There may be signs that Scottish Natural Heritage is finally listening to locals about plans for the Sound of Barra, say local campaigners.
They claim a statement from SNH seems to show the Scottish Government’s environmental advisors’ regulatory powers over the Special Area of Conservation management are being dramatically restricted.
However, the government quango has now reacted to the claim and has insisted nothing has changed and that there is nothing new in what they are doing as they have always left their advice “optional” for communities to adopt.
Barra-based campaign group SHAMED (Southern Hebrides Against Marine Environmental Designations) has been campaigning for four years against the SNH proposals to designate two marine SAC’s in the waters east of Mingulay and in the Sound of Barra.
The campaign group recently led calls for environment minister Paul Wheelhouse to broaden the scope of his review into SNH’s scientific case for the Sound of Barra. Mr Wheelhouse has yet to respond.
Meanwhile SHAMED chairman Angus MacLeod, a crofter-fisherman from Eoligarry, says the campaign group is feeling optimistic for the first time in four years.
“SNH responded to one of our recent press releases in a way that made us feel somebody is at last listening. Either the Scottish Government or SNH itself has finally taken on board what we and others have been saying from the very beginning about SNH’s control freakery of conservation sites.
“The SNH press statement of Jan 7, 2013 stated: “We don’t manage SACs. They are managed by those who live and work in and around them, with us providing advice and information.”
Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs Richard Lochhead appears to have confirmed the changes when he said they wanted the community to be in charge of management and added: “Our preference would be for local communities to be in the driving seat of any management plan.”
Mr MacLeod explained: “Until now, SNH would set conservation objectives for a marine SAC and would issue an Advice Under Regulation 33(2) document, listing what activities SNH felt could potentially damage the site. A current management plan, such as for Loch nam Madadh SAC in North Uist, states the previous position in its preamble, i.e. that ‘Relevant authorities who are responsible for managing these activities are “obliged” to take this advice into consideration.’ But it’s clear from SNH’s statement their advice is now optional. Mr Lochhead appears to confirm this.
“In practice, an SNH-driven management plan lists virtually every activity known to man as a potential threat to the sanctity of the site and local authorities, statutory organisations and local people are obliged to monitor. Now, if SNH advice is optional, local people can decide what exactly needs watching, with SNH paying for this service.”
SHAMED has not changed its stance on total opposition to the marine SAC’s in southern Hebridean waters, according to Angus MacLeod. But the group says it is pleased to see the Scottish Government making changes which open up opportunities for communities to make radical changes to the current SNH-controlled regimes.
However, SNH downplayed any talk of a change in its approach. Its spokesman said: “Marine SACs have always been managed by those who live and work in and around them, and not SNH. This is nothing new. We provide information and advice to help them in the process. That advice has always been ‘optional’, however it is and continues to be the responsibility of relevant competent authorities to make sure the qualifying features of the SAC are taken into account in all management decisions.
“There are around 40 marine SACs around Scotland, including a huge part of the Moray Firth, the Firth of Lorn and Sound of Arisaig. Virtually all of them have various forms of ongoing commercial activity. The requirement is that the qualifying features of interest are taken into account in the context of these commercial activities. That requirement kicks in as soon as formal consultation begins on a proposed SAC, so for Barra that was 12 years ago.”