Argyll and the Isles Coast and Countryside Trust (AICCT)

Findings from the stakeholder survey

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


1
Executive Summary
This is a summary of the main findings from the survey of stakeholders in relation to the
creation of an Argyll & the Isles Coast and Countryside Trust (AICCT).
Description of respondents
The survey was completed by 65 local stakeholders, including 11 individuals and 54
representatives of local organisations working in the areas of access, conservation, heritage,
ecology or tourism or heritage. Local community councils, schools and existing development
trusts also took part.
Strong support for establishing the AICCT
The majority of respondents (58 out of 65) were in favour of establishing the Trust. Four
respondents were opposed, expressing the view (among others) that there were already too
many organisations in the area trying to influence / control the coast and countryside, and
that the Trust would create a layer of unnecessary bureaucracy. Three respondents were
undecided, 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 and
their own work.
Benefits of the AICCT
Respondents perceived the benefits of the Trust to be: the protection and conservation of
the countryside; the preservation and promotion of natural and cultural heritage; improved
access and local access infrastructure (including paths, toilets, car parks, information
boards); and more sustainable local communities. Improved communication and more
joined-up thinking was seen to be an additional benefit.
Concerns about the proposal to establish the AICCT
Concerns voiced about the proposal to establish the Trust included: the potential for
increased bureaucracy, problems in obtaining funding, and a fear that the Trust might end up
displacing the work of, or competing for funding with, existing groups. Respondents also
highlighted the possibility of unintended consequences, ie, improving access could lead to
abuse or inappropriate use of the countryside and coast.
The proposed objectives 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 that
these 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 and
groups 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 conservation
activities; 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.


2
1 Introduction
The Small Town and Rural Development Group (STAR) undertook a survey of key
stakeholders in Argyll as part of a larger project being carried out on behalf of Argyll & Bute
Council 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 individuals
and 54 representatives of a wide range of local charitable, government, land-based and
private sector organisations working in the areas of access, conservation, ecology, heritage
and / or tourism. Nine community councils, two schools and several community development
trusts also participated in the survey. (See Table 1.) A complete list of respondents is
attached 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 noted
that two of the 58 did not feel that an overwhelming case had been made in support of the
creation of an AICCT, but these two respondents recognised that the Trust could provide a
mechanism for attracting additional funding to the area. Only four respondents did not
support 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
N
u
m
b
e
r

o
f

r
e
s
p
o
n
d
e
n
t
s


3

The reasons given by those who did not support the establishment of the Trust were:
There were already too many organisations in the area trying to influence / control the
coast 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 the
countryside. This individual felt that such groups did not actually do so.
Finally, one respondent did not believe the organisation would achieve anything, and
that it would create a layer of unnecessary bureaucracy.
Among those who were undecided, one respondent was unclear whether the aims of the
AICCT would overlap with their own organisations aims and indeed whether other local
organisations might already have similar objectives to those proposed by the AICCT in
which 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 benefits
for 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 local
residents
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 long
distance routes, core paths, coast access points, toilets, car parks, information
boards, etc.
The creation of sustainable local communities and better places to live
The ability to encourage greater involvement of local communities in conservation
and countryside management.
Others saw that the AICCT as taking on a more strategic / co-ordinating role which would
result in improved communication and more joined-up thinking and working between existing
groups. Others suggested that a co-ordinating role could lead to better management of long
distance routes and core paths, and a more coherent and holistic approach to land use and
other 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 establish
the AICCT. The majority of these concerns were voiced by respondents who supported the
creation of the Trust. These individuals highlighted the following issues:

4
There was a concern that the Trust might introduce increased bureaucracy and red
tape or indeed that the Trust itself might get bogged down in bureaucracy before it
is even established.
There may be difficulties in the Trust obtaining funding, or having sufficient staff
resources 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 / or
rationing funding for local groups.
This issue of possible competition for funding was often linked to concerns that the
Trust needed to be careful to avoid duplicating or displacing the good work of existing
groups 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 all of 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 to
areas that are already well-resourced. At the same time, respondents commented
that Argyll & the Isles is a large geographic area with many and diverse needs, and
that it may be difficult to reach decisions about which needs to prioritise. There were
also concerns that access and interpretation projects might be given priority over
conservation / environmental protection projects.
In relation to this latter point, some respondents highlighted the potential for the work
of the Trust to have unintended consequences: ie, that improving access and
creating additional paths, signposts and interpretation boards might result in abuse,
disturbance of vulnerable wildlife and a loss of the sense of remoteness which
attracts visitors to the area in the first place.
Other respondents focused on the Trusts structures and processes. People wanted
the Trust to be transparent and accountable in its decision-making and finance. In
addition, there was a fear that the Trust might be subject to undue influence / control
by special interest groups and / or potential conflicts of interest among Board
members. Respondents felt it was important for the Trusts Board to have balanced
representation from businesses, environmentalists, water-based sports enthusiasts,
and planner. Others suggested that there should be good representation from local
people and existing groups who are aware of the specific needs of each part of a
large 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 shop
for senior executives.
Six respondents said they had no concerns about the proposal to establish the Trust, but
then 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 diverse
range of people on the committee; so long as it is democratic, open and accountable; so
long as it does not magnify issues for species and habitats that are vulnerable to
disturbance.
Those who were not in favour of establishing the AICCT expressed the view that it would be
a poor use of money and it would introduce an additional layer of bureaucracy.

