Author: Alan

This (relatively short) consultation paper sets out proposals for licensing of grouse moor management with revised controls over muirburn and various forms of trapping. These are not new issues; there’s been ongoing debate over the years and a disappointing failure especially to prevent illegal persecution of raptors. The proposal to introduce a licensing system is an attempt to regulate this form of rural land management, which has become increasingly intensive over recent decades. My response to the consultation is as follows (extracts from the consultation paper in italics, for clarity):

Section 1 – Licensing of Grouse Shooting

The Scottish Government is proposing a licensing scheme for the taking of grouse. 

Purpose of the scheme

The main purpose of the proposals to license grouse shooting is to address the on-going issue of wildlife crime and in particular persecution of raptors on grouse moors.  It will do this by enabling the application of a meaningful civil sanction regime for offences against wild birds and other specified wildlife crimes.

More details can be found in “Part 1: Licencing of Grouse Shooting”” of our consultation paper.

Q1. Do you agree that the licensing of grouse shooting should be introduced to deter raptor persecution and wildlife crime linked to grouse moor management? (Yes/ No/ Unsure)

Yes

Q2. If you answered ‘No’ to question 1, please state what other option/s you think we should consider (max 150 words).

If you answered ‘No’ to question 1, please give us your views

Q3. Do you agree that the landowner/occupier/person responsible for or accountable for the management decisions and actions should be responsible for acquiring and maintaining the licence for the taking of grouse on a particular piece of land? (Yes/ No/ Unsure)

Yes

Q4. If you answered ‘No’ to question 3, please state what other option/s you think we should consider (max 150 words).

If you answered ‘No’ to question, please give us your views

Q5. Do you think that the person wishing to shoot grouse on land that they do not own, or occupy, should be required to check that the person who owns the land has a licence which allows for the taking of grouse on that area of land? (Yes/ No/ Unsure)

Yes

Q6. If you answered ‘No’ to question 5, please state what other option/s you think we should consider (max 150 words).

If you answered ‘No’ to question 5, please give us your views

Q7. If we introduce a licensing scheme, do you agree that NatureScot should be the licensing authority? (Yes/ No/ Unsure)

Yes

Other body (please specify)

Q8. Do you think that a licence should be granted for a maximum period of one year (renewable on an annual basis thereafter)? (Yes/ No/ Unsure)

Yes

Q9. If you answered ‘No’ to question 8, please state what other option/s you think we should consider (max 150 words).

If you answered ‘No’ to question 8, please give us your views

Q10. Do you think that the civil rather than the criminal burden of proof is an acceptable test for the application of sanctions in relation to grouse moor licences?

[Please note that a civil standard of proof would require NatureScot to base their decision on the ‘balance of probabilities’ whereas a criminal standard of proof requires satisfaction ‘beyond reasonable doubt’.] (Yes/ No/ Unsure)

Yes

Q11. If you answered ‘No’ to question 10, please state what other option/s you think we should consider (max 150 words).

If you answered ‘No’ to question 10, please give us your views

Q12. Do you agree that record keeping or reporting requirements should be part of the licence conditions?

[Please note that record keeping would involve noting down the activities carried out under the licence (e.g. the number of days on which grouse shooting took place, the number of grouse shot on each day, types of predator control undertaken, etc.) and providing these if/when they are requested. Reporting requirements would involve the active reporting of activities carried out under the licence on a regular basis.]

Record Keeping – Yes

Reporting Requirements – Yes

Neither

Unsure

Q13. If you answered ‘neither’ to question 12, please outline why you believe this (max 150 words).

If you answered ‘Neither’ to question 12, please give us your views

Q14. Do you agree that, where a person holds a valid licence, and there is sufficient evidence to show that, on the balance of probabilities a wildlife crime has been committed on their property, NatureScot should have the power to impose the following penalties:

• Issue a written warning
• Temporarily suspend a licence
• Permanently revoke a licence

(Yes/No/Unsure)

Yes

Q15. If you answered ‘no’ to question 14, please outline why you believe this (max 150 words).If you answered ‘No’ to question 14, please give us your views

Q16. Please provide any further comments on the questions in this section here.

Grouse moor management has been given every opportunity to demonstrate responsible self-regulation and to tackle the long term sustainability of the practice. Failure to show significant progress makes licensing, along the lines explored in the Werritty Report, inevitable. Any licensing system needs to be robust enough to provide effective oversight of what is happening on the ground and, hopefully, to encourage improved working practices. All the elements above (Q1, 3, 5, 7, 8, 10, 12 and 14) are required to achieve this.

The licensing system will have cost implications for the licensing body, which should be recouped as one of the expenses of grouse moor management.

Grouse moor management has gradually become an intensive form of land use on some of our most sensitive upland landscapes, with damaging ecological consequences. The growing need to mitigate climate change is another reason to rethink the forms of land management compatible with the wider public interest in these upland areas.

Section 2 – Muirburn – Scottish Government Proposals

The Scottish Government intends to implement the recommendations of the Werritty review which stated:

“That muirburn should be unlawful unless carried out under a licence.

• That muirburn should be subject to increased legal regulation
• This should apply to all muirburn, not only on grouse moors.”

We are also proposing a statutory ban on muirburn on peatland (to be defined as peat of a depth of 40cm or more) unless it is part of an approved habitat restoration programme, to protect public safety (e.g. reduce the risk of wildlife) or for the purpose of research.

We propose that the approach outlined above is consistent with precautionary principle in this matter. However, recognising that the scientific evidence on the impacts of muirburn is currently contested and that the management of peatland is a highly important aspect of Scotland’s net-zero target, we propose that the Bill should contain powers to modify the regulation of muirburn in the future, as the scientific evidence base develops. 

More details can be found in “Part 2: Muirburn” of our consultation paper.

Q17. Currently a licence is only required to undertake Muirburn outwith the Muirburn season. Do you agree that a licence should be required to undertake Muirburn regardless of the time of year that it is undertaken? (Yes/ No/ Unsure)

Yes

Q18. If you answered ‘No’ to question 17, please outline why you believe this (max 150 words):

If you answered ‘No’ to question 17, please give us your views

Q19. If we introduce a licensing scheme, do you agree that NatureScot should be the licensing authority? (Yes/ No/ Unsure)

Yes

Q20. Do you agree that there should be a ban on muirburn on peatland unless it is done under licence as part of a habitat restoration programme approved by NatureScot? (Yes/ No/ Unsure)

Yes

Q21. Other than for habitat restoration, public safety (e.g. fire prevention), and research, are there any other purposes for which you think muirburn on peatland should be permitted? (Yes/ No/ Unsure)

No

Q22. Do you agree that the definition of peat set out in the muirburn code should be amended to 40 cm? (Yes/ No/ Unsure)

Unsure

Q23. If you answered ‘No’ to question 22, please outline why you believe this (max 150 words):

Please give us your views

The case against muirburn on deep peat for any reason is strong, however the threshold of 50cm is arbitrary and originates, I understand, from the basis on which peatland has previously been mapped by the James Hutton Institute, among others. But a reduction in the threshold to 40cm, or even 30cm, would still permit damaging muirburn on large areas of peaty soils. The urgent need for measures mitigating against climate change suggest that routine muirburn on peatland of any depth should be discouraged. There’s enough of a challenge controlling wildfires in our uplands; it can be argued that permitting deliberate muirburn, even within the terms of the muirburn code, makes this challenge more difficult.

Q24. Please provide any further comments on the questions in this section here.

The practice of deliberate muirburn is not restricted to grouse moor management, although perhaps this is where it is most prevalent. Taking a long view, across recent centuries, there’s good evidence that repeated burning has impoverished our upland soils and vegetation, with damaging ecological consequences. These are hard to see, because throughout our lifetimes the hills have been bare. There’s even a perception that such bare hills are natural, contradicted by comparisons with similar areas in Scandinavia. We urgently need a strategic rethink about land management in our upland areas, so as to tackle the climate and biodiversity emergency we are facing and begin to ‘bend the curve’ in favour of nature recovery.

Section 3.1 Wildlife Traps – Scottish Government Proposals

The Scottish Government accepted this recommendation, committing to amend legislation to strengthen the use and monitoring of traps.

To fulfil this commitment, we are proposing to make it a requirement that anyone must satisfy certain conditions if wishing to use the following types of traps:

• Live capture bird traps;
• Live capture mammal traps (except for traps that are used or intended to be used to capture mammals in indoor settings); and
• Traps regulated by the Spring Traps Approval Order (STAO)

The conditions to be met are as follows:

• complete training by an approved body (list of approved bodies to be determined by NatureScot);
• register with NatureScot for a unique ID number;
• display this unique ID number on each trap they use using a non-transferable ID tag or another other form of permanent ID marking;
• undergo refresher training every 10 years; and
• keep a record of the traps they deploy and make those records available to Police Scotland if requested.

More details on this can be found in “Part 3.1: Trapping and snaring” of our consultation paper.

Q25. The Scottish Government proposes that a person operating a wildlife management trap must apply for a unique identification number which they must then attach to any traps that they set outdoors, do you agree that this proposal should apply to (select all that apply):

Live capture traps for birds – Yes

Live capture traps for mammals (except rodents) – Yes

Traps listed in the Spring Trap Approval Order – Yes

Rodent kill traps – Yes

Live capture traps for rodents – Yes

None of the above

Unsure

Other Traps (please specify)

Q26. The Scottish Government proposes that a person operating a wildlife management trap outdoors must successfully complete an approved course dealing with the relevant category of trap, do you agree that this proposal should apply to (select all that apply):

Live capture traps for birds – Yes

Live capture traps for mammals (except rodents) – Yes

Traps listed in the Spring Trap Approval Order – Yes

Rodent kill traps – Yes

Live capture traps for rodents – Yes

None of the above

Unsure

Other Traps (please specify)

Q27. This question should only be answered if you agree that training should be required for at least one of the traps listed in question 26. The Scottish Government proposes that a person operating a wildlife management trap outdoors must undergo refresher training every 10 years, do you agree that this proposal should apply to: (select all that apply)

Live capture traps for birds – Yes

Live capture traps for mammals (except rodents) – Yes

Traps listed in the Spring Trap Approval Order – Yes

Rodent kill traps – Yes

Live capture traps for rodents – Yes

None of the above

Unsure

Other Traps (please specify)

Q28. Do you agree that record keeping and reporting requirements should be part of the registration scheme?

[Please note that record keeping would involve noting down the activities carried out under the licence (e.g. the number of days on which grouse shooting took place and the number of grouse shot on each day) and providing these if/when they are requested. Reporting requirements would involve the active reporting of activities carried out under the licence on a regular basis.]

Record Keeping – Yes

Reporting Requirements – Yes

Neither

Unsure

Q29. Do you agree that an individual found guilty of the offence of:

• using a trap without valid training from an approved body
• using a trap without being registered to do so
• using a trap without displaying an identification number correctly on the trap
• falsifying records or identification number
• using a trap on land without landowner permission
• failing to comply with the duty to keep trapping records

should be liable, on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale (or both). A level 5 fine is currently £5,000. (Yes/ No/ Unsure)

Yes

Q30. If you answered no to question 29 please explain the reason for your answer (max 150 words):

Q31. Please provide any further comments on the questions in this section here.

Control of ‘predators’ is an important issue which goes well beyond the grouse moor management which is the focus of this consultation. It is argued, for example, that such control is necessary to protect breeding wading birds such as curlew, yet these species co-existed for centuries before humans massively modified the landscape. Any resulting imbalance between predators and other species need very careful research (some of which is taking place) before this can be properly understood and management actions prescribed. However, it is certainly plausible that numbers of crows, foxes etc are artificially high due to availability of prey species such as pheasants, bred and released annually in huge numbers.

Section 3.2 Glue Traps – Scottish Government Proposals

The Government has accepted the recommendations of the SAWC report on the use of rodent glues traps in Scotland. 

We are proposing introducing a comprehensive ban on the use of glue traps by both members of the public and professional pest controllers. 

We are also proposing introducing a ban on the sale of rodent glue traps in Scotland, provided that this can be achieved under the terms of the Internal Market Act, which was brought in by the UK Government in 2020.

In-line with the recommendations made by the SAWC that there should be an outright ban on the use and sale of glue traps we are not proposing to the introduction of a licensing regime for professional pest controllers.

We are proposing that there will be a 2 year transition period between the legislation being passed and the ban on the use (and sale) of glue traps coming into force.  This is to allow a reasonable period for businesses who use and sell glue traps to develop, trial and source alternative methods of rodent control.

More details on this are available in the section on “3.2 Glue Traps” in our consultation document.

32. Do you agree that the use of glue traps designed to catch rodents should be banned in Scotland? (Yes/ No/ Unsure)

Yes

33. Do you agree that the sale of glue traps designed to catch rodents should be banned in Scotland? (Yes/ No/ Unsure)

Yes

34. Do you agree that there should be a two year transition period before the ban on glue traps comes into force? (Yes/ No/ Unsure)

No

35. Please provide any further comments on the questions in this section here.

Glue traps are indiscriminate and should be banned without delay.

Section 3.3 Snares

The Scottish Government is proposing to implement the recommendations of the 2017 Snaring Review. This involves the following legislative amendments:

• “the Scottish Government to consider the merit of amending legislation to require operators to update records at least once every 48 hours unless they have a reasonable excuse not to do so, and to submit records to the Police on demand if the Police arrive at the location where the records are kept, or within 7 days to a police station.
• “Furthermore that consideration is given to the introduction of the power of disqualification for a snaring offence, in line with section 1 of the WCA regarding the use of general licences to control birds.
• “Consideration should also be given on how a strengthened Code of Practice can be better endorsed through legislation in a manner comparable with how the WANE (Scotland) Act 2011 (section 15) applies the Code of Practice for Non-Natives.”

A disqualification order can stop you from owning, keeping, selling, transporting or working with animals or running a service which involves being in charge of animals.

As recommended by the Statutory Snaring Review Group, the Scottish Government is currently undertaking a wider review of snaring which will consider the wider welfare implications of snaring included whether there should be a ban on the use of snares.

Depending on the outcome of the wider snaring review we may undertake further consultation on additional proposals to amend the legislation governing the use of snares, at a later date.

More details on this can be found in the section on “3.3 Snaring” of our consultation paper.

Q36. Do you agree with the recommendations from the statutory review of snaring that operators should be required to update their records at least once every 48 hours, unless they have a reasonable excuse not to and that these records should be made available to the Police on demand if the police arrive at the location where the records are kept, or within 7 days to the police station? (Yes/ No/ Unsure)

Yes

Q37. Do you agree that a power of disqualification should be introduced for snaring offences?

A disqualification order can stop you from owning, keeping, selling, transporting or working with animals or running a service which involves being in charge of animals. (Yes/ No/ Unsure)

Yes

Q38. Please provide any further comments on the questions in this section here.

Snares are indiscriminate and should be banned without delay. However, in the meantime it’s important that snaring is conducted in a way which minimises harm, and the measures proposed here might help to achieve this.

As a result of Brexit, the UK is no longer tightly bound to the EU Common Agriculture Policy (CAP). Farm policy is devolved, so the Scottish Government is developing a new approach. In the meantime, the existing CAP support measures remain in place, providing the basis for the huge annual payments examined in other posts¹. These currently stand at around £750m per annum, including direct and indirect payments to farmers and crofters. The Scottish Government has embarked on extensive consultations with the sector, involving a number of ‘farmer-led groups’ overseen by an ‘ Agriculture Reform Implementation Oversight Board’². The resulting proposals require new legislation, hence this large (and rather unwieldy) consultation with more than 70 separate questions to consultees. I didn’t attempt to answer all of them, since some topics are getting beyond my core interest in rural land management, but illustrate the massive complexity of the underlying issues. Overall, I thought the consultation tackled the right issues, but the proposals seem disappointingly similar to the previous Basic Payments System. In my view, this hands over far too much of the available support with far too little in terms of public benefit. The responses I submitted are as follows:

[Extracts from consultation paper text in italics for clarity]

The proposals for the new Agriculture Bill aim to provide an adaptive framework to respond to future social, economic, and environmental changes, challenges and opportunities.

This approach also enables tailored provisions and support to be implemented through secondary legislation and potentially adapted on a regular basis as required. This will enable specific targeted support to be adaptable to the future challenges and uncertainties, including climate impacts and market changes, whilst reinforcing our commitment to continue to support the agricultural industry.

The new Agriculture Bill aims to enable flexibility whilst ensuring that Scotland’s people are able to live and work sustainably on our land and this framework will deliver key outcomes:

• high quality food production
• climate mitigation and adaptation
• nature restoration
• wider rural development

For each of these proposals for the new Agriculture Bill, there are a number of questions to determine whether respondents agree with the aim of the proposal; agree with the suggested method to achieve that aim; have any alternative proposals for achieving the aim; and have any comments on the potential impacts of the proposals.

This consultation is split into 6 parts to reflect the proposals that the Scottish Government is considering for possible inclusion in the new Agriculture Bill. Each of these proposals will assist in the delivery of the Vision. These parts are:

Future Payment Framework – Proposals

The Future Support Framework proposes mechanisms should be incorporated into the new Agriculture Bill to enable conditional payments under 4 tiers:

• Tier 1 – a ‘Base Level Direct Payment’
• Tier 2 – an ‘Enhanced Level Direct Payment’
• Tier 3 – an ‘Elective Payment’
• Tier 4 – ‘Complementary Support’

Tier 1 and 2 would sit under the one umbrella of direct payments, acknowledging the need to ensure that conditions are fitted to the variance of Scottish agriculture, and Tiers 3 and 4 would be indirect payments. 

