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

MINUTES OF THE BOARD MEETING 
held at Braemar Village Hall 
on Friday 16th January 2004 at 1.30pm 

PRESENT
 
Peter Argyle 
Eric Baird 
Stuart Black 
Duncan Bryden 
Sally Dowden 
Basil Dunlop 
Douglas Glass 
Angus Gordon 
Mrs Lucy Grant 
David Green 
Bruce Luffman 
Eleanor Mackintosh 

In Attendance: 

Jane Hope 
Nick Halfhide 
Fiona Newcombe 
Ruathy Donald 
Debbie Strang 

Apologies: 

David Selfridge 
Robert Severn 
Anne MacLean 
Alastair MacLennan 
William McKenna 
Andrew Rafferty 
Gregor Rimell 
Joyce Simpson 
Sheena Slimon 
Richard Stroud 
Andrew Thin 
Susan Walker 
Bob Wilson 

Welcome and Introduction 

1. Andrew Thin welcomed everyone to the meeting and thanked the Hungry Highlander for 
providing lunch, and also for providing supper for Board Members after the previous 
evening's public meeting. He welcomed the fact that a small local business was able to 
deliver that high quality service. 
Minutes of Last Meeting – approval 

2. The minutes of the previous meeting (5th December) were approved with no changes. 

Matters Arising 

3. The Convenor reported on the following matters arising: 

a. Paragraph 9: Jane Hope had submitted the draft Corporate Plan to the Scottish 
Executive immediately prior to Christmas. 

b. Paragraph 14: This action was pending, and the Working Group set up to examine 1st 
Anniversary events would report back to the Board at its next meeting. 

c. Paragraph 17: Minutes from working groups were being put on the CNPA website 
once they were approved. Preparation of minutes from the working groups was being 
standardised. 

Key Issues for Tourism in the Cairngorms (Paper 1) 

4. Debbie Strang and Ruathy Donald introduced the paper, which comprised the first report 
to the Board of the Tourism Development Working Group (TDWG) and identified the 
key issues for tourism in the Cairngorms. The importance of tourism to the Cairngorms 
was emphasised in the introduction. An estimated 1.2 million visitors per year came to 
the area, generating approximately £240 million a year for the local economy. 
Approximately 85% of businesses in the area were involved in tourism. A key and 
overriding issue for the Cairngorms National Park would be to encourage a sustainable 
approach to tourism. Sustainable tourism meant, in practice, a number of things; 

• Responsible tourism 
• Striking a balance between meeting the needs of the visitor, the environment and the 
host community for current as well as future generations. 
• Contributing to the delivery of all of the Park aims. 
• The CNPA using the powers it possessed in Schedule 3 of the National Parks 
(Scotland) Act to encourage people to visit the National Park. (This power was 
specific to Scottish National Parks and significantly different from the powers 
possessed by National Parks south of the border in respect of tourism.) This enabled 
the Cairngorms National Park Authority to engage in marketing the area. 

5. The Tourism Development Working Group had been operating for several months, and 
had worked on the principle of including a wide range of people from the area and from 
the industry, but at the same time keeping to a manageable size. The Group had identified 
a number of key issues: 

• Coordination and integration of the large number of organisations involved in tourism, 
and the industry itself; trying to keep a handle on everything that was going on in such 
a diverse industry, with such a large number of interested organisations and 
individuals, was a key challenge. 
• The development of a Sustainable Tourism Strategy. The intention was to achieve 
European Charter Status, but in reality the process of developing the Strategy was the 
more important point, and the achievement of charter status an incidental bonus. 
• Developing a Cairngorms Marketing Strategy. A consultant had been engaged to draft 
a marketing strategy for the Cairngorms National Park Area and this would be 
finalised in February. This would include the development of a brand. 
• Quality Standards. 
• Product development. This covered food marketing and non-food marketing elements. 
It was recognised that the food marketing element would be led by the Food 
Marketing Working Group, but clearly close coordination between the two working 
groups would be essential. 
• Information and interpretation provision. This would be led by the Park Gateways 
Group. Here again, the TDWG would have a close interest. 
• Customer experience and research. 

6. The key in charting the way forward was that the Tourism Development Working Group 
was essentially industry-led. In addition, it would be essential that each issue was taken 
forward simultaneously, and where appropriate in close coordination with other working 
groups. 

