ResearchIgme

8/11/2019 ResearchIgme

1/21

Argyll and the Isles Coast and Countryside Trust (AICCT)

Findings from the stakeholder survey


2/21

i

Table of contents

Executive Summary ............................................................................................................. 1

1

Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 2

2 Description of respondents ............................................................................................ 2

3 Respondents views on the proposal to establish the AICCT...................................... 2

Perceived benefits of the AICCT ........................................................................................ 3

Concerns about the proposal to establish the AICCT ......................................................... 3

4 Views on the proposed objectives of the AICCT ........................................................... 5

Objective 1 ......................................................................................................................... 5

Objective 2 ......................................................................................................................... 6

Objective 3 ......................................................................................................................... 7

Objective 4 ......................................................................................................................... 7

Objective 5 ......................................................................................................................... 8

Objective 6 ......................................................................................................................... 9

Objective 7 ....................................................................................................................... 10

Objective 8 ....................................................................................................................... 11

Summary of stakeholders views about the proposed objectives ...................................... 11

5

How the AICCT can add value to the work of local stakeholders ............................... 13

How could the Trust support the work that you do? ......................................................... 13

What are the gaps in delivery of access, conservation and heritage? .............................. 13

What should be the priorities for the Trust? ...................................................................... 15

How could the Trust be run? ............................................................................................ 15

Annex 1: List of respondents ........................................................................................... 17

Organisational respondents ............................................................................................. 17

Individual respondents ..................................................................................................... 18


3/21

1

Executive Summary

This is a summary of the main findings from the survey of stakeholders in relation to thecreation of an Argyll & the Isles Coast and Countryside Trust (AICCT).

Descr ipt ion of respondents

The survey was completed by 65 local stakeholders, including 11 individuals and 54representatives of local organisations working in the areas of access, conservation, heritage,ecology or tourism or heritage. Local community councils, schools and existing developmenttrusts also took part.

Strong su pport for establ ishing th e AICCT

The majority of respondents (58 out of 65) were in favour of establishing the Trust. Fourrespondents were opposed, expressing the view (among others) that there were already toomany organisations in the area trying to influence / control the coast and countryside, andthat the Trust would create a layer of unnecessary bureaucracy. Three respondents wereundecided, and in general, these felt they had insufficient information upon which to base a

view, or they were concerned about the potential overlap between the work of the Trust andtheir own work.

Benefi ts of the AICCT

Respondents perceived the benefits of the Trust to be: the protection and conservation ofthe countryside; the preservation and promotion of natural and cultural heritage; improvedaccess and local access infrastructure (including paths, toilets, car parks, informationboards); and more sustainable local communities. Improved communication and morejoined-up thinking was seen to be an additional benefit.

Concerns abo ut the prop osal to establ ish the AICCT

Concerns voiced about the proposal to establish the Trust included: the potential forincreased bureaucracy, problems in obtaining funding, and a fear that the Trust might end updisplacing the work of, or competing for funding with, existing groups. Respondents alsohighlighted the possibility of unintended consequences, ie, improving access could lead toabuse or inappropriate use of the countryside and coast.

The propo sed object ives of the AICCT

Survey respondents generally supported the eight proposed objectives of the Trust.However, there was some variation in the strength of support for individual objectives.Objectives 2, 1, 4, 5 and 6 had the strongest support with people voicing the opinion thatthese should be essential objectives while Objectives 7, 3 and 8 had less strong support.

Some respondents expressed a need for clarity about the meaning of Objective 7.Some themes that recurred frequently in respondents comments about the proposed

objectives were that the Trust should work in partnership with existing organisations andgroups and that the Trust should be careful not to compete with existing organisations.

Adding value to the work of others

Respondents saw opportunities for the AICCT to support their own work in terms of funding;providing a co-ordination / communication / education function; engaging in conservationactivities; and by developing, improving and maintaining access to the coast and countryside.In general, respondents also felt these areas should be the main priorities for the Trust.