Q1. Do you agree with the proposal set out above, in relation to the Agriculture Bill including a mechanism to enable payments to be made under a 4 tiered approach? (Yes/ No/ Don’t Know – please give reasons)

Don’t Know – Pillar 1 and 2 payments to farmers and crofters, currently exceeding £500m per annum across Scotland, outstrip all other forms of direct support for rural land management put together, while also making up a substantial proportion of net farm income (around 40% of net value added – Economic Report on Scottish Agriculture). Many farm businesses, even some whole sectors (notably livestock farming in the hills and uplands), would simply not be viable without these annual payments.  So the way these funds are deployed is of huge consequence. While they provide appreciated socioeconomic support, it can also be argued that funding on this scale has been a key driver enabling rural land management’s contribution to the damaging practices creating our climate and biodiversity emergency.

Scottish Government endorsed the Leaders Pledge for Nature, a “commitment to urgent and transformational actions to address biodiversity loss”. The influence of rural land management and the scale of these payments makes them a foundation for practical action to meet this commitment.

Although the debate leading up to these proposals has hinted at this among key elements defining a wider public interest and justification in providing agricultural support, it seems extraordinary that these emerging proposals are so similar to the basic payments system currently in place.

It does not seem likely that these proposals are bold enough to drive the transformation of rural land management required to achieve the key Outcomes, at least unless any tiered payments are conditional on delivery of sufficiently high standards to achieve ‘transformation’. For example, in the current system, around £140m of annual direct ‘greening’ payments apparently achieve no identifiable benefit. Such tokenism does not set a good precedent and would not seem to be a good use of public money.

How will the new approach do better? Some assurance on this is urgently required. The Vision is right to assert that “it is necessary to ensure Scottish farmers and crofters have security of income and have the mechanisms in place to enable their activities to be rewarded” and “to ensure these mechanisms are flexible to emerging social, economic and environmental priorities”. The latter, especially, requires a transparent and responsive ongoing process engaging a range of stakeholders which has not yet been spelled out. Farmer-led groups are a small step in the right direction, but too narrow to meet these wider aspirations.

Q2. Do you agree that Tier 1 should be a ‘Base Level Direct Payment’ to support farmers and crofters engaged in food production and land management? (Yes/ No/ Don’t Know – please give reasons)

Don’t Know – Any support to farmers and crofters from limited public funds must be conditional on land management achieving defined standards of husbandry and stewardship supporting all four key Outcomes – public funds for public goods. All businesses in receipt of public support should be required to meet such standards. However, the numerous valid components of such conditionality (as listed in the proposal above) show the risk of creating a bureaucratic nightmare of paperwork which would fail to achieve the desired outcomes.

The focus here should be on how these multiple factors and stakeholders can be reconciled in a proportionate way, rather than this focus on the resulting ‘base level’ payment tier which implies an unjustified degree of entitlement over conditionality.

Q3. Do you agree that Tier 2 should be an ‘Enhanced Level Direct Payment’ to deliver outcomes relating to efficiencies, reducing greenhouse gas emissions and nature restoration and enhancement? (Yes/ No/ Don’t Know – please give reasons)

Yes – I agree there must be scope for enhanced direct payments linked to commitments to deliver efficiencies, reduce greenhouse emissions and restore losses of biodiversity. More explanation is required to clarify how such payments are justified above and beyond the land management standards forming conditions for any tier 1 direct payments.

Q4. Do you agree that Tier 3 should be an Elective Payment to focus on targeted measures for nature restoration, innovation support and supply chain support? (Yes/ No/ Don’t Know – please give reasons)

Yes – I agree there should be scope for further payments linked to commitments to even higher ambition. More explanation is required to clarify how such payments are justified over and above the standards required for tier 1 and tier 2 payments.

Q5. Do you agree that Tier 4 should be complementary support as the proposal outlines above? (Yes/ No/ Don’t Know)

If so what sort of Complementary Support do you think would be best to deliver the Vision? (Please give reasons)

Yes – As budgets for staffing of public bodies have been cut back over the years, there has been a regrettable focus on ‘enforcement’ of a rule-based approach to the detriment of encouragement of good husbandry and stewardship. Enhanced and secure funding for a farm advisory service would help to counter this trend, but realistically there also needs to be a greater emphasis on fostering self help through enhanced support for local group actions.

Q6. Do you agree that a ‘Whole Farm Plan’ should be used as eligibility criteria for the ‘Base Level Direct Payment’ in addition to Cross Compliance Regulations and Greening measures? (Yes/ No/ Don’t Know – please give reasons)

Yes – A ‘whole farm plan’ may be the best term to describe the package of conditionality defining eligibility, however there’s a key challenge to devise an approach which is proportionate while delivering tangible outcomes.

Q7. Do you agree that the new Agriculture Bill should include a mechanism to help ensure a Just Transition? (Yes/ No/ Don’t Know – please give reasons)

Yes – In principle this seems right, although it isn’t clear what form such a mechanism might take. It is essential to avoid slogans or token gestures which raise expectations without clearly defining practical support for land managers to whom this is applied. Many of the elements making up a Just Transition are touched on elsewhere in these proposals (ie rural support measures that foster a farm sector that more directly and explicitly supports our climate and environmental ambitions, in a way that is fair and leaves no one behind). Perhaps a mechanism to help ensure a Just Transition is simply the complete implementation of all these proposals.

Q8. Do you agree that the new Agriculture Bill should include mechanisms to enable the payment framework to be adaptable and flexible over time depending on emerging best practice, improvements in technology and scientific evidence on climate impacts? (Yes/ No/ Don’t Know – please give reasons)

Yes – While there are merits in such flexibility included in the proposed Bill, it is essential that this is not simply open-ended, because then it becomes impossible to assess progress against the key outcomes. Any such flexibility must be defined in terms of an open and transparent process to be followed, engaging stakeholders and providing a clear evidence base for change.

Q9. Do you agree that the new Agriculture Bill should include mechanisms to enable payments to support the agricultural industry when there are exceptional or unforeseen conditions or a major crises affecting agricultural production or distribution? (Yes/ No/ Don’t Know – please give reasons)

Yes – In principle this must be right, but the use of such mechanisms must be clearly circumscribed to make sure they are used only in exceptional circumstances and for a short time. Longer term difficulties should be addressed through the flexibility measures proposed in the previous question.

Climate Change Adaptation and Mitigation – Proposals

To deliver the Vision and “emission reductions in line with our climate targets” we propose:

The new Agriculture Bill should include powers and other mechanisms to allow future payments to farmers, crofters and land managers to support delivery of national climate change mitigation objectives (including the statutory economy-wide greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets and duties set in the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009).

The new Agriculture Bill should include powers and other mechanisms to allow future payments to farmers, crofters and land managers to support delivery of national climate change adaptation objectives (e.g. building resilience to relevant risks identified in statutory Climate Change Risk Assessments).

The new Agriculture Bill should include a mechanism to enable payments to be made that are conditional on outcomes that deliver climate mitigation and/or adaptation measures, along with targeted elective payments.

The new Agriculture Bill should include a mechanism to enable payments to be made that support integrated land management, such as for peatland and woodland outcomes on agricultural holdings, in recognition of the environmental, economic and social benefits that it can bring.

Q10. Do you agree with the proposal set out above, in relation to the new Agriculture Bill including measures to allow future payments to support climate change mitigation objectives? (Yes/ No/ Don’t Know)

Do you have any views on specific powers and/or mechanisms that could support such alignment? (Please give reasons)

Yes – It is essential that the new Agriculture Bill has the scope to embrace the many factors bearing on rural land managers, as summarised in the four key Outcomes. Payments to support climate change mitigation must be part of this, without which the target to secure a one third reduction in carbon emissions over the next decade cannot be achieved. But greater clarity is required on how this reduction will be achieved, so that limited resources can be focused for maximum benefits. Which sectors, what land management changes, are most affected? Only then can funding mechanisms be best designed and implemented.

Q11. Do you agree with the proposal set out above, in relation to the new Agriculture Bill including measures to allow future payments to support climate change adaptation objectives? (Yes/ No/ Don’t Know)

Do you have any views on specific powers and/or mechanisms that could support such alignment? (Please give reasons)

Yes – For adaptation as for mitigation, it is essential that the new Agriculture Bill has the scope to embrace the many factors bearing on rural land managers, as summarised in the four key Outcomes. Payments to support climate change adaptation must be part of this, so as to secure better resilience. But greater clarity is required identifying the priorities for better resilience in rural land management, so that limited resources can be focused for maximum benefits. Which sectors, what land management changes, are most affected? Only then can funding mechanisms be best designed and implemented. Building, for example, on the Farming for a Better Climate initiative is one worthwhile way to bring this about, yet activity on this appears to have tailed off during 2022. Has funding support been curtailed, or redirected to a new priority?

Q12. Do you agree with the proposal set out above, in relation to the new Agriculture Bill including a mechanism to enable payments to be made that are conditional on outcomes that support climate mitigation and adaptation measures, along with targeted elective payments? (Yes/ No/ Don’t Know – please give reasons)

Yes – It’s important to be sure that all payments are aligned with all four key Outcomes, avoiding competing and contradictory results.

Q13. Do you agree with the proposal set out above, in relation to the new Agriculture Bill including measures that support integrated land management, such as peatland and woodland outcomes on farms and crofts, in recognition of the environmental, economic and social benefits that it can bring? (Yes/ No/ Don’t Know – please give reasons)

Yes – Alignment of these multiple objectives is essential to achieve balanced progress across all four key Outcomes.

Delivery of Key Outcomes – Nature Protection and Restoration – Proposals

To deliver the Vision and “contribute to the restoration of nature through biodiversity gain” we propose:

We propose the new Agriculture Bill should include powers and mechanisms to protect and restore biodiversity, support clean and healthy air, water and soils, contribute to flood risk management locally and downstream and create thriving, resilient nature.

The new Agriculture Bill should include a mechanism to enable payments that are conditional on outcomes that deliver nature restoration, maintenance and enhancement, along with targeted elective payments.

That the new Agriculture Bill should include a mechanism to enable and support action on a catchment or landscape scale.

Q14. Do you believe the new Agriculture Bill should include a mechanism to protect and restore biodiversity, support clean and healthy air, water and soils, contribute to reducing flood risk locally and downstream and create thriving, resilient nature? (Yes/ No/ Don’t Know – please give reasons)

Yes – A mechanism along these lines is essential because rural land management has such a key role in tackling and resolving our combined climate and nature emergency. The provisions of the Agriculture Bill must provide practical support for delivery of Scotland’s Biodiversity Strategy. A sectoral approach would be impractical and risk waste of limited resources where it resulted in competing measures. Farmers and crofters deserve a joined-up approach which provides clear signals and support for their efforts, so working to achieve our collective wellbeing.

Q15. Do you believe the new Agriculture Bill should include a mechanism to enable payments that are conditional on outcomes that support nature maintenance and restoration, along with targeted elective payments? (Yes/ No/ Don’t Know – please give reasons)

Yes – It’s really important that payments addressing different priorities across the four key Outcomes are aligned to avoid wasted resources through competition or failure to recognise connections. All payments must support delivery of all four key Outcomes.

Q16. Do you believe the new Agriculture Bill should include a mechanism to enable landscape/catchment scale payments to support nature maintenance and restoration? (Yes/ No/ Don’t Know – please give reasons)

Yes – It’s important that payments are not thought of only in context of an individual farming or crofting business.  The combined effect of payments across landscape and catchments can reinforce joined-up delivery of key Outcomes and sometimes judicious wider resource commitments can help foster understanding of landscape or catchment land management opportunities.

Delivery of Key Outcomes – High Quality Food Production – Proposals

To deliver the Vision of “high quality, nutritious food locally and sustainably produced is key to our wellbeing – in economic, environmental, social and health terms. We will support and work with farmers and crofters to meet more of our own food needs sustainably and to farm and croft with nature.”  We propose:

Giving powers to make changes to rules related to food – Further rules on common market organisation (e.g. marketing standards and trade descriptions) are contained in Scottish Statutory Instruments and retained EU law. The CMO ( was partially replaced and amended by the Agriculture (Retained EU Law and Data) (Scotland) Act 2020 (“the 2020 Act”). Now that the UK has left the European Union there has been the opportunity to see how powers need to be used in practice. As a result of this, some technical fixes are necessary to allow Scottish Ministers to readily amend retained EU law and related legislation on common market organisation in the area of food and drink.

Continuing to provide current support re. food – Furthermore, adjustments may be necessary to the nature of the support to enable the Scottish Government to deliver wider objectives while reflecting current circumstances. For example, there may be opportunities to tailor support to the Scottish context while maintaining the objective of EU alignment, in order to produce more of our own fruit, vegetables, and horticulture products; assist the apiculture programme; support the circular economy; or meet our climate change and biodiversity targets. Similarly there may be changes to support schemes at an EU level which Scotland wishes to consider as part of its policy of alignment. Therefore we propose that Scottish Ministers should have powers to amend the CMO regulations and to take appropriate measures to provide support to relevant sectors in the future.

Giving new powers to support the agri-food sector – The Agriculture Bill should include a mechanism to enable payments which help deliver food production and, where appropriate, to provide grants to support both the agri-food sector and to bodies related to the agri-food sector in connection with:

• Agri-food sustainability
• Agri-food efficiency
• Agri-food co-operation
• Agri-food industry development
• Agri-food education 
• Agri-food processing
• Agri-food marketing

Giving reserve powers to support the agri-food sector – The new Agriculture Bill should include a power to declare when there are exceptional or unforeseen conditions adversely affecting food production or distribution, and the ability to provide financial assistance, if necessary, to the agri-food sector and related bodies whose incomes are being, or are likely to be, adversely affected by the exceptional or unforeseen conditions described in the declaration.

Q17. Do you agree that the powers in the Agriculture and Retained EU Law and Data (Scotland) Act 2020 should be extended to ensure Scottish Ministers have flexibility to better respond to current, post exit, circumstances in common market organisation and easily make changes to rules on food? (Yes/ No/ Don’t Know – please give reasons)

Yes – Agree, however safeguards are required to ensure that the exercise of these powers is evidence-based and that this evidence is open to scrutiny. Ministers lines of accountability to Parliament must be explicit.

Q18. Do you agree that Scottish Ministers should have powers to begin, conclude, or modify schemes or other support relevant to the agricultural markets? (Yes/ No/ Don’t Know – please give reasons)

Yes – Agree, however safeguards are required to ensure that the exercise of these powers is evidence-based and that this evidence is open to scrutiny. Ministers lines of accountability to Parliament must be explicit.

Q19. Do you believe the new Agriculture Bill should include a mechanism to enable payments that support high quality food production? (Yes/ No/ Don’t Know – please give reasons)

Yes – The amount and purpose of any such payments must be transparent, enabling clarity of understanding of the benefits of using public funds for public good.

Q20. Do you believe the new Agriculture Bill should include a mechanism to provide grants to support industry in the agri-food supply chain to encourage sustainability, efficiency, co-operation, industry development, education, processing and marketing in the agri-food sector? (Yes/ No/ Don’t Know – please give reasons)

Yes – The amount and purpose of any such payments must be transparent, enabling clarity of understanding of the benefits of using public funds for public good.

Q21. Do you believe the new Agriculture Bill should include powers for Scottish Ministers to declare when there are exceptional or unforeseen conditions affecting food production or distribution? (Yes/ No/ Don’t Know – please give reasons)

Yes – Agree, however safeguards are required to ensure that the exercise of these powers is evidence-based and that this evidence is open to scrutiny. Ministers lines of accountability to Parliament must be explicit, indicating the basis on which such powers are required and for how long. Any such powers must be time-limited showing how and when ‘normal’ conditions are expected to be restored.

Q22. Do you believe the new Agriculture Bill should include powers for Scottish Ministers to provide financial assistance to the agri-food sector and related bodies whose incomes are being, or are likely to be, adversely affected by the exceptional or unforeseen conditions described in the declaration referred to above? (Yes/ No/ Don’t Know – please give reasons)

Yes – Agree, however the amount and purpose of any such payments must be transparent, enabling clarity of understanding of the benefits of using public funds for public good, are evidence-based and that this evidence is open to scrutiny. Ministers lines of accountability to Parliament must be explicit, indicating the basis on which such payments are required and for how long. Any such payments must be time-limited showing how and when ‘normal’ conditions are expected to be restored.

Q23. Do you agree that the new Agriculture Bill should include the powers to process and share information with the agri-food sector and supply chains to enable them to improve business efficiency? (Yes/ No/ Don’t Know – please give reasons)

Yes – Agree, however safeguards are required to ensure that the exercise of these powers is evidence-based and that this evidence is open to scrutiny. Ministers lines of accountability to Parliament must be explicit.

