Community and Conservation Ownership in Highland Scotland
-
A Common Focus in a Changing Context
Hamish Chenevix-Trench and Lorna Philip, October 2000
Aberdeen Papers in Land Economy, University of Aberdeen, Department of Land
Economy
Printer friendly versions -
125Kb doc
121 kb pdf
Abstract
Legislation on the topic of land reform will enter statue during the lifetime of
the first administration of the Scottish Parliament. It is thus timely to review
types of land ownership that have evolved in Scotland in the recent past. This
paper briefly reviews the context of the current land reform debate. It
considers the characteristics of community and conservation ownership,
exemplified in case studies of the North Lochinver Estate (owned by the Assynt
Crofters Trust) and the Sandwood Estate (owned by the John Muir Trust). Positive
and negative aspects of these two management structures are illustrated and a
convergence in management approaches, towards a focus on community interest and
involvement is demonstrated. The emergence of a social sector in land ownership
is considered.
Key words: land reform, community ownership, conservation ownership
Contents
1. Land ownership in Scotland
2. Land reform - a changing context
3. The development of community and conservation ownership
3.1 Community ownership
3.2 Conservation ownership
3.3 Conservation and community partnerships
3.4 Conservation and Community land owners: how do they work in practice and
what is their future direction?
4. Community ownership in practice: the North Lochinver estate (The Assynt
Crofters Trust)
4.1 Rationale for ownership
4.2 Management structure
4.3 Management in practice
5. Conservation ownership in practice: The Sandwood Estate (The John Muir Trust)
5.1 Rationale for ownership
5.2 Management structure
5.3 Management in practice
6. Towards a co-ordinated social sector of land ownership in Scotland
7. References
8. Further Information
9. Endnotes
In the newly devolved Scotland, as the Scottish Parliament begins to exert
influence throughout the areas for which Westminster has not retained power ,
land ownership and management have become subjects of mainstream political
debate. This paper examines the operation of two forms of land ownership,
community and conservation ownership, and explores their future within a
political environment where land is on the legislative agenda.
That the subject of land, and land ownership in particular, continues to arouse
such interest indicates that it is a powerful resource. McCrone (1997) describes
the association between the land and The Land, suggesting that land is
intimately linked to the culture and democracy of Scotland. The identity of
Scotland and the idealisation of its culture in terms of Highland history are
closely bound up with the land. References to nineteenth century clearances when
explaining the predicament of present day rural Scotland are indicative of a
tendency to view Scottish history and society as a single continuum,
incorporating both myth and fact (McCrone, 1992). In this way land and its
ownership are central to the Scottish psyche.
As well as being a symbol of nationhood, land is also a tool of economic and
social development. Throughout the twentieth century, there has been a popular
debate on land ownership which, although often informed by emotion and
prejudice, deals with the ownership of a resource that is fundamental to society
and upon which all economic activity relies (Wightman, 1996). It is for this
reason that land ownership and management are now central political issues. As
Callander (1987) states, it is the system of land ownership that determines the
use of land and natural resources. It has long been recognised that the
ownership of land involves more than simply the right to use an area of ground (MacGregor,
1993). Throughout the centuries over which the feudal system in Scotland has
developed, property rights have conferred economic, social and political
advantages on their holders. Historically, there was considerable power derived
from land ownership, which gave autonomous control at a local level and access
to Parliament at a national level (McCrone, 1997). During the twentieth century
the power structure in Britain altered, but the influence vested in land
ownership remained, albeit set in a different context. Bird (1982) outlines the
effects on a rural community of an owner's decisions and demonstrates the power
that remains vested in land ownership, in terms of the social and economic
development of the community.
The ownership debate is founded on a number of perceived problems resulting from
the current land ownership system. The concentrated pattern of ownership has led
to popular concern over access to resources and social and economic development
in rural areas. Land holdings often include established settlements, giving rise
to questions over the balance of power in terms of development and management
practice, and ultimately questions of accountability. Calls for land reform
focus on altering the balance of power to facilitate wider access to resources.