7. Bruce Luffman (Chair of the TDWG) commented that it was vital to have such a working 
group and that it was industry-based. With three area Tourist Boards, three Local 
Enterprise Companies, and four Local Authorities, each with a legitimate interest in 
tourism, coordination of activities on tourism to benefit the whole of the Park area was 
extremely difficult. There had not been such a grouping to look at tourism issues prior to 
the creation of the CNPA in April 2003; the Group had been brought together quite 
quickly and had identified the need for a marketing strategy and a marketing plan. 
Innovation would be key to the success. The delay in the current review of area Tourist 
boards, the outcome of which had been awaited for some two years, was not helpful. 
That aside, and regardless of the outcome of the review, the Group was bringing the 
existing Area Tourist Boards together to cooperate on pan-Park issues. The Working 
Group was large, and inevitably there were differences in thinking across such a diverse 
group. The role of the CNPA was to distil what was coming out of that group. 

8. Sally Dowden (deputy Chair of the Group) acknowledged that the paper in front of the 
Board represented a lot of work by staff and the Working Group itself. The decision to 
make the Working Group a large one had been deliberate in order to reflect the diversity 
within the tourism industry. The whole approach of the group was to integrate the range 
of views across the industry. That diversity view provided challenges, but it also 
provided strength to the eventual decision made by the Park Authority. She emphasised 
that there would be specific sub-groups of the TDWG to deal with, for example, 
marketing strategy and branding. 

9. In discussion the following points were made: 

a. It was suggested that the Paper should make more explicit reference to the 
contribution made by tourism to social inclusion; also the importance of the Park 
Authority's theme of creating a Park for All which by implication meant making 
specific efforts and adjustments to welcome the less able and the disadvantaged. Both 
these points were understood and accepted, and would be included in the marketing 
strategy. The fact they were not explicit in the paper did not reflect their lack of 
importance, merely the level of detail at which the paper was written. The wide and 
diverse membership of the TDWG also helped to ensure that such issues would not 
get overlooked. It was also pointed out that the European Charger for Sustainable 
Development included a principle of looking at a Park for All. 

b. The difficult balance to achieve would be to ensure integration at a strategic level, but 
at the same time celebrate diversity within the National Park. Healthy competition 
between tourism businesses within the National Park should not be seen as 
undesirable. 

c. As Paragraph 26 of the paper suggested, the provision of information and 
interpretation needed to be addressed as a priority. The point was made that 
information provision and signage were both needed quickly and the question was 
raised as to whether these two elements could be moved forward at the same time. It 
was pointed out that Debbie Strang sat in on both the Tourism Development Working 
Group and on the Park Gateways Group to ensure the activities of both groups were 
properly joined up. 

d. A visitor guide was being produced this year for the very first time covering the whole 
of the National Park area, and this was being done through the joint activities of the 
three area Tourist Boards. The CNPA was not in any way stopping activities from 
carrying on as in previous years, such as individual ATB activities, but it was able to 
influence the degree of coordination of these activities, and the extent to which these 
were done on a pan-Park basis where appropriate. 

e. A brief report was given on signage. Consultants had been invited to scope the siting 
and form of signs at the entry points into the National Park. They were due to report 
back at Easter and then to the CNPA Board very soon thereafter. However, there 
would need to be community input on the form and siting of the signs. Getting signs 
in place would therefore not be a quick process if the Park was to have good quality 
signs that would last, and whose siting was agreed. 

f. Any pressure to get signs in place very quickly was not coming from the tourism 
industry, who well understood the importance of getting the process right. In this 
context it was pointed out that the Cairngorms Chamber of Commerce was now 
embracing membership across the whole of the National Park. This would ensure 
enhanced cooperation between all the businesses within the National Park 

g. Whatever one working group decided this was likely to have an impact on the work of 
other groups. There would inevitably be some overlap between the work of different 
groups. It was particularly important that the staff going to one group were also able 
to go to other relevant groups and report back. No group could work in isolation or 
without input from people outwith the CNPA who had the relevant expertise and 
experience. 

h. Paragraph 17 listed a series of key action points for the marketing strategy. It was 
suggested that an additional bullet point should include raising the profile of the 
tourism industry in schools in an effort to raise the status of the industry as an 
employer, and in providing a career structure for youngsters. 

i. Tourism was essentially a people business. The CNPA needed to find a way of 
capturing and building on the passion, enthusiasm, and pride for the area, and 
extending this to community involvement 

10. The Paper was agreed. 

CAP Reform Consultation Response (Paper 2)
 
11. Fiona Newcombe introduced the paper, which contained the Agriculture Working Group's 
response to the Scottish Executive's consultation on the implementation of recent 
Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) Reforms. The paper was intended to bring the Board 
up to speed with the response agreed by the working group. The response had been 
submitted to the Scottish Executive in early January and had been informed by two open 
CNPA meetings held in the Park area and one meeting held by the Scottish Executive. 
Farming and crofting were important in delivering all four of the Park aims. Agriculture in 
the National Park, just as across the whole of Scotland, was under threat as a result of 
falling incomes, and fewer young people wanting to enter the industry. The CNPA 
response to the consultation focused on calling for a reformed CAP to have a regionalised 
approach; to deliver through land management contracts; for the National Park to be a 
region for the purposes of land management contracts; for the Park area to be designated 
as special because of its particular landscape and wildlife qualities; and to suggest that the 
Park area be used as a pilot for land management contracts. The principles behind the 
CNPA response were that support to farmers and crofters should be based on the 
provision of public benefits in support of the four aims of the National Park; and that it 
was too soon to be making specific choices on the options. The principle should be for a 
regional approach. The Board were invited to note this response and to take 
opportunities to promote its ideas. 

