Cairngorms Nation­al Park Author­ity Ugh­dar­ras Pàirc Nàiseanta a’ Mhon­aidh Ruaidh

Page 1 of 16

Draft minutes of the Per­form­ance Com­mit­tee meeting

Held at Cairngorms Nation­al Park Author­ity office, Grant­own-on-Spey Online 23 March 2026 at 10.00am

Present online Kenny Deans (Chair) Jack­ie Brier­ton (sub for Ann Ross) Han­nah Grist (sub for Steve Mickle­wright) Sandy Brem­ner Rus­sell Jones (sub for John Kirk) Elean­or Mackintosh

In attend­ance Grant Moir, Chief Exec­ut­ive Officer Dav­id Camer­on, Deputy Chief Exec­ut­ive Officer and Dir­ect­or of Cor­por­ate Ser­vices Andy Ford, Dir­ect­or of Nature and Cli­mate Change Gav­in Miles, Dir­ect­or of Plan­ning and Place Colin McCle­an, Head of Land Man­age­ment Dav­id Clyne, Head of Cairngorms 2030 Oliv­er Dav­ies, Head of Com­mu­nic­a­tions and Engage­ment Alix Hark­ness, Clerk to the Board

Apo­lo­gies John Kirk Ann Ross Steve Mickle­wright (Deputy Chair) Michael Williamson

---

Cairngorms Nation­al Park Author­ity Ugh­dar­ras Pàirc Nàiseanta a’ Mhon­aidh Ruaidh

Page 2 of 16

Wel­come and introduction

1. The Chair wel­comed every­one to the meet­ing of the Per­form­ance Com­mit­tee. Apo­lo­gies were noted. Spe­cial wel­come to Subs: the Chair noted appre­ci­ation for their input.

Approv­al of minutes of pre­vi­ous meetings

1. The draft minutes of the pre­vi­ous meet­ing held on 12 Decem­ber 2025 were approved with no amendments.

Mat­ters arising not covered elsewhere

1. There were no mat­ters arising.

ACTION	Status
Action points arising from pre­vi­ous meetings
12 Decem­ber
Approv­al of minutes
At para 2a
i. CEO to share with the Com­mit­tee who was alloc­ated funds through the Cli­mate Adapt­a­tion Fund includ­ing fund­ing alloc­a­tions and pro­ject types.	Com­plete
Update:
Climate-adaptation-fund-2024.pdf
Climate-Adaptation-Fund-2025.pdf
Emailed to Per­form­ance Com­mit­tee Mem­bers on 17 March.
Paper 4 — Cairngorms Nature Action Plan
At para 19f
i. Con­sider a new term for ​“com­munity benefits”.	In hand

1. The Chair noticed that an action had been missed from the action table relat­ing to 9^e of the pre­vi­ous meet­ing and asked for it to be added.

---

Cairngorms Nation­al Park Author­ity Ugh­dar­ras Pàirc Nàiseanta a’ Mhon­aidh Ruaidh

Page 3 of 16

Declar­a­tions of interest

1. Elean­or Mack­in­tosh declared for aware­ness that she is a mem­ber of the Cairngorms Trust Board and a mem­ber of the Cairngorms 2030 Board but that should not pre­clude her being able to take part in the meeting.

Deer incent­ive scheme (Paper 1)

1. Colin McCle­an, Head of Land Man­age­ment intro­duced the paper which presents an update on the deliv­ery of the deer incent­ive scheme run by the Park Author­ity in the hind cull­ing sea­sons of ²⁰²⁴⁄₂₅ and ²⁰²⁵⁄₂₆.

