The foot and mouth crisis and resulting access problems meant 2001 was not a happy year for the outdoors community but as we herald the New Year and finally put the crisis behind us Dave Hewitt warns that an eye must be kept on the bigger picture.
Happy New Year, everyone. Here's hoping that the current amazing weather continues right round the calendar (OK, so it could warm up a bit come the spring) and that 2002 proves to be a happier and less hasslesome year than 2001 in terms of foot and mouth problems and access-bill nonsense.
If nothing else, I'd personally relish the chance to write about various lighter things and to push on with a whole raft of hill-research projects that had to be nudged to one side during 2001's endless interruptions. This is wishful thinking, of course, as it's unlikely to be a trouble-free year - but we'll see.
Before progressing any further, it makes sense to have a brief round up of various stories and issues from the hectic spell in late December, as things can easily slip through unnoticed amid the festive chaos. Inevitably, some of these stories relate to the Scottish Land Reform Bill, as this has now ended its latest consultation stage and returned to the committee corridors of the Scottish Parliament. Various organisations made submissions during December with regard to the bill, for instance the main representative body for hillwalkers, climbers and off-piste skiers in Scotland, the Mountaineering Council of Scotland.
The full MCofS response is on their website and starts by welcoming a number of "significant improvements" made since the earlier draft of the bill. These include, "The removal of the powers of landowners to suspend access rights, the dropping of the criminal offence provision, the dropping of local authority powers to exclude people from land, the removal of local authority powers to suspend access for reasons of extreme weather, the inclusion of the reference to responsible in the exercise of access rights and the inclusion of duties placed on local authorities in respect of core path networks and keeping routes free from obstruction."
The MCofS remains unhappy about other clauses however, for instance the potential restraint on commercial operators on the hill, which draws this comment from the Perth-based organisation, "This issue was discussed at some length in the Access Forum where it was generally accepted that drawing a line between the many diverse activities was an impossible task. We also feel that it would be unworkable, open to abuse and potentially damaging to hundreds of businesses, many of which are key employers in rural areas.
"Along with other recreation bodies on the Access Forum, we argued for the Scottish Outdoor Access Code to set out the responsibilities on any group leader or organiser. As the complexity of an activity increases, or the sensitivity of the time of year changes, or the requirement for facilities arises, then the need to consult with, or seek permission from the landowner changes accordingly. We are keen to see the responsibilities of organisers being spelt out clearly in the Code but do not see why being commercial per se should instantly place an individual outwith the right.
"The relationship between individuals taking access is of no legitimate concern to the landowner, because s/he has no locus to profit from their presence. "Commercial" groups are not "exploiting" private land; they are exploiting their own professional or technical abilities. Whether the group leader is a mountain guide or a childminder, they owe no debt to a landowner for such abilities. Given that their relationship with clients is governed by the private law of contract it is none of the landowner's business to enquire as to their purpose or motives so long as they are exercising their right of access responsibly under the law."
As for the clause concerning control over land access during the hours of darkness, the MCofS has this to say, "This clause would offer unwarranted potential for landowners who are unsympathetic to access and nature conservation to lobby their local authority officers and councillors for a curfew on their land. Whatever the original aim of this clause, there is tremendous potential for it to be abused and employed in other situations. We feel that this clause would not pass any test of reasonableness, because it would invariably affect those for whom a curfew was not intended."
Then there is the special clause which would provide the massive royal estate around Balmoral with an opt-out in terms of the access legislation. (You thought there was an irremovable right of way to the top of Lochnagar no matter what the season? Well there is just now but there might not be shortly.) The MCofS comments, "Subsection 6(e) would effectively give the estate managers the right to close access to the whole of the Balmoral estate, which includes five Munros, including Lochnagar, and some of the most important summer and winter climbing areas in Britain. We do not think that such a wide-ranging measure is necessary for the protection of the Royal family." Well said, although in the current atmosphere of security paranoia I rather fear that this totally unmanageable clause might end up being passed.
The MCofS has also expressed concerns about the more general increase of land-control power given to local authorities - something which might seem a positive move on the face of it but which, as we saw all too well during the FMD crisis, throws open a wide door for the democratically weaker and landowner-heavy authorities to formalise vested-interest "closures" rather than having to rely on the old method of trying to con the walking public by way of pseudo-official signage.
There has also been a response to the access bill from the Scottish Outdoor Recreation Network (SORN), a kind of a double-umbrella body composed of the following eight organisations - Activity Scotland, Outdoor Learning Scotland, the Scottish Advisory Panel on Outdoor Education, the Scottish Association of Local Sports Councils, the Scottish Countryside Activities Council, the Scottish Environment LINK Access Network, the Scottish Sports Association and YouthLink Scotland.
As might be expected from such a body, the most lengthy expression of concern centres on the "commercial operators" clause - "Identifying and defining what is meant by commercial activity is very difficult. SORN is concerned that youth and school groups, and those not confident in their own abilities or skills, who often take access under some form of commercial arrangement, will be outwith the right. What will happen to mountain guides and outdoor centres, many of which operate on very tight profit margins? Jim Wallace stated that the Bill would encourage local business and tourism; it is difficult to see how this will be achieved in (this) context.