Delivery of Key Outcomes – Wider Rural Development – Proposals

To deliver the Vision and “ensure that Scotland’s people are able to live and work sustainably on our land” we propose to undertake a whole land approach which seeks to optimise the use of our wider natural assets in striving to meet our climate change targets while benefiting and empowering rural communities as a whole we propose:

To make provision under the new Agriculture Bill to continue to provide the support to land-managers and communities who are undertaking and supporting economic activity related to land management including but not limited to agriculture.

To enable Scotland to continue providing support for rural development – collaborative, partnership working; capacity building; support for innovation and engagement in local and policy development – we propose the new Agriculture Bill should provide Scottish Minster’s powers and other mechanisms to allow:

• Activity in and financial support for rural development and the rural economy generally.
• Activity related to the delivery of community led-local development to enable delivery of the principles identified above.
• Activity in and financial support for collaboration and the sharing of information, ideas and good practice.
• Activity in and financial support for innovation in agriculture, food production, forestry, and land management.  
• Activity in and financial support for farmers, land managers, rural and island communities and stakeholders to influence policy developments.
• Activity in and financial support for public access and the understanding of land use.

Q24. Do you agree that the proposals outlined above should be included in the new Agriculture Bill? (Yes/ No/ Don’t Know – please give reasons)

Yes – It’s important to avoid any loss of continuity with previous experience of support for rural development, maintaining active engagement of a wide range of stakeholders, while also giving scope to nurture new initiatives emerging in response to changing circumstances.

Q25. Are there other areas relating to non-agricultural land management such as forestry that you would like considered for support under the Agriculture Bill to help deliver integrated land management and the products produced from it? (Yes/ No/ Don’t Know – please give reasons)

Yes – Strong support is required to bring about a ‘whole land’ approach to rural land management, avoiding artificial or bureaucratic boundaries between different sectors and groups of stakeholders. Support for farmers and crofters is the largest programme, with implications for other sectors; careful alignment of expenditure across sectors (especially with forestry, biodiversity, access and recreation) will help to avoid contradictory and competing measures.

Q26. What other powers may be required to enable rural development in Scotland’s rural and island communities? (Yes/ No/ Don’t Know – please give reasons)

Yes – It isn’t clear how the work of the many public bodies involved fosters the best possible framework of support for Scotland’s rural and island communities. Too often, different public bodies pursue distinct priorities defined for Scotland as a whole without taking account of the combined effect of the resulting programmes for each locality. Statutory duties, eg to ‘have regard’ to each others responsibilities, are worthless without visible, ongoing collaboration and joint working. So a more explicit commitment or duty to this end would be valuable.

Q27. What potential social, economic or other impacts, either positive or negative, would such powers have on Scotland’s rural and island communities? (Please give reasons)

Rural Scotland, including the islands, face many universal challenges, for example health, housing, poverty and social inequality, which are also prominent in our main population centres. But in addition, rural Scotland is the site for additional challenges resulting from the climate and nature emergency which bear especially heavily on rural and island communities. This is mainly because there is more land (and sea) and fewer people. The scale of support for rural land managers, especially farmers and crofters, is hugely significant hence careful alignment of policy measures, effective collaboration between public bodies and the many stakeholders, both local and national is essential to make the most of limited resources. The positive impact of success will be progress towards the Government’s vision to “create a wellbeing economy: a society that is thriving across economic, social and environmental dimensions, and that delivers prosperity for all Scotland’s people and places”.

Animal Health and Welfare

Q28-30 not answered

Plant Genetic Resources and Plant Health

Q31-32 not answered

Skills, Knowledge Transfer and Innovation

Q33 – 36 not answered

Administration, Control, and Transparency of Payment Framework Data – Proposals

To deliver against the Vision and ensure that funding to support farming, crofting and land management is distributed based on sound financial management, budget principles, transparency and non- discrimination we propose that:

The Scottish Ministers take the powers to set an annual and/or multi-annual budget to support the proposed future support framework (outlined above) and enable intervention for the purposes of supporting high quality food production, climate change mitigation and adaptation, and nature restoration.

The Scottish Ministers take the power to set up an Integrated Administration and control System (IACS) which includes the following elements:

• an identification system for agricultural parcels
• a geo-spatial application system and, where applicable, an animal-based application system
• an area monitoring system
• a system for the identification of beneficiaries
• a control and penalty system including recovery of payments where proportionate
• a system for the identification and registration of payment entitlements
• a system for the identification and registration of animals

This proposal will improve the effectiveness and monitoring of support payments and allow Scottish Ministers to create further IACS for the purposes of improving support effectiveness.

The Scottish Ministers take the power to collect information for the purposes of carrying out management, control, audit and monitoring and evaluation obligations and for statistical purposes, and shall not process that data in a way that is incompatible with those purposes. To allow for the measurement and reporting of key performance indicators which will help better inform future policy.

The Scottish Ministers take the power to gain independent assurance that objectives are being met. This is to ensure that the support provided is within the scope of agreed conditions.

The Scottish Ministers take the power to enable the publication of details pertaining to recipients who receive payments including under the future payment model (outlined above) and set a level above which payment details will be published. 

Technical fixes to the Agriculture (Retained EU Law and Data) (Scotland) Act 2020 are necessary to extend the powers affected by section 5 to allow Scottish Ministers to amend retained EU law for CAP (Common Agricultural Policy) legacy schemes as needed to ensure their continued effective operation and regulation until they expire and also to ensure Scottish Ministers have flexibility to better respond to current, post EU exit, circumstances .

Q37. Do you agree that Scottish Ministers should have the power to create a system that provides for an integrated database, to collect information in relation to applications, declarations and commitments made by beneficiaries of rural support? (Yes/ No/ Don’t Know – please give reasons)

Yes – These are all essential components of a competent system of public administration.

Q38. Do you agree that Scottish Ministers should have the power to create a system that collects and shares information for the purposes of carrying out management, control, audit and monitoring and evaluation obligations and for statistical purposes, subject to General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) requirements? (Yes/ No/ Don’t Know – please give reasons)

Yes – These are all essential components of a competent system of public administration.

Q39. Do you agree that Scottish Ministers should have the power to share information where there is a public interest in doing so, and subject to complying with the General Data Protection Regulation GDPR? (Yes/ No/ Don’t Know – please give reasons)

Yes – These are all essential components of a competent system of public administration.

Q40. Do you agree that Scottish Ministers should have the power to create a system that provides a mechanism that aligns with the principles of the Scottish Public Finance Manual? [The Scottish Public Finance Manual’s principles are: (1) to ensure proper handling, reporting, and recovery (where appropriate) of public funds, (2) to prioritise the need for economy, efficiency, and effectiveness, and (3) to promote good practice and high standards of propriety] (Yes/ No/ Don’t Know – please give reasons)

Yes – These are all essential components of a competent system of public administration.

Q41. Do you agree that Scottish Ministers should have the power to create a system that provides the data required to undertake administrative checks on applications / claims made by beneficiaries for rural support? (Yes/ No/ Don’t Know – please give reasons)

Yes – These are all essential components of a competent system of public administration.

Q42. Do you agree that Scottish Ministers should have the power to create a system whereby on-the-spot-checks should be undertaken to further verify applications / claims made by beneficiaries for rural support? (Yes/ No/ Don’t Know – please give reasons)

Yes – These are all essential components of a competent system of public administration.

Q43. Do you agree that Scottish Ministers should have the power to create a system that would provide for cross compliance, conditionality that covers core standards in relation to sustainable environment, climate, Good Agricultural and Environmental Condition (GAEC), land, public and animal health, plant health and animal welfare, Soil health, carbon capture and maintenance? (Yes/ No/ Don’t Know – please give reasons)

Yes – These are all essential components of a competent system of public administration.

Q44. Do you agree that Scottish Ministers should have the power to create a system that provides a mechanism to support the delivery of practices aligned to receipt of elective payments, for targeted outcomes? (Yes/ No/ Don’t Know – please give reasons)

Yes – These are all essential components of a competent system of public administration.

Q45. Do you believe that Scottish Ministers should have the power to monitor and evaluate outcomes to ensure they meet the agreed purpose and help better inform future policy? (Yes/ No/ Don’t Know – please give reasons)

Yes – These are all essential components of a competent system of public administration.

Q46. Do you believe that Scottish Ministers should have the power to seek independent assurance that outcomes are delivered appropriately? (Yes/ No/ Don’t Know – please give reasons)

Yes – These are all essential components of a competent system of public administration.

Q47. Do you agree that Scottish Ministers should have the power to enable the publication of details pertaining to recipients who receive payments including under the future payment model (outlined above) and set a level above which payment details will be published? (Yes/ No/ Don’t Know – please give reasons)

Yes – These are all essential components of a competent system of public administration.

Q48. Do you agree that technical fixes should be made to the Agriculture and Retained EU Law and Data (Scotland) Act 2020 to ensure Scottish Ministers have all requisite powers to allow CAP legacy schemes and retained EU law to continue to operate and be monitored and regulated and also to ensure Scottish Ministers have flexibility to better respond to current, post exit, circumstances? (Yes/ No/ Don’t Know – please give reasons)

Yes – These are all essential components of a competent system of public administration.

Modernising Agricultural Tenancies

Section 5 questions 49-58 not answered

Scottish Agricultural Wages (Fair Work)

Section 6 questions 59-60 not answered

Assessing the Impact

Section 7 questions 61-67 not answered

The agreement between the Scottish National Party and the Scottish Green Party includes a commitment to designate at least one new National Park in Scotland during the life of the present parliament. To this end, a consultation process began in summer 2022 with an ‘ideas challenge’¹. This has been followed up with a more conventional consultation on the role and approach to National Parks, and how nominations for new National Parks could be evaluated². My response to the Part One questions (on role and approach) are set out in this post, for the record. I didn’t answer the questions on the nomination process, since these were broadly as one might expect plus I felt the level of detail rather implied that the role and approach issues had already been settled.

The role and purpose of National Parks is pretty contested territory, as illustrated by the diverse responses to the ideas challenge. Scotland was late to the party, with two National Parks designated soon after the millennium – England and Wales have had parks since the 1950s and the USA, at the other extreme, has had parks for over a century. Despite the shared name, these can be very different beasts. The ‘scene-setting’ paper from NatureScot helpfully includes an annex³ listing the internationally recognised IUCN classification showing that Britain’s parks are seen as ‘protected landscapes’ (Category 5), with a mix of private and public ownership and incorporating whole human communities. Multiple (not necessarily compatible) objectives are thus unavoidable, and the National Park Board becomes an arena in which the interaction of numerous stakeholders is played out.

I felt the latest consultation muddies these waters even more, introducing ideas which don’t seem compatible with the basis on which Scotland’s two parks are operating. The next stages of the process promise to be interesting. Constructive tension, anyone?

Section 1 – The Role of Scotland’s National Parks

This section examines the role of National Parks in Scotland and sets out proposals for refreshing the approach to National Parks.

At present, Scotland’s two National Parks  cover 7.2% of its land area  Establishing more National Parks will increase this total, bringing Scotland more in line with others parts of the UK (for comparison, the 10 English National Parks cover 9.3% of England and the 3 Welsh National Parks cover 19.9.% of Wales).  How do we enable the National Park designation to deliver more for each of these areas and Scotland as a whole?

Contents

• The role of National Parks
• The statutory Aims of National Parks
• Powers and Functions of National Park Authorities
• Diversity in approach 

2. The Role of National Parks (Q1-4)

Scotland has ambitious targets and priorities to meet the challenges we face in tackling the climate and nature emergencies and we need to transform what we do, and how we do it, if we are to deliver them.  Scottish Ministers wish to see Scotland’s National Parks as places that will actively demonstrate nature recovery and the transformational change needed in our approach to land-use, providing leadership and showcasing a just transition to net zero in Scotland. 

The establishment of one or more additional National Parks is therefore not only a goal in its own right, but must be seen in the context of a range of connected Scottish Government strategies and policies including:

• National Strategy for Economic Transformation – including its ambition “to demonstrate global leadership to deliver a just transition to net zero nature positive economy and rebuilding natural capital”.
• The Environment Strategy 2020 with its outcome that ‘Scotland’s nature is protected and restored with flourishing biodiversity and clean and healthy air, water, seas and soils’.
• Delivery of vision and outcomes of the Scottish Biodiversity Strategy for 2030, to protect nature by 2030 and restore it by 2045 including:
  • Preventing any further species extinction and halting declines by 2030 and making significant progress in restoring the natural environment by 2045.
  • 30×30 – securing by 2030 that at least 30% of Scotland’s land and seas are managed for nature.
  • Nature Networks – ensuring every Local Authority area will have a nature network of locally driven projects to improve ecological connectivity.
  • Establishing a world leading suite of highly protected marine areas
• Commitment to meeting carbon reduction targets and adapting to climate change through implementation of the Climate Change Action Plan by developing “thriving rural economies based around woodland creation, peatland restoration and biodiversity as well as sustainable tourism, food and drink and energy”;
• Delivery of Scotland’s national planning framework, land-use strategy and national marine plan, including the development of regional land-use partnerships and regional marine plans;
• The development of new legislative proposals for land reform including the introduction of a public interest test for transfers of large-scale landholdings;
• Implementation of Scotland’s vision for Responsible Tourism for a Sustainable Future in Scotland Outlook 2030 and its visitor management strategy; and the
• Refresh of Our Place in Time – Scotland’s strategy for the historic environment.

Scotland’s National Parks currently play a number of key roles that support many of these strategies and plans through demonstration and good practice.  In particular:

• they help protect some of the very best of Scotland’s nature, landscapes and heritage;
• they are at the forefront of landscape-scale action for nature restoration;
• they are an important part of Scotland’s visitor offer and provide a range of outstanding opportunities for outdoor recreation and enjoyment of nature;
• they are an important mechanism for land-use planning and the piloting of regional land-use partnerships; and
• they provide exemplars of community engagement and sustainable development, including natural capital approaches.

To build on this existing work and add greater emphasis to it, National Parks could be given a new overarching purpose “to lead nature recovery and a just transition to net zero”.  Key elements of leadership and action required in this role could include:

• Promoting the need to do things differently and at greater pace if we are to make the changes needed to address the climate and nature emergencies;
• Recognising that change is inevitable and that nature recovery should be inspired and informed by the past but not seek to simply replicate it;
• Accelerating the transition in land and marine use needed to deliver climate mitigation and adaptation and nature recovery;
• Testing and embedding natural capital approaches to growing a well-being and sustainable economy;
• Generating opportunities for greater  private investment in natural capital;
• Realising the just transition by championing reskilling and new employment opportunities to help ensure that no local community in the Park area is left behind;
• Leading on improving ways of design and place making that achieve optimum outcomes for people, nature and landscapes.

Question 1. Do you support “leadership of nature recovery and a just transition to net zero” becoming the overarching purpose of Scotland’s National Parks? If not, what else would you propose?

No, I do not support this proposal. I’m not in favour of yet more rhetorical slogans lacking practical effect, especially this wording which seems far too broad, and has the disadvantage of lacking clear legal definition. So many things could be branded as ‘leadership’ or as ‘a just transition’.

Our National Parks are not some over-arching banner, but rather have the core purpose to achieve the specific aims defined in Statute.  British National Parks are all focused on ‘protecting landscapes’ (as defined by IUCN Category 5) and none meet the IUCN National Park Category 2 definition of “large natural or near natural areas set aside to protect large-scale ecological processes” although land meeting the Category 2 definition may be required to achieve ‘nature recovery’ (some larger National Nature Reserves might better meet this requirement). The four aims defined in Statute show how ‘nature recovery’ in our Parks is inevitably compromised by considerations of land management, recreation pressures and local community viability. By design, ‘primacy of nature’ this is not.

I’m not sure there’s anything so wrong with the established statutory aims as to justify their revision. But their diverse nature carries unavoidable requirements for cooperation and conciliation. In practice, Scotland’s two National Parks were established especially to help manage pressures from recreation and tourism which other structures (local authorities and public bodies such as NatureScot or Forestry and Land Scotland working through various non-statutory committees) found difficult. But when it comes to land management, for example, our two Parks have relatively minor roles to play compared especially to the public bodies supporting farming and forestry which have much greater powers, resources and long-standing stakeholder relationships. While a third National Park might have a different focus to its predecessors, it would be essential that any such new focus provided clear added value over any alternative.

Question 2. Which of the proposed elements of leadership and action set out in the list above do you support? What others – if any – would you propose?

In general terms, I support all seven bullet points as identifying action required, but it isn’t clear why they are applied specifically to a National Park. There’s a variety of national and local public bodies who are just as much challenged by these statements, and who have greater resources and powers to help address them.

Question 3. What opportunities are there for National Parks to generate private investment in natural capital?

It’s clear that the quantity of public money which has been, and is likely to be, made available falls well short of need in tackling the nature and climate emergencies across Scotland. So there has to be a role for private investment; to date this has been problematic because private investors have not been subject to comparable transparency and accountability. The risk is that private money is simply driven by private gain, sometimes at the expense of the wider public interest. So there’s an urgent need to clarify the terms of this wider public interest in private investments in our natural capital. With this greater clarity, National Parks may perhaps be able to exemplify a proper balance of public and private interests.

Question 4. What role should local communities play in the National Park and how should National Park authorities work with and for them to secure a just transition?