2. The Per­form­ance Com­mit­tee dis­cussed the paper and made the fol­low­ing com­ments and obser­va­tions: a) A mem­ber asked why the per­form­ance meas­ure was rated green when only £25k of the £40k budget had been used and ques­tioned wheth­er this was real­ist­ic giv­en that the scheme may not be deliv­er­ing on inten­ded out­comes? Head of Land Man­age­ment advised that the rat­ing depends on what cri­ter­ia is being used; if the meas­ure was budget util­isa­tion, then no, it should not be rated green because the full budget has not been spent, while there is some expect­a­tion that the cur­rent fig­ure may increase on final­isa­tion of count. How­ever, if the meas­ure was suc­cess­ful design and imple­ment­a­tion of an incent­ive scheme, includ­ing secur­ing budget for deliv­ery, then yes, the scheme is per­form­ing as inten­ded because it provides a strong incent­ive (more than double game deal­er rates). He acknow­ledged the point being made by the mem­ber and advised it was a judge­ment call. It was agreed the Key Per­form­ance Indic­at­or (KPI) be reworded to accur­ately reflect the inten­ded out­come by the Head of Land Man­age­ment. [Post-meet­ing note: the final expendit­ure for ²⁰²⁵⁄₂₆ is £35k of £40k budget.] b) A mem­ber asked what a stat­utory con­trol looks like and how it works? Head of Land Man­age­ment explained sec­tion 8: where NatureScot will set cull tar­gets for the estates. They will then have the option of try­ing to achieve those cull tar­gets them­selves. If at any point it looks like they’re fall­ing behind where they should be in terms of a timeline, then NatureScot would have the right to put in their own resource. And any cost to the pub­lic purse could poten­tially be paid back by estates. There’s also a sec­tion 9 of the Deer Act which is all about cost recov­ery. So, NatureScot could impose cost recovery

---

Cairngorms Nation­al Park Author­ity Ugh­dar­ras Pàirc Nàiseanta a’ Mhon­aidh Ruaidh

Page 4 of 16

c)  and get all their costs back, which could be a considerable sum for estates. There is an appeals process, which is relatively untested. It goes through the land court. He added that all these sections of the Act have not been used before. Section 7 has been used regularly before, section 10 has been used before, but section 8 has never been used, and section 9, cost recovery has never been used. So that would all be setting legal precedence. We don't really know how it would work, but potentially it could be hard hitting on landowners.
d)  A member noted that the paper accurately reflects how effective the incentive scheme has been so far, while also being honest about its limitations. He emphasised that although good progress has been made, a wider and more ambitious approach is needed—one that aligns with the broader deer management strategy recently brought to the Board. He concluded by saying it was a good paper.
e)  A member asked how can we judge the effectiveness of the incentive scheme when deer numbers are out of date or uncertain, and estates are claiming they don't have the deer? Without reliable, up to date data, how can we challenge estates' claims or demonstrate that progress is being made? Head of Land Management agreed with the concerns raised and he explained that estates generally fall into three categories which may vary over time:
    i.    those that genuinely have had no deer present during key periods.
    ii.   those that believe they have no deer but may not have fully surveyed their ground; and
    iii.  those that deny having deer despite holding significant populations.
    He stated that, from a public sector perspective, it was often impossible to distinguish between these situations. This uncertainty has led to repeated helicopter counts at considerable cost, as the area has continually sought to verify deer numbers. He agreed that confirming accurate data remains a persistent challenge for the scheme.
f)   The CEO noted that meeting the 2030 deer management targets will require measures beyond the current incentive scheme. He emphasised the need for NatureScot to strengthen statutory processes and consider moving beyond long-term Section 7 arrangements, supported by the new Natural Environment Act. He added that the Authority must continue pressing NatureScot on resources and seek adequate national funding. He agreed

---

Cairngorms Nation­al Park Author­ity Ugh­dar­ras Pàirc Nàiseanta a’ Mhon­aidh Ruaidh

Page 5 of 16

g)  progress is currently insufficient and said the next Park Plan will be key to driving change.
h)  The Chair noted previous discussion with NatureScot on the viability of estates operating with very low deer numbers. The Head of Land Management confirmed evidence from DMGs showing estates can operate effectively at around 8 deer per km², with client satisfaction and a sustainable sporting model. He advised that viability becomes more challenging below this level and that access or terrain are not key factors; the main issue is ensuring sufficient stags are available during the peak guest period in September and October.

