The Scottish Government

« Previous | Contents | Next »

Listen

CHAPTER TEN CONCLUSIONS

Introduction

10.1 In this concluding chapter, some important contextual issues will first be revisited. This will be followed by comments on the applicability of the SRL framework. Thereafter, the results from each arena of reform will be summarised, prior to drawing together some overall conclusions. It is apparent that the endeavour to implement of land reform was an act of considerable political symbolism for the newly devolved Scottish government in 1997. The recommendations of the Land Reform Policy Group framed the possibilities and created a broad range of options on which the government could act by legislative and other measures.

10.2 There is a substantial legacy of government and other reports alluding to the extent to which the structure of land ownership and the ways in which land was used impacted adversely on rural development ( DAFS 1964; HIDB, 1970; Bryden and Houston 1976). These prefaced the actions of the incoming government and framed the summative diagnosis of Lord Sewel's LRPG. One consequence of this broad-based approach was that there was little benchmarking of the status quo in any accurate form which might have been used to assess the socio-economic impacts and outcomes of the subsequent land reform measures.

10.3 It is important to recall the underlying argument of the LRPG. The group argued that the structure of land ownership constrained development opportunities both in the rural domain and more widely in Scotland. For a variety of reasons, including the strong traditions of crofting and communal tenure, juxtaposed with a strong thrust of European policy towards community-based rural development, the programme of land reform measures in Scotland has had a very strong and distinctive community-oriented form (Bryden and Geisler 2007). However, it is equally important to note that there were also less communitarian, more individualistic elements to Scottish land reform, putting it more in line with the predominant trend of land reform in developed western countries towards stronger individual rights with respect to land. Additionally, the desire to increase the supply of rented farmland was acted upon in the suite of measures, as this was felt to contribute beneficially to the future development of a more vibrant farm sector. The term 'land reform' has been used to embrace a very wide range of actions by government, across a number of policy domains. Equally, land reform is not just about the ownership structure and tenure of rural land but also about the governance and decision-making associated with its use.

10.4 Notwithstanding the government's broad-based view of what comprised land reform, many key informants had some difficulty in seeing some of the measures covered in the study as 'land reform', which suggests that the very conception of land reform is itself unclear, even amongst an informed set of experts. The areas where the conception of land reform was questioned most related to community planning and the reform of management ground-rules for designated nature conservation sites.

10.5 Some of the arenas of land reform have already established means of determining the success of the measures. Some of these evaluative approaches are in place and are the rightful domain of the administering agencies such as SNH or the individual councils. We propose a method through which these can be absorbed into a common evaluative framework. In some cases, such approaches are still being implemented, as with respect to the monitoring of the new SSSI arrangements. The approach adopted for this report complements and does not replicate these procedures.

Contextual issues

10.6 The scoping studies reported in the individual chapters on the different arenas of reform expose the strengths and weaknesses of the mixed methods, livelihoods- and indicator-based approach to assessing the impacts and outcomes of land reform measures in Scotland. The methods used required communication with a number of key stakeholders. In this section, rather than repeating the themes identified in earlier chapters, we pick up some emergent issues.

Length of time since the reforms were instituted

10.7 There is no doubt that in many of the arenas of reform, it is far too soon to estimate the impacts and outcomes with any accuracy. Although in some cases, the reforms took immediate effect, with many others the uptake of the measures depends on the aspirations and capacities of communities to engage. As Yaron (2006) notes, it is necessary to evaluate impacts and outcomes at several points of time after the policy intervention, rather than in a one-off study. In all arenas of reform, this issue emerges as of considerable significance. It is impossible at this stage to assess the likely future impacts with any accuracy.

Diversity and community involvement or sustainable rural development?

10.8 The boundaries of this evaluation of outcomes can be explored in relation to diversity of land ownership structures and the degree of participation in decision-making about land - the two criteria signalled as of critical importance by the LRPG. Alternatively, these two characteristics of land reform may be seen as essential framework conditions for realising more sustainable rural development. The selection of indicators to assess the outcomes of land reform will differ depending on where the focus is seen to reside. A close reading of the LRPG work reveals unambiguously that these two criteria are means to an end of sustainable rural development rather than ends in themselves.

10.9 In the light of consultation with both the steering group and wider stakeholders, we take the view that diversity and participation are essentially considered as means to an end rather than ends in themselves.

Breadth of policies considered

10.10 The breadth of the land reform portfolio makes any aggregate assessment of impact challenging, in that different parts of the suite of policies have been implemented at different times and the measures operate in very different ways. Some measures operate across the board from the point at which the measure is implemented. In other cases, the reform has been enabling, in that it changes the framework conditions and opportunities, but the uptake depends on communities taking action.

10.11 Not only are the different elements of land reform policy very different, but, in common with much of rural development, they connect with and cross-cut many other policy arenas, such as health or social justice. The extent to which any evaluation should, or, indeed, could, seek to embrace where land reform touches all other policy arenas is open to question. However, the new Scottish Government has made a point of taking a broad-based view of what policies should achieve arguing for 'a smarter, greener, healthier, wealthier and fairer, safer and stronger Scotland' (Scottish Government 2007). It is too early to say how joined up the policies will be that seek to meet these aims.

10.12 However, the typical analysis of a single policy tends to deny the interconnectedness of the various policy instruments. The challenge set to the team in this project does acknowledge the joined-up nature of policy, but sits rather uneasily with the more reductionist approaches to policy analysis which are often invoked, not least because of the open-endedness of more holistic evaluations. Acknowledgement of complexity may be a necessary starting point and, given that different instruments of policy might interact in either a complementary way or adversely, looking 'in the round' may offer distinct advantages over looking at instruments in isolation. However, agreeing on the boundaries of a particular study remains important, not least because of the limited resources of the policy analyst.

10.13 The desire to engage in 'double devolution' and have a more engaged citizenry in policy and decision making has been widely advocated but not fully put to the test, although community-based land reform (Bryden and Geisler 2007) goes some way to providing that test with respect to rural land. Under both the previous and the current Scottish government, engagement with 'the people' has been a very real political aspiration. Mechanisms have been put in place to create possibilities for community engagement, such as the Planning Advice Note on Community Engagement (Scottish Executive 2006) and the development of National Standards for Community Engagement (Scottish Executive nd) indicate that a wider engagement of the public with government is sought. This study used key informants and a wider set of stakeholders to ascertain the extent to which this has occurred and how it might be explored as a key dimension of policy.

