« Previous | Contents | Next »
Listen
CHAPTER NINE STAKEHOLDER WORKSHOP
9.1 A stakeholder workshop was held on Thursday 6 th September, 2006, at the Birnam Institute. The workshop was part of the scoping study methodology, allowing us to validate the findings from the first phase of the scoping study before the submission of the draft report.
Objectives of the workshop
9.2 The workshop was held in order to:
- Ask stakeholders to identify outcomes and impacts of reform, that any potential evaluation should assess
- Test whether the analytical SRL-based framework could handle these outcomes and impacts
- Start to explore how outcomes and impacts are linked and how they might be assessed
- Ask a set of well informed stakeholders to critically appraise our approach and inform our thinking
9.3 The workshop began with an introduction to the research and a chance for individuals to identify their personal view of the outcomes that land reform agenda should achieve. These were recorded on post-its as individual points. The next exercise was a group-based process of allocating the post-it notes to the SRL Framework. Insights generated during this discussion were used to identify criteria for groups to explore in terms of their relationship to land reform and how these criteria might best be measured.
9.4 The workshop was designed to generate fresh ideas and compare stakeholders' views with our findings at that stage. The group session then asked for direct feedback on our draft methodology (Annex 9.1). 'Chatham House' rules were applied to the event to generate a safe space for in-depth discussion.
Stakeholder representation
9.5 Twenty two stakeholders participated in the event; two Scottish Government observers attended, in addition to six members of the project team who facilitated. There was a cross-section of representation from public agencies (national and regional), membership organisations and NGOs.
9.6 There was strong representation from those with an interest in access issues, despite (or because of?) the National Advisory Forum having been briefed at another event the day before. Interestingly, the scoping research on community planning indicated that many people tend to equate land reform with access issues. There was also fairly good representation from the agricultural and land management sector. There was a fair representation of nature conservation interests, although not as many as there were for the access or tenancy issues.
9.7 There were very few representatives with a direct interest in community right to buy, crofting community right to buy (possibly due to a clash with the Scottish Crofting Federation conference) or community planning. Many of the land management sector had views on the right to buy issues, but this is not the same as having representatives who are employed to deliver right to buy or communities experiencing right to buy issues. Equally, many representatives had views on community planning but were not community planners themselves.
9.8 There was no direct representation of local communities at the workshop. Given the objectives of land reform, these are central stakeholders. However, given the workshop's focus on methodology rather than substantive issues and its strategic/national focus, it was always going to be difficult to get community representation. We recognise that community involvement in the actual impact assessment is vital, hence our suggestion to take a case study approach in assessing the effect of certain strands of land reform. Most stakeholders had a specific interest in one or two aspects of land reform and focussed their comments on these areas. 12
Findings
9.9 Findings must be considered in light of the uneven representation of stakeholders and the fact that the workshop process and time constraints may have influenced what views were captured on the day:
- Assessing impacts is difficult, not least because many impacts are long-term and so not yet able to be assessed.
- The process of impact assessment is very important and should be participatory.
- Some "outcomes" were actually issues regarding the drivers and implementation of land reform rather than its actual consequences - these important aspects to be considered
- Impact assessment of a suite of changes raises a number of methodological problems:
- How to define and bound the notion of 'land reform' - over what time period, at what spatial resolution, impacting on whom (individuals, enterprises, communities, society?)
- How to break down the assessment into measurable chunks when so many issues are holistic and reflect the interaction of different assets and processes - it may be useful to present the framework as a Venn diagram to illustrate this?
- How to recognise the consequences of land reform, not only on the different assets, but how they are distributed among the population ( e.g. different impacts on public and private goods, on different sectors)?
- How to take account of intervening influences - other factors contributing to or impeding the consequences of land reform ( e.g. other policies and projects) and the effect of changes in resources or organisational priorities within implementing bodies?
- It is important to be clear about what you are trying to measure and measuring what matters, rather than what data are available.
- Interpretation of the data is as important as the data.
- Stakeholders are willing to engage in the process and very competent to do so.
- Other issues concerned the environmental impacts which were not an explicit focus of the study.