1. The Per­form­ance Com­mit­tee noted the paper and agreed to the recom­mend­a­tions: a) Dis­cuss the paper and con­sider any implic­a­tions for deer man­age­ment and future deer incent­ive schemes.

2. Action Point Arising: i. Head of Land Man­age­ment to reword the Key Per­form­ance Indic­at­or (KPI) to accur­ately reflect the inten­ded outcome.

Cairngorms 2030 pro­gramme update: quarter four 2025 (Octo­ber – Decem­ber) (Paper 2)

1. Dav­id Clyne, Head of Cairngorms 2030 intro­duced the paper which presents the status of the Cairngorms 2030 (C2030) pro­gramme and risk man­age­ment, based on inform­a­tion in pro­ject reports for the peri­od from Octo­ber to Decem­ber 2025, and updated where appro­pri­ate to reflect cur­rent pos­i­tion as at the time of writ­ing, and the planned work to end March 2026.

2. The Per­form­ance Com­mit­tee dis­cussed the paper and made the fol­low­ing com­ments and obser­va­tions: a) Chair thanked the Head of Cairngorms 2030 for the paper. b) A mem­ber asked what happened to the Spin Pro­ject? Head of Cairngorms 2030 advised that it had been delivered in full. c) A mem­ber asked why the Aviemore segreg­ated cycle path had been included in the ori­gin­al pro­ject brief if there was insuf­fi­cient road space to accom­mod­ate it. He quer­ied wheth­er this was simply an isol­ated issue or

---

Cairngorms Nation­al Park Author­ity Ugh­dar­ras Pàirc Nàiseanta a’ Mhon­aidh Ruaidh

Page 6 of 16

d)  indicative of wider issues in how transport projects are scoped. Head of Cairngorms 2030 acknowledged the concern and explained that transport projects funded through Sustrans or Transport Scotland must follow a staged design process. Early-stage outline designs rely on map-based desk assessments rather than detailed site surveys. It is only at a later stage when full topographical surveys are carried out, that accurate measurements of available space, including impacts on private boundaries, become clear. This was accepted as a structural issue within the funding and design framework and suggested that topographical surveys should ideally occur earlier in the process.
e)  CEO added that a segregated cycle path was technically feasible along most of the route, but there were three to four sections where significant disruption would occur, requiring land take from the road or private gardens. Following community feedback and practical assessment, the conclusion was that alternative solutions would be more appropriate and less contentious. He agreed that it was frustrating that this conclusion emerged late and acknowledged that the issue could have been identified earlier. Director of Planning and Place added that the project had highlighted the need to push consultants more firmly at the early stages to be realistic about constraints. The late-stage identification of limitations could have been avoided with clearer early advice, and he provided reassurance that this would be a learning point for future transport project scoping.
f)   A member who is Chair of the Economic Steering Group asked whether this would be an appropriate point to begin examining the economic outputs associated with Cairngorms 2030 in more detail. She noted that the passing of the Community Wealth Building Bill may provide a new opportunity to align project outputs and outcomes with this policy direction. She invited Head of Cairngorms 2030 to attend their next meeting to begin setting goals and exploring how this alignment could be achieved. Head of Cairngorms 2030 welcomed the suggestion and confirmed he would be pleased to attend the next Economic Steering Group meeting. He agreed there was clear potential to strengthen the links between Cairngorms 2030 outcomes, the emerging legislative context, and the project's monitoring and evaluation requirements. He highlighted that work on the legacy planning for Cairngorms 2030 already included identifying the “golden thread” connecting project actions, new legislation, and the direction of travel beyond 2029. He confirmed he was

---

Cairngorms Nation­al Park Author­ity Ugh­dar­ras Pàirc Nàiseanta a’ Mhon­aidh Ruaidh