National Parks, of the kind we have in Britain, cannot succeed without active engagement of their local communities.  Scotland’s National Parks are exemplary in maintaining a line of local accountability through the election of local Board members, but this highlights the fact that the Parks were designated for their National significance and attract additional National funding which would otherwise not be available. Alignment of national and local interests and priorities may often be difficult, and the balance struck between them must always be open and transparent – that’s a key bargain driving access to these additional resources.

3. The Role of National Parks (continued) (Q5-7)

A national statement that sets out the Scottish “vision and mission” for National Parks could be useful to provide further clarity on the role of National Parks and to promote their work more widely.

Question 5. Do you support a “vision and mission” for all of Scotland’s National Parks being clearly set out in a national statement? If not why not?

Now that the terms of the 2000 Act are informed by two decades of experience, a new national statement could help clarify the role of our Parks.  Such a statement provides an opportunity to explain where the National Parks designation fits in to, and enhances, Scotland’s rather piecemeal framework of designations.

There’s clearly a lack of consensus around what our National Parks are for, evidenced by the diverse responses to the ‘national discussion’ earlier this year. There was strong support, for example, for the idea of primacy of nature in National Parks, prioritising the protection and enhancement of biodiversity and ecosystem services. This idea is encouraged in the present consultation (for example “delivering more on the opportunities to restore nature as well protecting what exists already”, from the Scene setting paper), yet the present legislation does not provide such clarity of purpose. Our two National Parks lack the powers and resources to “maintain a working countryside”, despite this leading the list of key considerations in both cases. So some realism, yet ambition, in vision and mission would be welcome.

Question 6. If you favour a national statement for Scotland’s National Parks being developed, what else should it cover?

A national statement must set out a clear organisational framework for Scotland’s National Parks. Having our first two Parks as self-standing public bodies was pragmatic, but to continue in this way (with each new park creating yet another public body) risks greater confusion, especially if different parks develop distinct core purposes and priorities. As part of this, better clarity of the National Parks relationships with other public bodies and local authorities is required. Support for land management, for example, is dominated by farming (mainly RPID) and forestry (SF and FLS). Their shared purposes and relationships with National Parks are not explicit.

Question 7. To what extent should new National Parks be about the future potential of an area for nature restoration as well as what’s currently in place

This begs the question of the core purpose and priorities of any new National Parks. A primary focus on nature restoration may not be compatible with the multiple aims set out in Statute. Perhaps National Parks, on the Scottish model, may not be the best vehicle to achieve nature restoration (whereas for example a park meeting the IUCN Category 2 definition would be – perhaps designated as National Nature Reserves). A key issue here is the essential role of local communities; focus on nature restoration without their active support will fail, but we currently lack a clear path to reconcile local and national interests for example where national nature designations (SSSI, SAC, SPA etc) are determined and implemented centrally.

4. The Statutory Aims of National Parks (Q8-10)

National Park Aims are to:

• conserve and enhance the natural and cultural heritage of the area; 
• promote the sustainable use of the natural resources of the area; 
• promote understanding and enjoyment (including enjoyment in the form of recreation) of the special qualities of the area; and
• promote the sustainable social and economic development of the area’s communities.

Where
“natural heritage” includes the flora and fauna of a National Park or a proposed National Park, its geological and physiographical features and its natural beauty and amenity.
“cultural heritage” includes structures and other remains resulting from human activity of all periods, language, traditions, ways of life and the historic, artistic and literary associations of people, places and landscapes.

Section 9 (6) – In exercising its functions a National Park authority must act with a view to accomplishing the purpose set out in subsection (1); but if, in relation to any matter, it appears to the authority that there is a conflict between the National Park aim set out in section 1(a) and other National Park aims, the authority must give greater weight to the aim set out in section 1(a).

National Parks (Scotland) Act 2000

There should naturally be a close relationship between the “vision and mission” of National Parks and the statutory Aims of National Parks provided in the Act.  In covering environment, social and economic dimensions, the four statutory Park Aims currently provide the basis for Scotland’s integrated approach to National Parks.  While none explicitly refers to it, the Aims also enable National Parks to contribute to nature recovery and a just transition to net zero.

Definitions of both the natural and cultural heritage are provided by the Act.  The latter was developed before Our Place in Time, Scotland’s strategy for the historic environment, was written.  Further consideration may be needed on whether this definition should be updated to reflect this strategy and its implementation as well as experience of its application within National Parks.

The National Park Authority is required to take forward each of the Aims in a joined-up way unless this is likely to lead to the detrimental loss of the natural heritage and cultural heritage of the area at which point it must give “greater weight” to this first Aim.  This “balancing duty” is essential to the protected area function of Scotland’s National Parks.

While the current legislative approach has generally been seen as successful, a number of changes to these statutory Aims could be considered to further strengthen the focus and contribution of National Parks. Some of the possible broad options include:

1. retaining the current status quo e.g. keeping the existing four Aims as currently worded;
2. keeping the policy intention of each Aim unchanged but rewording them to better reflect the new vision and mission in the proposed national statement;
3. keeping the four Aims but include a new overarching statutory purpose of National Parks to secure nature recovery and a just transition to net zero;
4. adding additional aims e.g. “to promote the just transition to net zero” or “to  increase the accessibility of the areas for all”; and
5. reducing the Aims to the first one only and change the other three Aims to duties, thus giving the National Park a much stronger, single statutory focus on the protection and enhancement of the natural and cultural heritage.

Question 8. Are any specific changes to the existing four Aims required? If so why, and what are they?

Experience has been, over the last two decades, that our National Parks have focused on development planning and recreation management. Their role in land management (and hence maintaining “a working countryside”) has been limited by resources and overshadowed by the larger influence of other national public bodies. I’m not aware of any external review of their performance in taking forward each of the four aims in a joined-up way. There’s no obvious requirement to change these Aims unless the proposed National Statement clarifies the mission for our National Parks.

Question 9. Which of these possible options, or mix of possible options, do you think would help strengthen the focus and contribution of National Parks, and why?

Of the five options, only the last provides greater clarity of purpose, but begs the question of how much sign-up there would be among the many stakeholders. Options three and four risk even greater confusion, potentially adding an ‘alphabet soup’ of additional jargon hindering overall clarity of purpose.

Question 10. Are there other options that could be considered? If so, what are they?

It isn’t helpful to be considering the vision and mission of National Parks in isolation.  The ‘national discussion’ earlier in the year revealed a diversity of perspectives and proposals, some of which might well be better handled in another way.  A statement clarifying where our National Parks fit in to a wider framework of countryside management (including measures addressing land management, development planning, sustaining local communities and protection of natural and cultural heritage) would add value.

5. The Statutory Aims of National Parks (continued) (Q11-12)

Other public bodies are also bound by these statutory Aims when they are exercising functions within a National Park through the duty on them “to have regard” to the Park Plan.

Section 14 – The Scottish Ministers, a National Park authority, a local authority and any other public body or office-holder must, in exercising functions so far as affecting a National Park, have regard to the National Park Plan as adopted under section 12(7)(a).

This wording does not itself require action by public bodies.  While the track record of partnership working by public bodies in National Parks is strong, issues can arise between policy objectives which may slow or block delivery of the Park Plan.  To address this, there may be a need to strengthen the effect of this duty so that public bodies exercising functions within a National Park are required to positively support delivery of National Parks Plans.
 

Question 11. Do you think there should be any changes to the wording in the Act to require public bodies to support delivery of National Park Plans? If so, what would you propose?

In the absence of any external review showing positive effects of this duty, it seems likely that such vague exhortations are ineffective. But other public bodies cannot be expected to support a Park Plan which cuts across their respective roles. The ‘have regard’ duty appears to be an empty gesture which fails to address the underlying tensions.

Question 12. Do you have any other suggestions for improving partnership working to support the implementation of the National Park Plan by all?

Other public bodies must exercise their distinct functions consistently across Scotland, and /or across a range of functions beyond the remit of a National Park, so the Park Plan can never itself be the sole reference point. Greater clarity of these interactions and relationships, how they are managed and how they bear upon implementation of the Park Plan, would help foster a sense of shared purpose.

6. Powers and Functions of National Park Authorities (Q13-14)

At present, the Act provides the following powers and functions to all National Park Authorities These include:

• general powers of non-departmental government bodies (charges, advice, research, grant-aid; land acquisition and compulsory purchase etc.);
• natural heritage functions of local authorities and NatureScot (for example for countryside management, ranger provision, nature reserves, compulsory purchase and grants etc.); and the
• planning and access authority functions of local authorities.

Through the designation order, these powers and functions can be further specified to meet the needs and circumstances of the area. 

All National Park Authorities also have general powers to make bylaws and management rules in relation to the achievement of the National Park aims.  While not yet used, the legislation also contains unique powers for Scottish Ministers and public bodies to transfer their functions and powers to a Park body and vice versa.
 

Question 13. Could any of the existing powers and functions be used more effectively? If so, which ones and how? There’s an unavoidable tension between a focus on joined-up working within the Park boundary and the need for coherent, consistent and effective management of various functions across a wider area, often extending to Scotland as whole. It is surely significant that the powers to transfer functions and powers to or from a Park body have never been used over two decades. Such powers must be used judiciously, if at all, bearing this in mind. But greater clarity of how these tensions can best be managed and resolved would be beneficial.

Question 14. Are any of the existing powers or functions redundant or unnecessary? If so, which ones and why?

There’s no evidence that removal or restriction of powers and functions would aid the effectiveness of National Parks in delivering their mission.

7. Powers and Functions of National Park Authorities (continued) (Q15-16)

To take forward a refreshed “vision and mission”, National Park Authorities may require strengthened or new powers and functions in relation to the following areas

• Improving protection, enhancement and enjoyment of nature
• Delivering Net Zero
• Better management of land or sea
• Funding
• Community well-being and development

Question 15. What, if any, changes to the powers and functions in these areas should be considered and why?

In the absence of a clear National Statement for Scotland’s National Parks, as proposed earlier, it’s hard to say what changes to powers and functions might be required.  As long as the scope of our National Parks is aligned with IUCN Category 5 (protected landscapes) and the areas designated contain a variety of ownership types and human communities which must be sustained, then the present powers and functions are largely fit for purpose. Improvements then depend on better co-ordination of effort across the range of public bodies and stakeholder interests. To date such co-ordination has been patchy; it’s not obvious that better co-ordination can be imposed from above, or by enhanced powers to the Park Authority.

The five areas listed are all important, but none are uniquely relevant to our National Parks. It is wrong to argue that National Parks can fulfil some sort of ‘pathfinder’ role, because they cannot then model responses required where no National Park has been established.

Question 16. Are there any other areas where strengthened or new powers and functions will be needed by the National Park Authority? If so, what are they?

If a new National Statement gives rise to significant amendments to the vision and mission for all, or some, of our National Parks then corresponding revised powers and functions will be essential. For example, if a third National Park were to be designed to meet IUCN Category 2 (large natural or near-natural areas) then enhanced powers would be required to reflect a different balance of the wider public interest in protecting large-scale ecological processes along with provision of appropriate cultural, spiritual, scientific, educational, recreational and visitor opportunities.

8. Diversity in approach (Q17-18)

In thinking about powers and functions, a key question is the extent to which we want all our National Parks Authorities to be similar. Consideration may also be needed in relation to their governance and management.  It could be that a new National Park Authority will need to be similar to the existing ones.  Alternatively, very different approaches could be developed though bespoke arrangements set out in the individual designation order for each new National Park Authority which reflect the needs and geography of its area and its administration. 

Any changes to the statutory Aims of National Parks and the powers, functions and governance of National Park Authorities will require amendments to the legislation and will be the subject of further consultation by the Scottish Government. 

 Question 17. Should the powers and functions of National Park Authorities be decided on a Park by Park basis? Should any apply to all National Park Authorities? If so, which ones and why?

A piecemeal, park by park, approach seems unlikely to succeed. The new National Statement needs to place our National Parks in context of wider protection measures corresponding to each of the four statutory aims (plus any amendments). Any bespoke arrangements for a specific Park would then have to be formally and carefully set in this wider context to avoid confusion.

Question 18. Are there any changes you would want to see to the governance and management arrangements of all National Park Authorities?

The prevailing model, of a self-standing executive NDPB for each park, does not look sustainable especially as a third and subsequent Parks are established.  The merits of a Scotland-wide Park Service, with the economies of scale this offers, should be explored. But at the same time, each Park must have clear lines of accountability to the local communities within its boundaries and to its key stakeholders.

9. Section 2 – Criteria for selecting National Parks

This section considers the issues that need to be addressed in selecting new National Parks.  While NatureScot has been asked to provide advice on how it should be done and what it should comprise, the Scottish Government will lead the development of the evaluation framework and the nomination process itself.

Contents

• Developing a nomination process for National Parks
• Criteria for nomination and evaluation
  • Outstanding national importance
  • Size and coherence
  • Need or added-value
  • Degree of support
  • Strategic contribution
• Selection Criteria – other issues

10. Developing a nomination process for National Parks (Q19-21)

Scottish Ministers have committed themselves to an open, transparent and bottom-up nomination process for selecting new National Park areas rather than the traditional expert-led, top-down approach.  This fits well with new thinking about “co-production” in protected areas approaches, conservation practice and public policy more generally.  

Key elements of the approach envisaged by Scottish Ministers include:

• Development and publication of an evaluation framework to assess nominations;
• A request for nominations to be made with clear guidance and within a timeframe that encourages nominations from all parts of Scotland;
• The provision of advice and other support for potential areas to prepare nominations;
• An open and transparent evaluation of the nominations based on the agreed framework;
• Decisions on which area or areas to progress made by Scottish Ministers based on recommendations following this evaluation.

Question 19. Are these the key elements of an effective nomination process for National Parks in Scotland?

[As Section 2 sets out proposals for a nomination process along broadly the right lines, I haven’t answered these detailed questions 19-37 so as not to repeat points made in Section 1. I have offered some general comments in a response to Q38.]

19. Section 3 – Other issues and respondent information (Q38)

This final section covers other issues and respondent information

This consultation has focused on proposals for the role, powers and functions of National Park Authorities and the criteria for selecting new National Park areas. Future consultations from Scottish Government will follow, seeking views on the detail of any legislative changes Ministers consider are required and on a draft evaluation framework for selecting new National Parks.  Following the finalisation of this evaluation framework, a call for nominations for specific areas will then be issued by Scottish Ministers.

Question 38. Are there any other issues about either Scotland’s approach to National Parks or the selection of new National Parks you would like to raise in your response at this stage?

The most striking omission in this detailed consultation is the question of affordability. A third National Park along similar lines to its predecessors will cost, say, £5m per annum in round terms. Is such a sum available without further erosion of related budgets (eg for NatureScot)? Where is the best added-value from a commitment of this scale?

As noted in earlier responses, there’s general confusion around the role and purpose of National Parks, and how they fit into a bigger picture. A new National Statement is the opportunity to set out this wider context, the relationships of Park bodies with other public authorities and the organisational structures required for a third and subsequent park designations. The National Statement is also an opportunity to set out the terms of the wider public interest where private investment in natural capital is being encouraged.

Following Land Reform Acts in 2003 and 2016, the Scottish Government is now planning new legislation on which it consulted over the summer months¹. My interest in the configuration of land holding dates back half a century, since these patterns form a foundation for understanding how the twists and turns of Scotland’s rural land management affect our heritage of wild animals and plants. This post publishes, for the record, my responses to the questions asked in this latest consultation.

The central proposal presented in this consultation is the idea of defining legal duties applied to ‘large-scale landowners‘ above a proposed threshold of 3000 hectares. The threshold seems set very high and feels arbitrary (not being supported by convincing evidence) but, on reflection, I also argued that the term ‘landowner’ is used far too loosely (both within the consultation paper and more generally). Debate around land ownership carries underlying political and ideological undertones, which can get in the way of any clarity around the practical implications of proposed actions. There are many different ways in which land is owned, tenanted, leased and so on by public, private, community and other actors so I’ve argued for use of the term ‘landholding’ as a better umbrella across this diversity of the means through which our land resources are managed…..

Whatever, the questions that were posed (in italics) and my answers are as follows:

Part 4: Criteria for large-scale landholdings

Q1 – Do you agree or disagree with the criteria proposed for classifying landholdings as ‘large-scale’:

Q1a) A fixed threshold of 3,000 hectares: Disagree

Q1b) Land that accounts for more than a fixed percentage of a data zone (or adjacent data zones) or local authority ward(s) designated as an Accessible Rural Area or Remote Rural Area, through our six-fold urban/rural classification scheme: Agree

Q1c) Land that accounts for more than a specified minimum proportion of a permanently inhabited island: Agree

Please give some reasons for your answers and outline any additional criteria in the text box below:

The proposed 3000 ha threshold is arbitrary and not supported by compelling evidence. The definition of what counts towards the threshold lacks clarity, leaving scope for ‘gaming’ whatever number might be adopted. The focus on land *ownership* misdescribes a real world in which legal landholding is not an absolute, rather a bundle of rights and responsibilities. Land can be held or accessed in many ways, for example including tenancies and a variety of contractual arrangements as well as a heritable asset. Land ‘owners’ may be legal persons, such as companies or trusts; it is essential that the beneficial ‘owners’ can be identified, but the primary focus here should be on the land *holding*, whatever form or scale is involved. There is also the question of rights held in common or as part of the wider public interest. So the size of any distinct land parcel is only one of many elements making up these diverse patterns of landholding. The general principle should be that rights and responsibilities of land holding should apply to all holdings, with only a minimum of exceptions for defined purposes. The established right of responsible access to land is an exemplar in this regard, for example exemptions apply to dwelling houses and their curtilage (as well as a few other exceptional circumstances).