12. Alastair MacLennan (Chair of the Agriculture Working Group) commended the paper, 
and emphasised that agriculture had been changing within the National Park for the 
previous twenty years. There were now fewer farm units, fewer livestock, fewer farm 
workers, less arable cultivation. There were threats to the natural heritage, the landscape 
and the cultural heritage as a consequence. This mid-term review of the CAP was a major 
reform with a potentially huge impact on land management in the area. It presented great 
opportunities as well as threats. The Agriculture Working Group had looked at it as a 
positive opportunity to influence land management in the area to deliver the Park's aims. 

13. In discussion the following points were made: 

a. For a long time national agriculture schemes had not encompassed sufficient flexibility. 
The CAP reform offered the opportunity to encourage farmers to produce what the 
customers wanted. There were customers for a wide range of food and environmental 
goods produced within the National Park. The area was capable of giving good value 
for public money. 

b. Some farmers were opposed to the proposed national envelopes for the beef sector. 
[Note: A national envelope refers, for a particular sector, to a total sum of money 
determined by payments made to that sector historically, and now reallocated to that 
sector for different purposes.]. The point was made that the principle of national 
envelopes could be useful to the National Park and should therefore not be opposed, 
but that there may in any event be other and better ways of targeting payments at 
particular sector-related issues through the Scottish Rural Development Programme. 

c. Paragraph 26 referred to using set-aside to encourage access, and to placing set-aside 
along water courses. It was pointed out that making access provision along river 
banks could be rather expensive. However, it was pointed out that as set-aside was 
only available on land required to grow crops, it would not therefore be covering river 
banks. 

d. The Crofters Commission were currently in consultation with a number of other 
organisations (Highlands & Islands Enterprise, Western Isles and Shetland Councils) 
working up a joint position on CAP reform which was broadly similar to that taken 
by the CNPA. This would be shared with the Agriculture Working Group. The 
conditions in the Highlands and Islands were different from the conditions elsewhere 
and therefore needed a different solution. The principle of flexibility was therefore 
common to both positions. 

e. The reform of the CAP was a long-term issue for the National Park. The consultation 
response did not represent the end of the story. The National Park was capable of 
delivering a wide range of public goods at value for money. There was a clear need for 
regionalisation, and pilots of land management contracts were an obvious way of 
testing these ideas. The challenge now was to ensure that the whole of the farming 
community within the National Park was in agreement with this approach, and to then 
build awareness of it nationally. 

14. The Board noted the paper. 

Integrated Land Management Schemes (Paper 3) 

15. Fiona Newcombe introduced the paper which outlined a process for developing integrated 
land management schemes. The development of integrated land management schemes had 
been identified as an early priority for the Park in the Corporate Plan. There currently 
existed a plethora of national and local schemes run by many different organisations, a 
situation often regarded as bureaucratic and expensive to administer. It was also inflexible, 
and not easily tailored to meet the particular needs of local areas. There was also on 
occasions conflict between schemes. The consequence was that land managers were 
forced to ask "what can I do under the existing schemes" rather than asking "what do we 
want for this area/business". The aim of integrated land management schemes within the 
National Park was, in the long term, to have a one-stop-shop with all public measures 
delivered through the one vehicle. This was ambitious, and initially the best approach 
might be to aim for better coordination of existing schemes while still aiming in the long 
term for a one-stop-shop. 

16. The Agriculture Working Group had completed its objective of compiling and submitting 
a consultation response to the Scottish Executive on the reform of the CAP (see previous 
paper). In the process it had identified two further streams of work: 

• The identification of public benefits; 
• Better coordination and integration of agriculture with other schemes (e.g. forestry, 
river management). 

17. A new working group was therefore proposed to take this work forward. It would be 
important to bring in external members to the group who brought appropriate expertise 
and experience. 