10.14 Taking current policy relating to biodiversity as an example, it is clear that certain elements of biodiversity policy - BAPs and LBAPs - actually connect more closely to the land reform agenda than does the legislation which altered the management of SSSIs. However, these are not construed as land reform, because their roots precede the development of the suite of land reform policies from 1997 and are found in the 1992 Rio Earth Summit. However, it is not at all unlikely that many citizens now feel more connected to biodiversity conservation on land adjacent to where they live than prior to the development of LBAP developments.

10.15 Another area where community engagement is courted by policy instruments that operate alongside the suite of land reform measures is the EU's LEADER policy. Both in its earlier forms of LEADER, LEADER 2 and LEADER + and in its new structure within the Scottish Rural Development Plan, LEADER explicitly courts local involvement and some of its mechanisms such as the Local Action Group, affirm the importance of multi-agency partnerships and local stakeholder engagement.

Causal links between policy and outcome

10.16 The rural economy of Scotland is in a state of flux induced by a combination of market forces, social and policy change. Land reform measures are (positive) contributory factors to this state of flux, but they are only one part. There is no counterfactual situation to enable comparison with what might have been in its absence. The underlying drivers and principles of land reform have also informed other policies such as those supporting more bottom-up rural development, in the LEADER Community Initiative and many other rural policies. The separation out of the land reform effect is extremely difficult. This suggests that it is likely to be beneficial to adopt a triangulatory approach where different methods and forms of evidence from different stakeholder groups and actors can be used to assess outcomes and impacts.

10.17 The analytical closure around one element of policy is almost impossible. For example, under the new farm tenancy arrangements, it is perfectly possible to count the number of new tenancies. However, some of these might be genuinely new and some otherwise might have emerged as Contract Farming Agreements which might still have offered an entry point into farming for an aspirant farmer. Where there are alternative possibilities which cannot reasonably be construed as part of the suite of land reform policies but where these could create similarly positive outcomes, it can be extremely difficult to establish additionality and attribution to a particular policy instrument.

Participatory evaluation: a desirable goal?

10.18 There are strong reasons for advocating not just greater public involvement in the way land is managed, but also in the ways in which policy is evaluated. The SRL framework advocated as the basis of the evaluative template for the suite of Scottish land reform policies and measures readily accommodates stakeholder engagement. Indeed it is seen as fundamental to any successful assessment of assets. The determination of a set of evaluative criteria and indicators appropriate to each arena of reform involved desk-based study, key informant interviews and stakeholder engagement. It might be deemed desirable to sustain that stakeholder engagement throughout the evaluative process. Good practice in indicator design entails embarking on a dialogical process with different stakeholders, which should, hopefully, lead to an agreed set of criteria and indicators.

The Sword of Damocles effect

10.19 One of the particular challenges of the CRtB components of legislation is the extent to which the possibility of the right to buy makes landowners behave differently with respect to the land they own/manage. The 'Sword of Damocles' effect might be inducing better landowner community interactions and engendering more pro-local development actions by land managers as a way of avoiding the threat of dispossession. Such possibilities can only be explored through in-depth local investigations.

Symbolic and actual impacts and outcomes

10.20 The measurable on-the-ground impacts in rural jobs, repopulation or increased incomes represent only the tangible outcomes. It is not impossible that the greatest effect of some of the changes is symbolic and that the symbolic content of the policy matters greatly to rural people, even if the immediate impacts on their material well-being are modest.

10.21 It is not immediately apparent how to accommodate symbolic capital gains within a livelihoods framework (except by adding an additional category, thereby making the assets pentagram a hexagon). Reducing symbolic capital to an enumerated value may misrepresent the nature of symbolic capital. This alone suggests that whilst indicators can provide a valuable means of assessing outcomes, the indicators approach is more appropriate with tangible outcomes where measurement is relatively unproblematic. Whilst it is not impossible to develop indicators that relate to symbolic capital - say sense of wellbeing arising from the prospect of acquiring access to land - such a measure is likely to reduce complex social valuations to relatively meaningless numbers. This suggests a need for in-depth qualitative research to uncover the less quantifiable social and cultural dimensions of land reform.

High expectations - modest outcomes?

10.22 The introduction of a broad-ranging suite of land reform measures in South Africa in the 1990s did not achieve the significant reduction in poverty that was anticipated by some. Evaluations of progress to date have suggested that the reallocation of rights to land was not of itself sufficient, but may nonetheless be necessary, to address the resolution of poverty. Land reform in Scotland might be viewed similarly as providing part of a set of framework conditions in which more sustainable development outcomes are attainable, but where other factors might intervene to limit the achievement. This point was made strongly in the chapter on crofting, where the underlying negotiation and management skills of most crofting communities may be insufficient to manage the complex processes of community acquisition. The high expectations but modest achievements may reflect the complex realities of development and the still modest room for manoeuvre faced by the beneficiary of a land reform process, even when the land constraint has been eased.

10.23 The barriers to uptake can be explored through the SRL framework. For example, the presence of crofting communities with highly polarised attitudes to wind farm developments illustrates how, even at local level, contested development strategies may exist. The extent of local consensus might shape the opportunities and act as a mediating influence on the uptake of community ownership. Both indicators and drilling down at local level ought to help reveal such effects.

10.24 A further issue that might have influenced the limited impact of land reform is that a high concentration of ownership by a landowner with modest aspirations to develop the land resource might only displace development opportunities from one community to a neighbouring community. This might reduce the overall socio-economic impact marginally, but unless there are large numbers of communities with similarly concentrated ownership and all landowners similarly predisposed to non-development, it is likely that non-development at one point will lead to enhanced opportunity at another nearby location.

Engagement with stakeholders

10.25 A key element of this project has been the engagement with stakeholders who can be defined as all those with an interest in the ways in which land is owned and used. This process has been beneficial in that it takes in the different voices associated with the overall land reform agenda and their (usually) well-grounded understanding of the opportunities and constraints of the new legislation and other measures undertaken but not requiring legislation. It has exposed the value of connecting to key informants, whose knowledge on these matters has been embodied into these draft findings. An approach based on listening to different voices necessarily raises the possibility of very different 'takes' on the outcomes of land reform, sometimes even from different people in the same organisation.