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 and
countryside
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 existing
community trusts and other organisations with an interest in the environment
Objective 4: Maximise external funding opportunities for the benefit of the natural and historic
environment and its enjoyment
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
Objective 6: Create demonstrable social benefits such as opportunities for employment, training
and volunteering
Objective 7: Seek to create an economically sustainable business for delivery of the Coast and
Countryside Trust objectives
Objective 8: The trust may work with transnational partners or neighbouring authorities where
opportunities exist to meet its objectives.

Respondents were asked to indicate whether they: (1) strongly agreed with the objective / felt
it 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 with
the 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 AICCT
were generally also in agreement with the proposed objectives. Those who were not in
favour of establishing the Trust, or who were undecided, generally disagreed with the
proposed objectives. There were exceptions in both cases, however, and the strength of
view 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 essential objective for the Trust. See Figure 3.
Respondents felt there was a need for improvements in the outdoor access infrastructure in
the area (e.g. signage, interpretation, maintenance of routes / footpaths, gates / stiles, car
parking on public roads).
One individual felt that responsible was the key word in the objective, and others echoed
this, 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 to
policing the way in which the public access the countryside.
However, there was also a view that other organisations in the area (including SNH) were
already doing this work.

6
Figure 3: Views on Objective 1 (based on 62 responses)
33
16
3
0
3
0 0
1
4
2
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
N
u
m
b
e
r

o
f

r
e
s
p
o
n
d
e
n
t
s
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 all
respondents felt this was an essential objective 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 this
out were mainly those who were not in favour, or who were undecided about, the
establishment of the Trust. Those who supported the creation of the Trust saw this objective
as an opportunity to work collaboratively and strengthen links with organisations such as
SNH, Historic Scotland, Forestry Commission and RSPB.
There were some questions from respondents about what would be involved in managing
the areas biodiversity and historic environment. In addition, one individual suggested that
geodiversity (as well as biodiversity) should be included in the objective.
Figure 4: Views on Objective 2 (based on 62 responses)
36
15
1
0
3
0 0
1
4
2
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Strongly agree /
essential
Agree / good to
do
Disagree / not
necessary
Strongly
disagree
No view / don't
know
N
u
m
b
e
r

o
f

r
e
s
p
o
n
d
e
n
t
s
Respondents in favour of AICCT
Respondents opposed or
undecided


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 the
number of people who disagreed or strongly disagreed with this objective as compared with
the first two objectives, although the numbers are small.
Those who disagreed with this objective or who felt it wasnt an essential objective, were not
clear that the Trust would add value to what was already being done by other organisations
in the area. Those who agreed with this objective also stressed that this objective could only
be achieved by working with other existing groups, and that this would need to be done
sensitively. The issue of resourcing was raised by some respondents, and one individual
also commented that it could be difficult to identify long-term funding for such activities.
There was also a view expressed that this objective wasnt essential but would follow once
other objectives were carried out.
Figure 5: Views on Objective 3 (based on 61 responses)
19
28
5
2
1
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
N
u
m
b
e
r

o
f

r
e
s
p
o
n
d
e
n
t
s
Respondents in favour of AICCT
Respondents opposed or
undecided

Objective 4
Maximise external funding opportunities for the benefit of the natural and historic
environment 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 Trust
should not end up competing for funding with existing organisations. There was a view that
funding should be used to strengthen existing organisations, rather than supporting a new
one. However, there were also suggestions that partnership bids can often result in stronger
funding applications.
Respondents also commented that the activities of the AICCT should not prevent existing
organisations from accessing their own funding independently of the Trust.