Page 7 of 16

g)  happy to work with the Chair of the Cairngorms Economic Steering Group and the Director of Planning and Place to contribute to this process.
h)  A member noted the positive nature of the report and asked whether, aside from the transport-related issues already discussed, there was anything within the Cairngorms 2030 programme that was causing significant concern. Head of Cairngorms 2030 advised that although the programme is complex, the governance, communication, and risk-management arrangements were working well, and nothing was causing major concern. He added that the only area of uncertainty lay within the nature recovery projects, where some elements of scope were still being clarified.
i)   A member asked what model was being used for the Glen Clova project? Director of Nature and Climate Change explained that the Glen Clova model centres on supplying venison to the hotel, enabling the recruitment of a butcher and expansion of associated hospitality. As the hotel demand grows, the estate may need to work with neighbouring estates to secure additional supply. He added that engagement from the land manager had been positive. Head of Land Management added that part of the venison also goes to Glen Kilry for the school kitchen programme, which had been operating successfully. The value of the venison provided over the contract is roughly equal to the capital costs of the facility provided. Glen Clova had been a key participant in the venison subsidy and has increased its cull levels. He stated that engagement was now constructive across several fronts.
j)   A member noted his previous difficulty getting venison onto Highland Council school menus and asked whether venison is now being supplied to schools, particularly in Badenoch and Strathspey. C2030: Nature Based Solutions Manager confirmed that following lengthy discussions, Highland Council had agreed to accept venison for school dinners in Badenoch and Strathspey. Venison was now being supplied both for cookery education and for school meals.

1. The Per­form­ance Com­mit­tee noted the paper and agreed to the recom­mend­a­tions: a) Note the pro­gress to date and future for C2030 deliv­ery. b) Note spe­cif­ic points of C2030 deliv­ery risk. c) High­light any issues arising that mem­bers may feel need spe­cif­ic con­sid­er­a­tion by staff from a stra­tegic and board perspective.

---

Cairngorms Nation­al Park Author­ity Ugh­dar­ras Pàirc Nàiseanta a’ Mhon­aidh Ruaidh

Page 8 of 16

1. Action Point Arising: i. Head of Cairngorms 2030 to attend the next Eco­nom­ic Steer­ing Group meet­ing to work with the Chair and the Dir­ect­or of Plan­ning and Place to align Cairngorms 2030 eco­nom­ic out­puts with the Com­munity Wealth Build­ing Bill and inform future leg­acy planning.

Cairngorms 2030 restor­ing and enhan­cing landscape’s theme update Feb­ru­ary 2026 (Paper 3)

1. Mat­thew Hawkins, Cairngorms 2030 Nature Based Solu­tions Man­ager, intro­duced the paper which describes recent activ­ity and pro­gress on the sev­en pro­jects with­in the Cairngorms 2030 (C2030) Restor­ing and Enhan­cing Land­scapes theme.

2. The Per­form­ance Com­mit­tee dis­cussed the paper and made the fol­low­ing com­ments and obser­va­tions: a) A mem­ber asked if there was any mon­it­or­ing on the wel­fare of cattle that are going to be put onto graze? Cairngorms 2030 Nature Based Solu­tions Man­ager provided reas­sur­ance that he had spoken to the Dur­rell Trust about it and a farm­er from Kin­gussie was look­ing to devel­op more con­ser­va­tion graz­ing as part of his busi­ness mod­el. The mem­ber added in addi­tion, it would be good to mon­it­or and feed­back to the farm­ing industry, if they need extra min­er­al sup­ple­ments or extra feed­ing? Would they need extra worm­ing and what was the tick effect on them, if any. Cairngorms 2030 Nature Based Solu­tions Man­ager advised that they had talked about worm­ing and agreed to raise those ques­tions. b) The Chair asked for cla­ri­fic­a­tion about what was meant by the ​“com­mon theme” in para­graph 5, not­ing that the pro­jects with­in the theme, and across the wider pro­gramme, are very diverse, and that it was unclear how a com­mon theme was emer­ging from them. Cairngorms 2030 Nature Based Solu­tions Man­ager explained that the com­mon theme was not about the pro­jects being sim­il­ar, but about how they have developed over time. In par­tic­u­lar, he high­lighted a shared improve­ment in com­munity and pub­lic engage­ment across the pro­jects. While some nature pro­jects ini­tially had little or no engage­ment built in, this had grown sig­ni­fic­antly as the team’s con­fid­ence and skills had increased.