10.26 In some cases there are already well-established stakeholder groupings. Consequently, the forms of engagement may need to differ in arenas for separate reform. In some cases there may be recognised organisations, in others there are only communities of interest. There is a need to tailor evaluations to the particular arenas.

Data limitations

10.27 As in any indicator based study, the gap between what is desired and what can be made available at reasonable cost is very large. Nonetheless, the process of identifying an ideal set of indicators serves as a valuable starting point. From this starting point of agreement on key criteria, it is possible to explore existing data and their limitations and move towards a workable set of indicators.

10.28 There are often major mismatches between the spatial entities which are responsible for community buy-outs and the lowest level of available socio-economic data. Accordingly it is often extremely difficult to establish a causal relationship in a common spatial entity between a land reform cause and a socio-economic outcome.

10.29 We acknowledge the challenge of an indicator-based approach and the necessity to compromise between what is available and/or relatively easily obtainable. The problems of cost arise particularly where, in a case of the suite of land reform measures, some might be intensely local in their impact and outcome and others might be more generic, necessitating a need for a multi-scale approach. Complexity and scale problems in relation to land reform both contribute to creating a challenge in developing a robust set of indicators which can be obtained at reasonable cost.

Drilling down

10.30 The examination of the impacts and outcomes of land reform will require a drilling down process of evaluation in selected local situations. This component may well not be indicator-based although some studies have sought to use locally constructed sets of indicators to assess policy outcomes, which might contrast with those developed by experts. It is equally possible and desirable to use qualitative methods to allow the targeted beneficiaries to articulate their perceptions of impacts and outcomes.

10.31 There is little in the way of monitoring of other areas of policy that takes the kind of overview we are adopting with the suite of land reform measures. The work undertaken to date reinforces the view that a twin track qualitative-quantitative approach rooted in a sustainable rural livelihoods framework can provide an insightful way to explore the impacts and outcomes of land reform. However, we suspect that there will be few absolute certainties in this contested arena and that attribution of causation of outcomes and impacts to particular policy measure will remain elusive, if not impossible.

10.32 We do not dissent from the view that in some situations - Gigha is the most widely cited example - that land reform can trigger a wide range of positive social and economic outcomes in particular places. Such an event as that buyout can be a powerful example of what outcomes can arise. More often, however, the dynamism engendered by the suite of land reform policies in a local context is more modest at present, but perhaps by no means insignificant. The future monitoring in a consistent manner will be necessary to expose any future potential unleashed by the suite of measures, which may result in small changes in the short term leading to bigger positive changes at some later point.

Proposed methods for a deeper analysis of the impacts of land reform

10.33 The impacts and outcomes of the different land reform measures cannot all be assessed in the same way. Whilst there are some examples of measures, such as the abolition of feudal tenure, or the new access provisions, that cut across all land owners and users, many of the measures relate to specific types of land ( e.g.SSSIs) and many more depend on decisions by landowners (new tenancy provisions) or communities (right to buy measures).

10.34 The principal desiderata for a deeper analysis of impacts are:

• Recognition of the considerable complexities of the challenge arising from the breadth of measures considered to comprise 'land reform';
• Acknowledgement of the specificities of the community focus on land reform and the particular need to explore social processes and dimensions;
• A framework that is flexible but provides a unifying structure or lens through which to explore a range of soft and hard impacts and outcomes;
• A benchmarking which measures the extant socio-economic parameters of interest, at appropriate spatial scale;
• Recognition that, for measures depending on voluntaristic uptake, such as Community Right to Buy, or the adoption of new tenurial arrangements, a case study approach may be the only effective means of eliciting local impacts and outcomes in a meaningful way;
• An approach to evaluation that recognises the scope for lagged impacts; and
• An approach which recognises the possibility of pro-active behaviour by landowners to avert the possibility of community bids under CRtB.

The Modified Sustainable Rural Livelihoods Framework

10.35 The widespread application of the sustainable rural livelihoods framework by a range of bodies and its increasing application in the appraisal of rural development outcomes in developed countries, as well as its inherent suitability as a conceptual framework for the analysis of land reform, make it an apposite lens through which to explore the impacts and outcomes of the suite of land reform measures in Scotland.

10.36 The general principles behind the development of the livelihoods approach are relevant to this particular context. It was felt that many policy and project interventions in the past have been insufficiently grounded in local context and an understanding of the ways in which people extracted livelihoods from the land and other resources and, secondly, that many such policies or projects were subjected to overly narrow ex-post evaluations, which lacked the necessary breadth because they came from a mono-disciplinary focus. To a large degree the interdisciplinarity of the livelihoods approach stems from Robert Chambers' insistence that development interventions needed to be grounded in community, rather than constrained by disciplinary single vision (Chambers 1983; 1993; 1997).

10.37 Although there has been a perceived desire within DfID to promote a livelihoods orthodoxy, outwith the DfID approach more heterodox responses have prevailed. Further, as the number of applications of the livelihoods approaches in developed countries has increased, this heterodoxy has, if anything, expanded. In proposing it as a framework for analysing land reform, it is thus important to be specific about how it is framed and used.

10.38 We are comfortable with the general structure of the SRL framework. There are two (or three) key elements of the livelihoods framework that merit specific attention. The primary objects of attention are first, the assets/capitals and second, the transforming structures and processes. A third arena of interest with respect to evaluation at local level, is the livelihood enhancing strategies adopted, built on the platform of existing assets and developed in response to the changed framework conditions (the policy changes and other land reform measures). The last component of livelihood enhancing strategies is what should be most fully explored in local case studies (see below).

10.39 We recommend adapting the livelihoods framework to embrace six rather than the five capitals normally considered. Our reasons for so doing are in part pragmatic and in part theoretical. Pragmatically, we recognise the enormous symbolic importance of land in Scotland, particularly in highland Scotland, and within the conventional five capitals pentagram see no obvious place to accommodate this important symbolic value. Theoretically, we recognise that the livelihoods framework is not without criticism, and that it is the cultural and symbolic values that are often seen to be missing from the holistic appraisals the livelihoods model is said to offer. The inclusion of cultural and symbolic value as a sixth capital asset broadens the consideration of the asset base.