Aspirations for land reform
9.10 The first interactive exercise asked individual stakeholders what they thought should result from land reform (as framed by the six arenas) and to write each separate point on a post it note. These individual points were then assigned by the participants to the six arenas of the study and any cross-cutting themes were given their own poster. There were most comments provided on the topic of access but all arenas were covered. Annex? lists all the separate points noted and shows that there were common themes within and between each arena as well as considerable diversity of views. This is one reason for beginning with an individual exercise to allow everyone to state their views, whereas a group based exercise can create 'group think' outputs.
9.11 We deliberately asked what should happen in the future given that it is too early to say what the outcomes are at present. However, the use of the word 'should' may have encouraged stakeholders to list aspirations (positive outcomes) rather than expectations, which may include negative, neutral or positive outcomes.
Mapping the outcomes onto the SRL Framework
9.12 Stakeholders were then introduced to the general outline of our analytical framework based on the SRL approach. The participants were divided into two groups, one dealing with access, nature conservation and community planning and one with tenancy reform, community right to buy and crofting community right to buy. The groups collectively discussed how each post it note related to this analytical framework by placing the post it on a diagram depicting the SRL capitals (see Figure 9.1). In many cases, the group felt the outcome could be mapped to more than one capital on the diagram and this was recorded by placing it in the centre or writing on the post it.
Figure 9.1 The SRL Framework Outline
9.13 Despite the unanticipated volume of outcomes to be mapped, the groups were able to map most outcomes to some extent on the framework. As discussed above, the exercise showed that whilst some outcomes fitted the separate categories, others did not, suggesting that we needed to adjust the framework slightly to take account of:
- 'emergent' outcomes from a combination of assets/capitals
- intervening variables regarding institutional processes and structures
- the impacts of outcomes on different groups, geographies or interests.
9.14 It is also likely that the stakeholders did not fully understand the framework given the very brief introduction. We believe this did not matter as the aim was to generate discussion over how to start to assess impacts using the framework, rather than the framework itself. Given the time-constraints on the day, and the number of different outcomes that participants had noted, not all of the outcomes could be discussed fully. Furthermore, it was not always possible to reach complete consensus in the groups about where best to locate a particular outcome on our adapted SRL framework, and many cases where it was felt that an outcome might sit in more than one capital.
Assessing impacts
9.15 The next exercise was designed to move from the general outcomes to a more focussed view on possible indicators and how these could be assessed. Given the time constraints, it was not possible to consider every outcome generated in the first session. Instead, the project team short listed a selection of the outcomes used in the morning exercises that they felt were most challenging to assess. The two small groups were then asked to discuss the perceived relationship between the outcomes and land reform, to make clear the particular facet that needed assessing using indicators. This generated much debate, confirming our views on the difficulty of attribution.
9.16 Having established, to some extent, what to assess, the stakeholders were then asked how to go about this. Again, this generated considerable debate and many helpful suggestions regarding possible methods. Finally, the stakeholders were asked if data existed to allow impact assessment. Again, this highlighted pockets of data available, although our view that data is often patchy or unavailable was generally confirmed.
9.17 The richness of discussion meant that only two or three outcomes were actually covered by each group, but these discussions were invaluable in generating fresh ideas and highlighting possible data sources.
Validating the methodology
9.18 In the final exercise, stakeholders self-selected one of the six work packages that interested them in order to consider the tables of indicators that we had developed to that date, based on our review of existing data and literature and our interviews with key stakeholders (Annex 9.2).
9.19 Reflecting the spread of interests, there were relatively large groups discussing access and agricultural tenancy reform, and smaller ones discussing nature conservation, right to buy and community planning. The discussion highlighted many useful clarifications and amendments of our draft tables but generally confirmed our approach.