---

Cairngorms Nation­al Park Author­ity Ugh­dar­ras Pàirc Nàiseanta a’ Mhon­aidh Ruaidh

Page 9 of 16

c)  The Chair noted that the Spey Catchment Initiative had achieved strong community engagement in Altmore by first contacting key local individuals and asking them to share information, which resulted in a very high turnout at the initial meeting.
d)  A member asked about the Glasgow School of Art (GSA) Rural Lab project, specifically whether it had a presence within the National Park and what level of resource it brought. Head of Cairngorms 2030 explained that the Rural Lab is based on the Altyre Estate just outside Forres and had been operating for many years. He outlined that the Lab undertakes systems design and creative academic research and was seen as a valuable partner. He also noted that the Rural Lab lead, Dr Claire Deveny, had joined the Cairngorms 2030 Board, and that there was potential for future collaboration, including wider research opportunities supported by significant recent funding for rural PhD programmes. Head of Cairngorms 2030 offered to arrange a meeting. The member welcomed the offer of a meeting noting the relevance to enterprise and skills activity.

1. The Per­form­ance Com­mit­tee noted the paper.

2. Action Points Arising: i. Cairngorms 2030 Nature Based Solu­tions Man­ager to raise and con­sider mon­it­or­ing of cattle wel­fare as part of planned graz­ing, includ­ing issues such as min­er­al sup­ple­ment­a­tion, addi­tion­al feed­ing or shel­ter, worm­ing, and poten­tial tick impacts, with a view to shar­ing rel­ev­ant learn­ing with the wider farm­ing industry. ii. Head of Cairngorms 2030 to arrange an intro­duct­ory meet­ing between Dr Claire Deveney and Board mem­ber (Jack­ie Brierton).

Cairngorms Peat­land ACTION Pro­gramme (Paper 4)

1. Colin McCle­an, Head of Land Man­age­ment intro­duced the paper which presents an update on the deliv­ery of the Park Authority’s Peat­land ACTION pro­gramme in ²⁰²⁵⁄₂₆ and the devel­op­ing pro­gramme for ²⁰²⁶⁄₂₇.

2. The Per­form­ance Com­mit­tee dis­cussed the paper and made the fol­low­ing com­ments and observations:

---

Cairngorms Nation­al Park Author­ity Ugh­dar­ras Pàirc Nàiseanta a’ Mhon­aidh Ruaidh

