Appendices

Social Land Ownership

SISTER SITES

Caledonia
Who Owns Scotland?
Land Reform
Land Reform Guidance
Commonweal Papers
Networks of Agents
Training of Trainers

Appendix 1	The strengths and weaknesses of the Whole Estate Plan Framework
Appendix 2	Participatory Tools for use in the Whole Estate Plan Process
Appendix 3	Acknowledgements

APPENDIX I:

The strengths and weaknesses of the Whole Estate Plan Framework

The framework has certain inherent strengths and weaknesses some of these are listed below:

Strengths

	Encourages a ‘can do’ outlook: community groups can plan for themselves.
	Places emphasis on community’s involvement in the process, rather than achieving the product.
	Introduces discipline (if people see it as of value).
	Should help communities realise their potentials.

	Is action-oriented from the community side.
	Should encourage a greater degree of local control, e.g., of natural resources.
	Puts responsibility on communities - which has a cost in time and resources.
	Identifies tangible outcomes.
	Provides a framework for those who are ready to own and manage land.

	Helps prevent ‘nothing changes after acquisition’ scenario.

	Creates opportunity for links to other development initiatives.
	Is cross-sectoral. (social, economic and environmental)
	Fits into community planning at a local level as an essential element of an effective community planning framework.
	Links with government policy and government paper on land reform

Weaknesses

Timing - in pre-bid situations there may be very little time to prepare a plan.

	People may question the need to prepare a plan. There is a tendency not to plan.
	Takes a lot of work. Are people ready for this? Number of people willing to put in time actually quite limited.
	People may find it difficult to relate to the framework because it is different.
	May raise conflicts and tensions when there is a need to place values on things.
	Links to other agency initiatives require human resources and energy.

Other Points

	Involves much more action planning than in existing Local Plan-making process.
	Plan must be put into action quickly after acquisition to maintain momentum.
	Any WEP Document must be prepared primarily for the use and understanding of the community.
	There are always a few people willing to take on a leadership role.

APPENDIX II:

Participatory Tools for use in the Whole Estate Plan Process

The following list of information-gathering techniques can be used as participatory methods, to ensure that the community itself is actively involved in the planning process. Ownership of the outcomes will be better achieved through utilising some of these tools. It is important to have decided what you aim to achieve before selecting a particular tool or technique.

	community meetings
	discussions with individual (key) informants
	focus group discussions
	questionnaires (structured, open and closed questions)
	historical timelines
	small group work/workshops followed by plenary sessions
	seasonal calendars
	one-to-one ‘surgeries’
	circulation of short statement of vision by management group, followed by consultation
	developing local development plans with local communities, using e.g. Planning for Real

	Ranking resources and priorities (history, natural history, culture)
	community appraisal, using small workshops
	community profiles
	PIMA (Probing, Identifying, Matching and Agreeing)
	participatory meetings
	mind mapping
	Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats (SWOT)
	questionnaires
	staff appraisal
	historical maps
	performance drama
	paired listening.

Reference Resources:

A useful guide is "Participatory Learning and Action: A Trainer’s Guide" by Jules Pretty and others, International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED), London. ISBN: 1099825002. Cost: �15 + p&p

‘Tools for Change, a Practical Guide to Community Indicators of Sustainability’, by Alana Albee and David Reid. This 3 part publication can be obtained from: Community Learning Scotland, Roseberry House, 9 Haymarket Terrace, EDINBURGH, EH12 5EZ. ISBN: 1853472940. Cost: �15 for individuals, �25 for agencies.

APPENDIX 3:

Acknowledgements

The Not-for-Profit Project Group thanks:

	Highlands and Islands Enterprise and Scottish Natural Heritage, for funding the Project, and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds for contributions in kind,
	the Not-for-Profit Management Committee,
	all those who participated in the workshops,
	representatives and members of the 35 organisations which have contributed to the development of the Whole Estate Planning Framework over the period November 1996 to December 1998:

Community property associations

Abriachan Forest Trust; Culag Community Woodland Trust; Dalnavert Community Co-operative; EarthShare; Easdale Residents Association; Garrick Wood Group; Highland Renewal; Hoy Trust; Isle Martin Trust; Laggan Forest Trust; Minard Castle Forest Group; Stornoway Trust; Stromeferry/Fernaig Group; Woodland Acquisition Group

Crofting trusts

Assynt Crofters Trust; Borve and Annishadder Township; Inverroy and Bohuntin Crofters

Consortium approaches

Church of Scotland Trustees; Island of Eigg Heritage Trust; Knoydart Foundation

Conservation, amenity and recreational trusts

Clan Donald Lands Trust; John Muir Trust; National Trust for Scotland; Royal Society for the Protection of Birds; Scottish Wildlife Trust; Trees for Life; Woodland Trust

Public agencies

Crofters Commission; the Highland Council; Highlands and Islands Enterprise's Community Land Unit; Scottish Natural Heritage

Non-governmental organisations

Crofting Trust Advisory Service; Highlands and Islands Forum; the Scottish Crofters Union and the Scottish Office Land Reform Policy Group.