Within this approach there are also legitimate questions around the local scale and distribution of landholding rights, including especially the proportion of any inhabited island. Again, the general principle should be that duties around rights and responsibilities should be applied consistently, with minimal carefully defined exceptions.

Q2 Do you agree or disagree that family farms should be exempt from the proposals outlined in Parts 5 to 7 even if they are classified as a ‘large-scale’ landholding? Disagree

Please give some reasons for your answer in the text box below:

Without an unequivocal definition of a ‘family farm’ this proposal is unworkable. In the real world there are numerous diverse patterns of landholding and management, within which ‘family farms’ are but one. For example, many modern farms involve a variety of contract farming arrangements which can involve farm family members both as contractors and contractees – how would such arrangements be accommodated within a ‘family farm’ definition? As argued above, the general principle should be that the rights and responsibilities associated with landholding apply to all holdings, with a minimum of exceptions.

Q3 Do you think that the proposals considered in this consultation should be applied to the urban context? Yes

Please give some reasons for your answer in the text box below:

While the urban context can be different, contrasting with some rural settings, there are extensive boundary areas where intermediate circumstances prevail. Land reform is not exclusively a rural issue – although, by area, the larger part of Scotland is rural, land rights and responsibilities in urban areas usually affect a much large number of people.

Part 5: Strengthening the Land Rights and Responsibilities Statement

Q4 We propose that there should be a duty on large-scale landowners to comply with the Land Rights and Responsibility Statement and its associated protocols. Do you agree or disagree with this proposal? Disagree

Please give some reasons for your answer in the text box below:

I agree that the LRRS should be a defined duty but, as a general principle, the duty should apply to all landholdings, with minimal exceptions. Thresholds based on size of holding are arbitrary and hard to defend.

Q5 If there was a legal duty on large-scale landowners to comply with the Land Rights and Responsibility Statement and its associated protocols, we propose that this should be enforced by having a formal procedure for raising complaints, and by making provisions for independent adjudication and enforcement. Agree

Please give some reasons for your answer in the text box below:

I agree there should be recourse to independent adjudication and enforcement. A legal duty without provision for enforcement undermines the rule of law.

Q5b) Do you agree or disagree that only constituted organisations that have a connection to the local area or the natural environment should be able to report breaches of the Land Rights and Responsibility Statement? Disagree

Should these constituted organisations have a remit on:

Community: Don’t know

Charity: Don’t know

Public sector: Don’t know

Please provide some reasons for your answers and any additional suggestions in the text box below:

In the absence of robust definitions, this proposal is unworkable. There should be no restriction on who can report alleged breaches of the duty.

Q5c) Do you think the responsibility for investigating and dealing with complaints should sit with:

the Scottish Government: No

a public body (such as the Scottish Land Commission): Yes

Please provide some reasons for your answers and any additional suggestions in the text box below:

There should be a role here for our elected local authorities, representing their respective community interests and reinforcing established lines of democratic accountability.

Q5d) Should the potential outcome from an investigation of a breach be:

• Recommendation for a mediation process: Yes

• Recommendation on how the landowner or governing body could comply with the Codes of Practice/protocols: Yes

• A direction to the landowner or governing body to implement changes to operational and/or management practices: Yes

Please provide some reasons for your answers and any additional suggestions in the text box below:

These are three possible outcomes, but there should also be last resort recourse to fines and other penalties, for example potentially to put a land holding into some form of ‘special measures’.

Q5e) Should the enforcement powers for a breach be:

• Financial penalties: Yes

• ‘Cross-compliance’ penalties: Yes

Please provide some reasons for your answers and any additional suggestions in the text box below:

Such penalties should be a ‘back-stop’ last resort. It is disappointing that no proposals have been presented for reinforcing advice and assistance to reconcile differences of view, thus minimising any punitive tone in these proposals.

Q6 Do you think the proposal to make the Land Rights and Responsibility Statement and its associated protocols a legal duty for large-scale landowners would benefit the local community? Yes

Please give some reasons for your answer in the text box below:

As a general principle, land rights and responsibilities should apply to all land holdings and relevant interested parties, without arbitrary size thresholds. In some cases, a local ‘community’ is hard to define, hence as a general rule there should be a role for local authorities, because they have established lines of democratic accountability.

Q7 Do you have any other comments on the proposal to make the Land Rights and Responsibility Statement and its associated protocols a legal duty for large-scale landowners?

Please write your answer in the text box below:

The published rights and responsibilities statement is a very general, high level document. The nine protocols published to date indicate what a bureaucratic quagmire this might become if inappropriately developed into a legal duty and especially if applied arbitrarily to vaguely defined ‘large’ holdings (so incentivising and encouraging avoidance). Far better to establish a principle that the Statement applies to all landholding (not just ‘large-scale landowners’) and focus effort on facilitating and enabling good practice. Legal measures may perhaps be required as a ‘back stop’ against unreasonable behaviour.

Part 6: Compulsory Land Management Plans

Q8 We propose that there should be a duty on large-scale landowners to publish Management Plans. Do you agree or disagree with this proposal? Disagree

Please give some reasons for your answer in the text box below:

The Forestry and Land Scotland management plans are exemplary, and the five bullet points above set out the broad terms of good practice. However, it is undeniable that preparing, scrutinising and maintaining such plans more widely carries a cost. Would this be the best and most constructive use of limited staff time and other resources in an era of austerity? There is a risk that a duty to prepare and maintain such plans becomes a bureaucratic burden which is not adequately funded, that plans are of poor quality, out of date or not easily accessible. In that case the admirable intentions behind this proposal would be seriously undermined. This idea requires further thought to generate a practical proposal for implementation.

It would be regrettable and counterproductive if there was any sense in which a duty to prepare land management plans became perceived as a punitive measure on those landholdings to which it was applied.

Q9 How frequently do you think Management Plans should be published?

Please write your answer in the text box below:

It is important that any plans are up to date and easily accessible. Frequency is only one factor here.

Q10 Should Management Plans include information on:

Land Rights and Responsibility Statement compliance: Yes

Community engagement: Yes

Emission reduction plans: Yes

Nature restoration: Yes

Revenue from carbon offsetting/carbon credits: Yes

Plans for developments/activities that will contribute to local and inclusive economic development or community wealth building: Yes

Please provide some reasons for your answers and any additional suggestions in the text box below:

Land management plans are potentially an important way to set out and communicate the terms of land rights and responsibilities exercised by all the relevant partners (including local community and wider public interests). Good practice potentially includes all the points above, and more. Further thought is required on how this might be worked up into a practical proposal and piloted in a variety of circumstances. It isn’t right to restrict such work to arbitrary ‘large-scale’ landholdings.

Q11 Do you think the responsibility for enforcing compulsory land management plans should sit with:

• the Scottish Government: Yes

• a public body (such as the Scottish Land Commission): Yes

Please provide some reasons for your answers and any additional suggestions in the text box below:

The Scottish Government unavoidable carries overall responsibility, but responsibility for enforcing individual land management plans should not be centralised. There is a role here for our elected local authorities, suitably resourced, to facilitate and (on occasion) enforce good practice. Using this established framework of democratic accountability, it would be possible to consider the interaction of management plans between neighbouring land holdings, and placing these in context of development planning more generally.

Q12 Do you think the proposal to make Management Plans a legal duty for large-scale landowners would benefit the local community? Don’t know

Please give some reasons for your answer in the text box below:

Land management plans are potentially a good thing (as exemplified by FLS) and a constructive vehicle for community engagement, but the extent to which they should be a legal duty and on whom requires further thought. Any sense that such a duty was some form of punitive measure would be regrettable. As argued in earlier responses, a robust definition of ‘large-scale’ is lacking. In some cases, it is hard to define a local ‘community’, so as a general rule there should be a role for local authorities, because they have established lines of democratic accountability not always evident in the ‘local community’.

Q13 Do you have any other comments on the proposal to make Management Plans a legal duty for large-scale landowners?

Please write your answer in the text box below:

The terms of any such proposal requires further thought, and good practice should be facilitated and piloted to establish costs and benefits, before any legal duty is established.

Part 7 i): Regulating the market in large-scale land transfers – a new Public Interest Test

Q14 We propose that a public interest test should be applied to transactions of large-scale landholdings. Do you agree or disagree with this proposal? Agree

Please give some reasons for your answer in the text box below:

The concept of a public interest test is welcome, but it isn’t clear why this should be applied only to ‘large-scale’ landholdings. The idea of a: “risk arising from the creation or continuation of a situation in which excessive power acts against the public interest” is far too vague to be workable. The scope of public interest extends to community development (such as housing need), environmental sensitivity and other factors. These have not yet been set out.

Q15 What do you think would be the advantages and/or disadvantages of applying a public interest test to transactions of large-scale landholdings?

Please write your answer in the text box below:

Wider public recognition is required that land holding necessarily involves a bundle of rights and responsibilities extending to local community and wider public interest in the management of Scotland’s land resources. Is this what is meant by a “risk arising from the creation or continuation of a situation in which excessive power acts against the public interest”? Not clear!

Q16 Do you think the public interest test should be applied to the seller only / the buyer only / the seller and buyer / don’t know: To the seller and buyer

Please give some reasons for your answer in the text box below:

Both seller and buyer should be bound by recognition of a wider public interest, and associated good practice.

Q17 If the public interest test was applied to the seller, do you think the test should be considered as part of the conveyancing process? Yes

Please give some reasons for your answer in the text box below:

To be effective, a public interest test should be part of the formal conveyancing process.

Q18 Do you think that all types of large-scale landholding transactions (including transfers of shares and transfers within or between trusts) should be in scope for a public interest test? Yes

Please give some reasons for your answer in the text box below:

Consistent with responses to previous questions, the bundle of rights and responsibilities associated with various forms of land holding logically includes transfers within or between trusts, so any public interest test applies here also.

Q19. We have proposed that if a public interest test applied to the seller concluded there was a strong public interest in reducing scale/concentration, then the conditions placed on the sale of the land could include:

i. The land in question should be split into lots and could not be sold to (or acquired by) one party as a whole unit

ii. The land, in whole, or in part, should be offered to constituted community bodies in the area, and the sale can only proceed if the bodies consulted, after a period of time, indicate that they do not wish to proceed with the sale

Do you agree or disagree with these conditions?

Condition i.: Agree

Condition ii.: Agree

Please give some reasons for your answer and suggest any additional conditions in the text box below:

These are both potential conditions, but proposals for implementation require further development.

Q20 Do you think that a breach of the Lands Right and Responsibilities Statement should be taken into account when determining the outcome of a public interest test? Yes

Please give some reasons for your answer in the text box below:

Agree, but the scope of consequential actions requires further development. For example, responsibility for exercising and enforcing such actions should not be centralised and would have to be adequately resourced.

Q21 Do you think that a public interest test should take into account steps taken in the past by a seller to:

Q21a) Diversify ownership: Yes

Q21b) Use their Management Plan to engage with community bodies over opportunities to lease or acquire land: Yes

Please give some reasons for your answer in the text box below:

These are both relevant considerations.

Q21c) What time period do you think this should cover?

Please write your answer in the text box below:

Rather than any specific time period, this consideration should be framed in terms of how any such steps had been sustained over time.

Q22 Do you think the responsibility for administering the public interest test should sit with:

• the Scottish Government: Yes

• a public body (such as the Scottish Land Commission): Yes

Please provide some reasons for your answers and any additional suggestions in the text box below:

The Scottish Government unavoidably retains overall responsibility, but administration of individual cases should not be centralised. There should be a role for our elected local authorities, suitably resourced.

Q23 Do you think the proposal that a public interest test should be applied to transactions of large-scale landholdings would benefit the local community? Yes

Please give some reasons for your answer in the text box below:

Yes but the extent of any such benefit depends on how, and to whom, the public interest test was applied.

Q24 Do you have any other comments on the proposal that a public interest test should be applied to transactions of large-scale landholdings?

Please write your answer in the text box below:

In line with responses to earlier questions, any public interest test should be more generally applied and not only arbitrary ‘large-scale’ landholdings.

Part 7 ii): Regulating the market in large-scale land transfers – requirement to notify an intention to sell

Q25 We propose that landowners selling large-scale landholdings should give notice to community bodies (and others listed on a register compiled for the purpose) that they intend to sell.

Q25a) Do you agree or disagree with the proposal above? Disagree

Please give some reasons for your answer:

This seems like an additional piece of unnecessary bureaucratic process potentially duplicating existing provisions of Community Right to Buy.

Q25b) Do you agree or disagree that there should be a notice period of 30 days for the community body or bodies to inform the landowner whether they are interested in purchasing the land? Disagree

Please give some reasons for your answer in the text box below:

See answer to part a

Q25c) If the community body or bodies notifies the landowner that they wish to purchase the land during the notice period, then the community body or bodies should have 6 months to negotiate the terms of the purchase and secure funding. Do you agree or disagree with this proposal? Disagree

Please give some reasons for your answer in the text box below:

See answer to part a

Q26 Do you have any other comments on the proposal that landowners selling large-scale landholdings should give notice to community bodies that they intend to sell?

Please write your answer in the text box below::

No further comments

Part 8: New conditions on those in receipt of public funding for land based activity

Q27. We propose the following eligibility requirements for landowners to receive public funding from the Scottish Government for land based activity:

i. All land, regardless of size, must be registered in the Land Register of Scotland.

ii. Large-scale landowners must demonstrate they comply with the Land Rights and Responsibility Statement and have an up to date Land Management Plan.

Do you agree or disagree with these requirements?

a) Requirement i. Don’t know

b) Requirement ii. Don’t know

Please give some reasons for your answer in the text box below:

These proposals seem confused. Use of the term ‘landowners’ seems to restrict the scope to exclude eg tenants – ‘landholders’ better reflects the variety of circumstances to include, for example, various forms of leaseholding. All land holdings should be registered; it isn’t clear how this eligibility provision helps to resolve shortcomings in the Register. Proposal ii applied to (arbitrary) ‘large-scale landowners’ when proposal i is not seems hard to justify. The scope of ‘public funding’ is not defined – potentially applied to funding not specific to the land holding or its management? This does not seem workable in practice.

Q28 Do you have any other comments on the proposals outlined above?

Please write your answer in the text box below:

Transparency in the use and application of public funds is an important principle. The development of new public/ private partnerships makes this more important than ever. It is always important to be able to demonstrate how the wider public interest has been secured, and not concealed behind blanket ‘commercial in confidence’ restrictions.

Part 9: Land Use Tenancy

Q29 Do you agree or disagree with our proposal that there should be a Land Use Tenancy to allow people to undertake a range of land management activities? Agree

Please give some reasons for your answer in the text box below:

Tenants should be able to undertake the widest range of land management activities – and existing tenants should have a right to convert to any new measures.

Q30 Are there any land management activities you think should not be included within a Land Use Tenancy?

Please write your answer in the text box below:

No

Q31 Do you think that wider land use opportunities relating to diversification, such as renewable energy and agri-tourism, should be part of a Land Use Tenancy? Yes

Please give some reasons for your answer in the text box below:

Q32 Do you agree or disagree that a tenant farmer or a small landholder should, with the agreement of their landlord, have the ability to move their agricultural tenancy into a new Land Use Tenancy without having to bring their current lease to an end? Disagree

Please give some reasons for your answer in the text box below:

Existing tenants should have a right to convert to a new form of tenancy.

Q33 Do you agree or disagree that when a tenant farmer or small landholders’ tenancy is due to come to an end that the tenant and their landlord should be able to change the tenancy into a Land Use Tenancy without going through the process of waygo, with parties retaining their rights? Agree

Please give some reasons for your answer in the text box below:

Q34 How do you think the rent for a Land Use Tenancy should be calculated?

Please write your answer in the text box below:

Don’t know – this is not my area of expertise.

Q35 Would you use a Land Use Tenancy if you had access to a similar range of future Scottish Government payments which other kinds of land managers may receive? Don’t know

Please give some reasons for your answer in the text box below:

Q36 Do you think that there should be guidance to help a tenant and their landlord to agree and manage a Land Use Tenancy? Yes

Please give some reasons for your answers and outline who you think should be responsible for writing and managing the guidance in the text box below:

Q37 Do you think there should be a process to manage disputes between a tenant of a Land Use Tenancy and their landlord? Yes

Please give some reasons for your answers and outline how this process could be managed in the text box below:

Q38 Do you agree or disagree that tenants of a Land Use Tenancy and their landlords should be able to resolve their legal disputes in relation to the tenancy through the Scottish Land Court? Agree

Please give some reasons for your answers and outline additional ways in which disputes could be resolved in the text box below:

Q39 Do you have any other comments on our proposal for a Land Use Tenancy?