Conclusions
9.20 The workshop generated a large amount of data in a relatively short time through collective deliberation, creating new views from the sharing and airing of individual thoughts and experiences. The other benefits include:
- Engaging key stakeholders in the design of future methodology
- Providing an arena for issues and worries to be aired
- Validation of the methodology
- Opportunity for networking between sectors
- Encouraging different interest groups to consider other arenas of Land Reform
Annex 9.1 Results from Stakeholder Workshop
Mapping Outcomes and Issues Identified by Participants onto the SRL Framework
Overarching Issues to be considered:
- Devolved decision making and greater partnership working between communities and government (Local and National)
- Small government
- Communication - reconnection between town and country
- "Sustainability" must include "environment" _ bottom line no net loss of biodiversity, etc
- Environmental sustainability
- Affordable housing
- Increased wellbeing of population measured in fulfilment of all the national and regional policies
- Stimulating economies
- Improved engagement of rural estates in delivery of opportunity
- Improved utility of private sector to stimulate enterprise
- Increased opportunity for enterprise and economic diversity and business start-up
- Ensuring the provision of affordable housing
- Fair balance between genuine public interest and private interest/ rights - but based on assumption that land reform legislation was necessary
- What we think the outcomes should be is irrelevant. The objectives of the legislation are set out in the preambles to the Statutes
- No adverse impact (or indirect facilitation of impact) from land reform measures on SSSIs/ SSSI network
- Overall - a sense of relaxation and enjoyment in rural areas, where visitors feel they are welcomed and legitimate
- More streamlines support service for communities i.e. one stop shop
- Balance - public interest vs. private interest and rights
- Increased community capacity and social capital
- Increased public benefits from land resources
- Surely it is more important how land is used/ managed rather than who owns it?
Community Right to Buy:
'Outcome' | Mapped Position |
|---|
Greater involvement of community in local development issues & Greater readiness of landowners to engage with local communities | Social |
Improved voluntary engagement between land managers and communities | Social |
Motivated communities have an opportunity to acquire land for public benefit in preference to speculative developers but land owner support would make this more successful | Social |
Future of where urban rights to buy are clarified and demystified | Social |
Reducing uncertainty of landlords and tenants of their rights and responsibilities | Social |
Retained populations, especially the young | Social |
Increased wellbeing of communities involved | Social |
A fair market for land transactions without selective positive funding intervention | Organisational |
More sustainable development in rural areas with minimal burden on public purse | Organisational |
Assessment between owners objective and community objectives | Centre |
Consider historic house and landscape and the impact that losing these from estates might have | Built |
Sustainable development : living within environmental limits & benefits for all | Environment |
Facilitate SSSI management | Environment |
Identifying whether there is general interest in community ownership and whether this is not, in fact, of general interest to communities | Culture |
Whether the ability to pre-emptively purchase let land provides communities at large with a benefit or a dis-benefit? | Culture |
Why needed everywhere? | Culture |
To improve the economic welfare of the area; and not to hinder approved development | Economic |
Crofting Community Right to Buy:
'Outcome' | Mapped Position |
|---|
Don't want to see de-crofting | Social |
Better rewards for delivery of public goods | Social |
A future of acting crofting - and clarity over subsidy help - or not - for marginal agricultural activities- to prevent depopulation | Social |
How crofts developed - woodland crofts, etc (F. commission) | Social |
Population maintained increased in crofting access | Social |
Increased number of owner occupier of crofts | Social |
Greater community engagement with local issues and how they might be tackled | Social |
Ensuring that schemes for meeting national and local policy objectives are not hindered or limited by land ownership or management structures | Organisational |
Facilitate SSSI management | Environment |
Identifying if ownership is a material factor in crafting areas to meeting national and local objectives or whether control of management is more important | Cultural |
Active crofts | Economic |
Diversification and productivity gains should be achieved | Economic |
Simplifying the ability of crofters to diversify in a changing agricultural climate | Economic |
Facilitating local economic stimulation in marginal areas | Economic |
Level of community ownership of crofts and croft land - should be measurable and increasing | Social |
