WARNING - By their nature, text files cannot include scanned images and tables. 
The process of converting documents to text only, can cause formatting changes and 
misinterpretation of the contents can sometimes result. Wherever possible you 
should refer to the pdf version of this document.


CAIRNGORMS NATIONAL PARK AUTHORITY 
Paper 1 05/05/06 


CAIRNGORMS NATIONAL PARK AUTHORITY 

FOR DECISION 

Title: The Future of the Cairngorms Moorland Demonstration Sites 

Prepared by: Nick Halfhide, Head of Strategic Policy and Programme 
Management 
Fiona Newcombe, Head of Land Management 


Purpose 

To seek Members’ views on whether to continue investing in the two demonstration sites 
once the Cairngorms Moorland Project finishes this summer. 


Recommendations 

That the Board agrees not to invest further in either demonstration sites beyond the terms of 
the current moorland project. 


Executive Summary 

The CNPA inherited the Cairngorms Moorland Project from the Cairngorms Partnership in 
2003. It is coming to an end this summer and there is an expectation among some sections of 
the land management community that we will continue to run and invest in the sites for at 
least another 5 years. 

The paper examines options for our involvement in the two sites and recommends that we 
do not invest further once the current project is finished. Instead, we should focus on the 
wider programme of work on moorlands emerging from the Park Plan including training 
through the Land Based Business Training Project and improving public sector support to 
moorland managers. 


THE FUTURE OF THE CAIRNGORMS MOORLAND DEMONSTRATION 
SITES - FOR DECISION 

Introduction 

1. The draft National Park Plan sets out our long-term aspirations for the condition, 
management and understanding of moorlands in the Park; and identifies actions 
relevant to moorlands under the 7 Priorities for Action over the next 5 years. 

2. During the public consultation on the draft Park Plan, and over subsequent months, 
we will be working with partners to identify changes to these long-term aspirations, 
and refining a joint work programme for the next 5 years. This will include 
identifying the role of the CNPA alongside other partners. 

3. At this stage, we expect this work to include: 

a) working with partners to identify current public sector activity for uplands, 
and then prepare and implement a plan for integrating this existing support, 
and filling the gaps left; 

b) training through the Land Based Business Training Project; 

c) support to moorland managers to communicate the benefits of their work to a 
wider audience; 

d) drawing together information and knowledge about moorland and montane 
management, and commissioning new information where necessary; and 

e) strengthening links between the Cairngorms National Park and Scotland’s 
Moorland Forum. 

4. In the short term, the Cairngorms Moorland Project is coming to an end this summer. 
Inherited from the Cairngorms Partnership, and two-thirds funded by the Heritage 
Lottery Fund, this project has developed two demonstration sites at Balnaboth and 
Blairfindy; and run a programme of activities to raise awareness and understanding 
of the value of moorlands. 

5. Although the project is coming to its scheduled end, there is an expectation amongst 
some sections of the land management community that the CNPA will take a lead in 
continuing the demonstration moors for at least a further 5 years. 

6. It is important for us to explore the value of continuing these sites, examining 
whether they offer opportunities to take forward the emerging work programme of 
the Park Plan. 

Background to the Cairngorms Moorland Project 

7. The project was initiated by the Cairngorms Partnership on the advice of the 
Cairngorms Moorland Forum – a grouping of moorland stakeholders including the 
Game Conservancy, Heather Trust, SNH, and British Association for Shooting and 
Conservation (BASC). The budget is about £550,000 over three years, principally 
funded by HLF (67%), CNPA (20%) and SNH (10%). It employs a full-time project 
manager and two part-time (60%) liaison officers. 

8. The project has three objectives: 

a) To undertake and demonstrate good moorland management techniques on 
two representative sites in the Cairngorms Partnership area; 

b) To provide incentives to land managers to manage their moorlands in a 
sustainable and effective way to preserve and enhance the integrity and 
conservation value of existing moorland in the area, by presenting the 
findings from the demonstration moor programme to the future National 
Park Authority and encouraging them to develop a management scheme for 
the area as a whole; and 

c) To raise awareness of the environmental, social and economic importance of 
moorlands, and provide recreational and educational opportunities to help 
people, especially the young, to enjoy, understand and appreciate the 
Cairngorms moorlands. 

9. Beyond the running costs of the project, most of the funds are being spent on stock 
reduction payments; site works, in particular fencing to assist stock management; 
and site monitoring, both an initial baseline and then on-going measurements. A 
breakdown of the main costs is at Annex 1. 

Discussion 

10. The Park’s moorlands are nationally and internationally important. The product of 
many centuries of management for field sports and stock, they are the dominant land 
use in the Park, and clearly contribute to its “special qualities”. It is also clear that 
whilst many are well managed already, moorlands in general could contribute more 
to the 4 aims of the Park. The discussions through the Park Plan will give us a 
clearer understanding of how best to do this, and which elements are immediate 
priorities. 

11. At a site specific level, both demonstration moors have begun to show the 
improvements you can make if land managers adopt certain regimes. Although it is 
too soon to quantify these changes, it appears that there is already some heather 
regeneration, improved stock quality, and other wildlife improvements. Some of the 
changes are the result of better co-ordination between keepers, farmers, owners and 
shooting tenants. But the single biggest driver is economic, in this case, paying for 
stock reductions, new fencing, extra burning and keepering. What these two moors 
demonstrate is how to go about achieving these benefits - what it has costed in direct 
payments and time. 

12. However, we have to question whether continued investment in one or both of these 
two demonstration sites represents good value for money. 