4/21

2

1 Introduction

The Small Town and Rural Development Group (STAR) undertook a survey of keystakeholders in Argyll as part of a larger project being carried out on behalf of Argyll & ButeCouncil in partnership with Scottish Natural Heritage, the Forestry Commission and the Argyll& Bute Social Enterprise Network. The purpose of the survey was to get the views of local

stakeholders about a proposal to establish an Argyll & the Isles Coast and Countryside Trust(AICCT). This report provides an analysis of the survey findings.

2 Description of respondents

The survey was completed by 65 local stakeholders. Respondents included 11 individualsand 54 representatives of a wide range of local charitable, government, land-based andprivate sector organisations working in the areas of access, conservation, ecology, heritageand / or tourism. Nine community councils, two schools and several community developmenttrusts also participated in the survey. (See Table 1.) A complete list of respondents isattached at Annex 1.

Table 1: Number of organisational respondents

Trusts, charitable organisations or other non-profit groups 27

Community Councils 9

Private sector organisations 9

Local and national government organisations 4

Farms / estates 3

Local schools 2

Total organisational respondents: 54

3 Respondents views on the proposal to establish the AICCT

Respondents were asked whether they supported the proposal to establish the AICCT.Figure 1 below shows that the majority did 58 out of 65 were in favour. It should be notedthat two of the 58 did not feel that an overwhelming case had been made in support of thecreation of an AICCT, but these two respondents recognised that the Trust could provide amechanism for attracting additional funding to the area. Only four respondents did notsupport the proposal to establish the Trust and three were undecided.

Figure 1: Do you support the proposal to establish the AICCT?

58

4 3

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Yes No Undecided

Numberofrespondents


5/21

3

The reasons given by those who did notsupport the establishment of the Trust were:

There were already too many organisations in the area trying to influence / control thecoast and countryside.

One respondent didnt see the value of what the AICCT was proposing.

Another expressed scepticism about groups that claim to work to protect thecountryside. This individual felt that such groups did not actually do so.

Finally, one respondent did not believe the organisation would achieve anything, andthat it would create a layer of unnecessary bureaucracy.

Among those who were undecided, one respondent was unclear whether the aims of theAICCT would overlap with their own organisations aims and indeed whether other localorganisations might already have similar objectives to those proposed by the AICCT inwhich case, the respondent felt the AICCT was possibly not necessary. The other two felt

they did not have sufficient information about the AICCT upon which to base a view.

Perceived benefits of the AICCT

Those who supported the proposal to establish the AICCT saw a number of possible benefitsfor the Argyll & Bute area, including:

Protection / conservation of the countryside and wildlife and protection from over-development

Preservation and promotion of natural and cultural heritage

Increased sustainable tourism and better facilities for tourists

Improved responsible access to the local countryside and coast by visitors and localresidents

Economic benefits through job creation, skills development and a more strategic, co-ordinated approach to fundraising

The development and management of local facilities and infrastructure such as longdistance routes, core paths, coast access points, toilets, car parks, informationboards, etc.

The creation of sustainable local communities and better places to live

The ability to encourage greater involvement of local communities in conservationand countryside management.

Others saw that the AICCT as taking on a more strategic / co-ordinating role which wouldresult in improved communication and more joined-up thinking and working between existinggroups. Others suggested that a co-ordinating role could lead to better management of longdistance routes and core paths, and a more coherent and holistic approach to land use andother rural issues in the area.

Concerns about the proposal to establish the AICCT

Forty-eight of the 65 respondents expressed some concerns about the proposal to establishthe AICCT. The majority of these concerns were voiced by respondents who supported thecreation of the Trust. These individuals highlighted the following issues:


6/21

4

There was a concern that the Trust might introduce increased bureaucracy and redtape or indeed that the Trust itself might get bogged down in bureaucracy before itis even established.

There may be difficulties in the Trust obtaining funding, or having sufficient staffresources to be effective. Several respondents felt the Trust needed to avoid

becoming dependent on the public sector for funding. At the same time, there were concerns that the Trust might end up competing with

existing groups for scarce funding or that it would end up controlling and / orrationing funding for local groups.

This issue of possible competition for funding was often linked to concerns that theTrust needed to be careful to avoid duplicating or displacing the good work of existinggroups and reinventing the wheel.