Page 10 of 16

a)  A member raised concern about whether peatland restoration could face a similar issue to path projects, where capital funding was available but long-term revenue funding for maintenance would prove uncertain. Head of Land Management acknowledged the uncertainty around future maintenance needs, noting that early peatland projects were less robust but that standards have improved. Deputy CEO and Director of Corporate Services clarified that, unlike paths, peatland restoration grant agreements (particularly under the Peatland Code) place maintenance responsibility on land managers for up to 10 years (and up to 30 years under newer arrangements), meaning the Park Authority does not carry sole maintenance responsibility.
b)  A member asked if the likely scale of required maintenance, particularly for projects delivered between 2014–18, be quantified? Head of Land Management confirmed that earlier non-Peatland Code projects lacked formal maintenance obligations, though newer projects included them. He added that a review of completed projects was underway, and lessons are being learned. At present, no significant or alarming maintenance burden was evident, but longer-term impacts remained uncertain due to natural processes and climate factors.
c)  The Chair asked if the wider benefits of peatland restoration, beyond carbon, be clearer for communities, given that baseline data was not always collected? Head of Land Management agreed that peatland restoration delivers benefits beyond carbon, including biodiversity, water retention, and potentially wildfire mitigation, and that more work was needed to evidence and communicate these outcomes. Director of Nature and Climate Change added that future project prioritisation will increasingly consider multiple benefits, additionality, greenhouse gas metrics, and landscape-scale impacts, aligned with Scottish Government priorities and supported by monitoring plans.
d)  The Chair asked if there a monitoring requirement for peatland restoration like there was for river restoration projects? Director of Nature and Climate Change confirmed that there was a dedicated monitoring officer and an established monitoring plan and programme for peatland restoration.
e)  A member sought clarity on whether the £300,000 cap represented full or partial funding, and how this affects landscape-scale projects. Head of Land Management explained that £300,000 represents the Park Authority's contribution, with private funding expected for additional costs.

---

Cairngorms Nation­al Park Author­ity Ugh­dar­ras Pàirc Nàiseanta a’ Mhon­aidh Ruaidh

Page 11 of 16

f)   Landscape-scale outcomes could still be achieved through multi-year and multi-project approaches. Director of Nature and Climate Change added that the figure was an indicative budget used to design projects, allowing existing commitments and landscape-scale ambitions to be met over time. There is no formal cap on the funding.
g)  A member asked if there were estates within the National Park that have not engaged with peatland restoration? Head of Land Management confirmed that almost all estates are engaged; only three are not currently involved, and these were not considered critical in terms of flooding risk or restoration urgency.

1. The Per­form­ance Com­mit­tee noted the paper and agreed to the recom­mend­a­tions: a) Note the pro­gress against pro­gramme tar­gets for ²⁰²⁵⁄₂₆. b) Note the plans for ²⁰²⁶⁄₂₇.

2. Action Points Arising: i. None.

The meet­ing paused for a com­fort break at 11.25am The meet­ing resumed at 11.31am

Com­mu­nic­a­tions and Engage­ment update (Paper 5)

1. Oliv­er Dav­ies, Head of Com­mu­nic­a­tions and Engage­ment intro­duced the paper which presents an update of cur­rent com­mu­nic­a­tions and engage­ment activ­ity, plus out­lines a num­ber of key pri­or­it­ies for the next quarter. It also includes a stra­tegic risk register and accom­pa­ny­ing mit­ig­a­tion measures.

2. The Per­form­ance Com­mit­tee dis­cussed the paper and made the fol­low­ing com­ments and obser­va­tions: a) A mem­ber asked how long after the cam­paign would detail res­ults from the pre and post cam­paign sur­vey be avail­able? Head of Com­mu­nic­a­tions and engage­ment advised that the pulse sur­vey res­ults would be pro­cessed quickly by YouGov, but full res­ults were likely to be avail­able after the sum­mer bylaw peri­od, estim­ated for late August or Septem­ber, once the cam­paign has concluded.

---

Cairngorms Nation­al Park Author­ity Ugh­dar­ras Pàirc Nàiseanta a’ Mhon­aidh Ruaidh

Page 12 of 16

b)  A member noted that in preparation for the papers for the Formal Board meeting later this week, the risk relating to decisions of the Cairngorms 2030 Communities Fund Panel being contentious should be elevated from medium to high, given the sums involved and potential community reaction. Head of Communications and Engagement confirmed and advised that this committee paper had been finalised and published in advance of that change being made to the paper submitted to the board.
c)  A member asked if there was a danger that widespread muirburn activity undermine or confuse public messaging around the Fire Bylaw? CEO acknowledged the difficulty caused by the delayed introduction of muirburn licensing. Head of Communications and Engagement added that messaging had been checked with partners including Scottish Fire and Rescue Service, NatureScot and others. The agreed public message remains that any fire of concern should be reported to 999. Reassurance was provided that while some confusion was inevitable, partners were comfortable with the current approach.
d)  A member asked if progress was being made towards establishing a dedicated Cairngorms National Park app? Head of Communications and Engagement confirmed discussions were ongoing with partners including Loch Lomond and Trossachs National Park (LLTNP) and VisitScotland. Development is dependent on partner progress and shared funding arrangements. LLTNP aims to complete its website work by October, after which progress may be made.