18. In discussion the following points were raised: 

a. The broad approach proposed in the paper was right, but emphasis should be given to 
looking at the gaps in existing schemes and where there were opportunities, but no 
mechanisms, for identifying public benefits. Some organisations had done work in this 
area already and the CNPA should be looking at this 

b. State Aids was a tricky issue. It would be advisable to seek early discussions with the 
Scottish Executive to avoid some of the pitfalls associated with the constraints of the 
State Aids rules. 

c. This was an important issue for Scotland's biggest National Park. It would take some 
time, indeed years, to work through and it would be important to work incrementally. 

d. Many of the issues discussed in the paper would be common to both the National 
Parks in Scotland. It could be valuable to work closely with the Loch Lomond and the 
Trossachs National Park Authority(LL&TTNPA). Fiona Newcombe reported that in 
putting together the CNPA's response to the CAP consultation there had been close 
consultation with the LL&TT National Park Authority. 

19.The Convenor proposed that the Agriculture Working Group would become the 
Integrated Land Management Working Group and Alastair MacLennan would chair the 
first meeting. The Convenor asked members to let him know if members wished to join 
the group. (Bruce Luffman reported he would wish to come off the group, Sue Walker 
and Willie McKenna both expressed interest in joining the group). 

20. The paper was agreed and it was agreed that the Agriculture Working Group 
should evolve into the Integrated Land Management Working Group (ILMWG). 

21. Action: 

a. Members to advise the Convenor if they wished to join/leave the ILMWG 

AOCB 

22. The Convenor reported on the recent process of recruiting members of the senior 
management team and for the record, gave a run down of the seven members of the team 
as follows: 

Head of Communications -Daniel Alexander. Currently head of the Britain in 
Europe Campaign. Originally from Fort William, he was keen to return to the Highlands. 
He had also held posts with the Liberal Democrats and with Westminster Research. He 
would take up his post on the 1st March. 

Head of Economic and Social Development - Andrew Harper. Currently working for 
One North East, the Regional Development Agency for the North East of England where 
he is Planning and Performance Manager. His earlier career involved posts as Community 
Development Manager with English Partnerships, and Economic Development Officer 
with various councils. He would be joining the CNPA on the 16th February. 
Head of Visitor Services and Recreation - Murray Ferguson. Currently working with 
SNH, and well known in the area for leading the consultation by SNH as official reporter 
into the arrangements for the Cairngorms National Park. He would take up his post on 
the 9th February. 

Head of Planning and Development Control - Still to be confirmed. The candidate 
originally chosen had withdrawn after accepting, for personal reasons. It was now 
reasonably sure that an alternative candidate would take the post. This would be 
confirmed as soon as possible. In the meantime Denis Munro would continue to be the 
acting head. 

23. The three other members of the senior management team were already in place and well 
know. They were: 

Head of Natural Resources - Fiona Newcombe 
Head of Strategic Planning - Nick Halfhide 
Head of Corporate Services - Andy Rinning, as Interim Head of Corporate Services on 
secondment from the Scottish Executive. Recruitment of a permanent post holder would 
take place in due course, but it was not sensible to disrupt the current process of 
establishing the organisation and Andy would remain on secondment to complete that 
task. 

24. The Convenor went on to outline the process for recruitment of the Chief Executive. He 
explained that the Staffing and Recruitment Committee (S&R) had deferred the process of 
recruitment of the Chief Executive so that the senior management team could be put in 
place. The Committee had now met and decided on a process for taking forward the 
recruitment of the Chief Executive. The purpose of this announcement to the Board was 
to put an explanation of that process in the public domain. The process would consist of 
the following stages: 

• No member of CNPA Staff would be involved. The Convenor was therefore managing 
the process in conjunction with the Scottish Executive and the Recruitment 
Consultant. 
• An advert would be placed in the national and local press by the week beginning on 
the 2nd February. The closing date would be the end of February. 
• The initial short-listing meeting of the S&R Committee (including the Scottish 
Executive and recruitment consultant) was set for Friday 5th March. This meeting 
would produce an initial short list of around 10 candidates. 
• Interviews of this initial short list would be held by the consultants by the 24th 
March. This process would allow the Consultants to probe the written applications 
of those candidates and advise the S&R Committee.. 
• A final short-listing meeting of the S&R Committee would be held on the 25th March 
to agree a final short list of about 4. 
• Final interviews would be held on the 22nd and 23rd April. The interview panel would 
consist of Andrew Thin, Eric Baird, Anne MacLean, a Scottish Executive 
representative, and the recruitment Consultant. 
• The panel would not make the final decision; this would be made by the S&R 
Committee which would meet on the 28th April. 
• The decision on appointment required approval by Scottish Ministers. The 
announcement to the Board of the successful candidate would be made as soon as 
possible following Ministerial approval. 

25. A date of the 20th February had been set for the formal opening event of the Ballater 
office. The event would take place at 12 noon with Mike Rumbles MSP conducting the 
formal opening. Jane Hope agreed to circulate details to Members. 

Date of Next Meeting 

26. 13th February 2004 in the Duke of Gordon, Kingussie