Some respondents focused on the question of how the Trust would set its priorities respondents wanted to see fairness in its delivery of projects across allof Argyll &the Isles so that areas which have been short-changed in the past should get their

fair share of funding. There was a feeling that resources should not be prioritised toareas that are already well-resourced. At the same time, respondents commentedthat Argyll & the Isles is a large geographic area with many and diverse needs, andthat it may be difficult to reach decisions about which needs to prioritise. There werealso concerns that access and interpretation projects might be given priority overconservation / environmental protection projects.

In relation to this latter point, some respondents highlighted the potential for the workof the Trust to have unintended consequences: ie, that improving access andcreating additional paths, signposts and interpretation boards might result in abuse,disturbance of vulnerable wildlife and a loss of the sense of remoteness whichattracts visitors to the area in the first place.

Other respondents focused on the Trusts structures and processes. People wantedthe Trust to be transparent and accountable in its decision-making and finance. Inaddition, there was a fear that the Trust might be subject to undue influence / controlby special interest groups and / or potential conflicts of interest among Boardmembers. Respondents felt it was important for the Trusts Board to have balancedrepresentation from businesses, environmentalists, water-based sports enthusiasts,and planner. Others suggested that there should be good representation from localpeople and existing groups who are aware of the specific needs of each part of alarge geographic area.

Finally, there were concerns that the Trust might make the mistake of taking on too

much and so achieving little, or that there was a risk it could become a talking shopfor senior executives.

Six respondents said they had no concerns about the proposal to establish the Trust, butthen they qualified this statement by highlighting similar concerns to those described above:ie, so long as there is no conflict of interest with existing Trusts; so long as it has a diverserange of people on the committee; solong as it is democratic, open and accountable; solong as it does not magnify issues for species and habitats that are vulnerable todisturbance.

Those who were notin favour of establishing the AICCT expressed the view that it would bea poor use of money and it would introduce an additional layer of bureaucracy.


7/21

5

4 Views on the proposed objectives of the AICCT

Stakeholders were asked to give their views on the eight proposed objectives of the AICCT.These are shown in Figure 2.

Figure 2: Proposed objectives

Objective 1: Encourage, facilitate and promote responsible outdoor access to the coast andcountryside

Objective 2: Maintain, manage, promote and enhance our biodiversity and historic environment

Objective 3: Deliver a co-ordinated advisory service and education for benefit of all existingcommunity trusts and other organisations with an interest in the environment

Objective 4: Maximise external funding opportunities for the benefit of the natural and historicenvironment and its enjoyment

Objective 5: Encourage participation and partnership working of existing groups and sharing ofbest practice with local communities and partners on all matters relating to the objectives

Objective 6: Create demonstrable social benefits such as opportunities for employment, trainingand volunteering

Objective 7: Seek to create an economically sustainable business for delivery of the Coast andCountryside Trust objectives

Objective 8: The trust may work with transnational partners or neighbouring authorities whereopportunities exist to meet its objectives.

Respondents were asked to indicate whether they: (1) strongly agreed with the objective / feltit was essential for the AICCT; (2) agreed with the objective / felt it would be good to do; (3)

disagreed with the objective / didnt really think it was necessary; (4) strongly disagreed withthe objective / felt that the Trust absolutely should not do it; or (5) had no view / didnt know.

In general, the findings indicate that those who were in favour of establishing the AICCTwere generally also in agreement with the proposed objectives. Those who were notinfavour of establishing the Trust, or who were undecided, generally disagreed with theproposed objectives. There were exceptions in both cases, however, and the strength ofview about the objectives varied as shown in the Figures 3-10 below.

Objective 1

Encourage, facilitate and promote responsible outdoor access to the coast and countryside.

Most respondents agreed that this objective was important, with over half of respondents(33/62) saying they felt it was an essentialobjective for the Trust. See Figure 3.Respondents felt there was a need for improvements in the outdoor access infrastructure inthe area (e.g. signage, interpretation, maintenance of routes / footpaths, gates / stiles, carparking on public roads).

One individual felt that responsiblewas the key word in the objective, and others echoedthis, saying that the Trust should promote responsible access rather than increased access.One individual suggested that the objective should be amended to include a reference topolicing the way in which the public access the countryside.