1. The Per­form­ance Com­mit­tee noted the paper and agreed to the recom­mend­a­tions: a) Review activ­ity across a range of com­mu­nic­a­tions and engage­ment chan­nels in the past three months and dis­cuss the iden­ti­fied pri­or­it­ies for quarter two of 2026. b) Review the accom­pa­ny­ing risk register to ensure key risks are cap­tured and that mit­ig­a­tion meas­ures are appropriate.

2. Action Points Arising:

---

Cairngorms Nation­al Park Author­ity Ugh­dar­ras Pàirc Nàiseanta a’ Mhon­aidh Ruaidh

Page 13 of 16

i. None.

Cairngorms Trust and Com­munity Led Loc­al Devel­op­ment update (Paper 6)

1. Dav­id Camer­on, Deputy CEO and Dir­ect­or of Cor­por­ate Ser­vices intro­duced the paper which presents an update on the work of the Cairngorms Loc­al Action Group Trust (‘the Cairngorms Trust’) and the col­lect­ive work of the Cairngorms Trust and the Park Author­ity in Com­munity Led Loc­al Devel­op­ment (CLLD) activity.

Han­nah Grist left the meet­ing at 11.48 am

1. The Per­form­ance Com­mit­tee dis­cussed the paper and made the fol­low­ing com­ments and obser­va­tions: a) A mem­ber raised con­cern that while fund­ing levels into Cairngorms remain pos­it­ive, infla­tion had sig­ni­fic­antly eroded the real value of Com­munity-Led Loc­al Devel­op­ment (CLLD) fund­ing com­pared to pre­vi­ous LEAD­ER pro­grammes. Deputy CEO and Dir­ect­or of Cor­por­ate Ser­vices acknow­ledged the erosion in value and con­firmed that while head­line fund­ing levels were broadly com­par­able to the pre­vi­ous LEAD­ER pro­gramme, infla­tion and the absence of mul­ti­year fund­ing sig­ni­fic­antly con­strained deliv­ery and com­munity engage­ment. b) A mem­ber com­men­ted that main­tain­ing a strong nation­al Loc­al Action Group (LAG) net­work was essen­tial to pro­tect lob­by­ing power and pre­vent fur­ther erosion of rur­al devel­op­ment budgets, with the Cairngorms Trust well-placed to lead due to its inde­pend­ent trust mod­el. The mem­ber sup­por­ted this work and encour­aged the con­tin­ued pro­gress of work on devel­op­ing the net­work. c) A mem­ber asked if there was scope for the Cairngorms Trust to act as a con­duit for addi­tion­al fund­ing streams bey­ond CLLD, such as employ­ab­il­ity or suc­cessor Shared Prosper­ity Fund-type fund­ing? Deputy CEO and Dir­ect­or of Cor­por­ate Ser­vices con­firmed there was strong poten­tial, par­tic­u­larly for sup­port­ing rur­al busi­ness devel­op­ment and employ­ab­il­ity, and that this was an area the Trust should act­ively explore as part of its future dir­ec­tion. d) Con­cern was raised about a per­ceived drift by the Trust towards great­er inde­pend­ence from the Park Author­ity, poten­tially weak­en­ing a pre­vi­ously strong part­ner­ship. Deputy CEO and Dir­ect­or of Cor­por­ate Services

---

Cairngorms Nation­al Park Author­ity Ugh­dar­ras Pàirc Nàiseanta a’ Mhon­aidh Ruaidh