10.40 A core part of the evaluation of the impacts of land reform measures must be to assess the baseline condition of the six capitals or assets. This task can be accomplished at national, regional or local level. As an input into determining the outcomes and impacts of the suite of land reform measures in Scotland at national level, we see a need to explore the six capitals at two levels: national and local. The local level determination of outcomes is essential where the policy mechanism is voluntaristic, but may be equally desirable where there may be different outcomes over space.

10.41 The second critical ingredient in the evaluation is to explore the changes in transforming structures and processes. The changes in structures comprise the legislation and the rules by which they are operationalised. As an example of why these rules are important, we point to the observation made by a number of respondents that many past community buy-outs would not have happened had the new rules been applied. This implies a need to consider whether the new rules on community acquisition have been too tightly drawn.

10.42 The strategic actions can be seen as the choices made by a community that exercises its right to undertake the local poll to determine whether a purchase should go ahead, second, the result of that poll and, third, the strategic actions undertaken if and when the decision has been arrived to opt for a community buy out.

10.43 We recognise that processes can be seen as an end in themselves or as a means to an end. Given the community-based nature of several of the land reform arenas, we recognise that process components may be seen by local people, commentators or policy evaluators as an end in themselves, rather than as a means to an end. The extent to which process was seen as a means or an end may well vary from one land reform arena to another. Where a process generates a virtuous circle of community empowerment to enable that community to build capacity to support more local sustainable development, there is a strong case for monitoring process elements in depth. Nevertheless, the key concern of the evaluator of impact and outcome must be to ascertain the causal factor behind a change in the stock of capital. If the process initiated by the land reform measures is an underlying determinant of the changed socio-economic state of the system, then it is important to monitor these processes.

10.44 The SRL framework is thus seen as the foundation on which an assessment of impacts and outcomes can be built, but it is a framework and it must still be operationalised. In practice, there are many ways of assessing the capital assets and participatory approaches are strongly encouraged (see Carney ed. 1998).

10.45 We advocate the use of a Log-frame approach, with a clear recognition of the need to determine both a set of criteria to assess the state of assets/capitals and the processes and that the use of appropriate indicators be identified in relation to each of the types of capitals and to the institutional and process-related outcomes. Our logic here is framed in the well-established Criteria and Indicators (C&I) approaches which again form part of the DfID planning approaches which seem to demand a higher standard of evaluative framework development than is routinely required even on major domestic policy changes, but is beginning to enter the policy evaluation process through European requirements.

10.46 Our approach for each of the arenas of reform has been to develop a C&I table which charts the flow from criteria groupings (six capitals + institutions and processes), through an examination of the nature of desirable indicators, through to what indicators are available at what social, spatial scale and with what accuracy, and with what relevance to the particular policy instrument.

10.47 Within any C&I approach, there is a necessary trade-off between what is desirable and what is available or obtainable at reasonable cost. The more complex the phenomenon under investigation, the greater the need for a broad range of indicators to reflect that complexity. That complexity is increased by the need to explore outcomes at different spatial scales.

10.48 The tables that provide the information which is summarised in section 11.3 are embedded in the text pertaining to each area of reform. We do not repeat them here. We regard these tables as the principal structures to frame the collection of data and to cross-compare the different outcomes from different arenas of reform. In accordance with the desire of the project steering group we have identified the two most important criteria in each area.

Local level analysis

10.49 There is a need to drill down at community level to ascertain impacts and outcomes where voluntaristic measures have been employed, most obviously in the CRtB, but also in other arenas such as farm tenure changes, access and community planning, where the implementation of procedures may differ from one place to another. Local level analysis is essential in exposing both how the particular components of the suite of land reform measures are working alongside other endogenous responses or external ( e.g.EU) policy mechanisms.

10.50 The spatial scale of the case studies may need to differ from one arena of reform to another. In the CRtB cases it will almost certainly require a community level appraisal; in the case of farm tenure reform a land holding may be appropriate (though up-scaling to sub-regional level may also be useful). It is also desirable to drill down in situations where for example a CRtB proposal ballot has been unsuccessful and in relation to the reform of farm tenure, alternative proposals may have been implemented to deliver similar outcomes and impacts. It is imperative that the case study approach avoids the cherry-picking approach whereby successful examples are used uncritically as an exemplar of what could apparently be achieved much more widely. In such drilling down case studies, we strongly recommend the study of at least three case studies that represent what might ex ante be expected to be amongst the top third in terms of outcomes, the middle third and the bottom third.

Current evidence on the impacts and outcomes of land reform measures

10.51 In this section, we retain the order of treatment of the different arenas of reform presented earlier. Although the earlier chapters retain a broadly common format and a common evaluative framework is proposed, there are some significant differences in the different arenas of reform which will demand distinctive treatment in any subsequent evaluation. In many cases, there is simply too short a period of time since the legislation was passed to be able to assess the current impacts and outcomes. In other cases, there are significant gaps in information which are often compounded by issues of data availability at appropriate spatial scale. Especially where the outcomes of locally adopted measures are sought, there are often significant data limitations.

Access

10.52 There is currently little detailed knowledge of the social and economic impacts of the in Part I of LRSA since it only came into effect on 9 February 2005 and the drawing up of Core Path Plans process was not due for completion until February 2008 (after this project ended). Published, peer-reviewed, evidence-based research is lacking, and stakeholders are generally uncertain as to the actual, attributable impacts of access reform. However, it has been possible to identify some key criteria for assessing the likely and potential impacts of access-related land reform measures, provide a summary of partial, preliminary findings, and highlight those that require further data collection, as well as suggested methods for collection. Key criteria for assessing access-related impacts, which can be positive or negative, can be summarised as ( ED=addressed by existing data; PA=partially addressed by existing data; FDR=further data required; AIF= likely to be available in future):

Built/Physical

• Area of land/water over which access rights are not exercisable [ FDR]
• Length, spatial distribution, connectivity and inclusivity of Core Paths [ AIF]

Context

• Number and frequency of visits [ ED]
• Type of activity undertaken during visits [ PA]
• Spatial distribution of access taken [ PA]

Cultural

• Confidence to exercise rights [ PA]
• Enjoyment and quality of experience of access and the natural heritage [ FDR]

Economic

• Adequacy and targeting of resources for access provision [ FDR]
• Impact on economy (through leisure, tourism, transport & land management) [ PA]

Human

• Awareness of LRSA/ SOAC [ ED]
• Knowledge of content of LRSA/ SOAC [ PA]
• Understanding of reasons underpinning (ir)responsible behaviour vis-à-vis SOAC [ FDR]

Institutional structures and processes

• Effectiveness of access problem prevention and resolution mechanisms [ FDR]
• Promotion and inclusivity of core paths planning process [ AIF]
• Core Path Plan status, implementation progress and review procedure [ AIF]

Social

• Degree of harmony amongst land managers/occupiers and access takers [ PA]
• Benefits of access measures for transport [ FDR]
• Health and wellbeing (physical and mental) [ FDR]
• Social inclusion [ PA]

10.53 Availability of data on the nature and extent of access problems was found to be central to understanding a number of key criteria, but is not at present satisfactory, with under-reporting through the official SNH web portal, and consequent reliance on piecemeal, unpublished information collected by LAs and representative bodies.