Is it a step towards giving crofters the land they occupy and making an out of date system redundant? | Centre |
Diversification of economic activity in crofting areas - new crofts - population decline arrested | Economic |
Agricultural Tenancies:
'Outcome' | Mapped Position |
|---|
Fair balance of return landlord and tenant | Social |
More trust between tenants and land owners | Social |
What about rights of landowners? Shouldn't just be about tenants' rights. Tenants' responsibilities too. | Organisational |
Reducing conflict between landlords and tenants and improving the efficiency of whilst reducing the cost of dispute resolution | Organisational |
A workable freedom of contract basis for the letting of land and other resources | Organisational |
Less complex lease vehicles for running farm tenancies that are also cheaper and more effective to run | Organisational |
Fewer disputes between owner and tenant of farm tenancies due to clear legal principles and convenant dispute resolution | Organisational |
Multiple entry routes into farming | Organisational |
More land available to farm by new entrants | Organisational |
Increase in number of new people in farming | Organisational |
Increased confidence to let land both for landlords and tenants | Organisational |
Greater freedom to contract with less regulation to reduce current concern over future absolute right to buy | Organisational |
Reducing the ability of third parties to redirect the use of property they have previously owned to restrict change to this property when they do not have any residual interest in this change | Organisational |
More confidence to let land | Centre |
More land being made available to let | Centre |
Land actively managed | Centre |
Facilitation of affordable and other housing provision | Built |
Fewer disputes between owner and tenant of farm tenancies due to clear legal principles and convenient dispute resolution | Organisational |
Facilitate SSSI management | Environment |
Lawyers law; irrelevant and not worth investigating | Cultural |
May taxation be reformed to guarantee long term success | Cultural |
Will the emphasis on the environment continue to expand at the cost of food production | Other |
Is there more or less long term planning against short term gain | Other |
To make the tenanted sector fir for the purposes of sustainable 21st century agriculture | Economic |
Workable freedom of contract, etc | Economic |
- increased farm business development towards greater level of viability of sector
- better relationships therefore understanding between tenants and landlords
| Economic |
More confidence for tenants to invest in their business | Economic |
Reasonable freedom for land managers to manage their business within a practical and light touch public accountability framework | Economic |
Profitable and dynamic agricultural sector with a range of tenure vehicles which facilitate this - not necessarily more tenancies per se | Economic |
Stimulate rural economies | Economic |
Fair balance of returns between tenant and landlord | Economic |
More opportunity for farming tenants to diversify their businesses | Economic |
Nature Conservation ( SSSI)
'Outcome' | Mapped Position |
|---|
1. SSSI condition - dependence on economics of land management | Eco |
2. Are all non-market benefits being paid for? | Eco |
3. Ensure payments for delivery of public goods | Eco Soc econ org |
4. Long term consistent objectives and payment method | Env + org+econ |
5. Facilitate SSSI "site safeguard" (from undesirable developments) | Org + Env |
6. Help ensure wider suite of measures "sustainable" | Org + Env |
7. BAP targets | Org |
8. Implement European legislation | Org |
9. Further simplified and better integrated legislation for protected areas (not just SSSIs; not just the Nature Conservation Act) | Org |
10. Long term consistent objectives and payment method | Org |
11. An ongoing program to continue core paths principle and extend the networks beyond 2011 | Org AC |
12. Long term consistent objectives and payment method | Econ + org |
13. Facilitate SSSI management | Org |
14. Half biodiversity loss | Env |
15. Improve "site safeguard" (from damaging development or land-use change) | Env |
16. Achieving favourable conditions | Env |
17. Enhancement of SSSI conditions | Env |
18. Better SSSIs to deliver more robust populations of key species and habitats nationally | Env |
19. Help better deliver UK and Scottish biodiversity targets | Env |
20. Enhance SSSIs as network of sites | Core, org + env |
21. Better local understanding through community planning s12 NCS act duty to SSSI | Human |
22. Greater and easier access to environmental information | Core, org, inst, social |
23. A fairer balance between economic and ecological imperatives | Core, nature conservation |
24. Greater regulation of social and economic factors in SSSI management - see the "big" picture | Core, soc, econ |
25. Community involvement | social |
26. Identifying whether conservation is enhanced by new measures or inhibited | ? |
27. Reform of SSSIs. To better preserve wildlife and habitat in implementation of European directives | ? |
Access:
'Outcome' | Mapped Position |
|---|
Better maintenance of existing path network | Built |