Please write your answer in the text box below:

No further comment

Part 10: Small landholdings

40 Would you like to be kept informed via email about the Small Landholding Consultation for the Land Reform Bill? We would use the email you provide in the ‘About you’ section to contact you. No

Part 11: Transparency: Who owns, controls and benefits from Scotland’s Land

Q41 Do you agree or disagree with our proposal to explore:

• Who should be able to acquire large-scale landholdings in Scotland: Agree

• The possibility of introducing a requirement that those seeking to acquire large-scale landholdings in Scotland need to be registered in an EU member state or in the UK for tax purposes: Agree

Please give some reasons for your answer in the text box below:

As argued in response to earlier questions, arbitrary definitions of ‘large-scale’ should be avoided. The general principle is that the extent of land holdings and beneficial ownership should be transparent and that these proposals should be explored. It isn’t clear how any of this affects the difficulties resulting from absenteeism.

Part 12: Other land related reforms

Q42 Do you have any views on what the future role of taxation could be to support land reform?

Please write your answer in the text box below:

Taxation is an essential dimension of landholding, so it is disappointing that no proposals have yet been brought forward. While there are limits defined by the devolution settlement, there is still a need for open debate about how devolved and reserved provisions interact and influence patterns of land holding and management.

Q43 How do you think the Scottish Government could use investment from natural capital to maximise:

Q43a) community benefit

Please write your answer in the text box below:

A much better exploration of the implications of investment from natural capital is urgently required, given the scale of interest in land acquisition allegedly for carbon offsets. There are serious risks that novel approaches compromise the wider public interest in the restoration and maintenance of natural systems and their associated biodiversity and may not even contribute to achieving net zero emissions.

Q43b) national benefit

Please write your answer in the text box below:

As above

Q44 Do you have any additional ideas or proposals for Land Reform in Scotland?

Please write your answer in the text box below:

The continuing failure to establish a comprehensive public register locating land holding and identifying beneficial owners is scandalous.

Part 13: Assessing impact

[Questions 45 to 51 no answers offered]

Over the summer months, the Scottish Government consulted on a draft Biodiversity Strategy, closing on 12th September¹. At first sight, this seems unremarkable, since the previous strategies from 2004 and 2013 are due for an update. However, the timing doesn’t quite fit the wider context, since the previous publications were linked to biodiversity targets set for 2010 and 2020 respectively. The global targets are currently under revision, as part of the COP15 review of the UN Convention on Biological Diversity². This is setting a ‘Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework‘ for the decade ahead, agreement on which has been delayed, mainly by the Covid pandemic. There’s a meeting set for Montreal in December which is intended to complete the process. So this draft biodiversity strategy from the Scottish Government will need to be reviewed in light of that outcome.

The draft strategy recognises “evidence……that Scotland is seeing dramatic declines in its biodiversity‘ (p7) – in other words that our wild plants and animals face a crisis of our own making. But I didn’t find its proposed response to this crisis at all compelling, since we failed to achieve most targets set for 2010 and 2020 and the new proposals do not feel like the promised ‘transformation needed in the way we use and manage natural resources‘ (p5). A revised draft strategy is awaited. In the meantime (for the record) here below are my responses to the questions raised.

1. Using your own knowledge and the evidence presented, to what extent do you agree that there is a nature crisis in Scotland?

Evidence that we have a nature crisis in Scotland is summarised by Scotland’s poor showing in the global biodiversity intactness index – 28th from bottom of the global assessment of 240 countries and territories for land-based biodiversity. The UK as a whole is bottom of the G7 industrialised countries, setting a poor example to others. Furthermore, the accompanying detailed evidence for example the 2019 State of Nature report highlights two decades of failure since biodiversity strategies have been introduced. The vision set out in Scotland’s 2004 Biodiversity Strategy: “It’s 2030: Scotland is recognised as a world leader in biodiversity conservation” is failing. We must now construct a radical new approach.

2. What do you see as the key challenges and opportunities of tackling both the climate and biodiversity crises at the same time?

These crises cannot be tackled separately, because they are profoundly interlinked. Neither can successfully be overcome without the other. Our key challenge now is to tackle both successfully despite the mounting economic and social disruption of which they are, in part, a cause. Failure to do so will simply exacerbate economic and social turmoil into the future.

But this wider context of disruption also creates opportunities to pursue new directions, policies and measures for which there has been little prior support. Continuing with the status quo ante is not an option. A new biodiversity strategy must frame and expedite such policies and measures, providing a sense of co-ordination and shared purpose across the many relevant strategies and related policy documents.

3. Is the draft vision clear enough?

No – This draft vision represents an unacceptable retreat from the vision published nearly 20 years ago in 2004. In the first sentence, use of the word ‘substantially’ undermines clarity. Simply to slip the target date from 2030, in the previous strategy, to 2045 falls far short of the gravity of the crisis we face.

4. Is the draft vision ambitious enough?

No – This draft implies a sense that we can ‘kick the can down the road’, extending the 2030 ambitions of the current strategy to the longer term of 2045. Given our lack of progress towards 2030, our poor showing compared to other nations and the growing urgency of the task, this is far too complacent.

5. Do you have any suggestions for a short strategic vision which would form the title for the strategy?

‘Make more space for Nature in our lives’ – We must make more space in Scotland to live alongside the wild plants and animals which are being squeezed out here, in the United Kingdom and across the world. We must engage our fellow citizens, in all walks of life, in a joint enterprise of restoration and stewardship, without which the long-term prospects for our children and grandchildren are grim.

How will we know when we have succeeded? Topic 1 – Scotland’s rural environment – farmland, woodlands and forestry, soils and uplands

6. Do the 2045 outcome statements adequately capture the change we need to see?

No – The introduction rightly states that ‘transforming the way we use and manage land will be critical’ to delivery of the vision. But there’s little sign of transformation here. The 2045 outcome statements are aspirational, but show little indication of how delivery will be achieved any different from the failures of the last two decades.

Farming is our biggest single land use, but there’s an over emphasis here, for example the first bullet should be amended: “Farmland and forestry practices……while sustaining high quality food and timber production.”

The second bullet is overly focused on woodland, should include explicit reference to restoration of wetlands (a relatively quick win compared to woodlands) especially in lowland Scotland. The separate section on freshwater (below) leaves a risk that the impact of land management on wet habitats is overlooked.

7. Are the 2030 milestones ambitious enough?

No – Add drive to restore wetland habitats especially in lowland Scotland – across farmland there are too many areas where efforts to drain naturally damp ground continue despite limited success over many years. ‘Shifting baseline syndrome’ has erased our memory of the extent of wetland and the loss of wetland animals and plants.

8. What are the key drivers of biodiversity loss in this outcome area?

For decades, rural land management has been subsidised by the taxpayer to intensify production, reducing the space for nature despite often limited economic or social benefits. Redirection of this support is essential to achieve the transformation advocated in the introduction.

9. What are the key opportunities for this outcome area?

A new orientation of support for all aspects of rural land management to demonstrate better public value expressed in ecological, economic and social terms.

10. What are the key challenges for this outcome area?

Resistance to change and reluctance to replace or modify long-established funding channels is only to be expected, making it even more important to win widespread support for new ways of working. This is most especially true of the reframing of post-Brexit farm support which is currently under way, because the scale of this annual expenditure is the single most important policy influence on rural land management. The new approach must be evidence-led, including open discussion of the costs and benefits of different support measures.

Topic 2 – Marine environment

11. Do the 2045 outcome statements adequately capture the change we need to see?

No – These statements seem so far away from our current marine challenges as to question their value. Surely an outcome statement must begin by recognising our present poor position resulting from decades of overfishing (such that we don’t even recognise the richness of sea life we have lost since, say, the Eighteenth Century), pollution and climate impacts.

12. Are the 2030 milestones ambitious enough?

Again, these milestones seem from another world. Given the lack of progress since 2004, to adopt such statements for 2030 simply lacks credibility. How will we even establish a baseline from which recovery can begin?

13. What are the key drivers of biodiversity loss in this outcome area?

First, chronic overfishing since the mechanisation of fishing effort from the 1800s, second the cumulative impact of pollution (not only from industrial sources and shipping but many others, for example, the damage to the Firth of Forth resulting from reclamation of the Carse of Stirling) and third, increasingly, the impacts of climate change on weather patterns and ocean temperatures. Starting to correct these, by 2030, is a formidable challenge.

14. What are the key opportunities for this outcome area?

Create numerous sanctuary areas from which fishing boats are excluded, allowing marine species to recover. The resulting increase in stocks will, in time, benefit fishermen more generally as well as bolstering food supplies for seabirds, cetaceans and other wildlife.

15. What are the key challenges for this outcome area?

Marine fish farming is problematic, in terms of location, local impacts and sustainability of feed supplies. Recovery of, for example, wild salmonids depends on doing this better.

Topic 3 – Freshwater environment: rivers lochs and wetlands

16. Do the 2045 outcome statements adequately capture the change we need to see?

No -These outcome statements suffer from a lack of recognition that they depend, to a great extent, on changes to rural land management, especially farming.

17. Are the 2030 milestones ambitious enough?

The statements are fair as far as they go, but lack credibility in view of the failures to make progress since the 2004 Biodiversity Strategy.

18. What are the key drivers of biodiversity loss in this outcome area?

The context of centuries of efforts to drain farmland is overlooked. The space for wetland species, especially in lowland Scotland, has particularly been squeezed, so some rebalancing is long overdue.

19. What are the key opportunities for this outcome area?

As noted earlier, a new orientation of support for all aspects of rural land management to demonstrate better public value expressed in ecological, economic and social terms. Wetlands can especially benefit from such a change.

20. What are the key challenges for this outcome area?

As noted earlier, the new approach must be evidence-led, including open discussion of the costs and benefits of different support measures. This is especially important in understanding where effort is best directed to begin recovery of wetland habitats with minimum adverse economic and social impacts.

Topic 4 – Coastal environments

21. Do the 2045 outcome statements adequately capture the change we need to see?

No – These are very general statements, and it isn’t clear that ‘coastal environments’ are a distinct category not adequately covered by land management and marine. There’s an argument for the simplicity of focus on land and sea, understanding that there’s a coastal interface rather than a hard boundary between the two.

22. Are the 2030 milestones ambitious enough?

The focus on ‘coastal environments’ isn’t convincing (see answer to previous question).

23. What are the key drivers of biodiversity loss in this outcome area?

The drivers of biodiversity loss in coastal areas are not fundamentally different from those for land and sea respectively.

24. What are the key opportunities for this outcome area?

Focus on land, and sea, recognising the coastal interface between them.

25. What are the key challenges for this outcome area?

As above

Topic 5 – Urban environments – towns and cities

26. Do the 2045 outcome statements adequately capture the change we need to see?

No -The focus on urban landscapes is problematic because, while this is where most of the people are, it is directed towards the land rather than the people.

This strategy is missing a key dimension well captured in the 2004 vision “..everyone is involved; everyone benefits…”.

Take, for example, the second bullet: “Multi-functional urban Nature-based solutions provide the basis for healthy and resilient communities” – surely this outcome applies equally beyond urban centres?

27. Are the 2030 milestones ambitious enough?

The 2030 outcomes are very general, and should be rewritten in plain English. For most of us, ‘nature richness’, ecological coherence’ and ‘green/blue infrastructure’ are jargon. How would we know these when we see them?

28. What are the key drivers of biodiversity loss in this outcome area?

The focus on urban landscapes is flawed because urban drivers of biodiversity loss are widespread out and beyond the urban boundary. The engagement of people in all walks of life in tackling the biodiversity crisis requires a broader approach – although, since this is where most people live, conservation of urban biodiversity is essential to their personal experience and wellbeing.

29. What are the key opportunities for this outcome area?

Facilitate and harness community effort.

30. What are the key challenges for this outcome area?

Find ways in which people in all walks of life can constructively engage directly in meeting the biodiversity and climate challenges.

Topic 6 – Across our land and at sea – overall health, resilience and connectivity

31. Do the 2045 outcome statements adequately capture the change we need to see?

No – These draft outcomes imply a degree of central planning and top-down control which has proved difficult to achieve in practice.

32. Are the 2030 milestones ambitious enough?

These draft outcomes fail to capture the need to achieve active engagement of people and communities, without which past failures will continue.

33. What are the key drivers of biodiversity loss in this outcome area?

This standard question seems a poor fit with the topic, since the drivers are ubiquitous and equally affect rural, marine and urban environments.

34. What are the key opportunities for this outcome area?

This standard question seems a poor fit with the topic, since the opportunities equally affect rural, marine and urban environments.

35. What are the key challenges for this outcome area?

This standard question seems a poor fit with the topic, since the challenges equally affect rural, marine and urban environments.

36. To what extent will these outcomes deliver the Vision? What might be missing?

There’s a huge omission of outcomes to achieve constructive engagement of people and communities.

There’s also an increasing need to acknowledge and address conflict in delivering the vision, seeking to facilitate conciliation which will not happen spontaneously. Different contested accounts and perspectives need to be teased out and grounds for reconciliation cultivated.

37. What evidence and information should we use to assess whether we have delivered the Vision?

The existing monitoring effort, for example via citizen science supporting research and survey effort, needs to be properly resourced and maintained.

The conditions for success

38. Have we captured the key enabling factors which are essential in order for our strategy to be successful?

These proposed outcomes have an old-fashioned, top-down and rather tired feel to them. The jargon (delivery plans, buy-in, mainstreamed, line of sight, values-led and so on) is of a piece with an approach and style which has failed in practice over recent decades. The transformation sought in the opening sections of the draft will not be achieved simply be repeating previous practice.

There are some key points buried within this long list which suggest the possibility of trying new measures, but they aren’t adequately explained (for example ‘statutory targets’ do nothing to win people over) nor how they interface with the many other strategies and policy areas. Clarity of these relationships, how biodiversity fits into a wider picture, is lacking!

39. Are there good examples of enabling conditions in other strategies we could learn from?

Good examples are those which facilitate and empower people and their communities, providing evidence-based advice, flexible support and fostering a constructive approach to framing and overcoming diverse challenges. I’m not sure ‘strategies’ are the best place to find these examples, more likely in accounts of success and learning through practice.

40. Can you set out how you think any of the proposals set out in the consultation might help to eliminate discrimination, advance equality of opportunity and foster good relations?

These are all valid dimensions of the challenge; looking across recent debate around biodiversity, there’s a clear need to acknowledge and address conflict in contested accounts of issues and proposals, cultivating dialogue and grounds for conciliation.

In earlier posts, I explored the challenges facing a new environmental ‘watchdog’ for Scotland¹, post-Brexit, and responded to an earlier Scottish Government consultation about the shape of the new body². Now, with ESS up and running, there’s been a consultation over a draft strategic plan³. This post includes the response I submitted to some of the questions posed.

ESS was established by the (not so) snappily titled UK Withdrawal from the European Union (Continuity) (Scotland) Act 2021⁴. Let’s call it the 2021 Act for short. As well as setting out the functions and powers of ESS, the Act establishes five ‘Environmental Principles’. In making policies, government Ministers must ‘have regard to’ these principles.

The draft Strategic Plan is mainly concerned with the modus operandi for ESS, which seems well enough thought through for starters. But I’d say it rather overlooks a couple of important strategic issues facing the new body.

The first is the interface between its work and that of its Whitehall equivalent, the Office for Environmental Protection. A memorandum of understanding is promised which will set out how ‘matters of common interest’ are to be handled. This is a key part of a wider set of relationships between Scotland and the UK which have yet to be clarified post-Brexit. Confusion, especially of English and UK perspectives on rural land management and environmental concerns, is currently widespread. Scotland’s interests are at risk of being overlooked in the UK context.

The second strategic issue seems entirely neglected. The modus operandi of ESS is strongly focused on the work of various public bodies, but increasingly these bodies are engaged in diverse delivery partnerships with private commercial and non-profit organisations. Scrutiny of these relationships can be problematic where, for example, they are judged to lie beyond the scope of freedom of information requirements. In such cases, it’s hard to judge how well the wider public interest is being served.

So here, for what it’s worth, are my responses to the consultation questions:

1. Do you have any comments on our Vision and Mission Statement, set out in chapter 3?

Answer: These set a welcome and appropriate level of ambition, although there must be some doubt whether the mission statement goes beyond the precise scope of the ESS remit set in the 2021 Act. Achieving Scotland’s ambitions requires more than simply compliance with environmental laws and standards;

ESS can help by highlighting gaps and shortfalls, which are likely to go beyond solely ‘public authority’ compliance to involve the activities of private and third sector actors.

2. Do you have any comments on our Strategic Outcomes, set out in chapter 3?

Answer: Outcomes 1,2,3 and 5 are broadly sound, but outcome 4 should be reworded to make clear that ‘widely understood’ is achieved through openness and transparency (as spelled out in the fourth principle, below). The summary wording used in Fig 1 (“Engaging & Communicating Effectively About Our Role and How to Raise Concerns”) is better, but rather narrow vs. the scope of principle 4 i.e.: “keeping people informed about the progress of our work and providing opportunities to input to and influence it”.

These outcomes should be reviewed after (say) three years to test their fit in the light of experience and in context with the vision and mission statement.

3. Do you have any comments on our Values and Principles, set out in chapter 3?

Answer: These are a good basis on which to work.

4. Do you have any comments on our proposed approach to resolving matters informally with public authorities, set out in chapter 4?