10.54 The key preliminary impacts (source: TNS, 2005, 2006, 2007; MVA, forthcoming, see SNH, 2005, 2006) are summarised as follows:

• Access for recreation has increased slightly
• Awareness of LRSA/ SOAC has increased
• Awareness of the content of SOAC has increased slightly
• LRSA/ SOAC has changed (reported) behaviours (moderately)

10.55 However, particular care must be taken in interpreting existing studies and attention paid to the way they are bounded, as many of them are partial in terms of the stakeholders represented and have methodological limitations. More general suggestions regarding further data collection and analysis:

• data on access taken for leisure reasons must be harmonised with access taken for other reasons, such as transport.
• data need to be representative of all key stakeholder groups - existing data tends to focus on some more than others.
• data are required to understanding the underlying relationships between many of the key criteria, such as between physical/built assets, human capital and how they encourage and discourage particular behaviours. For example, data availability is good for awareness of the LRSA and SOAC and its contents, but not for genuine understanding of the contents and the reasons behind them, and how such knowledge and related attitudes affect actual behaviour. This would involve in-depth qualitative analysis.
• data showing the true nature and extent of access problems (for occupiers, land managers and access takers) are vital for the assessment of many criteria mentioned above.

Nature conservation designations

10.56 The land reform related changes to nature conservation designations relate principally to the reform of the procedures relating to the designation and management of SSSIs. SSSIs had occupied a troubled position amongst nature conservation law in Scotland in the wake of legislative changes in the 1980s, the implementation of which resulted in what were perceived by landowners as ill-informed and precautionary designations in the late 1980s and early 1990s. The new legislation embodied in the Natural Heritage (Scotland) Act 2004 removed the term Potentially Damaging Operation from the legislative lexicon and replaced it with the term Operation Requiring Consent, The legislative changes can also be seen as necessary to respond to the need to protect European-designated sites, which shifted some of the pressure from domestic agencies.

10.57 The UK-wide Biodiversity Action Plan ( BAP) and its local manifestation the Local Biodiversity Action Plans are not considered as part of the suite of land reform measures as their origins lie in the UK government's response to the Convention on Biodiversity of 1992 at the 'Rio Earth Summit'. The Convention explicitly identifies a role for people in the management of biodiversity and the LBAP process in the UK has stressed strongly the involvement of local people in land management for nature conservation. .Although LBAP measures predate the suite of land reform measures cited in the brief, this highlights the case for a sector-wide appraisal of public engagement with biodiversity planning, since the very existence of these mechanisms might be seen to reduce the need for public involvement in decisions about designated sites where, because of European and UK legislation, there is less room for manoeuvre and less scope to involve the public in decisions.

10.58 SNH have put in place, and is further developing, a database which when complete will provide comprehensive data on site management of SSSIs and European designated sites and the data will include many of the elements that might be sought within a C&I approach to assessing the impact of the new legislation on sustainable rural development. However, it is still likely that the comprehensive appraisal of the new legislation will require additional information to that which will be collected by SNH.

10.59 The key areas to be addressed with respect to the six capitals/assets are:

Economic capital:

• Has the reform increased the economic value of the Ecosystem Goods and Services of designated sites?
• Has the reform influenced indirectly the economic activity in local economies attributable to nature conservation?
• Is the landowning community at least no worse off, and potentially better off as a result of the designation and use of relevant measures such as Natural Care Management Agreements?
• Are the transaction costs of a) reaching agreement and b) handling any issues regarding ORCs reasonable?

Social

• Has trust between the regulatory and landowning/managing community been enhanced by the operation of the Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act 2004?

Human

• Are landowners and managers more skilled at managing their land profitably without adversely impacting on the nature conservation values of designated land which they own/work?
• Are nature conservation authorities more effective in negotiating with landowners and managers?

Physical

• Is there any access enhancement or interpretation to the site which might increase its accessibility to local people and others?

Environmental

Is the trend in site condition (using the official definitions on site scoring) improving?

Symbolic/cultural

• Do local people value their community more because of its conservation attributes associated with designated sites?

Institutions structures and processes

• Are the processes of site designation more open, more robust and fairer than in the previous policy regime?
• Is the monitoring process open and transparent and are the results of monitoring publicly available?

10.60 Scottish Natural Heritage is developing a system of monitoring not only the environmental values of these sites, but also some of the issues regarding trust. However, many issues of human capital and economic capital remain understudied under the current management and monitoring regime and will be needed if the full social and economic impacts and outcomes of the measures are to be estimated.

10.61 The key informants and workshop attendants representing nature conservation interests were of the opinion that environmental values should be embraced in any overarching analysis of the impacts and outcomes of land reform. We concur with this view, but stress that it should be couched in a framework of the three 'legs' of sustainable development, rather than in purely environmental terms.

Community planning

10.62 The research exposed Community Planning as somewhat tenuously connected to the wider land reform agenda, in that Community Planning Partnerships are essentially strategic partnerships to co-ordinate activities by different public sector authorities within a designated local authority area. Whilst the rhetoric of community planning is seen to accommodate a locally focussed ethos of community development, the actuality is more often one of modest community involvement and the provision of information to the wider public.

10.63 Notwithstanding the perceived distance between land reform and CPPs, in particular the disconnect between CPPS and land use planning or land reform, a number of observations were made about the process which can be seen to inform the evaluation process.