Good density of path networks throughout Scotland but especially around and between towns giving options for sustainable transport and recreation | Built |
Length of core paths | Built |
A social contract on public access which does not constrain either land management or public recreation - a balance of give and take | Core |
Access should be equitable to visitor and host - EMPATHY | Core |
clarifying to the public at large how access to land can be taken in a way which does not harm or detract from land management activities | Core |
Ensuring that where access is taken, the impact on land management is minimised | Core |
Equality amongst ALL | Core |
Fair balance between public interest and private property rights | Core |
Greater opportunity for access to the countryside without interfering with legitimate land management operations and the economic sustainability of them | Core |
Harmony between access users and land managers | Core |
Increased integration of access provision with land management | Core |
Integrate access within the land management of Scotland | Core |
Knowledge & process | Core |
More easily managed access by the public to private land with no undue interference with land management and business interests | Core |
Provide a more welcoming and well used path network of paths throughout Scotland | Cultural & Built |
Ensure that those encouraged to take more access do that in a responsible way - understanding the working of the countryside | Cultural & Human |
Raising awareness of access and leisure (and its importance for health etc) among LA councilors | Cultural & Org |
A greater reciprocal understanding of the needs of recreational users and land managers | Cultural & Social |
A more welcoming countryside where the public can exercise their right of responsible access more confidently | Cultural |
A welcoming countryside for all | Cultural |
Cultural change to deliver health outcomes | Cultural |
Greater understanding of the needs of different user groups by both the different groups and land managers | Cultural |
Outdoor access provision seen as driver of local socio-economic activity | Cultural |
Outdoor access seen as an integral component of land management | Cultural |
Understanding between land managers and access takers | Cultural |
Winning 'hearts & minds' of landowners that access is a good thing | Cultural |
Opportunities for all people to enjoy and understand the natural heritage | Cultural & Built |
Improved awareness, familiarity and knowledge of the countryside by urban dwellers, particularly children | Cultural & Human |
Access reform should respect the economic use of the area in question | Economic |
Farmers/landowners receiving some monetary compensation for making access provisions for community use ( e.g. improve LMCs) | Economic |
Greater recognition of proper access provisions on economic resource | Economic |
Increased opportunity for leisure & recreation based tourism enterprise in the countryside | Economic |
Long-term revenue funding available | Economic |
Tourism linked to access | Economic |
Convincing landowners that access has something for them - eg LMCs | Economic & Human |
Geographically targeted support. Payments for access where needed, not just where allowed. | Economic & Organisational |
More funding for access officers and core path networks. | Economic & Organisational |
Access not damaging environment | Environmental |
Quality environment provides quality environmental services - crucial for socio-economic development ( i.e. sustainable development) | Environmental |
Encourage access takers to consider their actions in the way it may impact on land management practices and the natural environment. | Human |
Understanding (of why it is important that we are responsible in providing and taking access) | Human |
Greater understanding of 'nature' and the countryside throughout the population | Human & Cultural |
Clarity over role of legal process ( e.g. police) in access infringements | Organisational |
Clear method of arbitration in dispute over and above the Local Access Forum (neither NAF or SNH do this at present). | Organisational |
Conflict resolution between land managers & public access. | Organisational |
Effective remedies for non-responsible behaviour. | Organisational |
Good mechanisms for dealing with obstructions, negotiating paths etc | Organisational |
Greater managed 'adopted' path networks | Organisational |
More funding for access officers and core path networks. | Organisational |
Ongoing programme to continue the Core Paths principle and extend the networks by the end of 2011. | Organisational |
A clear new educational model that prepares children & young people to use the countryside thoughtfully and properly | Organisational & Human & Social & Cultural |
A more active population with a better health record | Social |
Better health & well-being for all | Social |
greater sense of wellbeing through all communities & individuals | Social |
Health & happiness | Social |
Increased enjoyment of the countryside for recreation, health and leisure by the public | Social |
Increased opportunities to enjoy the countryside & increased visits to the countryside | Social |
