![](_themes/bars/barrulee.gif)
This case study will look at the Isle of Eigg Heritage Trust, almost two years on, and
reflect on the ways in which the trust has involved the community in the decision-making
process. It will also examine how much the trust has achieved so far and what obstacles it
has encountered on the way.
When the inhabitants of Eigg embarked on their buy-out campaign, the issue of community
rights was given particular prominence. The islanders stressed how the community had been
kept out of the decision-making process by the system of private ownership and how this
exclusion hampered the economic development of the island. This aptly demonstrated the
need for a new form of land ownership, one which would involve the community in
decision-making and give it a stake in its own future and also safeguard the natural
environment of the island.
The community buy-out of 1997 effectively put in place a charitable trust, which has
aims largely determined by the islanders, and a board of directors on which there is 50
per cent island representation. With four island directors elected by the Eigg Residents
Association (ERA), two Highland Councillors, two Scottish Wildlife Trust (SWT) directors
and one independent director acting as chairman and holding a casting vote, the Isle of
Eigg Heritage Trust combines local, regional and conservation interests for the benefit of
all, and presents an innovative alternative to private ownership.
The trusts business plan proposed to strike a moderating balance between ensuring
the financial security of the estate, enabling private enterprise and facilitating
appropriate and sustainable development on the island. The plan also took into account the
diverse range of ideas and skills on the island, and most importantly, was based on the
premise that the community would be actively involved in all stages of planning and indeed
would direct the process.
![](_themes/bars/barrulee.gif)
2. From Concept to Reality
The Relationship between ERA and the Trust
When the trust was launched, it was obviously more of a concept than a reality, ideal
on paper but needing some fine-tuning to work in practice, despite the thinking that had
gone into it. In the heat of the campaign, little time was actually spent reflecting on
how the trustees were to achieve accurate representation of the communitys
aspirations. As the Trust started operating, it was assumed that the ERA vote, giving the
island directors the mandate to take decisions on behalf of the residents, adequately
addressed the issue of representation.
At first the Eigg directors consulted their fellow-residents very much in the style in
which consultation had been carried out during the buy-out campaign. Every time there was
a pressing issue, an ERA meeting was convened and the community was asked for an opinion
there and then. Obtaining this kind of knee-jerk reaction had been very useful
during the campaign, but it was now perceived as being too hurried and not giving enough
time for consideration and deliberation.
However it was not always easy to achieve reflection on policy and current issues
through ERA meetings. Community workshops before the buy-out had suggested the creation of
working groups within the ERA to explore various issues. Yet, when the directors of the
trust set up sub-committees of the Board, to deal with various issues such as leases,
properties, land use, tourism and to make the workload easier to handle, these were not
replicated within the community, with the exception of one tourism focus group which was
set up on the initiative of a group of residents who had direct concerns about tourism
issues.
Communication
Communication - liaising between the trust partners as well as with the local community
- was one of the tasks included in the Project Officers remit, when the post was
created in November 1997. Like each island director, the Project Officer was available for
discussion on any issue relating to the trust. She also produced a regular update in the
form of a newsletter to inform the community about what was going on within the trust, as
well as minutes of each directors meeting, which were displayed in the shop and the
Post Office.
In spite of this, there were still some difficulties in getting communication going
between the trust and the community. The reasons were many-fold: some inherent in the
dynamics of small communities; some having to do with the islands remoteness, which
makes it difficult to convene board meetings on the island, and which can cause
frustrating delays at times. Another very important reason was that the passing on of
information was not as effective as it was thought to be. No matter how much printed
information was made available, it became obvious that it was not always read. There was
still a need to thrash things out in a debating arena if this information was to be really
useful and people were to feel involved.
How the issues should be debated was actually the question, for as a rule islanders do
not like formal structures very much. They would rather discuss topics in an informal
setting, often within the framework of a social occasion, rather than sit at a meeting.
But this form of consensus-building was not entirely satisfactory because it did not
necessarily include everyone in the community, nor did it provide a formal record.
There was also a tendency for people to forget altogether that the trust was theirs to
make it what they wanted it to be. They were then tempted to project onto it authoritarian
attributes, and with these the kind of unformulated suspicions previously directed at
landlord figures.
As a result of all these factors, meetings were irregularly attended. Consequently the
directors representing the islanders felt rather depressed by the fact that there appeared
at times to be a lack of support and understanding for the work they carried out on a
voluntary basis. They felt that people were keen to criticise but not so keen to
participate.
