discharged: agenda item 5.

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. On- going: A paper has been circulated to the sub group and a report will be made to the September NAF meeting.

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. On- Going: A first draft of revised guidance will be circulated to the sub group and a report will be made to the September NAF meeting.

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

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. On-going: agenda item 9.

Matters arising: -

3. Convenor Update - The Convenor reported on two meetings he had attended; the National Forestry Strategy Group where access appears in a number of areas especially through engaging people and a recent NAF sub group meeting with NatureScot to discuss future requirements for the Improving Public Access (IPA)scheme. During the discussions, NAF members expressed concern relating to future funding and resource for Access (Agenda Item 8).
4. SOAC engagement with Schools – the Convenor welcomed previous input from Forum members to NatureScot’s work to renew and support SOAC engagement with schools and young people through the production of new resources. He reported that a new Scottish Outdoor Access Code Education Resource pack was now available. It contains activities designed to enable young people to understand rights and responsibilities of outdoor access in Scotland.
5. New arrangements for NAF Secretariat – The Secretary outlined the arrangements that will be put in place following her retirement. A full time replacement for the secretariat function is being recruited and in the interim summer period Bridget Finton will temporarily fill the gap. Alan Macpherson will continue as the senior NatureScot advisor for NAF, with support from NatureScot colleagues Bridget Jones (visitor management, paths) and Dougie Pollok (SOAC communications), it would be very much a team approach. The Convenor also noted that capacity to service all the working groups would be constrained for a period and Forum members would need to assist in moving the work along.

Item 3 – Outdoor Access with E–Bikes

6. Graeme McLean presented a summary of the findings from the GB-wide research on outdoor access with e-bikes, managed by British Cycling and funded by forestry and nature agencies. The objectives were to study the growth in the market (currently 130 Million e-bikes in Europe), the motivation and behaviour of e-MTB users to understand the specific impacts that arise on the ground and to help plan for future growth and mitigate any negative effects. The study also aimed to help inform responsible behaviour by working closely with user groups and the e-bike industry. 
7. Some of the main findings highlighted from the research were that:

• there is no evidence that e-MTB use improves ethnic and gender diversity within the sport but e-bike use was found to reduce health inequalities,
• cost is the main barrier to participation,
• the main motivators are enjoyment / ‘play’ and benefits to mental health rather than those seeking a high risk experience,
• most e-MTB users do not want to access troublesome terrain,  and the vast majority are responsible,
• many will ride further, faster and do more laps, but riders’ perception of their impact on wear and tear of tracks is less than other users’,
• a minority of users experience greater conflict when riding e-MTBs versus non-eMTBs,
• a knowledge of outdoor access codes and what to do in an emergency could be improved, but knowledge in Scotland was much higher than the rest of GB,
• more parking at trail centres is required and more alternatives to current facilities,
• there was a strong desire amongst users for more e-MTB education.

8. Recommendations from the research included; providing more investment to improve diversity and inclusion within the sport as well as reducing costs to improve the barrier to participation. Further investigation of the environmental impacts of e-MTB use and further education of e-MTB riders on trail etiquette was recommended. Educate riders on outdoor access codes and the application of these codes specifically to eMTB; messaging should be presented at a combination of outlets, trail centres as well as online and through social media. Recommendations regarding promotion should include positive images of e-MTB riders, focus on the health benefits and contain strong messages on ‘responsibility’. Specific outdoor access guidance for e-MTB users was also recommended.
9. In discussion, Alistair McNab asked for advice on how to deal with unauthorised MTB trails. Graeme highlighted the guidance previously produced by the Forum aimed at reducing unauthorised MTB trails and the corresponding advice for land managers on how to engage with local users to find solutions. Graeme confirmed that e-MTBs are classed as pedal assisted, are restricted in terms of power and therefore regarded as within access rights.
10. Adam Streeter-Smith suggested that the Cairngorms National Park would be a good area to test the level of environmental impacts arising from e-MTB use.  The impact of repeated riding of trails and concerns about the weight of bikes impacting on infrastructure was likely to lead to higher maintenance requirements. Greater use of e-MTBs, including e-bike hire, was good for health and active travel, but impacts on sensitive habitats and species was a concern as was the safety of users venturing into remote areas. He was keen to explore the management measures required to prevent environmental impacts. Graeme confirmed that 95 % of riders wanted to do the right thing and agreed that positive messaging about where to go and how to stay safe was important. He added that more routes that can accommodate e-MTBs would be helpful as riders will stay on paths if these provided. Roger Scrutton recommended carrying out a baseline study with repeats over 1 – 2 years to measure the growth in e-MTB use. He also suggested involving ‘Backbone’ to help engage with ethnic minorities. Graeme agreed that it would be useful to look at the physical impact of e MTBs over multiple sites working with Forum partners. A number of other Forum members (FLS, NatureScot and NFUS) offered to be involved in taking forward this work.