8
One individual suggested the objective should be reworded to focus on the benefits for
people: Maximise external funding opportunities for the benefit of communities, the natural
and historic environment and its sustainability.
Figure 6: Views on Objective 4 (based on 62 responses)
31
17
3
1
3
0 0
1
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
N
u
m
b
e
r

o
f

r
e
s
p
o
n
d
e
n
t
s
Respondents in favour of AICCT
Respondents opposed or
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 an
essential 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 and
encouraged 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, as
well 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 the
area which performs a similar role, and others felt there were practical difficulties in
encouraging participation and partnership working in an area where travel distances are
great. One individual supported the objective as long as it doesnt mean volunteers having
to use up their time attending lots of meetings. And in relation to this latter point, another
respondent suggested that the use of a web interface might support the sharing of good
practice.

9
Figure 7: Views on Objective 5 (based on 62 responses)
30
19
3
1
2
0
1
0
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
N
u
m
b
e
r

o
f

r
e
s
p
o
n
d
e
n
t
s
Respondents in favour of AICCT
Respondents opposed or
undecided

Objective 6
Create demonstrable social benefits such as opportunities for employment, training and
volunteering.
In general, respondents agreed with this objective, although fewer felt this objective was
essential 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 from
achieving other objectives. Others suggested that existing community groups could deliver
similar objectives if they were resourced properly to do so.
However, those who saw this objective as essential, expressed the view that well-paid rural
jobs were important for attracting and retaining younger families, and creating sustainable
rural communities. There was a suggestion that the Trust could act as a catalyst in sourcing
training funds for local communities.
Figure 8: Views on Objective 6 (based on 62 responses)
25
23
4
0
3
1 1
0
3
2
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Strongly agree /
essential
Agree / good to
do
Disagree / not
necessary
Strongly
disagree
No view / don't
know
N
u
m
b
e
r

o
f

r
e
s
p
o
n
d
e
n
t
s
Respondents in favour of AICCT
Respondents opposed or
undecided


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 this
objective 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 grant
funding 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. One
individual said, If it is not economically sustainable, it wont last, while another felt that
economic 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 with
other existing social enterprises.
Among respondents who felt this was an essential objective for the Trust, it was argued that
this was important, given the current funding climate, but it was also common for
respondents to voice concerns about the difficulties of creating a sustainable business model
given what they knew of other Trusts that were struggling financially. One individual
suggested that the AICCT should employ a dedicated fundraiser to avoid having the Trust
manager spending all his / her time in fundraising.
Figure 9: Views on Objective 7 (based on 62 responses)
23
17
7
1
7
1
0 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
N
u
m
b
e
r

o
f

r
e
s
p
o
n
d
e
n
t
s
Respondents in favour of AICCT
Respondents opposed or
undecided


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 were
concerned that this could become a costly exercise, and result in the AICCT becoming too
responsive to other peoples agendas and priorities.
Those voicing support for this objective saw the usefulness of working with neighbouring
authorities in relation to cross-border paths, in particular. There was also a feeling that
visiting other community projects would provide the AICCT with an opportunity to learn and
share ideas. However, again one respondent cautioned, Learning from others is a great
thing. However financial discipline must be put in place to ensure that value for money is
delivered ie, money invested in this objective should realise a monetary return.
Figure 10: View on Objective 8 (based on 62 responses)
16
23
7
4
5
0 0 0
4
3
0
5
10
15
20
25
Strongly agree /
essential
Agree / good to
do
Disagree / not
necessary
Strongly
disagree
No view / don't
know
N
u
m
b
e
r

o
f

r
e
s
p
o
n
d
e
n
t
s
Respondents in favour of AICCT
Respondents opposed or
undecided


Summary of stakeholders views about the proposed objectives
Figure 11 below compares the number of respondents who felt that a particular objective was
essential 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 figure
excludes those respondents who generally agreed with the objective (i.e. those who thought
it 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 Objectives
7, 3 and 8 had less support.

