The Scottish Government

« Previous | Contents | Next »

Listen

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1. In the late 1990s, the high-level Land Reform Policy Group ( LRPG) explored issues relating to land reform in Scotland and made a series of recommendations. These prompted a range of legislative and non-legislative responses by government. This ambitious engagement with the ownership and tenure of rural land and a series of related measures relating to community planning and nature conservation have changed the policy architecture of rural Scotland.

2. It is clear that both directly and indirectly land reform has impacted on consciousness and practice in relation to rural land ownership and use. What has been described as community-based land reform now occupies a central position in Scottish rural policy. However, the precise impacts and outcomes remain uncertain and constitute the objectives of this study, which were: to undertake an initial assessment of the impacts of reform; to establish the data and analysis which are currently available; and to advise the Scottish Government about research and monitoring, including indicators, which would be necessary or desirable for fuller monitoring and assessment of land reform impacts.

3. As an umbrella term, land reform encompasses a wide range of policy actions. The study identifies six arenas of reform: access; nature conservation designations; community planning; new tenure proposals for farmland and the abolition of feudal tenure; community right to buy in non-crofting areas; and community right to buy in crofting areas with other crofting measures. An initial desk-based scoping analysis was undertaken for each arena, drawing on a slightly modified version of the sustainable rural livelihoods ( SRL) framework deployed by the Department for International Development ( DfID) for examining impacts of policy and other changes on rural livelihoods. This approach enables livelihood impacts of changes in different forms of capital or institutional structures and processes to be assessed.

4. For each arena, background literature was examined to yield evidence on types of outcome and impact of reform. Key informants were then questioned, normally by telephone, but sometimes face-to-face, to elicit their views. A workshop was also held with a larger group to enable diverse stakeholders to comment on the methodology used and the interim findings of the project.

5. Although the short length of time since reforms were implemented makes it too soon to be able to judge actual effects in many cases, and attributing effects to land reform rather than other contemporary factors is often difficult, the study does reveal some perceived impacts. However, there is a need to develop a more comprehensive evaluative framework for how land reform in Scotland contributes to sustainable rural development. This may be hampered by a general lack of relevant data, especially in relation to socio-economic impacts at a local level, suggesting a need for improved information gathering and monitoring efforts. The particular 'community-based' character of Scottish land reform further suggests a need for iterative engagement with local communities and stakeholders, implying the need for a strongly participatory, case-study approach to evaluation and indicator identification.

6. Detailed findings for each of the arenas are presented, including a suggested list of criteria and indicators that could be used in further research to measure impacts. The diverse nature of land reform arenas and measures suggests that a one-size-fits-all approach to evaluation may not be appropriate and which measures are regarded as elements of land reform may vary across different stakeholders.

Access

7. Part I of the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003 features two key measures relating to outdoor access: (1) it establishes a statutory right of responsible, non-motorised access to most land, inland water and inter-tidal foreshore for the purpose of passage, recreation, education and commercial activities, as well as reciprocal duties for land managers to act responsibly towards access takers. This involves a statutory duty on SNH to produce a Scottish Outdoor Access Code to support the legislation by providing a key reference point in defining responsible behaviour, land use and land management; (2) it imposes on Local Authorities a statutory duty to produce a Core Path Plan "sufficient for the purpose of giving the public reasonable access throughout their area", in consultation with local communities, land managers and other key stakeholders.

8. There is currently little detailed knowledge of the social and economic impacts of the measures which only came into effect on 9 February 2005 and the process of drawing up of Core Path Plans is only due for completion in February 2008. Published, peer-reviewed, evidence-based research is lacking, and stakeholders are generally uncertain as to the actual, attributable impacts of access reform. The following potential headline indicators are suggested and their availability indicated.

9. The preliminary impacts appear to be: access for recreation has increased slightly; awareness of LRSA/ SOAC has increased; awareness of the content of SOAC has increased slightly; and LRSA/ SOAC has changed (reported) behaviours (moderately).

10. It is suggested that the collection of the missing data would involve collating information from local authorities and other public organisations, original quantitative surveys, as well as in-depth qualitative analysis for understanding why particular factors produce particular impacts. Care must be taken to make sure it is representative of all relevant stakeholder groups.