AP 57/1: Graeme McLean to work with Forum partners as plans to address the e-MTB study’s recommendations are developed.

Item 4:  Wild Deer Management and Access

11. Tom Turnbull from the Association of Deer Management Groups introduced the topic providing background on the ADMG and their involvement in the Forum. He explained how the DMGs worked at a landscape scale to manage deer numbers on over 500 land holdings and how this contributed to meeting SG targets on biodiversity especially tree planting. Important times of the year for deer management were primarily during the winter for red deer, which can be challenging as they are sensitive to people pressure, but also the hind cull in mid-February.
12. Whilst SOAC had been successful, the increase in access post pandemic meant that more interaction between those involved in deer management and those taking access was now required to reduce conflicts. Education was vital with more people enjoying the outdoors especially in certain hot spot areas and the parallel pressures on deer managers for more statutory culls. The use of technology to access information more quickly and before people come to the hills was part of the solution. A shortage of car parking needed to be addressed as well and management of conflict in the hot spots. He also mentioned that the increase in commercial use of the countryside in all forms was leading to pressures on deer management. He highlighted ‘Heading for the Hills’ as an important resource for deer managers to indicate alternative routes and to provide up to date information on stalking and deer management. Signage advice for walkers was useful too but funding to provide new signage would be required. He was keen to hear views from the Forum about how to resolve some of the conflicts, how to source resources for new signage and car parks, how to promote the Code and information to new users of the countryside and if members were keen to be part of a stakeholder group.
13. In discussion, the issue of funding was raised in relation to providing additional car parking and how this could be secured. Malcolm Duce mentioned the Rural Tourism Infrastructure Fund as a possible source of funding for new car parks, and the Improving Public Access fund for paths infrastructure. Mark Wrightham confirmed that the same messaging approach and social media campaigns would run during the stalking season to highlight responsible access.  Eileen Stuart reinforced the importance that Scottish Government and NatureScot placed on deer management in terms of the biodiversity challenge agreeing that there needs to be   substantial reductions in deer numbers to achieve these benefits and that this needs to be done without access impacts. She also recognised the access implication of fencing for deer management. NatureScot volunteered to be part of any stakeholder group going forward.
14. Tom Turnbull mentioned that the drive for more woodland is likely to lead to an increase in fencing and that this did make culls more difficult. Alastair McNab raised an issue about roe deer and the difficulties of culling roe deer in dense woodland. Problems were exacerbated by access takers leaving gates open leaving woodland vulnerable to grazing pressure and he asked how best to create deer secure areas. Tom agreed this was difficult but recommended making people aware of closing gates and the consequences of leaving them open. Helene Mauchlen added that BHS funded self-closing gates which close behind riders and walkers and said anyone can apply to the Ride Out fund for assistance with gates. Hugh McNish said that Scottish Forestry would be keen to bring their experience on new woodland creation, gates and enabling access to the stakeholder group.
15. Colin Shedden mentioned the increase in deer in the lowlands and the corresponding increase in those accessing the countryside since 2020. Whilst deer management was important this also had to go hand in hand with recreation management. Tom agreed that deer management issues were not confined to the Highlands.
16. Stuart Chalmers outlined the role of Forestry and Land Scotland in deer management with 30 % of the annual deer cull now taking place on FLS land. Experience of culls in hot spot areas and work to limit impacts on sensitive habitats could be shared. Davie Black said that Mountaineering Scotland with their experience of access in various hot spots would be keen to be involved in any stakeholder group. He said there was evidence of good signage but also non-compliant signage too and suggested talking to WildScotland about developing a Code of Conduct for commercial groups. Karen Ramoo said that SLE members have raised similar issues regarding deer management and access both in the lowlands and the Uplands and that SLE would be keen to be represented on the stakeholder group. She agreed that signage would be a key step going forward.
17. Paul Timms welcomed the constructive comments about deer stalking and managing recreational activities but stressed there should be no restrictions on access to the hills at any time of the year. He too volunteered to be on the working group. Stephen Jenkinson said that the key thing to avoid conflict between stalkers and walkers was the provision of pre – arrival information,  local signs alone were not sufficient and it required good management at a local level. He also suggested a more integrated approach to parking, information on routes which were always free from stalking as well as alternative routes to ensure people knew where to go.
18. Adam-Streeter Smith asked what the forestry sector could do to better accommodate access within new planting enclosures. He recommended that more consideration needed to be given to landscape character and user enjoyment when planning fencing for deer management. Nick Cole agreed and said he would like to see more LAF involvement in the planning process locally. Paul Timms highlighted the rise of commercially organised events in the uplands and the need for this to considered by the group.
19. Frank Spencer Nairn welcomed the enthusiasm by the Forum to be part of a stakeholder group and asked what form future recommendations from the group might take. Mark Wrightham said that the guidance or messaging would depend on the outputs from the group, the target audience and would be tailored accordingly.

