SCOTLAND'S first national park is at the centre of a war of words over suggestions that greater commercialisation is the key to securing its existence for future generations.
The row was sparked after Fiona Logan, chief executive of Loch Lomond and The Trossachs National Park, said there was potential for greater involvement of the private sector, sponsorship from local businesses and contributions from visitors in the form of donations and charges.
She said national parks could become self-sustaining in 10 to 20 years and no longer rely solely on public funding, whilst remaining in the public sector.
However, Dave Morris, director of Ramblers Scotland, said he had concerns the park was already "losing its way" due to moves such banning wild camping on the east shore of Loch Lomond.
"If this is the view of the chief executive, there needs to be serious questions asked in the Scottish Government about what direction she is taking the national park," he said. "All this about commercialisation would seem to us that she is just losing the plot."
Bill McDermott, chairman of the Scottish Campaign for National Parks, described the park as a national asset.
"I think if we went down the road of commercialisation, we are more or less selling off the silver," he said. "I would hate to have a park where everything was privatised and had to be paid for. That doesn't give a sense of community at all."
Peter Jack, chairman of the Loch Lomond Association, which represents water users, said there were likely be differing views in his organisation on the matter.
"The intention of the Scottish Government when the park concept was first brought in was that it should be there to encourage everybody in Scotland and from further afield to use it pretty well free at the point of use as much as could be achieved," he said. "That is not the philosophy that has been pursued by the park."
The responses came after Ms Logan expressed her personal view on potential commercial opportunities to generate extra income. Among suggestions in a paper presented to the park board last week was charging for a wider range of services and facilities – such as parking, toilets, campsites and non-emergency boat rescues.
Ms Logan, who has an extensive background in the private sector including work for Unilever and IBM, said the park had escaped big cuts in funding despite the tough economic climate.
But she said 95% of the park's annual income of nearly £8 million was from Scottish Government grants, meaning "all our eggs are in one basket".
"If we believe protecting the area for future generations is important – which we all do – we believe finding sustainable ways of paying for that and providing for that in the future is important too," she said.
"Public-sector budgets are predicted to decline somewhat in the next while, or at least hold where they are – they are not going to go up again. Frankly, I think that is a great opportunity to become more creative and innovative, but then I am very lucky in that I have a private-sector background: that is how I think."
Nearly £400,000 of park income was generated in 2012/13 from business activities such as leasing visitor centres to private firms and planning application fees.
But she added: "We are absolutely a public body. This is not about profit, this is about sustainability. This is about encouraging people to use as much of the park as possible. It will be low-level charging in order to maintain and sustain our services and the infrastructure out there."
Ms Logan's views received a guarded welcome from John Mayhew, director of the Association for the Protection of Rural Scotland.
He backed the idea of trying to make the parks more financially sustainable, but added: "I could imagine a situation where a commercial operator or resort would say: 'If it is going to help get our proposal through in the national park, then we would be happy to provide some funding.'
"That is a bit worrying, because planning decisions should be made purely on their planning and conservation merits."
A Scottish Government spokesman said it supported the National Park in exploring opportunities for further investment in visitor facilities.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article