Nature conservation

11. The Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act 2004 changed the procedures for designating and reviewing Sites of Special Scientific Interest ( SSSIs), as well as imposing a general duty on public bodies. The changes offer modest scope for local actor involvement in the Site Management Statement and replace the principal regulatory instrument - the list of Potentially Damaging Operations ( PDO) by the term Operations Requiring Consent ( ORC). It is explicitly intended that the ORC should be simplified and less onerous than PDOs, whilst ensuring the effective protection of nature conservation interests. It was also necessary to ensure compliance with European legislation for designated sites.

12. The designation of SSSIs in the late 1980s and 1990s led to a breakdown of relations between landowners and nature conservation interests in many parts of Scotland. This is evidenced in an academic literature which focused on one particular area in Scotland, although the issue was more widespread.

13. Most interest in the operation of the Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act revolves around the effectiveness of the new measures for protecting SSSIs. Critical concerns regarding the socio-economic impacts and outcomes relate to regaining trust between land-owning and nature conservation interests and adjusting the balance of power between the landowner/manager and the state. Neither deepening of community involvement nor increased diversity of land ownership can be seen as important in relation to this particular arena of land reform. ¹

14. Other parts of the overall policy suite for biodiversity protection and conservation do engender greater community involvement, but these arise principally from the 1992 Earth Summit and the Convention on Biodiversity to which the UK was a signatory. This resulted in the UK Biodiversity Action Plan and Local Biodiversity Action Plans ( LBAPs). They deliver outputs and outcomes relevant to a land reform agenda but are not part of the post-1997 suite of land reform measures.

15. The background analysis and consultation suggest the following headline indicators.

Community planning

16. The Land Reform Policy Group recommendations suggested that the integrated planning of rural land use could be taken forward through the process of community planning. The community planning thematic arena sought to review the process of community planning partnerships ( CPPs) (as defined under Local Government in Scotland 2003 Act) in terms of its contribution to: diversity in land ownership; land use and community involvement in land ownership and land management;

17. The statutory requirements for CPPs, together with their focus on service delivery, mean there has been little direct reference to land use planning or the land reform agenda in existing community plans. Findings suggest an opportunity to address the land reform agenda within community planning partnerships in the future.

18. Early attempts by CPPs to monitor change have tended to focus on outputs ( e.g. reports published, meetings held, partnerships set up) rather than the long-term outcomes ( e.g. invigorated local democracy, a sense of community wellbeing). At the heart of the continually evolving Community Planning Partnerships is a long-term cultural shift towards partnership amongst service providers to improve cost-effectiveness and devolution of decision making to the local level, including responding to the expressed needs of local communities. The long-term and gradual nature of change means that it is very difficult to make judgements about the outcomes of community planning at this stage.

19. Our research suggests the following headline indicators and availability of data.

Farm tenancy reform and abolition of feudal tenure

20. The Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act 2003 created two new tenancy forms: the Short Limited Duration Tenancy (maximum 5 years) and Limited Duration Tenancy (minimum 15 years). This allowed the replacement of the Limited Partnership Tenancy. The Act also brought in provisions to ease diversification, simplify dispute resolution and give clear rights on investment on tenanted land. In addition, the Act allowed for a pre-emptive right to buy for existing secure (1991 Act) tenants. An absolute right to buy for all tenants had been proposed, but was not adopted.

21. The mechanisms by which farmers and landowners occupy and operate land are increasingly complex and are not fully captured by the existing data gathering methods. The trend in land area under formal tenancies as recorded by the Agricultural Census has been declining, but the total area of land not being farmed by the owner may be increasing (more land may be in a range of contract agreements and short, informal lets). Official data cannot show whether this is the case.

22. Understanding how tenancy reform impacts on the rural economy requires understanding of the land market and forces shaping farming structures. External forces (taxation, property values, innovation in land operation, new landowners) mean that tenancy reform may be only a minor influence on letting decisions and even less on rural economic diversity and what is happening to rural communities.

23. The new tenancy forms are being adopted by committed traditional landowners, mainly as the terms of partnership tenancies expire. There is less evidence of estates or retiring/restructuring farmers and new landowners adopting these mechanisms. There is little evidence that the new forms have facilitated an increase in let land or reinvigorated the tenancy sector. Loss of confidence created by the perceived threat of "right to buy" is a major factor. The tax and property implications of letting land may be the over-riding drivers for avoiding formal leases.