AP 57/2: Forum members wishing to be part of a working group to look at wild deer management and access should inform the NAFsec.

Item 5: Roads and Access Rights – Draft Guidance Note

20. Mark Wrightham introduced the draft Guidance Note previously circulated, explaining how the sub group had developed the guidance to increase awareness of access rights and infrastructure requirements by planners and local authority roads staff. The aim was to keep it concise rather than duplicate the other detailed guidance available and if possible include case studies to illustrate various scenarios. He invited comments on the draft from members.
21. Rona Gibb welcomed the guidance note and offered to seek comments from the ‘active travel delivery group’. Helene Mauchlen explained that the note illustrated what a complex area this was, the restrictions of the various Roads Acts and the Highway Code along with the continued emphasis on walking and cycling was not in the spirit of the Land Reform (Scotland) Act (LRSA). She highlighted the vulnerability of users who continue to be pushed off footways and cycleways, saying these needed to be rebranded as multi use. She also recommended seeking legislative change. Mark agreed that legislative change is still a longer term objective.
22. Eleisha Fahy welcomed the guidance and the focus it brought on vulnerable users and multiuse access. She said that colleagues at Scotways had identified further conflicts between the LRSA and roads legislation that they recommend should be highlighted in the guidance note. As well as reworking the draft she also recommended seeking QC advice on the interplay between the different sets of legislation and advice from local authority roads departments on some of the practical aspects. Malcolm Duce offered to seek comments from Angus Corby.
23. Alistair McNab thought that the guidance was a good start, noting that the sharing of paths by different users could lead to increased interaction and that liability therefore was an issue. Examples included single track roads and interactions between tractors and cyclists. He also raised concerns about local authority areas where there were no access officers to help manage access. Stephen Jenkinson highlighted the importance of the guidance in raising awareness of all vulnerable road users, not just equestrian users, and the duty on roads departments to address this hierarchy of interactions.

AP 57/3: Comments on the ‘roads and access rights’ draft guidance note should be sent to Mark Wrightham by the end of June.