Answer: The approach is sound and consistent with principle 2, but Chapter 4 is overly focused on ‘public authorities’. These are certainly prominent in S20 (1) of the 2021 Act, but “the effectiveness of environmental law and of how it is implemented and applied” also requires partnership with private and third sector actors. Working with ‘public authorities’ is necessary but will not be sufficient. After more than a decade of austerity and budget restrictions, public bodies are increasingly working with and through private bodies to achieve environmental outcomes (see for one example: https://forestryandland.gov.scot/business-and-services/carbon-offset-partnerships ). Navigating these relationships is a key strategic challenge for ESS and deserves more explicit attention in this Plan.

5. Do you have any comments on our proposed approach to determining what constitutes a systemic failure, set out in chapter 4?

6. Do you have any comments on our proposed approach to determining whether a compliance failure could be addressed more effectively by a compliance notice than an improvement report, set out in Chapter 4?

7. Do you have any comments on our proposed approach to determining whether a compliance failure or environmental harm is serious, set out in chapter 4?

[Common answer to questions 5,6 and 7]: This approach is a fair starting point and should be reviewed in the light of experience after (say) three years.

8. Do you have any comments on our proposed approach to deciding whether, and how to prioritise and carry out our investigations, set out in chapter 5?

Answer: Para 5.14, “details of all active and completed investigations will be published on our website”, is especially welcome. This is consistent with the principle of transparency and openness.

9. Do you have any comments on our proposals for monitoring compliance and effectiveness, and taking account of different types of information, as set out in chapter 6?

Answer: These proposals are broadly sound, however there’s a general shortfall of understanding around who does what among the various bodies, public and private, with relevant roles in delivering environmental outcomes. Then there’s a shared challenge to minimise duplication while ensuring that any gaps in coverage are bridged. The ESS focus on compliance and effectiveness of environmental law requires multiple interfaces with other bodies involved in different aspects of environmental monitoring. But the ESS interest in monitoring is surely to inform the core purpose of compliance with environmental standards.

10. Do you have any comments on our draft priority topics for further analysis? Do you have any suggestions for key sources of data and intelligence that we should consider, as set out in chapter 6?

Answer: The bullet points in 6.13 are quite broadly stated. While these provide a sound starting point, they must be refined and updated in light of experience.

Priority issues are buried within some of these bullet points (for example, the effectiveness of deer legislation, or compliance with emerging proposals for licensing driven grouse moors are both key questions under the heading of ‘biodiversity decline’).

It is necessary to consider how emerging issues can be properly accommodated where resources are already stretched to cover those listed. New issues may well attract higher priority than some of those already listed.

11. Do you have any comments on our proposed approach to avoiding unnecessary overlap with other regulators, oversight and scrutiny bodies, as set out in chapter 7?

Answer: This is a key strategic challenge for ESS. The success of the proposed MOU with OEP will be important, helping to navigate the boundaries between ‘Scotland’, ‘UK’ and beyond, but there’s also the interface with private and third sectors actors within Scotland, especially where these are working in close partnership with public bodies. ‘Openness and transparency’, for example, is less assured where these relationships are involved and where ‘commercial in confidence’ can become the default preference at the expense of transparency. Perhaps more explicit discussion of the terms of a wider ‘public interest’ would help to frame this appropriately.

What are the implications of the ‘limits’ to openness mentioned in para 7.7?

The commitment in para 7.8 is especially welcome, providing clarity on the scope of work in progress and forthcoming findings.

12. Do you have any comments on our proposed approach to receiving and handling representations, set out in chapter 7?

Answer: The open approach is especially welcome, although how these are framed into investigations, and how these are placed in context of legitimate complaints and appeals will be key to its success.

13. Do you have any comments on how we maintain our ambition to be a high performing organisation, as set out in chapter 8?

Answer: This is a very small organisation, and so very dependent on others for many of its administrative systems. How will these be delivered – via Scottish Government? What constraints does this dependency place on how ESS can operate (eg required IT security policies affecting the ability to work collaboratively with public bodies and others)?

The initial balance of resources in Fig 8 seems quite weighted towards ‘Strategy and Analysis’. Surely as demand builds up ‘Investigations, Standards and Compliance’ will need to be reinforced? Is this going to restrict the number and scale of investigations ESS can conduct?

14. Do you have any comments on our proposed approach to measuring our impact, as set out in chapter 9?

Answer: Figure 9 is certainly logical, but the subsequent development and application of KPIs risks becoming burdensome. It’s important not to re-invent or duplicate measures already in place, or already required of public bodies like ESS. Where is the interface with the National Performance Framework?

15. Do you have any comments on our proposed key performance indicators, as set out in Annex B?

Answer: Although these each have validity, there are already too many for a small organisation. Where is the logic to determine which of these (or others) are really ‘key’?

16. Are there any other factors that you think we should consider before exercising our functions?

Answer: See 17 below

17. Do you have any other comments on our draft Strategic Plan and our proposed approach to fulfilling our remit?

Answer: In summary, this ‘strategic’ plan is rather focused on ways of working at the expense of some important strategic challenges. In particular, the strategic question of how best to interface effectively with other bodies, public or private, feels somewhat overlooked. For example, yes, the proposed MOU with OEP will help, but that is only one part of the interface between Scotland and the UK which will frame the work of ESS in its early years. Following Brexit, this has yet to take shape; it isn’t yet clear how the terms of cross-border or wider international standards will be established or maintained. The post-devolution co-ordination arrangements between UK government and devolved administrations are not an encouraging precedent, despite the recent refresh.

Second, as noted above, the interface between Scotland’s ‘public authorities’ and private or third sector actors is much less clear-cut than previously, yet this is barely mentioned in the Plan. Understanding and managing these interfaces will be key to achieving the overarching vision that “Scotland’s communities benefit from a high quality environment and are protected from harm through the consistent application of effective environmental laws, which are recognised internationally as setting high standards”.

At the end of May, the Scottish Government published a ‘Resource Spending Review’¹, presenting summary spending proposals for the next five years. Although these are no more than an outline, they give an early hint of the likely pattern of priorities and expenditure extending the historical analysis of previous posts² into the future. What does this imply for rural land management in Scotland, and in turn for our natural world?

The spending review does not drill down to the level of detail of previous posts (‘Level 3’ in the jargon). But the Level 2 data presented indicate a broadly ‘flat cash’ outlook for the £1bn or thereabouts of annual expenditure examined in this series of posts. Making comparisons with the published figures from previous years isn’t easy; this new publication addresses only recurrent annual expenditure. A separate document³ sets out projections for SG capital expenditure to 2026. Trends in capital investment tend to be harder to see because the annual totals are more ‘lumpy’ as major projects come and go. However, taken together, the recurrent and capital figures are broadly comparable to the budget and spend figures from previous years⁴.

As we can see only too well, the next few years will present challenges. Prices are rising faster than for many years; if the prices affecting rural land management were to rise at 10% per annum over the period, these funds would lose about one third of their current spending power over five years. Set in the broad context of the outlook for rural land management, that represents a big reduction in Scotland’s capacity to tackle the ‘biodiversity crisis’, somewhat at odds with the accompanying rhetoric (“…the Scottish Government’s overarching ambition to tackle climate change and biodiversity loss…”, “…delivery of ambitious programmes focused on nature restoration and addressing biodiversity loss…” and so on). So how might this play out in practice?

These documents concede a growing disconnect between ambition/ need and the capacity /action possible with the public funds expected to be available (…”government investment on its own will not be sufficient….private and third sector investment will be critical…we have set strong expectations on public bodies and public services to work effectively together and with the private and third sectors using the totality of resources available to improve outcomes….). This pragmatic approach unavoidably requires frank understanding of both the public and private objectives pursued through such collaboration. We have become used to transparency and open access to information about the work of public bodies, often contrasting with ‘commercial-in-confidence’ restrictions where private interests are involved. We need a way to navigate this boundary respecting personal privacy while at the same time tracking the wider public interest.

There’s the beginnings of an appreciation of some unintended consequences, for example in the arena of ‘rewilding’. Growing comment and controversy has emerged around the entry of so-called ‘green lairds’ into the rural land market in pursuit of carbon offsets⁵. Consistent with SG urging for greater public/ private collaboration, Forestry and Land Scotland has begun to promote ‘carbon offset partnerships’ ⁶ “…Corporate partnerships will play an important part in our future. We bring together private funding and public land to tackle the Climate Emergency and biodiversity crisis side by side….”. Recent publications by the Land Commission for Scotland⁷ and Scotland’s Rural University College⁸start to explore the implications even within this one dimension of the wider rural land management ‘landscape’: “…Natural capital buyers and voluntary carbon markets are driving significant and rapid changes in the land use sector…These trends create risks for markets, land managers and rural communities…..Options [are explored] for reducing risks and enhancing positive impacts of natural capital investment...”.

Another much larger emerging issue is the replacement of previous EU Common Agricultural Policy payments – around half of annual support for rural land management in Scotland. Steady progress in Scotland to develop alternatives has yet to yield firm proposals⁹, but those emerging for England have become controversial with recent publication of a ‘strategy’ implying a low priority accorded to caring for nature; again the rhetoric does not seem to match the capacity for corresponding action.

The SG spending review also recognises the limits imposed by staff numbers, once again revealing a mismatch of rhetoric “…a high-performing public sector continues to make a vital contribution within Scotland’s economy, environment and society….” and reality “…A broad aim to return the total size of the devolved public sector workforce to around pre-COVID-19 levels by 2026-27, through effective vacancy and recruitment management…”. Specifically for rural land management, there are no explicit proposals to improve capacity (Section 2.5) despite “…Experts agree(ing) that public spending now to address the climate (and biodiversity) crisis delivers future benefits which far outweigh the costs today…”. The review reveals, at best, a flat cash projection for paybill. This will drive a continuing decline in staff numbers, perhaps offset to some extent by ‘efficiency’, ‘digital transformation’ and restructuring: “…seeking to work collectively, with common purpose, breaking down delivery silos and efficiently using the totality of available resources within the constraints
we face…”.

Looking ahead, there will be value in trying to place forthcoming spending and associated policy announcements in a context that confirms their scale and significance as a contribution to matching the Scottish Government’s overall ambitions. Disentangling and reconciling potentially dissimilar public and private interests seems bound to present some additional, perhaps novel, challenges – constructive tension, anyone?

Part One began to explore the resources which Scotland’s public bodies can bring to bear on protection of our natural world through rural land management. This second part considers how public policy effort on land management and caring for nature has been changing over recent years. Setting out the scale of change over time is not as simple as one might wish; not only is there scope for debate around how much effort is directly, or indirectly, relevant, but also definitions and expectations change over the years. This post aims to paint a big picture, while trying to side-step numerous rabbit-holes of unhelpful detail.

In summary, annual government expenditure supporting rural land management in Scotland is around £1bn per annum, directly employing around 4000 people. This hasn’t changed much in cash terms over the last 15-20 years, but gradual annual growth in cost per job affects how this can be spent. Within the total, it’s harder to distinguish expenditure on caring for Nature – probably around £150m per annum. But this would double if so-called ‘greening’ payments to farmers were included; there’s need for debate around what should be eligible and what represents value for money….

The even broader-brush understanding of recent trends in overall government funding for UK public bodies (i.e. in the 21st Century) has been a perception that a decades-long trend of gradual annual growth in budgets since the 1950s was fairly abruptly reversed in 2010. The global financial crash of 2008/09 and bailing out of banks up-ended the balance of public finances leading to successive ‘austerity’ budgets – reduced cash spending year on year through the decade which followed. This has had a big impact, reducing the capacity of public bodies to address the growing challenges we face. Most recently, response to the Covid pandemic inflicted another large shock to the system, the consequences of which are still to be fully expressed. In addition, rural land management post-Brexit now also faces particular challenges because the dominant farming subsidies are no longer framed by the EU Common Agriculture Policy, and must be replaced with a new approach¹.

As we shall see, these general perceptions may be rather over-simplified. Despite rhetoric to the contrary, public expenditure as a proportion of the economy still seems to be on an upward long-term trend².

Figure 1 is for the UK rather than Scotland, but the latter will show a broadly similar track. There certainly was some decline through the 2010s but, even before the pandemic spike from 2020, the 2019 figure of around 35% is still higher than the level from 1985 to 2004. How have Scotland’s public bodies fared within this bigger picture? Of course, the value of expenditure (per £) changes over time, but the figures which follow are first presented in ‘nominal’ terms, ie expressed as cash values at the time it was allocated³. I will return to the value issue later.

Taking in turn the rural sectors used in Part 1, farming is the land management sector with the greatest geographical coverage and attracting easily the greatest annual support expenditure; at least £750m out of the land management total of around £1bn, more than support for all other land uses put together. Since 2005, the core of farm support has been an annual direct payment (previously, but no longer, linked to production) currently totalling around £420m per annum. Other direct payments to farmers bring the annual total to around £580m. There’s no clear trend to this core annual payment, despite policy changes over the years. Hence the cash totals for 2020 are much the same as for 2005, although they rose to a peak in 2009 before declining until 2015.

In addition to these direct farm payments, there’s a variety of indirect costs supporting rural land management, such as animal health and veterinary services, running costs for relevant public bodies including the Crofters Commission, Scottish Land Commission and especially RPID (see below). Figure 3 suggests that the total has more than trebled over the years; however, the composition and presentation of this budget heading has changed, so it is possible that some costs from earlier years were buried elsewhere in the SG budget. Perhaps the most important increase in recent years has been the cost of the information technology supporting the direct payment system, rising strongly since 2011 following some adverse EU audits of Scotland’s payments system.

The delivery of farm support is overseen by the Scottish Government’s Rural Payments and Inspections Division (RPID), once part of the old Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland (DAFS, 1961 to 1990) before going through a succession of name changes. It’s hard to track what has happened to this body in terms of staff numbers, within the much larger whole of the Scottish Government. In 2019, a Freedom of Information request stated that RPID had 620 staff (full time equivalent) costing £31m, out of the larger SG Agriculture & Rural Economy directorate of just over 1000 FTE, with a paybill cost of £49m⁴.

Almost by definition, farm support is directed to rural land management. A much smaller proportion supports caring for Nature, nevertheless the larger scale means this is still very significant. For example, direct payments from various agri-environment schemes have varied from around £60m declining recently to less than £40m. There’s an annual ‘greening’ payment of around £140m but it isn’t clear what this buys, since there’s no evidence this is ever withheld⁵. Because of the scale of such payments, these definitional questions deserve further exploration at a later date.

Support for forestry is delivered mainly through the two successors to the old Forestry Commission, first Forest and Land Scotland (FLS) overseeing the national forest on behalf of Scottish Ministers, second Scottish Forestry (SF) supporting and regulating the private sector. FLS is run as a trading company, with annual budget support from SG which can vary. For example, if timber sales and prices are up, taxpayer support can be eased and vice versa⁶. Nevertheless, the combined scale of public funding for the two bodies as shown in figure 4 has been pretty consistent over the years, until recent growth due to accelerating tree planting to mitigate climate change⁷. All of this funding, more or less directly, supports rural land management; a significant proportion also supports caring for nature.

These totals include the costs associated with staff in the forestry bodies. Recent annual reports show a total of more than 1100 FTE, at a cost of nearly £50m per annum. Although these staff are employed on analogous Civil Service terms, some of the funding derives from trading by FLS, so there is considerable revenue supporting these salaries in addition to that shown in Figure 4.

Support for environment dimensions of land management is routed through several public bodies, notably NatureScot (SNH) and SEPA. Figure 5 shows the growth, and subsequent decline, in SNH funding since its inception in 1992⁸. NatureScot/ SNH gains nearly all its funding in Grant-in-Aid from Scottish Government. A fair chunk of this, more than half perhaps two thirds, supports rural land management in one way or another; the balance includes for example marine and urban conservation work. The recent hike in related SG spend seems mainly due to peatland management schemes. By definition, most of this cash will support caring for Nature in some form.

SNH staff numbers show similar trends to the overall expenditure, as detailed in Figure 6, and have now declined below the start-up year, forced down by cost pressures. The cost per FTE has grown from £20k in 1998, to about £35k in 2007 and now £48k⁹. Staff costs account for roughly half of annual expenditure.

SEPA, with a different core role, is funded partly from SG Grant-in-Aid, but also via a range of charging schemes, with fees charged to industry for discharge or emission consents within its regulatory framework. Only a small, yet significant, proportion of this addresses rural land management issues, for example farm pollution and wider issues of freshwater and air quality; all of that proportion, and more, addresses caring for Nature. Overall funding has been fairly steady after some restructuring costs in 2009 and 2010, with a slight trend to depend more on charging income.

SEPA staff numbers have been fairly consistent over the period at around 1200 (FTE), despite increasing costs per FTE from £35k in 2007 to around £50k currently. Staff costs account for around two thirds of total SEPA expenditure.

Turning to outdoor recreation, the most easily identifiable budget is that for Scotland’s two National Parks, created in the early years of the Scottish Parliament. Figure 9 shows how funding has grown. Quite a lot of this supports rural land management in one form or another, and caring for Nature at least indirectly.

National parks currently employ over 200 staff (FTE) at a cost per FTE of around £45k.

Other bodies with land management interests have relatively small, but not insignificant, budgets supporting rural land management, usually indirectly. The enterprise agencies, VisitScotland and Historic Environment Scotland have recently had a combined annual budget of around £200m. Even a small part devoted to rural land management or caring for Nature potentially has a big impact. For example, Visit Scotland administers the Rural Tourism Infrastructure Fund on behalf of SG, worth around £10m per annum. While this is mainly devoted to visitor facilities, some spend may help to ameliorate tourism impacts on land management.