13. The argument for continued investment is that we need “model” moorlands that 
openly show what can be achieved on low performing moors if all the ingredients of 
stock management, keepering, burning etc are done in the right way. They may be 
expensive but that is the cost of inspiring others, and is information that we need if 
we are to attract investors, whether public subsidy or private money, into moorland 
management. Overall these sites will need to be run for at least 8 years to show 
sufficient change. 

14. The counter argument is that whilst these models are useful, we would have greater 
impact in improving the contribution of moorlands to the aims of the Park through 
investing our limited resources in a wider range of activities. In other words, other 
forms of intervention in the form of training, advice, schemes and policy influence 
would be a better use of our limited resources. 

15. It is clear that we do not have the resources to do both effectively. We have 
discussed different funding possibilities with SNH and the Scottish Executive in 
particular, but there is no obvious easy route to continue the sites without major 
input from ourselves. The way forward, therefore, boils down to whether we think 
that it is more important to focus our energy, time and money on continuing with 
one or both of these two sites as model “restoration” moors; or whether we should 
focus on achieving benefits more widely for moorlands through the activities 
emerging from the Park Plan. 

Options 

16. There are 4 main options: 

a) We continue to invest in both sites ensuring that the current levels of stock 
management, keepering and burning are maintained; and that the impact of 
this work is well monitored. 

b) We continue to invest in just one of the sites. 

c) We continue to invest in one or both sites in the expectation that our 
invention could be substituted within the next 2 years by funds under the 
new Rural Development Fund. 

d) We discontinue our investment and focus on delivering a wider package of 
benefits. 

17. Option 1 values the restoration model and believes that continuing to invest in these 
two sites is important. Based on the figures for the existing project, it would cost 
between £90-120,000 per year. Our total allocation for work on moorlands, including 
the activities emerging from the Park Plan, is approximately £43,000 in 06/07 and 
£30,000 in 07/08. There are no immediate offers of funding to make up the shortfall, 
other than a contribution from SNH towards monitoring. 

18. Option 2 would reduce the annual cost to between £45-60,000 per year, more in line 
with our existing allocations. Partners in the project have expressed a clear 
preference to continue at Balnaboth over Blairfindy should a choice be necessary. 

19. Option 3 is a compromise position that specifically places an end point on our 
financial involvement in the hope that changes to mainstream funds, either through 
the Rural Development Programme or a research grant, would relieve us of this 
commitment. It gives us more time to find a solution. 

20. Option 4 would allow us to invest our limited resources in other moorland-related 
work as outlined above at paragraph 3. 

Recommendation 

21. Although we did not instigate the original project and our financial commitment to 
this area of work remains constant, there is a clear expectation among many of the 
partners involved that we will find a solution that enable us both to continue with 
the site specific work on the demonstration moors and take a lead on a range of other 
moorland-related work as emerging through the Park Plan. 

22. This is not a realistic position given our limited cash and staff time. The arguments 
come down to a straight decision between focusing our moorland energy on one or 
both sites, or on a wider programme of work. In our view, the latter is preferable 
and more in line with the actions emerging from the Park Plan. 

23. The Board is recommended to agree not to invest further in either demonstration 
sites beyond the terms of the current moorland project. 

Consultation 

24. We have sought advice on the future of the demonstration sites with individual 
partners as well as collectively with the Integrated Land Management Advisory 
Forum and a special meeting of moorland interests. Strong views were expressed in 
favour of continuing at least with one moor. At the same though, partners 
considered that broader communication of the value and management needs of 
moorlands to a wide audience was their top priority. 

25. We have discussed different funding and operational routes for continuing the 
demonstration sites with SNH and the Scottish Executive. 

Policy Context 

26. All 4 options above are consistent with our Corporate Plan and the draft Park Plan. 
However, we consider that Option 4 is the most appropriate use of our resources. 

Implications 

Financial Implications 

27. These are addressed in the discussion above. 

Presentational Implications 

28. We have inherited a leadership role for these two demonstration sites. We will be 
criticised if we stop them and therefore need to explain clearly that we consider our 
efforts on moorlands should be directed at a wider programme of activities that have 
the potential to benefit all moorlands and their managers. 

29. Further, we are sending our clear messages that we are able to take difficult 
decisions; prioritise our own limited resources; and lead others to prioritise theirs. 

Implications for Stakeholders 

30. In the short term, the main implications are for the land managers on the two 
demonstration sites as these come to an end. 

31. In the medium term, stopping our investment in the two demonstration sites will 
release more of our resources for a wider programme of work which will benefit a 
range of moorland stakeholders. 

Next Steps 

32. We will continue to manage the final months of the Cairngorms Moorland Project 
and work closely with our partners to develop the moorland actions within the Park 
Plan. 

33. We plan to bring more detailed proposals to the Board on future moorland work 
later in the year. 

Nick Halfhide 
Fiona Newcombe 
April 2006 

nickhalfhide@cairngorms.co.uk 
fionanewcombe@cairngorms.co.uk 


Breakdown on main costs for Cairngorms Moorland Project over three years 

Headings:
Heading 
Item 
Cost 
% 

Staff 
- Project Manager 
97,250 
18 
- Interpretation Officers 
89,000 
16 


Demo Moors 
- Site works, eg fencing 
74,300 
13 
-  Stock reduction payments 
105,300 
19 
-  Balnaboth keeper 
20,100 
4 
-  Site monitoring 
95,000 
17 
-  Professional advice 
10,200 
2 
-  VAT 
28,000 
5 


Interpretation 
-  Display boards 
9,400 
2 
-  Publicity materials 
4,250 
1 
-  Open days 
4,000 
1 


Evaluation 
-  Mid-term evaluation 
12,700 
2 


Total
Cost  549,500 
% 100