This response has been submitted to The National Trust for Scotland (NTS) to assist them to prepare their long-term management plan for their lands in Glencoe. The original consultation request can be found on The NTS website.

This response is from the Mountaineering Council of Scotland (MCofS) and the views expressed here are therefore on behalf of the organisation.

What is it that makes Glencoe special for you?

Glencoe is an incomparable mountaineering area with worldwide popularity and huge historical significance. Whilst mountaineers travel from around the world to walk the ridges and climb the crags and gullies, Glencoe's position towards the southern end of the Scottish Highlands mean that it is more easily accessible to the people of southern and central Scotland than other popular mountain areas like Skye, the Cairngorms and Torridon. This not only leads to large numbers of mountaineers visiting Glencoe, but also to many repeat visits from those who are passionate about the quality of the mountaineering experience on offer there. The nature of its rocky mountains with impressive ridges and views over the west coast set it aside from most other mountain areas in Scotland. Glencoe has consistently been at the forefront of summer and winter climbing since the 1890's and is still one of Scotland's major venues for those involved in exploring new routes. Another historical connection for mountaineers is via Percy Unna, a member of the Scottish Mountaineering Club (SMC), who gifted Glencoe to the NTS.

What do you think the Trust needs to do to continue to protect the unique natural and cultural qualities of Glencoe?

1. Actively manage paths to minimise erosion impacts on landscape. Wherever possible path work should be pre-emptive and aim to be light touch.

2. Control deer numbers in order to protect vegetation and encourage natural regeneration.

3. We recognise that sheep grazing, people residing in the glen and encouragement of trees are sensitive issues that arouse strong feelings in the local area. We don't have any strong views on these issues, but would encourage ongoing consultation as a means of informing the debate.

How can the Trust improve visitor services and facilities in Glencoe and also address other visitor management issues such as informal camping?

1. The MCofS believes there should be a continuous low-level footpath running the length of the glen - from Glencoe village to the Kingshouse. Most of this route is already in place as a result of the West Highland Way, the Old Road and sections of path built in recent years. Nevertheless, gaps in the route still remain and an awareness of low-level alternatives is harder to build up. The result is that people place themselves in danger by walking on the A82, even when unknowingly walking parallel to the Old Road. The understandable desire to avoid walking on the A82 also leads to people struggling to park their vehicles as close as possible to the start of their ascent route rather than using a better parking space a few hundred metres away. Another consequence of the preference to avoid walking on the A82 is seen in the determination of some hillwalkers to cover extra ground on the hill and drop down close to their vehicle rather than a more logical descent to the glen and a low-level walk back to the car. A continuous low-level route, and a widespread knowledge of its existence would, in our view, help to resolve a number of problems. A low level route would need to cross the A82, but should not have to run along its verge.

2. The MCofS believes the NTS is making a good job of managing upland paths in Glencoe. Whilst past footpath work in Glencoe has been criticised, the current work is of a high standard, innovative techniques are used in sensitive ways and the level of consultation with other bodies is to be commended.

3. The MCofS has discussed parking issues in the glen with NTS in the past. Parking is a complex issue that raises many questions. We believe that with a busy trunk road running through the glen, and with a wide range of reasons for visitors stopping their vehicles (quick photograph to all-day walk), it would be extremely difficult to introduce and enforce parking restrictions, and any kind of shuttle bus service would be unlikely to be viable at the times that mountaineers would require it (e.g. 8.00p.m. on a wet Tuesday in February). For these reasons we believe that every single car park, lay-by and informal pull-off should be considered on its own merits and managed accordingly. The introduction of car park charging in the glen could be difficult to implement and would be unpopular with some visitors. Whilst it would be relatively easy to set up a ticket machine (whether the charge is voluntary or compulsory) in the larger car parks it would be impossible to introduce them in every small lay-by and pull-off. The effect of this could be to encourage people to park in the free lay-bys and pull-offs rather than the more managed but costly car parks. Car parking in Glencoe is a complex issue, and whilst we have given some basic comment in this response, we would welcome the opportunity to have further dialogue with the Trust on this issue.

4. The MCofS has been involved in discussions with the Trust over the issue of informal camping in Glencoe and Glen Etive. We worked with the Trust in 1996 to resolve the problem of informal camping on the Clachaig Flats. It was during those discussions that we coined the separate phrases of Wild Camping, which takes place up in the hills, out of the way and with few if any problems, and Roadside (or congregational) Camping, which is visible and can cause a number of problems. Roadside camping appears to no longer be an issue in Glencoe, but it is commonly practiced in Glen Etive. A formal campsite in the surrounding area may absorb some of the people using Glen Etive as a campsite, although we believe a tradition of roadside camping in this area is probably much stronger than it was around the Clachaig Flats. There are clearly some problems associated with roadside camping in Glen Etive (fire marks, wheel marks and litter), but it is not as clear, to us, what the scale of the problems are or what proportion of the campers are causing the problems. If the Trust's policy to roadside camping in Glen Etive is to change it will be important to achieve a consensus and have the support of a wide range of bodies. We believe that is why the Clachaig Flats issue was dealt with in such an effective way.

How can the Trust improve communication and partnerships with all who have an interest in this special place including local communities and businesses?

1. The new Visitor Centre is a valuable tool in improving communications with a wide range of visitors to the glen. We wish to see this facility providing the widest possible range of information to the widest possible range of visitors. From a mountaineering point of view we believe the more information there is on offer to mountaineers the more mountaineers will visit the centre to seek the information. We have often said that visitor centres in other countries are better at providing information for mountaineers than ones in this country. The new Glencoe Centre has a fantastic opportunity to provide information on weather, avalanche risk and other general information that will be useful to people taking active recreation in the area. The MCofS is keen to work with the Trust on such issues.

2. The MCofS publishes the quarterly magazine "The Scottish Mountaineer", as well as having a well visited website, and these can be used to pass on information to our members and other mountaineers. Information about changes in policy, news about paths and details of road closures can be conveyed by these two media.

3. The MCofS believes in the value of ongoing meaningful consultation where the range of stakeholders are genuinely engaged in discussing the issues that concern them. This is always preferable to one-off consultations or late in the day legitimising exercises. The MCofS was instrumental in setting up the meeting that led to the formation of the Nevis Partnership, and we wonder whether some kind of "Glencoe Forum" might be worthy of consideration. We would certainly be happy to develop our thoughts and discuss this with the Trust.

Are there any other thoughts or issues you would like to see addressed relating to Trust ownership of Glencoe?

We have covered the issues we would like to raise in the questions above.

What should Glencoe be like in 50 years time?

1. The A82 should not be significantly altered. This is probably the main threat in that it is the one aspect of the glen that the Trust has least control over. We have concerns that there may be pressures from the Scottish Executive, or its successors, to straighten, widen or generally make improvements to rural trunk roads. Whilst it is very difficult to predict the issues that will dominate in the future, we feel that significant changes to the A82 in Glencoe should be resisted whenever possible.

2. The MCofS would like to see upland paths being managed sensitively in 50 years time and we would like to see the continuous low-level route we mentioned earlier being used by a wide range of walkers.

29 October 2004