Participation
It was only when concerns about participation were finally voiced at an ERA meeting
convened for that purpose, that progress was achieved. A community workshop explored the
style of decision-making; the relationship between the trust and the islanders; the way
agendas were set; and the way ERA meetings and meetings of directors of the trust were
co-ordinated.
This went a long way to clear the air. A formal system was put into place to allow for
a more relaxed tempo in decision-making - one which would allow time for reflection. The
agenda for directors meetings, which take place every two months on average, are now
displayed four weeks in advance. Two weeks before the directors meeting, the ERA
holds a meeting to give feedback on the agenda and receive an update on other business. If
further discussion is needed, issues can be taken to a community workshop. Working groups
have now been planned to allow the community, and crofters in particular, to have more
involvement in feeding ideas to the board, and in management as policy evolves.
Since these changes have been introduced, there has been far more participation in
debate at ERA meetings and a greater feeling of involvement on the part of the community.
Interestingly, it seems that the issue of the new ferry terminal was pivotal in getting
people to express themselves in a much freer way. With the help of the trustees from
outwith the island, the communitys response to the way the external agencies handled
the project evolved from an emotional gut-reaction to a concerted and reasoned opposition,
which has resulted in a decision acceptable to all. It took what was almost another
campaign - though on a much smaller scale - to focus peoples attention on the need
for self-expression.
![](_themes/bars/barrulee.gif)
3. Goals and Achievements
Leases
One of the first goals of the trust was to secure leases for those who did not have
security of tenure when the island was offered for sale. It took about a year to finalise
the terms of most of the leases and farm tenancies. It took even longer in some cases, but
it was the first time that these issues had been addressed and it was important that the
trust started on the right footing.
Interestingly the trustees could find only one independent land agency which had
experience of west coast conditions and circumstances, as most land agents focus on the
eastern part of the country and deal with a very different way of farming. The land agent
was asked to take into account island conditions and the fact that the trust did not seek
to maximise profits, but even so the valuation was felt to be far off the mark. The rents
which were suggested were actually lowered to what the trust felt was realistically within
peoples means.
The wording of the leases themselves also offered some difficulties. Standard,
off the shelf leases, even from firms which are used to dealing with
conservation issues, needed quite a bit of readjusting. They did not seem to address
adequately the problem of combining farming, conservation and tourism interests. Nor did
they seem necessarily appropriate to new forms of ownership such as community trusts. To
adapt them to make them right for Eigg cost both the trust and tenants a lot of money, as
documents went back and forth between all the interested parties.
One solution could be to produce a new batch of standard leases which would be better
adapted to the changes in ownership and uses of the land. Another could be to make legal
advice more easily available at the drafting stage, so that interested parties would have
points of reference. Such measures could reduce legal costs and so save a lot of money for
not-for-profit organisations, often operating on a shoe-string budget. This is perhaps an
issue which the Not-for-Profit Landowners Project Group might be able to deal with
successfully, possibly by drawing on the variety of experience accumulated by its diverse
membership.
The Pier Building
Another important priority for the Trust in its first year of ownership was to build
the new shop and tea-room facilities, taking advantage of the funds offered by Highlands
and Islands Enterprise on 12th June 1997. However, in order to secure the funding, the
trust had to meet the very tight deadline of having the building roofed before April 1998
- something particularly difficult to achieve in winter conditions and on an island. But
the challenge was accepted and every effort was made to meet the deadline, as this was a
flagship project for the trust, which would show what the new ownership was capable of now
that conditions had changed.
It was an advantage that the trust was able to award the tender to an island contractor
who knew what conditions were like on the island and could give much-needed employment to
island residents. The trust was then able to form Eigg Trading Ltd, as a subsidiary
company, and give it a loan of £25,000 for the purpose of building the pier centre,
repayable over 22 years from income derived from renting the premises within the building.
Eigg Trading Ltd was then able to access grant aid, Lochaber Ltd, LEADER II and Highland
Opportunities contributing up to 60 per cent of the costs incurred in setting up and
equipping two of the three businesses within the Pier centre.
By building the Pier building, the trust effectively enabled two island businesses to
evolve into something much more professional. The tea-room became a subsidiary company of
the Isle of Eigg Heritage Trust, employing two young people on the New Deal, providing two
more part-time jobs and taking part in the Investor in People scheme. The craftshop became
a marketing co-operative for craftshop goods, giving islanders an opportunity to sell
their craft goods and develop a wider range of crafts. The trust also helped a third
business by providing new premises for the existing general store, thus giving it an
opportunity of economic viability and growth which would have been much more difficult to
achieve otherwise.