10.64 As is the case with many of the measures, positive outcomes could not always be seen yet because the CPP model was 'bedding in'. The principal achievement of CPPs to date has been the changed institutional culture of public sector partners and the recognition that CPPs can provide an important locus for information exchange, although some critical voices regarded the initiative as rebranding and offering nothing new.

10.65 There were distinctly divergent views on community engagement in the CP process, with some arguing that the CP system offered significant new community involvement opportunities but others suggested the whole process disenfranchised local communities. CPPs have often had a rather urban focus and most respondents failed to see a connection between CPPs and the land reform agenda, although links were identified between CPPs and LBAPs and Core Path Planning.

10.66 Respondents perceived that a major contribution of land reform was the increased confidence it gave to communities, although the land reform measures were seen more as delivering new skills, than easing land-based obstacles to development. Given the newness of CPPs, there is as yet only limited monitoring in place, but there was widespread recognition of the need to monitor achievements through an indicator based approach. One particular indicator- of community capacity - was seen at the workshop as an important indicator of the community's ability to move on an issue like community-based land reform.

10.67 In terms of the identification of a set of criteria and indicators, the link between CPPs and indicator changes was seen as particularly problematic. It is possible to identify a range of indicators that relate to different assets and capitals and institutions and processes, but the ability to attribute change in indicators to CPPs with any precision is deeply problematic.

Agricultural tenure and feudal rights

10.68 The research throws up a number of important issues for the measurement of the impact of tenancy reform legislation. The mechanisms by which farmers and landowners occupy and operate land are increasingly complex and may not be captured by the existing data gathering methods. The trend in the area of land under formal tenancies as recorded by the agricultural census has been declining steadily, but the total area of land not being actively farmed by the owner may be increasing. However, official data cannot tell us if this is the case.

10.69 Understanding how tenancy reform impacts on the rural economy first needs an understanding of the land market and the large number of forces shaping farming structures. Tenancy reform may have only a minor influence on letting decisions and even less on the diversity of the rural economy and what is happening to rural communities.

10.70 The new tenancy forms are being adopted by committed traditional landowners mainly as a more sensible replacement for partnership tenancies as their terms expire. However, there is less evidence of estates or retiring/restructuring farmers and new landowners adopting these mechanisms as an alternative to active farming or contract and short term let arrangements. There is little feeling that the new forms have facilitated an increase in let land or any sort of reinvigoration of the tenancy sector. This may not be due to the tenancy forms, but due to the loss of confidence created by the perceived threat of "right to buy". The tax and property implications of letting land may be the over-riding drivers for avoiding formal leases.

10.71 However, there is acceptance that the reforms have been in place for only a few years - a very short time when considering movements in land tenure. Also the period of introduction coincided with a major reform of the CAP which had the effect of delaying most land transactions until the outcome of the decoupled Single Farm Payment system was known. Some of the views expressed by interviewees may still reflect initial impressions and fears.

10.72 The Scottish Government Agricultural Census and Rent Surveys are a strong base for building a picture of the market, but they may not be sampling the correct people, they may not be asking all the correct questions and the ability to capture complexity via only postal techniques must be investigated. Information on wider impacts (rural economy, social, environment, etc) is especially lacking. Confidence and perceived risk are emerging as critical factors in letting decisions, which need to be measured.

10.73 There are aims, but no targets or perhaps more importantly, benchmarks. These help measure the impact of legislation despite the complexity of so many factors influencing decisions.

10.74 The role of this study is not to question aims, but there is disagreement over the existing aims of the legislation. For example is it more tenanted land or just a more "vibrant" tenanted sector? To develop sensible measures, legislators and bodies such as the TFF (representing all stakeholders) need to develop a shared vision of the outcome they seek.

10.75 The SRL framework presents a full range of indicators for measuring the impact of tenancy reform. The key areas which could give the best understanding of the context within which tenancy reform is taking place, and start to show its impact are perhaps as follows. These cut across the six capitals.

Confidence/Trust

• The improvement in confidence in formal lets is critical for the development of the tenanted sector and the success of the existing legislation. Both landlord and tenant confidence trends needs to be measured and understood.

Perceived risk and cost

• Faced with a wide range of means of operating land, the owners and tenants view of cost, complexity and risk is critical.

The role of outside factors on the operation of land ( e.g. tax, property values)

• Tracking and understanding these drivers must be critical as they may have much more impact on letting decisions than any legislative reform.

Breakdown of how all non owner occupied land is managed

• There is poor understanding of what is happening on the ground and until this is understood the role of tenancy reform cannot be fully understood. This includes greatly improving the accuracy of recording the numbers of formal tenancies.

How new entrants get established and the role of the tenanted sector

• This is a key policy concern and underlying driver for the 2003 reforms

Non farming income levels

• Is the tenanted sector accommodating the need to diversify income sources and allowing a broader contribution to the rural economy?

10.76 None of the above is impossible to measure. A methodology with two main activities is discussed in the main chapter. The first activity is annual tracking of the land market - measuring tenancy and other land operation mechanisms in an amended June census backed up by a sample survey of major land agents and advisers to identify new tenancy trends, contract trends and what is driving change. This could be mediated by an annual TFF session. The second activity is a periodic attitudes and intentions survey to measure the confidence in and perceived costs of all methods of operating land. This would aim to understand what is driving landlords/ landowners and tenants decisions.

10.77 The abolition of feudal tenure has removed an area of potential abuse and practical cost. The consensus view is that this is largely an urban issue with few rural impacts.

Community right to buy (non-crofting)

10.78 Interest in community ownership of land in Scotland is not new, as shown by examples of community buy-outs spanning almost a century, from Glendale in 1908 to Assynt in 2005. However, the momentum for legislative encouragement gathered pace towards the end of the 20th century, culminating in Part 2 of the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003 - introducing provisions for the Community Right to Buy ( CRtB) as a mechanism for encouraging community ownership of land.

10.79 The CRtB legislation covers all parts of rural Scotland and relates to buildings, mineral rights and fishing rights as well as land. However, unlike Part 3 of the Act that refers to a further, specific Crofting CRtB, Part 2 does not include an absolute right to buy. Rather it offers a framework within which communities can register a formal interest in purchasing land such that when it is offered for sale, they have a pre-emptive right to buy if certain conditions are met. These include demonstrating community benefits and support plus securing funding to meet a market price identified by an independent valuation.

