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 
Audit Committee Paper 3 Annex 2 17/04/09 


Rank 
Risk 
Consequence / Impact 
Likelihood 
Total Risk (Impact * Likelihood) 

1 Our partners do not contribute the financial resources or support required to deliver the National Park Plan outcomes. 
4.4 
4.6 
20.2 
HT

2 Partners do not commit to deliver their elements of National Park Plan. 
4.6 
4.3 
19.8 
HT

4 Our partners do not demonstrate leadership behaviors in relation to the NP so that we collectively achieve the Park Plan Vision.
 4 
4.6 
18.4 
HT

5 Flagship planning and development cases do not deliver the high standards expected leading to loss in public confidence. 
4.4 
3.9 
17.2 

6 The Authority's limited cash and staff resources are too stretched by 46 differing achievements and consequently we fail to deliver a substantial 
number of achievements by March 2011. 
4.4 
3.9 
17.2 
JH

7 Reduction in EU funding for future programmes. 
3.9 
4.4 
17.2 
DC

8 CNPA does not achieve the sought after national profile for the park. 
4.3 
4 
17.2 
DC

9 Lack of public understanding of CNPA objectives. 
3.6 
4.7 
16.9 
DC

10 Developments which damage the special qualities of the Park through lack of enforcement. 
4.3 
3.9 
16.8 
DM

11 Managers and staff do not place sufficient regard on the Corporate Plan and the 46 achievements when planning resource deployment, and 
consequently we fail to deliver a substantial number of achievements by March 2011. 
4.6 
3.6 
16.6 
JH

13 The Park's special qualities may be undermined due to Government pressure to encourage development. 
4 
3.9 
15.6 
DM

14 Development of a sustainable design guide is delayed to an extent that it is not possible to demonstrate its contribution to supporting consistently 
high standards in design by 2011. 
4 
3.9 
15.6 
DM/MF

15 Failing to exploit IT functionality. 
3.4 
4.3 
14.6 
DC

16 Incorporation of Highland Perthshire into the Park slows or complicates delivery due to further consultation on strategies or policies in that area. 
3.3 
4.4 
14.5 
AH

17 Financial resources are not made available by the Government because of their changing priorities leading to an inability to deliver the Corporate 
Plan. 
4.6 
3.1 
14.3 
DC

18 The rural economy continues to deteriorate. 
3.3 
4.3 
14.2 
AH

19 Dissatisfaction with and legal challenge to, planning decisions. 
3.9 
3.6 
14 
DM

20 Realignment of the public sector leads to inertia in the bodies required to deliver the Park Plan. 
4.1 
3.4 
13.9 
HT

21 We do not secure the buy in of land managers to deliver a range of outcomes within the National Park Plan 
3.4 
4.1 
13.9 
HT

22 Major external initiatives or enquiries dilute resource availability and have adverse effect on delivery of goals. 
3.4 
4.1 
13.9 
HT

23 The reputation of CNPA is adversely affected through inadequate enforcement of planning decisions. 
4.1
 3.4
 13.9 
DM

24 We are unable to show change over the course of the Park Plan period due to inadequate monitoring/data provision which undermines confidence in 
its delivery. 
3.7 
3.7 
13.7 
HT

25 Lack of project management skills. 
4 
3.4 
13.6 
DC

Lead 

DM 
HT 
DC 

New
Relatively small scale of organisation makes delivery vulnerable to losing staff and does not give scope for sufficient spare capacity to 
cover staff losses or long-term absences 
MT