Page 14 of 16

e)  acknowledged the concern as a valid strategic risk and confirmed that a refresh of the Memorandum of Agreement was intended to help manage this balance, maintaining the Trust's charitable independence while strengthening partnership working. Other officers echoed the importance of collaboration to maximise delivery and funding opportunities.
f)   A member questioned whether voluntary giving continue to be an aspiration, or be removed from the risk register and Trust business planning, given the challenging fundraising environment? Deputy CEO and Director of Corporate Services agreed this required careful reconsideration. He provided reassurance that early discussions had begun, and the Trust and Park Authority would reflect on whether voluntary giving remains realistic or cost-effective, with further governance discussion to follow.
g)  A member questioned whether it was timely to review the long-standing approach to community development funding within the National Park? CEO confirmed that a broader strategic discussion on community development funding priorities over the next 5–10 years would take place as part of work on the next National Park Partnership Plan, involving the full Board.

1. The Per­form­ance Com­mit­tee noted the paper and agreed to the recom­mend­a­tions: a) Wheth­er the pro­grammes of activ­ity are mak­ing the expec­ted con­tri­bu­tion to the Park Authority’s agreed stra­tegic out­comes. b) Wheth­er the deliv­ery updates sug­gest any stra­tegic­ally sig­ni­fic­ant impacts on the Park Authority’s agreed per­form­ance object­ives. c) Wheth­er any mater­i­al impacts on the Park Authority’s stra­tegic risk man­age­ment and mit­ig­a­tion meas­ures arise from assess­ment of pro­gramme deliv­ery. d) Noted paper 6 annex 1.

2. Action Points Arising: i. None.

AOCB

1. None

---

Cairngorms Nation­al Park Author­ity Ugh­dar­ras Pàirc Nàiseanta a’ Mhon­aidh Ruaidh

Page 15 of 16

Date of Next Meeting

1. The date of the next meet­ing is 12 June 2026.

2. The meet­ing con­cluded at 12.16pm

ACTION	Status
Action points arising from pre­vi­ous meetings
12 Decem­ber
Paper 4 — Cairngorms Nature Action Plan
At para 19f
ii. Con­sider a new term for ​“com­munity benefits”.	In hand
Paper 2 – Cairngorms 2030 pro­gramme update: quarter three 2025 (July – September)
At para 9e
CEO to con­firm and provide inform­a­tion on the pro­cess for how the Park Author­ity would high­light what fund­ing is avail­able, for farm­ers to choose who they go to.
23 March
Paper 1 – Deer Incent­ive Scheme
At para 7a
i. Head of Land Man­age­ment to reword the Key Per­form­ance Indic­at­or (KPI) to accur­ately reflect the inten­ded outcome.
Paper 2 – Cairngorms 2030 Pro­gramme Deliv­ery Update: Quarter Four 2 – 25 (Octo­ber – December)
At para 11e
i. Head of Cairngorms 2030 to attend the next Eco­nom­ic Steer­ing Group meet­ing to work with the Chair and the Dir­ect­or of Plan­ning and Place to align Cairngorms 2030 eco­nom­ic out­puts with the Com­munity Wealth Build­ing Bill and inform future leg­acy planning.

---

Cairngorms Nation­al Park Author­ity Ugh­dar­ras Pàirc Nàiseanta a’ Mhon­aidh Ruaidh

Page 16 of 16

Paper 3 – Cairngorms 2030 restor­ing and enhan­cing landscape’s theme update Feb­ru­ary 2026 | At para 15a | i. Cairngorms 2030 Nature Based Solu­tions Man­ager to raise to raise and con­sider mon­it­or­ing of cattle wel­fare as part of planned graz­ing, includ­ing issues such as min­er­al sup­ple­ment­a­tion, addi­tion­al feed­ing or shel­ter, worm­ing, and poten­tial tick impacts, with a view to shar­ing rel­ev­ant learn­ing with the wider farm­ing industry. | At para 15^d | ii. Cairngorms 203