Relevant research and analysis funding is hard to track consistently over the years, with many changes in the composition and funding arrangements for higher education institutions and research institutes, and evolving presentation in the annual budget documents. The heading includes various monitoring programmes which inform spending in the sectors above. Prior to 2015 funding for the Scottish Agricultural College (SAC, now SRUC) was included in rural budgets, because the colleges provided on-farm advice and research as well as education; now SRUC is part of the higher education portfolio while elements of advice and research remain within these headings. A recent addition would be the newly established Environmental Standards Scotland. The most directly relevant body is probably the James Hutton Institute, spending nearly £40m per annum from various sources and around 500 staff. Scottish Government funding under this heading remains significant at around £80m per annum, as shown in Figure 10, although it would seem to have varied a lot over the years, once a consistent definition has been established. There’s perhaps a change of emphasis to be seen away from farm production in favour of environmental impacts and climate change. Not all of this is directly relevant to rural land management, less so caring for Nature; this deserves further exploration.

The changing value of cash

Combined, all these budgets amount to around £1bn spent each year to support rural land management, a total which Figure 11 shows has changed relatively little over the years in nominal cash terms.

Changing focus from the snapshot ‘still’ picture used in Part 1, to a more dynamic ‘video’ story of change over time presents some new challenges. £1m in 2020 or 2022 is not the same thing as £1m was in, say, 2000 or 1980. Obviously, inflation has eroded value, but more subtle changes also creep in. The easily available CPI or RPI measures of inflation are designed to show implications for household budgets; land management businesses may have experienced a quite different balance of changes to the costs of inputs and value of products. But also, over these years, the overall size of the economy has grown, usually measured in terms of Gross Domestic Product (GDP). So £1m now is smaller relative to a larger economy; this is not the same thing as inflation, and has different implications. For example, 100 lambs to market now must make more, per beast, to keep up not only to account for inflation but also as a share of the total economy – but generally have not done so. Hence making a living from land management has tended to be a bit harder year-on-year. Conventionally, cash comparisons over time are presented in so-called ‘real terms’, for example as “2020 £”, using a ‘GDP deflator’ published by HM Treasury. While often regarded as a proxy for the effect of inflation, in many ways this just muddies the water. So ‘real terms’ allows only approximate like-for-like comparisons; simple cash figures expressed at the time they were spent can be just as valid – recognising that cash now will not buy the same as cash did in the past¹⁰.

Figure 11 sketches out the different effect of adopting three different indexes, as recommended by the ‘Measuring Worth‘ website¹¹. These suggest the buying power of our £1bn per year has declined by between 20% to 27% over the fifteen year period.

Adopting any one index depends on how we expect this cash to be spent. In practice, it will all eventually be spent on paying a person for their time, perhaps indirectly (since squirrels or oakwoods do not themselves have a use for cash……). So as well as the 4000 staff employed by these public bodies, other payments will eventually reach a person¹². Year on year comparisons here again require care, not only because the annual cost per head changes as salaries follow the trends of inflation and economic growth, but also because ways of working change as new technology comes in and as expectations evolve. For example, following several (thankfully rare) tragic accidents, lone working must now be thought through much more carefully than in previous years, increasing some delivery costs. Another example of special relevance to rural land management is the time, cost and environmental impact of travel; employees are increasingly expected to operate remotely, where possible. Information technology increasingly facilitates online working, but is expensive to establish and maintain (see for example the growing costs of the system for making direct farm payments). So one employee working for one year in 2022 will not be quite the same as one working 10 or 20 years ago.

Our analysis falls some way short of clear trends in expenditure, within the rural land management total, on caring for Nature. We can say it is probably in the range £150m to £300m per year, depending on definitions. Some UK figures for public sector expenditure on ‘biodiversity‘ are published annually¹³, but there’s currently no Scottish equivalent. Figure 12 shows the trend in UK spend, in this case presented as 2019 £m using the Treasury GDP deflator. The supporting documents suggest this uses quite a narrow definition of ‘biodiversity expenditure’ and, of course, goes well beyond that linked to rural land management, for example extending to the marine environment.

In summary, annual government spend supporting Scotland’s rural land management has been around £1bn for more than a decade. This is now worth at least 20% less, in ‘real’ terms, than it was at the beginning. Within that total, the trend in spend on caring for Nature (perhaps around £150m) has proved hard to pin down…… Working this out, and what these resources are actually buying, is a subject for future posts in this series….

Quite a lot has happened out there since my previous post, and here we are now in 2022 with new, updated, understandings of the damage we are inflicting on the rest of the natural world¹, new rhetoric about how this damage might be tackled and put right², and new budgets in place that might provide the means to do so³. Here in Scotland, with one of the lowest ‘biodiversity intactness’ scores in the world⁴, it continues to be hard to make any sense of how all this plays out among the confused landscape of public bodies involved in rural land management.

The header page ‘Crowding Out‘ lists these public bodies and summarises their roles. Finding out about the resources each can bring to bear on this task is far harder than it ought to be; relevant numbers (where available) are published in diverse places and formats, while definitions are less than clear about what these mean in practical terms. This post is a first effort to assess these allocations so as to inform discussion on the adequacy (or otherwise) of the measures in place. Awareness of the way we are failing to make space for Nature is now widespread, and there’s broad support for doing something to correct this. The focus of this blog is on how, in Scotland, this might come about in the important arena of rural land management.

The most recent suite of biodiversity targets⁵, agreed internationally in 2010 for the decade to 2020, spawned an assessment of relevant UK expenditure⁶. The relevant 2010 international target⁷ was: “by 2020, at the latest, the mobilisation of financial resources …… should increase substantially from the current levels“. The UK assessment, on the basis of these definitions, is that while government expenditure had grown gradually to around £700m per annum in 2008/9, it then fell back to around £500m in 2019/20. So, over the decade, a ‘substantial increase’ was not achieved.

What is the annual Scottish contribution to this expenditure? Pro rata by population the Scottish share of the UK estimate might not be much more than £40m. More plausibly perhaps, on a land area basis, the Scottish share might be around £150m, but this draws from a very (perhaps unhelpfully) tight definition of relevant expenditure. Closer examination of these definitions and comparison with related Scottish budgets reveals considerable scope for debate.

Care is always required when drawing together and comparing information from UK, GB or Scottish sources. Published description of the UK assessment, in an attached ‘technical note’, gives some idea of how the total has been compiled, aiming to present information collected on a consistent basis across England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Achieving this requires numbers to be: ‘estimated by expert judgment‘ on the relevant share of larger budgets, noting: ‘the figures presented are likely to be an underestimate of total biodiversity spend‘. Both for these UK and any Scottish figures, there’s a valid debate around what spend is directly, or indirectly, relevant. Adding to the general fog of confusion, plenty of items: ‘are designed to meet more than one policy objective, eg tree planting‘. Realising the stated ambition to protect nature requires bold and clear resource commitments, but measuring these is not straightforward!

The UK estimates are for biodiversity expenditure as a whole; rural land management is the largest subset of that total, but there’s also spend directly addressing the impacts of urban and industrial activity, the marine environment and so on. Here, we are trying to tease out relevant expenditure on rural land management in Scotland.

To start with, let’s consider the sectors listed in the Crowding Out page in turn:

Farming – ‘Agricultural Support’ is by far the largest block of support for rural land management in the Scottish Budget, amounting to about £800m per annum mainly disbursed to farmers via the Scottish Government Rural Payments and Inspections Division (RPID), with associated running costs. A small part of this⁸ has been included in the UK biodiversity expenditure estimate, but most of this spend has implications of some sort for nature. Some large parts are labelled oddly for example £142m ‘greening’ payments to farmers “for agricultural practices beneficial for the climate and environment” are not classed as biodiversity expenditure. The work of the Crofting Commission is additionally funded under this heading, with running costs of some £3.5m per annum as well as funding various grant and loans for crofters included in the larger subtotal.

Forestry – The two public bodies involved, Scottish Forestry and Forestry and Land Scotland (FLS), attract funding totalling around £120m. There’s significant change from year to year here, mainly because taxpayer funding for FLS is only part of a much larger turnover dominated by timber sales which fluctuate from year to year. Again, only part of this expenditure directly supports biodiversity, although nearly all has implications of some sort depending how the core purpose of timber production is conducted.

Environment – Several funding streams fall under this heading, including NatureScot (or Scottish Natural Heritage) currently around £50m funding most SNH annual spend, with a focus on wild species and habitats, and the Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA) at around £40m. The latter is complicated in two ways, first that SEPA has a charging regime which provides a significant proportion of its annual turnover and second that the primary focus of its work is on water and air quality impacts from urban and industrial activity. Nevertheless, SEPA is active in rural land management and its environmental implications such as nutrient runoff from livestock farming. In addition, the sponsoring part of Scottish Government spends a growing amount directly (eg on peatland restoration) currently a little over £60m. The new regulator, Environmental Standards Scotland, now has a budget just over £2m.

Outdoor recreation – The most easily identifiable distinct budget is that for Scotland’s National Parks at £18m, although access and recreation also forms part of NatureScot/ SNH activity across Scotland as a whole. Little or none of this spend has been classified as biodiversity expenditure, although access, recreation and tourism generally have major impacts (both positive and negative) on our care for nature.

Other bodies with land management interests – Highlands and Islands Enterprise and its recently established counterpart, South of Scotland Enterprise, have a combined budget of around £100m, although only a small proportion of this impacts on rural land management. Historic Environment Scotland has a budget of around £70m, again only a small proportion impacts on rural land management. None of the spend in this sector would be formally included in the biodiversity spend totals. However, the work of the Scottish Land Commission and administration of the Scottish Land Fund supporting community buyouts amounts to around £15m, with implications for the way rural land is managed.

Relevant research funding – The Scottish Government budget includes support for a variety of research bodies, some of which have significant involvement in rural land management. Out of a total of nearly £90m, some has implications for rural land management and biodiversity, for example via the James Hutton Institute, but none will be included in the biodiversity expenditure totals.

To sum up – The sum of all these numbers is more than £1.3 billion per annum in Scotland; not all of this directly impacts rural land management, but the relevant total must be of the order of £1bn. How much of this is relevant to caring for nature? There’s no separate published Scottish account for biodiversity expenditure; perhaps the relevant share of the UK total may be £100m. If these set upper and lower boundaries, the tenfold gap deserves closer scrutiny. The stated ambition is for: ‘strong and bold actions to bring about transformative change… to halt biodiversity loss⁹‘. What are the trends in all these annual lines of spend? How is this money actually spent? And what does it achieve in terms of our general desire to care for nature?

The past, it has been said, is a foreign country. Never has this seemed more so than in this year of pandemic lockdown. So much has been turned on its head or inside-out. It seems everything must be recalibrated. How much of what we previously took for granted counts for anything now?

In truth, disconnects between past and present are nothing new. In previous posts¹, I’ve written about some of the changes which took place from my first permanent job, in the Nature Conservancy Council (NCC) of the 1970s, through to my retirement from the Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH) of 2016. So often, these disconnects fractured continuity in ways which left behind much of value, diluting lessons learnt and discarding experience gained, laboriously, over time. Understanding relevance, or irrelevance, to the present day makes a rich subject for reflection and debate.

Many commentators and activists were quick to exploit the space opened up by lockdown to spell out how things can, and should, be different in future². So much has been upended and so much else, it is argued, can be improved if only we take the opportunity to ‘Build Back Better’. An early contributor³ differentiated short-term effects (eg reduced carbon emissions) to highlight potential long-term opportunities for change. Much has been made of the idea of a ‘Green New Deal’, promoting improved resilience and co-existence with Nature. But, as lockdown has eased, and sectors of the economy emerge from deep freeze, few of these ideas seem to be gaining much traction⁴. Debate rages on the scope for funding change⁵, while the chair of the SG Advisory Group on Economic Recovery has disparaged ‘green zealots‘⁶. So perhaps not so much a new beginning, more like the familiar status quo ante.

A recent polemic, published in Ecos⁷, vigorously condemns the track record of conservation bodies over recent decades. While I can empathise with the author (whose career trajectory has had many parallels, in time and work areas, with my own) and share frustration at our failure to correct damage to our natural world, I profoundly disagree with his conclusions. He argues that nothing has worked, and nothing has changed, in terms of losses to Nature, because conservation bodies have allowed themselves to be drawn into a morass of bureaucracy, pointless ‘consultation’ and prevarication. Instead, he now intends to “work with smaller organisations that are less bureaucratic” and in “campaigning  directly as an individual“. These are both valuable but, for me, could never come close to the scale of response we need to make a big enough difference.

Having equipped myself with a vocation, a fistful of degrees and (miraculously) relevant paid employment, I quickly discovered that making further progress was less about me, but rather more about how best to align the energies of a critical mass of like-minded people pulling together. So it has been that I have tried to fathom how to secure large-scale collective action to protect nature, finding ways and means to harness resources on a scale sufficient to have an impact. For example during the 1980s I helped create environmental management schemes within farming policy which now spend hundreds of millions of pounds. We can argue how effective these have been, but in this sector it isn’t true that ‘nothing has changed’. I concede there’s more substance to criticism that wider engagement of conservation bodies has drawn them into a morass of paperwork, consultation and ‘management-speak’. Yet something of this kind has infected most organisations; those in conservation have not been able to maintain a principled immunity.

After graduating in ecological science, I went on to study natural resource management. A postgraduate Diploma⁸ in 1977 framed ‘management’ principally as a mathematical challenge based on measurement, drawing on engineered industrial processes. While these ideas resonated to some extent with my previous science training, in my subsequent work they failed to deliver results on contact with reality. I started work in NCC on Scotland’s rural land management as a singleton, then gradually assembled a small team. Through the 1980s, we fumbled our way forward, bidding for project resources and engaging with wider initiatives, growing in scale and confidence. There was minimal resource planning visible to us across an organisation which was emerging from a relatively quiet backwater of public life and engaging with increasingly controversial issues.

At the same time, I was helping to run two small environmental charities, valuable hands-on experience of how, and how not, to get things done. But scale always eluded us, limited by staff and resources, feeling somewhat lost in a busy wider world.

Successive governments urged public bodies more generally to develop and use systematic management information. Much more explicit expectations emerged that public bodies must set an example of good practice, demonstrating and evidencing accountability in all aspects of their work. Although funds and staff numbers gradually increased, so did the organisational overheads. Three years of secondment to The Scottish Office from 1991 broadened my experience to include a different viewpoint working within a much larger body closer to the heart of Scotland’s affairs. Throughout, the rapid emergence of digital technology made it increasingly feasible to assemble and present management information supporting decisions. Perhaps this was the right path to greater leverage of our combined energies.

From 1995, for several years I found myself in charge of a corporate planning team for SNH, a new body replacing NCC in Scotland, working at a larger scale and with a much higher profile. We drafted documents making the case for our grant-in-aid funding from government, supported the allocation of staff and funds across the organisation, assembled metrics to measure progress against targets to secure budget management outcomes, presented regular progress reports to senior management and drafted an annual report. Very little of this quite busy target-driven ‘bureaucracy’ had existed in previous decades, but SNH could not have opted out of a way of working energetically endorsed by our paymasters in government.

Even at this larger scale (an SNH headcount growing to more than 700) we found ourselves constantly held back by our capacity. We explored joint working and co-operation across other public bodies with related roles, especially in rural land management, which revealed a whole new dimension of challenge⁹.

In 2005, I contrived to embark on another postgraduate diploma¹⁰. I found that quantitative methods were now somewhat out of favour, with a new focus on qualitative understanding of human group behaviour and motivations. ‘Leadership’ was favoured over ‘management’ ( the latter now seen as too mechanistic). This led me to new insights¹¹ which highlight the importance of human agency over algorithms. In other words, humans cannot be treated simply as inert cogs in a machine, but rather should be expected, and encouraged, to exercise their free will. But, however individually talented, the record shows this does not always go well. It seems that any organisation is capable of stupidity¹² and unintended consequences are commonplace.

Such limitations of the public body managerialism of the 1990s and new millennium were exposed following the financial crash of 2008. Over the following decade, funding was progressively withdrawn across a wide spectrum, including the statutory environmental organisations. As a result, the capacity to tackle the many challenges revealed by recent survey and monitoring of nature has been steadily eroded¹³.

Earlier this year, I came across a paper¹⁴ which helpfully rehearses the evolution of these various organisational theories, from the positivist ‘scientific’ or algorithmic management I encountered in the 1970s to the more recent relativist post-modernism of leadership studies. My experiences leads me to agree that “tensions and contradictions are ubiquitous” in institutions, to lament the “misguided pursuit of scientific rationality and fascination with ‘heroic’ leaders“, and agree that we must “find better ways to manage the tension between getting things done and getting people’s needs met“. Getting the results we need remains a work in progress then, to address the frustrations expressed in the Ecos piece referenced above.

So is this strange new land we occupy truly a foreign country, one for which our prior experience provides only limited guidance? I’m not so sure. The rapid re-emergence of previous flaws and behaviours suggests to me that our right response, post-pandemic, is to draw on, and apply, our prior insights and learning.  After all, as another saying has it “The past is never dead, it’s not even past“.