Item 6: Guidance on the publication of routes

24. The Convenor introduced the paper previously circulated and sought comments from members on whether further review and updated guidance on the publication of route information is required.
25. Alistair McNab highlighted a number of safety issues when a route is promoted without due discussion with land managers. He stressed the importance of trail accuracy in this regard. He also raised questions about liability and risk identification and whether this responsibility lay with the land manager or the promoter.
26. Adam-Streeter-Smith mentioned the Cairngorm National Park guidance document around third party promotion. He explained how they work with route promoters and event organisers to avoid sensitive routes at certain times of the year, eg Scottish orienteering working with local Capercaillie groups and work with Walk Highland to highlight storm damage. He recommended the use of Concordats in helping to communicate with different user groups but also stressed the importance of communicating quickly and effectively using web based communication and social media to aid this. Frank Spencer Nairn suggested introducing a Code of Good Practice for publications promoting new routes or republishing existing routes to ensure that landowners were informed and that checks were made to ensure the information was accurate. The Convenor welcomed further comments and ideas on further action by the Forum.

AP 57/4: Forum members are requested to send comments to the Convenor and NAFsec on whether updated guidance on the publication of route information is required and how this should be taken forward.

Item 7: Membership Review

27. The Secretary provided an update on the first phase of the membership review which looked at the representation of ‘Recreation Bodies’ and ‘Land Management’ bodies on the Forum. All current full and corresponding members of these groups, totalling some 29 organisations were contacted in March to see if they wished their status to remain the same. The results were that only one vacancy arose in the recreational bodies grouping from Scottish Sports Association moving to corresponding membership.  The Forum agreed that a request from Scottish Cycling (represented by Developing Mountain Biking in Scotland) to move from corresponding to full membership could therefore take up this vacancy. There were no changes within the land management grouping although a closer working relationship between the National Sheep Association (Scotland) and the SLE and NFUs representatives would be developed to allow
28. The second phase of the review looking at membership status of Public bodies, Other bodies (educational, commercial, tourism, conservation), Other relevant interest and Professional bodies will commence shortly and report to the Forum in September.

Item 8: Future Resources for Access

29. Members raised concerns about funding and resources for access prompted by discussions at the recent Improving Public Access (IPA) funding meeting held on 27 May.
30. Rona Gibb noted the uncertainty around funding for IPA especially with the government focus on improving biodiversity. She recommending raising the political awareness and desire for maintaining and improving access including funding for IPA on farmland. This could be done via correspondence to ministers, through social media and using every opportunity to engage with ministers on site to show them the benefit of seasonal rangers and good infrastructure to manage access.
31. Davie Black reported that at the IPA meeting discussion had included how to make future IPA funding more available for upland path improvements and for maintenance. He supported writing to ministers to restate the benefits of public access and the need for continuity in the IPA funding. Stephen Reeves talked about the importance of local parks and country parks for engaging with the public and as a resource for education especially for schools. He added that this could take the pressure off land managers and help with raising awareness on responsible access.
32. Eileen Stuart supported earlier comments saying that despite the new focus on biodiversity and current resourcing pressures NatureScot still took its access role seriously including SOAC communication and support for the National Access Forum. She noted the huge value that access played in health and well being and said that NatureScot would continue to make a strong case for investment in rangers and other access related services. IPA was extremely valuable in helping land managers provide core public benefits for access and she agreed to flag these issues with ministers.  Alastair McNab raised concerns about the lack of funding for path maintenance on farmland suggesting crowd funding to help with specific path repairs.
33. Helen Todd identified the relatively low investment through IPA in comparison to the funding for active travel. She also restated concerns over the reduction in the numbers of local authority access officers and the impact it has on strategic access planning and capacity to assist land managers with access issues. Malcolm Duce reminded the Forum of previous correspondence from Rosanna Cunningham (9th July 2020) on this matter which emphasised ministerial policy that the delivery of local authority duties such as access should be delivered locally and funding was currently made available for this though block grants to local authorities. He also noted that it will be interesting to see the future of European funds following ‘Stability and Simplicity’ from 2024.
34. There was general agreement that the requirement for access funding had to promoted in multiple ways, by all interested parties and should be coherent. The Convenor highlighted the need to address this urgently requesting volunteers for a sub group to identify what needed to be done and to co-ordinate the activity.