12
Figure 11: Number of respondents who felt that the objective was essential to the
work of AICCT compared with the number who disagreed
36
33
31
30
26
24
19
16
6
8 8
7 7
11
10
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
N
u
m
b
e
r

o
f

r
e
s
p
o
n
d
e
n
t
s
Strongly agree / essential
Disagree




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 to
gather their views on: (i) how the AICCT could support local stakeholders / groups in the
work that they do; (ii) whether there were specific gaps in local initiatives that the Trust could
fill; (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 quite
specific suggestions, and those who are involved in the establishment of the AICCT will want
to 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 this
question. Many comments were very specific, referring to the actual aims and activities of
individual agencies or referring to specific projects that the Trust could get involved in for
example, funding greylag goose control on Coll and Tiree after 2013; taking on the
maintenance 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, be
involved in joint applications, or more directly it could provide funding or cash
flow assistance. There was also a view that the Trust could have a co-ordinating role
in relation to funding, and perhaps play a part in securing funding at a regional level
for 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 could
also support their work by providing environmental education, encouraging people to
take an interest in natural history and conservation, and jointly promoting events and
activities.
Conservation: Respondents saw the AICCT as having a role in working with
existing local agencies to improve and protect the environment. Potential activities
ranged from the prevention of inappropriate development to providing on-the-ground
assistance to deliver works.
Access: In line with many of the earlier comments made in the survey, respondents
emphasised the role of the Trust in enabling, developing, improving and maintaining
access 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 in
relation to protecting the interests of small heritage trusts. They also saw it having a
kind of lobbying role: ie, putting pressure on Argyll & Bute Council where necessary,
and bringing the issues affecting coastal and island communities to the attention of
politicians 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 to
access, conservation and heritage activities in Argyll & the Isles. There were some clear
recurring themes in these comments some of which have been mentioned already in the
points above.

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 a
very diverse and thinly populated region. These comments also referred to a need
for joined-up thinking between government, public bodies and private enterprises in
relation 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 for
the Trust to provide support and advice in relation to funding applications and / or in
providing direct funding to existing groups.
Access: Around a quarter of respondents felt there were gaps in relation to access
and path provision in Argyll. In some cases, comments were specific: a Loch Awe
trail, a west coast loop off the West Highland Way. Other comments were more
general and highlighted needs in relation to constructing, improving and maintaining
paths and signed access points, including access for people of all abilities, and
access for outdoor water sports and camping. One respondent said that, Links
between walks dont exist in many places. Another commented that, There is no
formal 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 in
the more remote parts of the region. These include facilities for an increasing number
of visitors in campervans, information about acceptable overnight camping sites, and
toilets where mountain biking and sea kayaking take place. One respondent
suggested a practical solution might involve getting agreement from hotels or
restaurants to allow the public to use their facilities in return for a cash payment from
the Council. This individual argued that this would probably be more cost-effective
than building and maintaining toilets.
Information and interpretation: As mentioned above, gaps in information and
guidance were highlighted in relation to footpaths and marine access points.
However, one respondent also felt there was no central source of information about
the Argyll countryside in general. This individual advocated the creation (and on-
going maintenance) of a web portal about Argyll. This comment was echoed by
comments from other respondents that there was a need to have a co-ordinated
approach to marketing Argylls coast and countryside to visitors. Other respondents
felt that better interpretation of key sites was needed for visitors who would like to
know about the areas history, geography and culture. One individual particularly felt
there was a need for a more extensive Ranger Service in the area.
Conservation and heritage: The gaps in relation to conservation were perceived as
a need to tackle alien invasive species (rhododendron and mink were both
mentioned), and re-naturalising habitats which had formerly been used for plantation
forests. There was a view that, in general, more attention needed to be focused on
conservation and heritage issues than was currently the case. In relation to heritage
issues, this could include organising building repairs and the development and
promotion of activities, events and attractions.
Expertise and human resources: In addition to a perceived need for an expanded
Ranger Service mentioned above (particularly on the mainland), respondents saw
other 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 need
for an organisation that had the ability to draw on and mobilise a volunteer workforce.

15
Litter: The issue of litter was less commonly raised by respondents. However, there
was a consistency in the comments on this topic. Respondents saw a need for
improved policies on litter prevention and the clearance of roadside and shoreline
litter.
What should be the priorities for the Trust?
Respondents were asked about what the priorities for the AICCT should be that is what
should the Trust focus on. Nearly three-quarter of respondents (47 out of 65) submitted
comments in response to this question. These comments largely focused on four main
themes:
Conservation and heritage: protecting and enhancing Argylls rich natural and
cultural assets and protecting and promoting its biodiversity
Access: the development, maintenance and management of paths, improved
signage and information, and facilities to promote access (including marine access)
Funding: seeking new sources of funding and supporting existing groups to access
funds
Education, advice and the provision of expertise: providing an educational role
that introduces young people to the outdoors and to the natural environment, and also
providing advice and information to the public in general about responsible access.
Tackling the problem of roadside and beach litter and developing opportunities for
employment and training were less prominent themes, along with enhancing ferry services,
making better use of water transport, community regeneration and developing a strong and
distinctive Argyll 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 risk
failing. These comments also suggested that any projects should be spread across Argyll &
the islands so that no one feels ignored rather than focussing efforts on just one
geographical area.
Finally, in terms of setting priorities, as mentioned previously, respondents felt that the Trust
should take care to complement existing good work, rather than compete with it.
How could the Trust be run?
Finally, respondents were asked for their thoughts on how the Trust could be run in terms of
its 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 focused
on three issues:
Finance and income generation: People felt the Trust would need core funding to
get started. One individual suggested that this should be sought from Government
agencies such as Highlands and Islands Enterprise, SNH, Forestry Commission and
the National Park and that it could also come in the form of contributions of staff
time from these organisations. Another suggested the AICCT could enter into service
level agreements with other organisations to deliver key projects. Other sources of
core funding could include contributions made from major planning applications
(particularly where there is potential damage to the environment from a
development), or from Argyll & Bute Council.