24. The short period since the reforms means the full impact will not yet be evident and the introduction coincided with a major reform of the CAP which delayed most land transactions until the outcome of the new regime was known. Some of the views expressed by interviewees in this research may still reflect initial impressions and fears. 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 or asking all the required questions. In any case, postal techniques, such as they use, cannot be expected to capture complexity. Information on wider impacts of tenure reform (on rural economy, social, environment, etc) is especially lacking. Farmers' ability/willingness to accurately fill in yet another form, with no income or penalty effect, may be an issue.

25. There are aims, but no targets or more importantly, benchmarks. These help measure the impact of legislation despite the complexity of so many factors influencing decisions. There is disagreement over the existing aims of the legislation: is it more tenanted land or just a more "vibrant" tenanted sector? To develop sensible measures, legislators and bodies such as the Tenant Farming Forum (representing all stakeholders) need to develop a shared vision of outcome sought.

26. The livelihoods framework can be used to capture information needs but several indicators are cross-cutting. The following table lists headline indicators and current availability.

27. Information gaps need to be closed. 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 changes such as new tenancy trends, contract trends and what is driving change would be beneficial. A periodic survey of, attitudes and intentions to measure the confidence in, and perceived costs of all methods of operating land could be instigated to help understand landlords', landowners' and tenants' decisions. This could be built around a restructured Rent Survey, with an element of face-to-face interviews.

28. The Farm Accounts Scheme income survey could also play a role in identifying trends in tenants' income levels from different sources. The current data sources which could provide information are poorly integrated and a review of how integration could be improved would be beneficial (for both policy makers and land users).

29. The second area of property reform legislation covered the abolition of feudal tenure. This legislation has removed an area of potential abuse and practical cost. A modern system for managing conditions on property has been put in its place, but the consensus view is that this is largely an urban issue with few rural impacts.

Community right to buy - non-crofting

30. Although there is a long history of community land acquisition in Scotland, 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. This introduced the Community Right to Buy ( CRtB) as a mechanism for encouraging opportunities for community ownership of land.

31. 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. Potential impacts - particularly with respect to social capital - are readily identified in the literature and by stakeholders. However, notwithstanding widespread anecdotal evidence and some ad hoc studies, a general absence of appropriate, objective baseline data and on-going monitoring effort hinders formal evaluation of the impact of CRtB. There is relatively little information currently available at a relevant spatial or temporal resolution to allow measurement of potential impacts, whether direct or indirect, or to identify additionality beyond pre-existing trends in non- CRtB community initiatives. In addition, the capacity for communities to initiate and maintain or develop ownership plans without external assistance is sometimes limited, raising issues of sustainability.

32. Literature reviews and stakeholder engagement suggest that the following criteria and indicators could be used to extend understanding of CRtB impacts, ideally through a comparative case-study approach of CRtB and non- CRtB examples. That is, primary research is needed to overcome current data scarcity problems. It would also be sensible to match evaluative measures to those being developed by the Big Lottery Fund and under the wider-than-just-land theme of community assets.

Community right to buy - crofting and other crofting measures

33. The principal legislation relevant to crofting and land reform is Section 3 of the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003. This provides for an absolute Crofting Community Right to Buy. It was further intended to empower those communities in their negotiations with crofting landlords by altering the balance of power in their favour.

34. Directly attributable activity is limited and is restricted to formal applications pursued, only two of which have resulted in full applications. This is consistent with expectations. Major factors in this are high transaction costs and demand on community capacity which acts as a disincentive or leads to a negotiated approach. Diversity in the population of communities and estates also affects relevance.

35. Most change has arisen because of negotiated settlements, substantially influenced by legislation, but without directly attributable evidence. Influences include: availability of resources, such as the lack of technical skills and resources; high costs and capacity demands, time and availability of people with the requisite skills; and dependency on discretionary funding. Landlords demonstrate a willingness to negotiate and crofters negotiating position has been strengthened; many crofting communities and estates are fundamentally cooperative.