Even though the islanders were very much involved in the pier project, its successful
completion would have been much harder to achieve if it had not been for the Project
Officer, who was appointed in November 1997, six months into the new ownership, mainly to
research and bring forward work on the heritage and community development projects. She
acted as co-ordinator between the architect and the contractor, and also liaised with the
three businesses which now occupy the building, as well as dealing with all other aspects
of the project including funding and the training plan for the tea-room staff.
The Role of the Project Officer
In addition to her co-ordinating role in the pier project, the Project Officer has also
had duties to carry out for the board of trustees, such as acting as clerk at meetings of
the board and liaising between directors and the community. However the Project
Officers main role has been to assist the trust to produce a development plan which
will safeguard the future viability of the island and its heritage. However the pier
project took much more of the Project Officers time than was at first envisaged,
highlighting the fact that there are limits to the amount of work which can be put on
directors who are acting on a voluntary basis, and the importance therefore of having one
person employed full-time in order to carry a major project through.
Despite the importance of the Project Officers post, the trust had considerable
difficulty securing funding for it. The salary was covered for the first year by a funding
package negotiated by the trust, with LEADER II contributing 50 per cent, Lochaber Ltd and
The Highland Council 20 per cent each, and Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH) 10 per cent,
while the trust contributed housing and energy requirements. The Community Land Unit has
funded the post for a further six months, after which it will contribute only
part-funding. This has necessitated funding applications to other agencies. Unfortunately
these have not been successful: Rural Challenge funding, for instance, was not available
for a post which already existed.
The question of funding is one which Maggie Fyffe, Secretary of the trust and one of
the four island directors, feels is crucial. "If a Project Officer could have been
funded before the buy-out, we could have been a lot further down the road in knowing what
was possible," she points out. "When Brian Wilson announced the creation of the
Community Land Unit on 12th June 1997, it was largely because of the problems which we had
had during the buy-out, but it was not operational until a good while after that.... It
would have made a big difference to the community to have had that service in place
straightaway. The big problem in the first few months of the campaign was not knowing what
way to turn to find information about legal advice, financial advice, planning and
funding. Professional services are too costly - we would never have been able to afford
them. We were lucky that we had so many people, in The Highland Council in particular,
willing to help who donated their time and expertise so generously, but once we had
succeeded, we couldnt constantly put these demands on them. We also thought we would
have had access to a feasibility study through the conservation plan which was included in
our Heritage Lottery Fund (HLF) application, but we were told that the HLF does not fund
feasibility studies. There is an obvious need for a properly drawn up and costed
management plan, but there are many difficulties accessing funding to carry it out if you
are working on a shoe-string budget".
In practical terms, the Project Officer found out that 50 per cent of her time was
largely taken up with administrative and secretarial duties: dealing with insurance and
council tax, preparing invoices for rents, etc, filling in grant forms, co-ordinating
proposal schemes for the trust, writing minutes of meetings, tracking down people on the
phone for feed-back on decisions, etc. Only 30 per cent of her time was actually spent
moving projects on, finding sources of funding, or working out the logistics of projects.
The remaining 20 per cent was taken up dealing with enquiries about the trust, preparing
reports for Lochaber Ltd, LEADER, and the Community Land Unit, and also dealing with
issues that arose on the island and talking to islanders about problems. This was the
case, even though much of the administrative work was already devolved to the Trust
Secretary, who is unpaid and carries out these extra duties on an entirely voluntary
basis.
The large administrative burden illustrates the need to create a part-time support post
for an administrative secretary. This in turn poses the question of accessing enough
funding for two posts rather than one. It also highlights the need to broaden the skills
range within the community so that when the Project Officers contract comes to an
end, a larger proportion of these tasks can be devolved.
The Development Plan
Nevertheless, the Project officer managed to bring together all the necessary elements
of the development plan, including the housing repair strategy which concerns most of the
17 properties owned by the trust, a large number of these being in various states of
dereliction. Both the local authority and the local housing association have been a great
help in trying to find a way to do up empty homes and tenanted houses. One difficulty is
that help-packages are not particularly geared to the needs of not-for-profit
landownership. Another is accessing funding: security for loans for improvements and
repairs is a problem since, unlike traditional landownership, the trust does not want to
use land as security. A bigger problem is the need to have a guaranteed income to cover
monthly repayments on a loan. This issue is part of a continuing discussion about housing.
The trust can either take a mortgage to help fund repairs, which would lead to an increase
in rents, which may in turn lead to a reliance on housing benefit. Or the trust can sell
one of its empty properties to make a contribution to repairs on the others - a policy
contrary to its original intentions. This is the dilemma currently being discussed by the
community.