However, there was also a view that other organisations in the area (including SNH) werealready doing this work.


8/21

6

Figure 3: Views on Objective 1 (based o n 62 responses)

33

16

3

0

3

0 01

42

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Strongly agree /

essential

Agree / good to

do

Disagree / not

necessary

Strongly disagree No view / don't

know

Numberofresponden

ts

Respondents in favour of AICCT

Respondents opposed or

undecided

Objective 2

Maintain, manage, promote and enhance our biodiversity and historic environment.

There was general agreement with this objective, and again, more than half of allrespondents felt this was an essentialobjective for the Trust. See Figure 4.

In relation to this objective, it was a recurring theme that other organisations (in particular,SNH and Historic Scotland) were already doing this work. The respondents who pointed thisout were mainly those who were not in favour, or who were undecided about, theestablishment of the Trust. Those who supportedthe creation of the Trust saw this objectiveas an opportunity to work collaboratively and strengthen links with organisations such asSNH, Historic Scotland, Forestry Commission and RSPB.

There were some questions from respondents about what would be involved in managingthe areas biodiversity and historic environment. In addition, one individual suggested that

geodiversity (as well as biodiversity) should be included in the objective.


36

15

10

3

0 01

42

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Strongly agree /essential

Agree / good todo

Disagree / notnecessary

Stronglydisagree

No view / don'tknow

Numberofrespondents


Respondents opposed orundecided


9/21

7

Objective 3

Deliver a co-ordinated advisory service and education for benefit of all existing community

trusts and other organisations with an interest in the environment.

Respondents generally believed this objective should be included, but fewer believed that

this should be an essential objective for the AICCT. Moreover, there was an increase in thenumber of people who disagreed or strongly disagreed with this objective as compared withthe first two objectives, although the numbers are small.

Those who disagreed with this objective or who felt it wasnt an essential objective, were notclear that the Trust would add value to what was already being done by other organisationsin the area. Those who agreed with this objective also stressed that this objective could onlybe achieved by working with other existing groups, and that this would need to be donesensitively. The issue of resourcing was raised by some respondents, and one individualalso commented that it could be difficult to identify long-term funding for such activities.

There was also a view expressed that this objective wasnt essentialbut would follow once

other objectives were carried out.


19

28

5

21

0 0 0

3 3

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Strongly agree /

essential

Agree / good to

do

Disagree / not

necessary

Strongly

disagree

No view / don't

know

Numberofrespondents



undecided

Objective 4

Maximise external funding opportunities for the benefit of the natural and historicenvironment and its enjoyment

Respondents were largely in favour of this as an objective for the Trust (see Figure 6),although there were also some caveats expressed. In particular, respondents felt the Trustshould not end up competing for funding with existing organisations. There was a view thatfunding should be used to strengthen existing organisations, rather than supporting a newone. However, there were also suggestions that partnership bids can often result in strongerfunding applications.

Respondents also commented that the activities of the AICCT should not prevent existing

organisations from accessing their own funding independently of the Trust.


10/21

8

One individual suggested the objective should be reworded to focus on the benefits forpeople: Maximise external funding opportunities for the benefit of communities, the naturaland historic environment and its sustainability.


31

17

31

3

0 01

3 3

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Strongly agree /

essential

Agree / good to

do

Disagree / not

necessary

Strongly

disagree

No view / don't

know

Numberofrespondents



undecided

Objective 5

Encourage participation and partnership working of existing groups and sharing of best

practice with local communities and partners on all matters relating to the objectives.In general, stakeholders saw this objective as positive and nearly half saw it as anessential objective for the AICCT. (See Figure 7.) It was common for people to say that co-operation, partnership working and sharing best practice were to be commended andencouraged and some went so far as to say that the Trusts success would depend on this.

One individual argued that any partnership working should include private businesses, aswell as voluntary and publicly-subsidised groups in the area.

At the same time, one respondent pointed out that there was already a heritage forum in thearea which performs a similar role, and others felt there were practical difficulties inencouraging participation and partnership working in an area where travel distances are

great. One individual supported the objective as long as it doesnt mean volunteers havingto use up their time attending lots of meetings. And in relation to this latter point, anotherrespondent suggested that the use of a web interface might support the sharing of goodpractice.