Users benefit from access closed to car use | Social |
Reduction in conflict between access users and land managers | Social & Cultural |
Greater awareness of responsibilities as well as rights | Social & Cultural & Human |
Wider knowledge amongst the public of current access legislation | Social & Human & Cultural |
Level of community engagement in managing/running path networks | Social & Organisational |
Community Planning:
'Outcome' | Mapped Position |
|---|
Better Understanding of Biodiversity Duty | Human & Organisational |
Better Local Understanding of through CP section 12 Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act - duty regarding SSSIs | Human |
Service most community demands better | Organisational |
A clearer and informal focus on both physical planning and rural issues | Organisational |
Local Authorities do not seem to be able to allocate resources to adequately consult at a community level | Organisational & Social |
Greater Awareness of and monitoring and reporting of biodiversity duty actions by community planning partners | Organisational |
Consultation processes should have national guidelines and historical considerations noted. Aim to produce a level playing field | Organisational |
The culture of the planning process needs to change to better meet the changing demands of communities | culture |
Can private and public ownership live happily together? | Culture |
Greater and easier access to environmental information | Centre: Human, social, organisational |
More joined up thinking in local development | Centre: Cultural and Organisational |
To achieve development in areas of housing need | Centre: emergent |
To engage whole communities in planning decisions without committees being dominated by particular interests or positions | Centre: emergent |
Are the community consulted? | Centre: emergent |
Increased wellbeing of all in communities by integration of all the other measures, access being particularly important | Centre: emergent |
Lead towards more integrated working between agencies and to ensure that the needs and aspirations of local communities are considered in policy development | Centre: emergent |
Striking the right balance between community involvement and development progressing - growing the economy | Centre: emergent |
Annex 9.2 Results from the Impact Assessment Table
Group One: Access, Community Planning and Nature Conservation
Issue carried forward | Relationship to Land Reform | Possible Method | Available of Data |
|---|
Adequate payment for provision of non-market goods and benefits/services
(adequacy, mechanism, value and provision) | Incentives/compensation for provision of env or access goods
Explore voluntary agreements e.g.SRBPA and canoeists | Valuing benefits
Income foregone or increased costs
Uptake of LMC access options
Use of LA funding
Income received/net income | Income forgone - SSSI & LM
Digitised SSSI data for MA and RDCs
SNH facts and figures |
Understanding of Access Responsibility (of users and LMs) | The Code and the ACT | Incidence of access problems (standardised reporting?)
Population Surveys | Proxy of awareness/read the code
Disparte reporting |
Enfranchisement of Community in Community Planning | Community Involvement | Community Councils
Community Opposition to Local Plans (Q of representativeness?)
Survey of Capacity of Community to engage
Delivery against aspirations | Community Capacity Index being developed by HIE |
Conflict Resolution Mechanisms between Access Stakeholders | Prescribed roles for LAFs and NAF, plus Local Authorities | Staff resources
Public expectations
Reporting of issues and resolution
How many referred to forum(s) | NAF working group database on issues and problems
Different organisations have their own data
Need cross user/cross area to get the big picture |
Path density and length | | | Sustrans have data on use of Paths |
Group Two: Agricultural Tenancy Reform, Community Right to Buy and Crofting
Criteria | Relationship between outcome and Land Reform
How does land reform affect it? | What evidence could be used to assess this? | Is this data available now? In the future? |
|---|
Ability to diversify | Tenant: provisions in the tenancy legislation clear including compensation
Q: how important is diversification driver?
Enables | Increased number of tenants approaching landlords re diversification;
Sample survey of landlords and tenants but no baseline | No, no baseline pre 2003 |
Community: ability to acquire land (to reduce capital. Invest/ collateral) but opportunity driver? | Number of attempts to register interests (+ voluntary buyouts): survey/ case study | -post purchase
-timescale effect |
Fair balance of returns between landlord and tenant | Easier dispute resolution;
Change in basis of rent review;
Range of types/ mechanisms;
Capt. Impt's issue/ way go equipped units problem | Number of units being let - a measure of fairness? | Baseline does exist |
Relationship. Understanding better between landlord and tenant | | | |
Freedom of operation/ public: private, landlord: tenant | | | |
Confidence to let land and invest | | | |
Increased wellbeing | | | |
« Previous | Contents | Next »