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, for
example, from the Lottery or from Europe. There was also one suggestion that it
might be possible to obtain funding from large American trusts, and another individual
suggested 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, public
donations, renewable energy projects and local businesses. Alternatively, the Trust
could issue shares, generate income from projects and educational activities or set up
a commercial arm (a trading subsidiary).
Structure and legal status: Respondents who commented on possible structures
for the AICCT generally thought that the Trust should be a not-for-profit charitable
organisation. However, there were also suggestions that SCIO (Scottish Charitable
Incorporated Organisation) status or Community Interest Company (CIC) status could
be 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 should
not be unwieldy; one respondent suggested that the Board should represent the
wider population of Argyll & Bute. Others suggested that Board members / Trustees
should have the necessary competencies to deal with the range of issue the Trust
may face, that there should be variety on the Board, and that Board members should
be appointed through transparent processes.
Partners: Respondents generally saw the necessity of developing partnerships with
organisations such as the Scottish Wildlife Trust, RSPB, SNH, heritage bodies and
the National Park. Argyll & Bute Council was also seen as a key partner (although as
noted 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 as
salmon farm companies and renewable energy developers), and the organisations
that are currently working in these areas at a local level.


17
Annex 1: List of respondents
Organisational respondents
Community Development Groups
Ardrishaig Community Trust
Easdale Island Residents & Property Owners Association (EIRPOA)
Ionad Chaluim Chille le
Isle of Gometra
Lochgilphead Phoenix Project
Rosneath Peninsula West Community Development Trust
South Kintyre Development Trust
Tiree Rural Development
Dalmally Community Company Ltd


Environmental and Woodland Groups/Orgs
Botanical Society of the British Isles
Friends of Duchess Wood (FODW)
Fyne Futures - Towards Zero Carbon Bute
Geodiversity: Argyll & the Islands (GAI)
Hebridean Whale and Dolphin Trust
Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB)
Seil Natural History Group
Helensburgh Greenbelt Group
The GRAB Trust

Access groups/orgs
Tiree Access Group
Peninsula Paths
Helensburgh & District Access Trust


Recreation
Mid Argyll Community Pool (MacPool)
Scottish Canals
Scottish Canoe Association
Cowalfest/ Cowal Marketing Group

Heritage Groups/Orgs
Dalriada Project
The Tradesman`s Box
Kilmartin House Trust (Kilmartin House Museum)
Urras Achadh an Droighinn/The Auchindrain Trust


18
Local and national government organisations
Argyll and Bute Council, Criminal Justice Services
Argyll and Bute Council, Sport, Leisure and Youth Services
FCS (Environment Team for national forest estate)
Forestry Commission
Schools
Dunoon Grammar School
Salen Primary School / Bunsgoil an t-Sailein
Community Councils
Avich and Kilchrenan Community Council
Cairndow Community Council
Cardross Community Council
Connel Community Council
Cove & Kilcreggan Community Council
Craignish Community Council
Lochgilphead Community Council
Luing Community Council
Rhu & Shandon Community Council
Farms / estates
Ardkinglas Estate/
Feringa Farming
Stonefield Farms
Donald Ewen Darroch

Business/Private sector
A&E Lauder
An Roth Trading Ltd
Balmillig B&B and Lomond Guides
Creative Branch
Donaldson Environmental Consultancy Ltd.
Isle of Eriska Hotel, Spa and Island
The Marine Resource Centre Ltd
Walkhighlands

Individual respondents
Tony Charlesworth
Allan J Colthart
Penny Cousins
Peter Isaacson
Dr James Paterson
Kenneth Robb
Norman Rodger

19
Paula Smalley
Margaret Stratton
Roger Woodford