11/21

9


30

19

31

20

10

3 3

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Strongly agree /

essential

Agree / good to

do

Disagree / not

necessary

Strongly

disagree

No view / don't

know

Numberofresponde

nts



undecided

Objective 6

Create demonstrable social benefits such as opportunities for employment, training andvolunteering.

In general, respondents agreed with this objective, although fewer felt this objective wasessential in comparison with some of the other objectives for the AICCT. (See Figure 8.)There was a suggestion that this objective was in fact an outcome which would follow fromachieving other objectives. Others suggested that existing community groups could deliversimilar objectives if they were resourced properly to do so.

However, those who saw this objective as essential, expressed the view that well-paid ruraljobs were important for attracting and retaining younger families, and creating sustainablerural communities. There was a suggestion that the Trust could act as a catalyst in sourcingtraining funds for local communities.


25

23

4

0

3

1 10

32

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Strongly agree /

essential

Agree / good to

do

Disagree / not

necessary

Strongly

disagree

No view / don't

know

Numberofresponde

nts



undecided


12/21

10

Objective 7

Seek to create an economically sustainable business for delivery of the Coast and

Countryside Trust objectives.

There was some confusion among respondents about this objective, and compared to the

other objectives, there were a larger number of respondents who either disagreed with thisobjective or felt unsure about whether to support it. (See Figure 9.)

Respondents comments included:

Not sure what is meant here profit making or non-profit making?

Clashes with objective 4. If you have a sustainable business model, why is grantfunding required?

I dont know what this means in practical terms. Unclear about the details of this objective.

There was also some disagreement between respondents in relation to this objective. Oneindividual said, If it is not economically sustainable, it wont last, while another felt thateconomic sustainability should take second place to the Trusts other main objectives.

Again, it was also a recurring theme that the Trust should not put itself into competition withother existing social enterprises.

Among respondents who felt this was an essential objective for the Trust, it was argued thatthis was important, given the current funding climate, but it was also common forrespondents to voice concerns about the difficulties of creating a sustainable business modelgiven what they knew of other Trusts that were struggling financially. One individualsuggested that the AICCT should employ a dedicated fundraiser to avoid having the Trust

manager spending all his / her time in fundraising.


23

17

7

1

7

10 0

3 3

0

5

10

15

20

25

Strongly agree /

essential

Agree / good to

do

Disagree / not

necessary

Strongly

disagree

No view / don't

know

Numberofrespondents



undecided


13/21

11

Objective 8

The trust may work with transnational partners or neighbouring authorities where

opportunities exist to meet its objectives.

In comparison with other objectives, Objective 8 generally received less strong support,

although again, the number of respondents who disagreed is small. (See Figure 10.)

While some respondents saw the value of sharing information outside of Argyll, others wereconcerned that this could become a costly exercise, and result in the AICCT becoming tooresponsive to other peoples agendas and priorities.

Those voicing support for this objective saw the usefulness of working with neighbouringauthorities in relation to cross-border paths, in particular. There was also a feeling thatvisiting other community projects would provide the AICCT with an opportunity to learn andshare ideas. However, again one respondent cautioned, Learning from others is a greatthing. However financial discipline must be put in place to ensure that value for money isdeliveredie, money invested in this objective should realise a monetary return.

Figure 10: View on Objective 8 (based o n 62 responses)

16

23

7

45

0 0 0

43

0

5

10

15

20

25

Strongly agree /

essential

Agree / good to

do

Disagree / not

necessary

Strongly

disagree

No view / don't

know

Numberofrespondents



undecided

Summary of stakeholders views about the proposed objectivesFigure 11 below compares the number of respondents who felt that a particular objective wasessential vs the number who disagreed that the AICCT should have that objective at all (i.e.they felt it was unnecessary, or that it should absolutely not be included). The figureexcludes those respondents who generally agreed with the objective (i.e. those who thoughtit would be good to do) but who did not agree strongly.

The Figure shows that Objectives 2, 1, 4, 5 and 6 had the strongest support while Objectives7, 3 and 8 had less support.