However, the Woodland Grant Scheme put together by the SWT has now been finalised. This
five-year programme will create much-needed employment for islanders in fencing, clearing
trees, and chipping these to lay paths to improve access to the island forestry, an asset
which the trust wants to maximise as a visitor attraction, as the timber is not
commercially valuable, although some is used locally. Costing £220,000, the programme
will be partly funded by LEADER, SNH and Lochaber Ltd, with an anticipated shortfall of
£100,000 mostly relating to capital equipment. This, it is hoped, will be met by the
Millennium Forest for Scotland Trust. The Woodland Grant Scheme represents the start of a
longer plan for forestry improvements and the development of new woodland areas. It is at
the core of the trusts management policy for existing woodlands on the island, which
is designed to benefit nature conservation, landscape and amenity and public access
interests by encouraging the regeneration of natural woodland and the associated wildlife
benefits that this would bring. With work due to commence in autumn 1999, a trust
sub-committee has been set up to make decisions with the islanders on such issues as
contracting rates, the type of equipment to be used, the training required and the grants
which can be accessed through crofting schemes.
![](_themes/bars/barrulee.gif)
4. Conclusion
The transformation of the trust from abstract idea into effective management tool has
probably been one of the most important achievements in the first 18 months of the new
ownership. The somewhat laboured way in which the change has been brought about highlights
how important it is to take time and effort to establish a formal definition of the
representation process in complex partnerships such as the trust. It also shows that even
if a community wants to have a better voice or more representation, it cannot take it for
granted that this will happen.
Although much can be said for learning from experience, there should be easier ways of
achieving better representation than trial and error. This is not after all a question of
re-inventing the wheel, and the Community Land Unit may very well be able to help in the
future.
Enabling organisations, such as Highlands and Islands Forum, have been extremely
valuable in helping a small, isolated community such as Eigg to learn how to achieve
consensus through group workshops. Whilst the workshop approach has been constantly
helpful in resolving problems, a wider range of participatory methods would have been
equally useful. The Residential Workshop of the Not-for-Profit Landowners Project Group
held on Eigg in September 1998 highlighted how much communities differ in their knowledge
and use of such methods.
There are plenty of training schemes available to build up self-assertiveness and
self-expression as well as leadership skills. This type of training is in fact routinely
offered in-house in most businesses and administrations. As part of a help-package it
would go a long way to giving a positive kick-start. Introducing such training as a
pre-requisite to a community buy-out would probably be very rewarding in the long term. In
fairness it should be available to those individuals who volunteer to carry out important
functions in their community for it would help them to fulfil their tasks. It would be
equally useful for community councillors. Acquisition of leadership and facilitation
skills throughout the community would also go towards enlarging the pool of suitable
candidates for these types of roles.
As experience in the community proves, it certainly takes a great deal of assertiveness
and confidence to acquire a say in the future. This often means tackling a bureaucracy and
a legal system which does not necessarily take into account community aspirations. As the
land reform movement has demonstrated, the contrary is more likely to be true, for these
systems "were designed to deliver policies geared to the existing pattern of
ownership and are in no condition to deliver to a reformed pattern".
However, despite the financial restrictions caused by the limited income available to
the trust and the other difficulties described above, much has been achieved in the first
eighteen months of ownership. The pier building, a major project, has been completed. Its
ownership by the trust has allowed individual and collective businesses on the island to
develop. Employment is to be provided through the Woodland Grant Scheme and the housing
repair programme. The necessary ground-work for a development plan has been completed.
Financially, the trust and its subsidiary companies have even managed to show a small
profit in their yearly accounts, something which few new businesses can boast of in their
first year.
Taking stock and accumulating data has also allowed the trust and the islanders to
become more realistic. Expectations have been tested by reality, and adjustments will have
to be made to policy and planning. At the same time perhaps, the most useful lesson
learned has been that a small community can handle only so much at a time and needs to
phase development in a manageable way, as well as remaining in control of it, a point
abruptly brought to mind by the issue of the ferry terminal with all its implications. It
is healthy for the community and the trust to decide in favour of slower progress with
decisions on future development made in an informed and steady way, thereby increasing the
learning curve and responsibility-taking throughout the community.
However, success still depends on the powers-that-be helping to deliver funding for the
crucial post of Project Officer over the next two years. If Eigg was part of an overseas
development scenario, it would be acknowledged that results would emerge only from a
serious commitment to long-term funding. In the Highlands and Islands it seems this has
yet to be recognised.
![](_themes/bars/barrulee.gif)