AP 57/5: Forum members wishing to join the access resources sub-group were invited to contact the NAFsec by the end of June.

Item 10: Forthcoming meetings & agenda items

35. The Convenor noted the NAF work programme previously circulated inviting members to send any comments to the NAFsec along with any agenda items for future meetings. The next NAF meeting is scheduled for Wednesday 21 September at Battleby and would be a hybrid meeting. Feedback from the current hybrid meeting was requested. A date for the NAF/LAF joint meeting in the autumn had yet to be confirmed, ideas for an overall theme were requested along with volunteers to help plan the event.

AP 57/6: Volunteers for a small working group and ideas for the NAF/LAF autumn meeting were invited and should be sent to the NAFsec.

Any Other Business

1. The Convenor highlighted the current Forestry and Land Scotland’s Draft Communities Strategy for Scotland’s National Forests and Land, which sets out  the principles and strategic priorities for how FLS will work with communities to make best use of Scotland's national forest and land.  A response to the consultation can be submitted online, and closes on 23 August 2022. Views from Forum members are welcomed by FLS.
2. Eleisha Fahy informed the Forum that Scotways has initiated a ‘Public Right of Way Investigation’ at Dalwhinnie to gather additional evidence to present in the case of the Network Rail closure of the level crossing at Ben Alder. For more information see Scotways website. Adam-Streeter Smith asked what action Network rail were taking to improve the situation at Dalwhinnie asking if the forum could follow this up with Network Rail. Malcolm Duce mentioned that some findings from the SG work on private level crossings which were also core paths would be made soon.
3. Nick Cole highlighted issues where restrictive parking, for example closures of laybys and the use of clearways, were preventing access asking if it was a widespread issue. It was thought to be relevant at a number of places and could be given further consideration by the group looking at resources for access. Adam-Streeter Smith also gave examples of bridges not being replaced by landowners which was hindering access in the National Park.
4. Helen Todd mentioned that the 3 short films on responsible access produced by Ramblers Scotland (with funding from a range of partners) had received over 800,000 views already across various platforms.

Close - The Convenor closed the meeting thanking the Forum for their contributions and apologising for the technical issues at the start.

Date of Next Meetings     

• NAF – Wednesday 21 September 2022
• NAF/LAF Joint meeting – Autumn date tbc
• NAF – Wednesday 8 February 2023

Summary Action Points

AP 57/1: Graeme McLean to work with Forum partners as plans to address the e-MTB study’s recommendations are developed.

AP 57/2: Forum members wishing to be part of a working group to look at wild deer management and access should inform the NAFsec.

AP 57/3: Comments on the ‘Roads and access rights’ draft guidance note should be sent to Mark Wrightham by the end of June.

AP 57/4: Forum members are requested to send comments to the Convenor and NAFsec on whether updated guidance on the publication of route information is required and how this should be taken forward.

AP 57/5: Forum members wishing to join the access resources sub-group were invited to contact the NAFsec by the end of June.

AP 57/6: Volunteers for a small working group and ideas for the NAF/LAF autumn meeting were invited and should be sent to the NAFsec.

Summary of main topics - National Access Forum hybrid meeting 8 June 2022

Outdoor Access with e-Bikes –

The Forum heard about the findings from the UK joint research project on outdoor access with e-bikes. The growth in e-bike sales, the motivation and behaviour of e–bike users, likely impacts and how to mitigate these through management was studied. The research identified no apparent evidence that e-bike use improves ethnic and gender diversity within the sport but was found to reduce health inequalities. The main motivators identified were a sense of ‘play’ as well as benefits to mental health rather than those seeking a high risk experience. Most e-bike users were found to be experienced and the vast majority responsible, although a minority of users experienced greater conflict with other users.