10.80 The pursuit of greater economic efficiency and social equity through a redistribution of property rights is a common theme of land reform across various countries. In many cases, it is also viewed as a mechanism for recognising traditional ownership claims made by indigenous peoples. It may potentially also lead to improved information for greater transparency and democratic accountability with respect to ownership and management. However, whilst land reform may have particular political resonance, the perceived role of property rights in social and economic development extends across other productive and consumptive assets - as reflected in the Growing Community Assets fund administered directly by the Big Lottery Fund Scotland under the Investing in Communities Programme.

10.81 Community ownership is generally viewed as encouraging local development by promoting self-determination and empowerment as a means to release economic and social entrepreneurial potential. However, it is also acknowledged that community ownership incurs some costs and risks. In particular, beyond the actual cost of purchasing land or any other asset, the capacity of a community to self-organise to acquire and then manage the asset may require additional and on-going resources. Moreover, the effectiveness and appropriateness of ownership rather than other forms of community management is not certain. Consequently, different policies - some aimed at private, some at community and some at state control - may be required in different locations and it can be difficult to characterise and isolate impacts from other contemporary influences.

10.82 The key areas to be addressed with respect to the six capitals/assets are:

Economic capital:

• Has asset ownership and/or community management increased local employment, income generation and wealth creation to make ownership self-sustaining?

Social

• Has community confidence and cohesion increased following asset ownership?

Human

• Have communities developed their skills in managing assets and engaging with themselves and with third parties?

Physical

• Has ownership of assets facilitated any enhancement to the local infrastructure, such as houses, other buildings or utilities?

Environmental

• Has the local environment improved following community ownership or management?

Symbolic/cultural

• Has ownership of community assets and/or greater involvement in their management engendered greater community pride and cohesion?

10.83 The key areas to be assessed with respect to institutions and processes are:

• To what extent have non- CRtB examples of community ownership or management been influenced by the CRtB legislation.
• Are landowners (whether public or private) and government agencies more open and transparent in their dealings with local communities?
• Is the monitoring process open and transparent and are the results of monitoring publicly available?

10.84 A general absence of appropriate baseline data and on-going monitoring effort hinders evaluation of the impact of CRtB. In addition, the observable, direct impact of the legislation is modest in terms of the number of registered communities and those actually activated - although the numbers of both are increasing. However, indirect encouragement for community acquisition of land and involvement in management decisions outwith formal CRtB arrangements may also have arisen. Unfortunately, such activities pre-dated the legislation and have continued since, making it difficult to separate indirect CRtB effects from the background trend.

10.85 Nevertheless, in reviewing the effectiveness of the Community Land Unit and the Scottish Land Fund, SQW (2005, 2007) identified some evidence of impacts arising from greater community ownership of land and greater community involvement in the management of land. Particular emphasis was placed upon social capital gains, with more tangible gains perhaps not yet being evident and/or dependent on continued external funding and further support for communities (see also Bell, 2007). In addition, the heterogeneity of scope, scale, capabilities and aspirations embodied in different communities highlighted the importance of drilling-down via case studies. Such findings echo the general contemporary literature on community acquisition and management of assets ( e.g. Thake, 2006; Quirk, 2007).

10.86 Extension of such survey and case-study analysis might provide further insights into both direct and indirect CRtB impacts, although care would need to be taken to encompass both CRtB and non- CRtB examples, and to explore apparently non-active communities. Linking to emerging monitoring efforts and a planned evaluation under the Big Lottery Fund's growing Community Asset Fund activities, as well as SRDP indicators, would be sensible.

Community right to buy and crofting reforms

10.87 The principal piece of legislation of direct relevance to crofting and land reform considered is Section 3 of the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003. The objectives of the legislation are consistent with those for land reform in general; it was further intended to empower those communities in their negotiations with crofting landlords by altering the balance of power in favour of such communities.

10.88 The extent of activity directly as a result of the legislation is very limited and is restricted to those formal applications which have been pursued only two of which have become full formal applications. This is consistent with expectations when the legislation was drafted.

10.89 Major factors in this are the high transaction costs of the process which acts as a disincentive or drives the alternative negotiated approach and the lack of homogeneity in the population of communities and estates. In the majority of cases it appears that there have been negotiated settlements and that these have been influenced by the legislation to a significant degree.

10.90 The Act progresses a multi-stage historical process of some momentum, its major effect is the catalytic role it plays in stimulating, facilitating and underpinning crofting community buy out activity contributing further to a long established momentum for crofting land reform. Wind farm development has also played a significant role here.

10.91 The reported effects are largely qualitative or relate to processes enabling communities to act in their own interests. These relate most strongly to human and social capitals and suggest increased community involvement and diversity in land ownership and management.

10.92 This has resulted in a lack of directly attributable evidence or baselines against which to assess the impact of the legislation. The real effects are likely to be indirect and arise after a successful buy out; any causal link will vary significantly by the individual community circumstance. The majority of the relevant evidence is therefore likely to arise from crofting communities which have not progressed full formal applications.

10.93 Assessment of impact must take account of community diversity, the variation in circumstance, the existing momentum and instruments of reform and the time taken for expected impacts to emerge, this is still an early stage in the process. Evidence is likely to be substantially qualitative in its nature and based on the perceptions, level of involvement and knowledge of respondents.

10.94 There is therefore a strong case for an evaluative approach based on selected case studies to investigate practice and better understand the insights of those directly involved establishing from this the extent and nature of the influence which may be attributed to this legislation. This would afford qualitative investigation of the apparently large proportion of more subjective effects particularly in relation to the human and social capitals. This sample should include communities which are apparently inactive with respect to CCRtB to identify baseline or counterfactual trends and attitudes and the wider indirect effects of the legislation.

Conclusions

10.95 It is clear from an exploration of the measures used currently to assess the impacts and outcomes of land reform that there is not currently an adequate set of data to assess the impacts of the suite of land reform measures. The current arrangements for monitoring impacts and outcomes are contingent on drawing on inadequate data which tends to inevitably to focus on inputs and outputs rather than impacts and outcomes. This problem is especially marked in the case of CRtB issues, where the number of cases considered or approved is known, but outcomes and impacts are still largely guessed at.

