Let’s beef up how we protect our wild land – it’s much too valuable to ignore
Helen Mcdade would like a break from damage limitation in fighting planning applications
Theterms wilderness and wild land are often used interchangeably in Scotland – most recently over protection of Wild Land Areas mapped by Scottish Natural Heritage.
The John Muir Trust uses ‘wild land’ to distinguish it from unspoiled wilderness. These are areas where people have left virtually no trace. Scotland’s wild land is different – even our most rugged and remote uplands have been affected by human activity over many centuries.
A recent Yougov poll asked more than 1000 Scots whether they agreed that ‘Wild Land Areas should continue to be protected in the future from large scale infrastructure, such as industrial-scale wind farms, major electricity transmission and superquarries’.
Overall, 80 per cent agreed, with just 5 per cent disagreeing. The Highlands and Islands had the most ‘strongly agreeing’ – at 60 per cent, with 20 per cent ‘tending to agree’.
So where is this wild land? The SNH Wild Land Areas 2014 map identified 42 areas using rigorous methodology. Public consultation demonstrated strong support for these Wild land Areas to be safeguarded in planning policy.
In the words of SNH, “for many people, one of Scotland’s defining characteristics is its ‘wilder’ landscapes extensive, largely semi-natural areas with minimal signs of human influence. These wilder landscapes have a distinct and special character, which is increasingly rare to find and distinguishes Scotland from much of the rest of the UK and many parts of Europe.”
The John Muir Trust sees Scotland’s Wild Land Areas as potentially valuable assets that can benefit people in diverse ways. Locally, they offer opportunities to build sustainable businesses while providing a high quality of life. They improve air and water quality, and help reduce flood risk. Many of our wildest places consist of peatland, which plays an essential role in locking carbon into the ground and contributing to the government’s emissions reduction target.
Our peatland includes specialised plants such as sundew and rare and declining invertebrates, and is internationally important for breeding birds. The Flow Country in the far north is so ecologically significant that the area is on the tentative list for World Heritage status.
A recent survey by Visit Scotland found that half of visitors to this coun- try came for scenery and landscape, ahead of history and culture, and this is critical for Scotland’s economy. The scenic North Coast 500 road route has drawn an extra 29,000 visitors a year to the far north. That means millions of pounds for hotels, shops, bars, restaurants and petrol stations.
Three years after the introduction of Wild Land Areas, how are they doing? In June 2014, the Scottish Government included consideration of them in Scottish Planning Policy with reference to wind farms, saying: “Recognising the need for significant protection, in these areas wind farms may be appropriate in some circumstances.” While the promise of significant protection was welcome, the wording does leave ambiguity – in contrast to National Scenic Areas and National Parks, from which wind farms are explicitly excluded.
Since 2014, the Scottish Government has refused a number of industrial-scale windfarms in Wild Land Areas. Approval, however, of the Creag Riabhach wind farm near Altnaharra – which includes five turbines inside a Wild Land Area – has caused serious concern. In the absence of a definition of “significant protection”, the Trust has to argue for protection of Wild Land Areas in each planning application.
This continual conflict benefits no one, with significant costs to all parties and to the planning author- ity. Surely “significant protection” should mean that any consented development would not reduce the size of the Wild Land Area? The forthcoming Scottish Planning Bill is an opportunity to clarify their status by bringing them into line with National Scenic Areas and National Parks.
Let’s not repeat public policy mistakes. In the 1980s, subsidies and tax breaks encouraged commercial forestry planting across the Flow Country, wreaking serious damage. Public criticism, together with growing awareness that this was the wrong type of development in the wrong place, eventually stopped the subsidies. It’s good news that the government is now allocating considerable sums to restore these areas. But how much better to not damage them in the first place? Helen Mcdade, head of policy for the John Muir Trust.