Recommendations from the research include; providing more investment to improve diversity and reduce barriers to participation (mainly cost), alterations to current facilities (to attract e-MTBs), further education on trail etiquette, education on SOAC and specific outdoor access guidance for e-MTB users with strong messages on ‘responsibility’. Forum members were interested in further investigation of the environmental and infrastructure impacts of e-MTB use and offered multiple sites for further study e.g. the Cairngorms National Park.

Wild Deer Management and Access -

The Chairman of the Association of Deer Management Groups introduced a paper on wild deer management and access which highlighted the importance of managing deer at the landscape scale to help meet SG targets for woodland creation and improving biodiversity. He described the sensitivities around the red deer cull from people pressure especially post pandemic. Increased numbers of access takers were evident in certain hot spot areas and pressures greater at certain times of year. The Forum discussed a number of solutions including the valuable ‘Heading for the Hills’ web resource, improved information provision,  potential for new signage, and more awareness of deer management for access takers via social media, guidance and local messaging. A working group to prepare guidance and key messages for all those involved in deer management and access would take this work forward.

Roads and Access Rights -

NatureScot introduced the revised ‘Guidance Note on Roads and Access Rights’ prepared by the NAF working group on this topic. The short note is intended to increase awareness for planners and transport staff of access rights especially consideration of multi-use when developing new roads and links especially in urban and peri-urban areas. It was not intended to duplicate existing guidance on infrastructure design. Overall, Forum members welcomed the guidance with some additional changes suggested. Others thought the continued focus on walking and cycling was not in the spirit of the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003 and that legislative change should be sought. NatureScot acknowledged that this was a longer term objective. Final changes to the guidance note would be made and agreed with the Forum.

Access and wildlife disturbance -

A small working group has been established to review the existing guidance on wildlife disturbance. The aim is to broaden its scope to include all access/species disturbance issues, not just dogs and ground-nesting birds and to address the ‘evidence-based versus the precautionary’ issue. Revised guidance will be presented to the Forum in September.

Guidance on the publication of routes –

The Forum briefly discussed some of the issues that arise from the publication of routes either in new guide books or reprints of existing guides where there has been no contact with the landowner to check the on-going status and suitability of routes.  Codes of good practice and or Web based advice for third parties promoting routes was suggested by Forum members. This could highlight quickly issues affecting the route such as storm damage, wildlife sensitivities at particular times of year and well as land management and safety issues.

Future Funding and Resources for Access –

The Forum raised concerns about any potential decline in future funding for access in relation to the SG priorities around biodiversity and climate change. It was agreed that all members needed to help raise awareness at ministerial level of the benefits of funding access to deliver a range of public benefits on health and well-being, access to appreciate nature, visitor management, and seek to secure funding going forward through IPA schemes, funding for rangers and infrastructure. A small sub group will co-ordinate this work.

Membership Review –

The first phase of the membership review (representation of ‘Recreation Bodies’ and ‘Land Management’ bodies on the Forum) was complete. Only one vacancy arose from Scottish Sports Association moving to corresponding membership. The Forum agreed that this place would be filled by Scottish Cycling (represented by Developing Mountain Biking in Scotland) moving to full membership. There were no changes within the land management grouping. The second phase of the review will commence shortly and report to the Forum in September.

SOAC engagement with Schools -

Forum members had engaged with NatureScot to renew and support SOAC engagement with schools and young people through the production of new resources. A new Scottish Outdoor Access Code Education Resource pack is now available. It contains activities designed to enable young people to understand rights and responsibilities of outdoor access in Scotland.

Forum Secretary –

Bridget Finton (NatureScot) attended the meeting, and will be acting Forum Secretary after I retire later this month. Mark Wrightham is also due to retire shortly. We were given a warm send off at the meeting by the Convenor. We both wish to thank members for your enthusiasm and assistance with the Forum’s wide-ranging activities over the last few years.

Future NAF meetings -

The next Forum meetings are: NAF meeting and Wednesday 21 September 2022 at Battleby  and Wednesday 8 February 2023 and a NAF/LAF Joint meeting Autumn 2022 (tbc).