"The 2001 Foot and Mouth Disease outbreak demonstrated clearly the huge importance of access and recreation to the tourist economy and thus the whole economy of Scotland; the Bill could have a significantly detrimental impact on this sector. Such proposed restriction does not exist in any other European country. SORN considers that if commercial activity is kept outwith the right of access, a perception will develop amongst landowners that, regardless of existing traditions, they will be at liberty to prevent such access. SORN is concerned that such access will be continuously challenged in certain areas to the point that activities will cease to be viable concerns.
"It is important that the Bill confirms what happens already and does not impose any new restrictions on activities that are not currently causing problems. It is considered that commercial activity should be in the right and its responsible access defined in the Code. Furthermore, it seems ironic that educational groups (whether in the company of mountain or river "guides", teachers or instructors) could be excluded from the right (or potentially asked to pay for access), when these groups are precisely those likely to be taught the rights and responsibilities associated with access. (SORN can be contacted on 0131 472 7560 or out_rec@hotmail.com)
Both the MCofS and SORN responses make mention of the Access Code, and this has also recently been redrafted. The code has had a strange and unhappy history of late, as it originally came out of the Access Forum, the looseknit and wide-ranging body that discussed much of the early stages of the access bill. This all changed however when the Scottish National Farmers Union unilaterally pulled out of the forum in February 2001, just before the foot and mouth crisis hit (something which conspiracy theorists might wish to ponder). With that the forum effectively closed down, its "ownership" changed and subsequent revisions came direct from Scottish Natural Heritage and the Scottish Executive, without any input from or consultation with bodies such as the MCofS. Not only that but the new draft appeared just two days before the end of consultation for the latest version of the access bill and less than a week before Christmas. Not very clever and not very democratic.
Anyway, the revised access code is now in the public domain, all 49 pages of it. If you have a spare half-hour to swot up on such matters, it probably should be regarded as essential (if not very exciting) reading, so we've placed a version of it in Word format on the Scotland Online site - HERE.
Finally for now, on a more specific access-related problem, I'm grateful to Tony Payne on Lewis for the news that the National Trust for Scotland is starting to develop a new management plan for St Kilda archipelago, intended to cover the period 2002-07. Details on this can be found at the St Kilda website although it seems that the consultation timespan, at least for the initial phase, is again ridiculously short - the NTS is looking for comments no later than 10 January 2002.
This mini access debate is of particular importance given the draconian control that the NTS and SNH have chosen to exert over access to St Kilda in recent years. Everything has to be cleared with the warden on site and this is problematic as the present incumbent is proving to be a real no-go jobsworth. The basic "rule" seems to be that anyone wishing to stray beyond the immediate confines of Village Bay is required to raise a hand and ask "Please Sir...?", even if all they want to do is to wander up to the Hirta highpoint of Conachair. This used to be accessible without permission but a suicide jump from the cliff edge has made the warden even more edgy this past while.
When it comes to accessing the other islands and stacks, things are currently difficult to say the least. Everything has to be applied for and pretty much everything tends to be refused (unless you're a card-carrying conservationist who has kept well in with the NTS hierarchy). Landings on the other three main islands - Boreray, Soay and Dun - are difficult enough, given the swell and the surrounding seacliffs, without having to go balaclava-in-hand to some official beforehand. As for the stacks, such as Stac Lee and Stac an Armin, these are very much off-limits in official terms just now, even though previous Kilda wardens have taken a much more liberal "for the nation" approach.
I've had a particular interest in the Kilda situation for some time, through being the publisher of various of Alan Dawson's hill lists. Dawson's Marilyns list (all UK peaks with at least 150m drop all round) includes the six St Kilda islands/stacks mentioned above but during the nine years since Dawson's original Cicerone book (The Relative Hills of Britain) appeared, only one active Marilynbagger has been known to have made any "progress" on Kilda beyond an ascent of Conachair.
The problem is that while no one (at least to my knowledge) is suggesting that ascents of the islands or stacks be made during the bird-nesting season (when the islands are home to a massive gannetry, plus other colonies), the current bureaucratic stance attempts to block access for all 12 months of the year, including the September to April period when there are no birds nesting here.
As we have seen again this year, the late autumn/early winter period often brings with it a settled spell of calm weather and light seas and there seems absolutely no reason why intrepid peakbaggers, island lovers or whoever shouldn't be allowed to take their chances with landings during such times. It is clearly never going to be more than a few people even in good weather - the distance offshore is so massive as to prevent any kind of major influx, plus it's not unusual for whole years to go by without even a single suitable day for putting ashore on Soay, with its slabby, greasy, encircling cliffs and endless swell.
But people have the right to try, so long as they're not doing any damage and the current no-go situation is both extreme and absurd. It's also likely to prove counterproductive at some stage, as if would-be visitors continue to be blocked on every day of the year, someone will inevitably choose to swerve the red tape and put together an "unofficial" raiding party at some stage - as indeed happened with various military-inspired attempts on the stacks from the 1960s onwards.
Anyway, the new and rather unheralded consultation period is at least a chance for climbers and islandhoppers to lobby for a change in the zero-tolerance stance, and submissions should be made to Fabio Villani, Public Relations Officer, Balnain House, 40 Huntly Street, Inverness IV3 5HR, 01463 732633, fvillani@nts.org.uk
Dave Hewitt
4/1/2002
You can contact Dave at Dave.Hewitt@dial.pipex.com