10.96 Although quite sophisticated social and economic data are collected and are widely available, they can only be used effectively in across the board investigations because their spatial resolution is almost always inappropriate to assessing the impacts and outcomes of particular community purchases at local level. The areas for which data are sought and the areas for which they are available show almost no overlap in an assessment of a number of cases. Given a wider shift in policy towards community-based rural development and the parallel development of measures in some of the identified arenas of reform which could also have contributed positively to sustainable rural development, the attribution of policy cause and socio-economic outcome or impact raises profound challenges.

10.97 A modified Sustainable Rural Livelihoods Framework provides a reasonable analytical framework for the analysis of the impacts and outcomes of the suite of land reform measures. However, in using such a framework, it is incumbent on the user to use a six capitals/assets framework and to pay particular attention to the transforming structures and processes 'box', which provides for the new institution creation and processes that enable the delivery of the land reform outcomes.

10.98 Although we suggest that the SRL framework can provide an overarching approach to the evaluation of the impacts and outcomes of land reform measures, we nonetheless question whether it is appropriate to directly compare the different arenas of reform. We argue that within a SRL framework which provides a common evaluative template, there is a case for customising the analysis to better meet the needs of different sectors.

10.99 Of particular concern is recognition that it is necessary to consider the full array of policies that together create sectoral outcomes. Within the farm sector, the endogenous emergence of new tenurial arrangements, over and above any legislative changes, can be shown to be important in creating potential opportunities for new entrants. Likewise, LBAPs provide good opportunities for local community engagement in nature conservation and other funding opportunities such as LIFE¹³ have helped to nurture community-based natural resource management which has contributed positively to sustainable rural development, perhaps more effectively than the specified nature conservation land reform-based measures. Whilst we accept the case for a cross cutting overview, we stress the importance of a deeper understanding of the full array of endogenous and policy responses to the resolution of the land-based barriers to sustainable rural development. Ideally, each arena of reform should be looked at alongside the range of other policy measures and endogenous responses that could also deliver outcomes and impacts that might be erroneously correlated with land reform measures. This issue arises in all of the arenas of reform considered in this study.

10.100 We recognise that in many of the arenas of reform it is both desirable and necessary to drill down using local investigations, not least because it is at this level that many of the measures are operationalised: in new tenurial arrangement; on particular pieces of farmland; or in specific buy-outs etc. Even for more wide-ranging measures such as community planning or the narrower measures such as the management of SSSIs, it is the effectiveness of inter-relationships between actors at local level that will determine success, not average conditions across the board. Only through local observation will good practice be effectively exposed, thus providing key evidence that might be transposable into other contexts. We stress the importance of selecting representative case studies and avoiding cherry picking of successes.

10.101 We concur with the representatives environmental groups who raised concerns both in the stakeholder workshop and in interviews that any full evaluation of the impacts of the suite of land reform measures on sustainable rural development should consider the environmental impacts and outcomes. Environmental 'proofing' should be a condition of all public support to land reform. For example, at a time when Scotland is developing ambitious carbon reduction targets, it is vital that the rural land sector plays a positive role. However, we recognise that there may be a need for complex trade-offs where one facet of environmental values - say species diversity - is potentially compromised by efforts to enhance carbon storage capacity of the natural environment.

10.102 Notwithstanding the difficulties, we recognise that land reform is both a contributor to and an outcome of a developing understanding of the role of land in sustainable rural development. We concur that there are obstacles to development arising from the ownership and use of land and that the levels of community engagement in decisions about land are often insufficient to create a real sense of community involvement in decisions about the way in which land is used.

10.103 As was noted in the community planning arena, it should be recognised that not all rural communities have a unified view of optimal pathways towards sustainable rural development. The ceding of greater decision making responsibility to communities raises the possibility of exposing fault lines and contestation among different groups in place-based communities.

10.104 The impacts and outcomes of the suite of land reform measures can be assessed in terms of their impacts on sustainable rural development, and more narrowly in terms of their contribution to diversity of ownership and use of rural land and the extent to which communities are able to influence decisions about its use. The SRL framework provides an overarching framework under which an arena by arena assessment of impacts and outcomes of land reform can be undertaken, but constant vigilance is needed in any assessment to ensure that there is attributability to land reform measures and not a wider set of policy responses or endogenous actions.

References

Bryden, J. and Houston, G. (1976) Agrarian change in the Scottish Highlands: the role of the Highlands and Islands Development Board in the agricultural economy of the crofting counties, Martin Robertson : Glasgow.

Chambers, R. (1983), Rural Development: Putting the last first, Longman: Harlow.

Chambers, R. (1993), Challenging the Professions, Longman : Harlow.

Chambers, R. (1997 ), Whose Reality Counts? Putting the first last, Longman: Harlow.

DAFS (1964), Land Use in the Highlands and Islands, Report of the Land Use Study Group

HIDB, (1970), Strath of Kildonan: proposals for development, Inverness HIDB.

Quirk, B. (2007), Making assets work. The Quirk Review of community management and ownership of public assets. Report to Department for Communities and Local Government, London.

http://www.communities.gov.uk/pub/517/MakingassetsworkTheQuirkReviewofcommunitymanagementandownershipofpublicassets_id1510517.pdf

Scottish Executive (2006), Draft Planning Advice Note on Community Engagement: Planning with People.

Scottish Executive (no date), National Standards for Community Engagement

http://www.communitiesscotland.gov.uk/stellent/groups/public/documents/webpages/otcs_008411.pdf

Scottish Government (2007), Principles and priorities: the government's programme for Scotland, Scottish Government, Edinburgh.

SQW (2005), Evaluation of the Community Land Unit. Final report to Highland and Islands Enterprise, Inverness. (Also, seven in-depth case-studies to accompany the report).

http://www.biglotteryfund.org.uk/er_eval_slf_final_report.pdf

SQW (2007), The Scottish Land Fund Evaluation. Final Report to the Big Lottery Fund.

http://www.biglotteryfund.org.uk/er_eval_slf_final_report.pdf

Thake, S. (2006), Community Assets. The benefits and costs of community management and ownership. Report to Department for Communities and Local Government's Civil Renewal Unit, London.

http://www.communities.gov.uk/pub/505/CommunityAssetsthebenefitsandcostsofcommunitymanagementandownership_id1502505.pdf

« Previous | Contents | Next »