14/21

12

Figure 11: Number of respondents who felt that the objective was essential to thework of AICCT compared with the number who disagreed

36

33

31 30

26

24

19

16

68 8

7 7

1110

15

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Obj 2 Obj 1 Obj 4 Obj 5 Obj 6 Obj 7 Obj 3 Obj 8

Numberofrespondents

Strongly agree / essential

Disagree


15/21

13

5 How the AICCT can add value to the work of local stakeholders

In the final section of the survey, respondents were asked a series of open questions togather their views on: (i) how the AICCT could support local stakeholders / groups in thework that they do; (ii) whether there were specific gaps in local initiatives that the Trust couldfill; (iii) what the Trusts priorities should be; and (iv) how the Trust could be run.

It is worth noting that, in relation to all of these questions, respondents often made quitespecific suggestions, and those who are involved in the establishment of the AICCT will wantto consider each of these in turn.

How could the Trust support the work that you do?

More than four-fifths of respondents (55 out of 65) made comments in relation to thisquestion. Many comments were very specific, referring to the actual aims and activities ofindividual agencies or referring to specific projects that the Trust could get involved in forexample, funding greylag goose control on Coll and Tiree after 2013; taking on themaintenance of the Dalriada Project from beyond 2020; supporting the development of a

cultural heritage programme in Islay and Jura; identifying and listing local geodiversity sites,and so on.

However, several overarching themes could also be identified in relation to:

Funding: Respondents felt the AICCT could assist them with grant applications, beinvolved in joint applications, or more directly it could provide funding or cashflow assistance. There was also a view that the Trust could have a co-ordinating rolein relation to funding, and perhaps play a part in securing funding at a regional levelfor existing groups to bid into.

Education, awareness raising and communication: Respondents felt the Trust

could assist them in providing advice and information about good practice. It couldalso support their work by providing environmental education, encouraging people totake an interest in natural history and conservation, and jointly promoting events andactivities.

Conservation: Respondents saw the AICCT as having a role in working withexisting local agencies to improve and protect the environment. Potential activitiesranged from the prevention of inappropriate development to providing on-the-groundassistance to deliver works.

Access: In line with many of the earlier comments made in the survey, respondentsemphasised the role of the Trust in enabling, developing, improving and maintainingaccess to coastal waters and the countryside.

Umbrella role: Respondents felt the AICCT could help them by providing support /backing in relation to specific issues such as obtaining access across land, or inrelation to protecting the interests of small heritage trusts. They also saw it having akind of lobbying role: ie, putting pressure on Argyll & Bute Council where necessary,and bringing the issues affecting coastal and island communities to the attention ofpoliticians and the public.

What are the gaps in delivery of access, conservation and heritage that the Trust

could fill?

Three-quarters of respondents (49 out of 65) made comments about gaps in relation toaccess, conservation and heritage activities in Argyll & the Isles. There were some clearrecurring themes in these comments some of which have been mentioned already in thepoints above.


16/21

14

Co-ordination: About a fifth of respondents highlighted a need for greater co-ordination of the many existing activities and initiatives being undertaken across avery diverse and thinly populated region. These comments also referred to a needfor joined-up thinkingbetween government, public bodies and private enterprises inrelation to access, information provision and the creation of facilities (such as toilets,

for example). Funding: Once again, funding was raised as a major issue, with about a fifth of

respondents highlighting this as a gap. In most cases, respondents saw a need forthe Trust to provide support and advice in relation to funding applications and / or inproviding direct funding to existing groups.

Access: Around a quarter of respondents felt there were gaps in relation to accessand path provision in Argyll. In some cases, comments were specific: a Loch Awetrail, a west coast loop off the West Highland Way. Other comments were moregeneral and highlighted needs in relation to constructing, improving and maintainingpaths and signed access points, including access for people of all abilities, andaccess for outdoor water sports and camping. One respondent said that, Linksbetween walks dont exist in many places. Another commented that, There is noformal management of the access network. There is full time work for two people

with a vehicle and tools.