36. Low uptake of the legislative process may have been the intention. The principal effect is the legislation's catalytic role in stimulating, facilitating and underpinning crofting community buy out activity. The core intention of empowering crofting communities and changing the balance of power is being achieved through leverage.

37. Other effects on human and social capital which may be arising include: greater breadth and depth of community involvement and engagement; challenges and tensions around community involvement in governance; more informed rational and participative community asset management; recognition that pragmatic negotiated settlements are more beneficial; and community skilling and increased community confidence in dealings with landlords and authority. Other influences which appear to have a significant effect include: the momentum towards crofting community buy-outs with multiple drivers; interest in wind farm developments; increased barriers ( e.g. pre-emptive protectionist behaviour); and the pivotal role of the Community Land Unit in facilitation and animation.

38. The majority of relevant evidence relates to crofting communities which have considered or undertaken buy outs without full formal applications. Disaggregating attributable effects will vary by case, reflecting the sample and range of causal factors. Available information is likely to be substantially qualitative, based on the perceptions, level of involvement and knowledge of respondents. The buy-out is not the point at which all impact accrues; effects and results will only be fully realised over the long term.

39. Unless there is a significant change in the pattern of activity, assessing the impact of the legislation will require in-depth analysis of cases where crofting communities have purchased assets and then, within this, assessing the extent and nature of the influence attributable to the legislation. The use of case studies appears to offer the best way forward in establishing the (developing) impacts.

40. The following principal indicators and their availability are suggested.

Conclusions

41. An initial desk-based scoping exercise reinforced an expectation that the impact of the suite of measures should be assessed with reference to their contribution to sustainable rural development as a core aim in this project. It identified a need to understand the interconnected of policies. However, the policy interconnectedness means that precise attribution of cause and effect is difficult. Further, it is difficult to assess the impact of the situation whereby the 'floating' potential for community purchase may change outcomes without the actual adoption of land reform measures. The scoping study found that in other countries the expected outcomes of land reform fell short of expectations for reasons relating to human capacity.

42. The overall conclusions of the study, integrating findings from its various components, indicate:

• The short length of time since many reforms were implemented makes it too soon to be able to judge for actual effects. The emphasis in this study has thus been on likely effects arising.
• In many arenas of reform there are inadequate existing data to be able to come to any effective judgement as to the impact of reforms. The data gaps vary from arena to arena but, in almost all cases, there is no adequate body of data for accurate determination of socio-economic impacts at local level. There are other significant gaps in data availability at national and local level, particularly relating to social and cultural dimensions.
• The particular 'community-based' character of Scottish land reform necessitates an approach to evaluation which enables engagement with local communities of interest and justifies a strongly participatory approach to evaluation of impact and outcome and indicator identification.

43. A modified Sustainable Rural Livelihoods Framework, coupled with a Criteria and Indicators approach, is flexible and useful and enables the collaborative building of indicator-sets. An iterative and consultative process of robust indicator-set identification with key stakeholders, for different reform arenas, would have more potential, than an early selection of a narrow set of measures, for the meaningful examination of the impacts of land reform.

44. Many stakeholders interviewed for the project asserted that evaluation of the impacts of land reform should embrace environmental effects. To take account of the three pillars of sustainable development in any evaluation of the outcomes and impacts of land reform measures, environmental sustainability should be considered alongside their social and economic impacts - and the livelihoods framework would readily facilitate such an approach.

45. The project clearly demonstrates that a one-method-fits-all approach to the evaluation of impacts is not appropriate because of the dangers it would create of separating land reform policy measures from other policy-led or endogenous responses and measures operating in the same field and thereby generating the possibility of changes not generated by land reform measures. Combining the six components of land reform as in this study, risks masking (or exaggerating) specific impacts from specific land reform policies, when there are other causal forces (including non-land reform related policies) at work which could contribute to land-reform related outcomes. Any subsequent evaluations would need to be undertaken on the basis of distinct streams of land reform, such as the arenas approach adopted for this study.

46. Any future monitoring and evaluation of the various arenas of land reform will require a multi-level approach, which uses available indicators at the national or regional level, or both, to identify general trends in rural socio-economic well-being, sustainable development and the implementation of the suite of land reform measures and a case study approach which picks up the locally variant responses to the voluntaristic measures.

« Previous | Contents | Next »