Facilities: Closely related to the issues of access was a perceived lack of facilities inthe more remote parts of the region. These include facilities for an increasing numberof visitors in campervans, information about acceptable overnight camping sites, andtoilets where mountain biking and sea kayaking take place. One respondentsuggested a practical solution might involve getting agreement from hotels orrestaurants to allow the public to use their facilities in return for a cash payment fromthe Council. This individual argued that this would probably be more cost-effectivethan building and maintaining toilets.

Information and interpretation: As mentioned above, gaps in information andguidance were highlighted in relation to footpaths and marine access points.However, one respondent also felt there was no central source of information aboutthe Argyll countryside in general. This individual advocated the creation (and on-going maintenance) of a web portal about Argyll. This comment was echoed bycomments from other respondents that there was a need to have a co-ordinatedapproach to marketing Argylls coast and countryside to visitors. Other respondentsfelt that better interpretation of key sites was needed for visitors who would like toknow about the areas history, geography and culture. One individual particularly feltthere was a need for a more extensive Ranger Service in the area.

Conservation and heritage: The gaps in relation to conservation were perceived asa need to tackle alien invasive species (rhododendron and mink were bothmentioned), and re-naturalising habitats which had formerly been used for plantationforests. There was a view that, in general, more attention needed to be focused onconservation and heritage issues than was currently the case. In relation to heritageissues, this could include organising building repairs and the development andpromotion of activities, events and attractions.

Expertise and human resources: In addition to a perceived need for an expandedRanger Service mentioned above (particularly on the mainland), respondents sawother types of human resource needs, for example: a need for technical expertise,skilled path builders to carry out maintenance of footpaths, and countryside managers

/ wildlife policy officers to manage field staff. One respondent felt there was a needfor an organisation that had the ability to draw on and mobilise a volunteer workforce.


17/21

15

Litter: The issue of litter was less commonly raised by respondents. However, therewas a consistency in the comments on this topic. Respondents saw a need forimproved policies on litter prevention and the clearance of roadside and shorelinelitter.

What should be the priorities for the Trust?Respondents were asked about what the priorities for the AICCT should be that is whatshould the Trust focus on. Nearly three-quarter of respondents (47 out of 65) submittedcomments in response to this question. These comments largely focused on four mainthemes:

Conservation and heritage: protecting and enhancing Argylls rich natural andcultural assets and protecting and promoting its biodiversity

Access: the development, maintenance and management of paths, improvedsignage and information, and facilities to promote access (including marine access)

Funding: seeking new sources of funding and supporting existing groups to accessfunds

Education, advice and the provision of expertise: providing an educational rolethat introduces young people to the outdoors and to the natural environment, and alsoproviding advice and information to the public in general about responsible access.

Tackling the problem of roadside and beach litter and developing opportunities foremployment and training were less prominent themes, along with enhancing ferry services,making better use of water transport, community regeneration and developing a strong anddistinctiveArgyll brand in terms of managing the natural and historic environment.

In addition, it was common for respondents to suggest that the AICCT should start small and

succeed, rather than taking on too much in an attempt to be all things to all people and riskfailing. These comments also suggested that any projects should be spread across Argyll &the islands so that no one feels ignoredrather than focussing efforts on just onegeographical area.

Finally, in terms of setting priorities, as mentioned previously, respondents felt that the Trustshould take care to complementexisting good work, rather than competewith it.

How could the Trust be run?

Finally, respondents were asked for their thoughts on how the Trust could be run in terms ofits partners, income generation, etc. Just over half of respondents commented in relation to

this question so fewer than for previous questions and in general, comments focusedon three issues:

Finance and income generation: People felt the Trust would need core funding toget started. One individual suggested that this should be sought from Governmentagencies such as Highlands and Islands Enterprise, SNH, Forestry Commission andthe National Park and that it could also come in the form of contributions of stafftime from these organisations. Another suggested the AICCT could enter into servicelevel agreements with other organisations to deliver key projects. Other sources ofcore funding could include contributions made from major planning applications(particularly where there is potential damage to the environment from adevelopment), or from Argyll & Bute Council.


18/21

16

However, there was a view that the AICCT would also need to rely on grant funding,and it was suggested that the Trust should attempt to apply for larger grants, forexample, from the Lottery or from Europe. There was also one suggestion that itmight be possible to obtain funding from large American trusts, and another individualsuggested that a certain proportion of all the grants received by the Trust should be

used to cover the core cost of Trust employees.Suggestions for other sources of funding / income included: tourism bodies, publicdonations, renewable energy projects and local businesses. Alternatively, the Trustcould issue shares, generate income from projects and educational activities or set upa commercial arm (a trading subsidiary).

Structure and legal status: Respondents who commented on possible structuresfor the AICCT generally thought that the Trust should be a not-for-profit charitableorganisation. However, there were also suggestions that SCIO (Scottish CharitableIncorporated Organisation) status or Community Interest Company (CIC) status couldbe beneficial. Moreover, one respondent felt that the Trust should be independent of

Argyll & Bute Council.In terms of governance, it was felt that the management board for the Trust shouldnot be unwieldy; one respondent suggested that the Board should represent thewider population of Argyll & Bute. Others suggested that Board members / Trusteesshould have the necessary competencies to deal with the range of issue the Trustmay face, that there should be variety on the Board, and that Board members shouldbe appointed through transparent processes.

Partners: Respondents generally saw the necessity of developing partnerships withorganisations such as the Scottish Wildlife Trust, RSPB, SNH, heritage bodies andthe National Park. Argyll & Bute Council was also seen as a key partner (although asnoted above, there were some respondents who felt that the AICCT should be

independent of the Council). Other suggestions in relation to partners were:Community Councils and local community groups, commercial organisations (such assalmon farm companies and renewable energy developers), and the organisationsthat are currently working in these areas at a local level.


19/21

17

Annex 1: List of respondents

Organisational respondents

Commu ni ty Development Groups

Ardrishaig Community TrustEasdale Island Residents & Property Owners Association (EIRPOA)Ionad Chaluim Chille leIsle of GometraLochgilphead Phoenix ProjectRosneath Peninsula West Community Development TrustSouth Kintyre Development TrustTiree Rural DevelopmentDalmally Community Company Ltd

Envi ronmental and Woodland Group s/Orgs

Botanical Society of the British IslesFriends of Duchess Wood (FODW)Fyne Futures - Towards Zero Carbon ButeGeodiversity: Argyll & the Islands (GAI)Hebridean Whale and Dolphin TrustRoyal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB)Seil Natural History GroupHelensburgh Greenbelt Group

The GRAB Trust

Access groups/orgs

Tiree Access GroupPeninsula PathsHelensburgh & District Access Trust

Recreation

Mid Argyll Community Pool (MacPool)

Scottish CanalsScottish Canoe AssociationCowalfest/ Cowal Marketing Group

Heri tage Grou ps/Orgs

Dalriada ProjectThe Tradesman`s BoxKilmartin House Trust (Kilmartin House Museum)Urras Achadh an Droighinn/The Auchindrain Trust


20/21

18

Local and national governm ent organisat ions

Argyll and Bute Council, Criminal Justice ServicesArgyll and Bute Council, Sport, Leisure and Youth ServicesFCS (Environment Team for national forest estate)Forestry Commission

Schools

Dunoon Grammar SchoolSalen Primary School / Bunsgoil an t-Sailein

Commu ni ty Counci ls

Avich and Kilchrenan Community CouncilCairndow Community CouncilCardross Community CouncilConnel Community Council

Cove & Kilcreggan Community CouncilCraignish Community CouncilLochgilphead Community CouncilLuing Community CouncilRhu & Shandon Community Council

Farms / estates

Ardkinglas Estate/Feringa FarmingStonefield Farms

Donald Ewen Darroch

Bus iness/Private sector

A&E LauderAn Roth Trading LtdBalmillig B&B and Lomond GuidesCreative BranchDonaldson Environmental Consultancy Ltd.Isle of Eriska Hotel, Spa and Island

The Marine Resource Centre LtdWalkhighlands

Individual respondents

Tony CharlesworthAllan J ColthartPenny CousinsPeter IsaacsonDr James PatersonKenneth RobbNorman Rodger


21/21

19

Paula SmalleyMargaret StrattonRoger Woodford

ResearchIgme

Documents