The perceived economic constraints of the current land ownership system combine
with emotions of social injustice to create a powerful movement for reform. The
popularity of the debate stems largely from its characterisation as a struggle
of people against privilege (Fry, 1987).
As Cramb (1996) notes, the increase in public interest in the 1980s and 1990s
was not a reawakening of the political drive for reform. Instead, it was largely
a result of developing environmental awareness. Over the last two decades the
effectiveness and suitability of management practices have been questioned. As
more members of the public demand conservation practices and environmental
benefits, the system of land management has come under closer scrutiny. Rather
than focusing on management however, the debate has focused on the ownership of
land.
The current land reform process, initiated in 1997, seeks to settle the land
question for the immediate future, clarifying the relationship between the Scots
and their land . It is thus of considerable interest to academics and policy
makers to examine the issues of land ownership within this emerging legislative
context. The twentieth century has seen considerable diversity in land ownership
develop, two of the most significant new owners to emerge being conservation
groups and local (often crofting) communities. These ownership structures have
increased rapidly over the last decade in particular and have been widely
heralded as a solution to the problems of the land question, seen by some as
righting historical wrongs (Boyd, 1999). A question arises, however, over
whether this ownership is a long-term solution, or simply a response to a set of
circumstances peculiar to a particular point in time? Will the new legislative
framework have room for both ownership models? At a time when the constitutional
framework, and in consequence the political arena in Scotland, has undergone
significant change, it is worth examining the background to and current position
of conservation and community land ownership, seeking to identify the possible
long-term direction these structures could take.
Land reform is not a new issue in politics. As noted above, the land reform
debate has run for much of the second half of the twentieth century and was
brought into focus in the 1970s, particularly by McEwan (1977). Until the 1990s
those advocating reform were thought of as radical campaigners on the margins of
the political arena. The last decade has seen land reform enter the political
mainstream and considerable changes to the context in which conservation and
community groups operate have been observed.
In 1995, the then Secretary of State for Scotland, Michael Forsyth, proposed
that the Scottish Office should transfer ownership of 250,000 acres of crofting
land to community trusts (The Herald, 21st October 1995). By this time the
Assynt Crofters Trust had been established as a result of a much publicised
community purchase. The Government sought advice from the Assynt Crofters Trust
and this was seen as a first, albeit cautious, endorsement of community
ownership (Am Bratach, November 1995).
After the 1997 general election, the Government set up the Land Reform Policy
Group to carry out a consultation exercise and make recommendations for land
reform legislation. The advent of the Scottish Parliament has allowed the debate
to move from a discussion of principle to a forum within which detailed
proposals have been compiled. The Parliament, formally opened in July 1999,
presents a real opportunity for legislative action to occur (Land Reform Policy
Group, 1998). The proposals for legislation covered five principal themes, all
of which aimed to alter the balance of power and optimise use of resource. These
proposals have reached different stages within the legislative process .
Firstly, the Abolition of Feudal Tenure Bill, which obtained Royal Assent in
June 2000, has modernised the legal framework of land tenure, replacing the
feudal system with a system of outright ownership. Secondly detailed policy
proposals for Agricultural Holdings Reform were published in April 2000. These
seek to loosen the constraints on the landlord-tenant relationship and
specifically, there is to be greater freedom to contract in terms of tenancy
duration and lease terms are to be modernised to encourage diversification
(Scottish Executive, 2000a). Thirdly, the development of draft proposals for a
community right to buy land continues. The proposals will cover rural land in
Scotland and it is intended that a register of community interest will be
established. Once a properly constituted community body has registered its
interest over an area of land, if and when that land comes to the market, the
community will be given a right to buy at a price determined by a Government
valuer. A six-month period will be allowed for the community to raise the
necessary funds. The system is to backed-up by a power of compulsory purchase to
prevent deliberate evasion of the procedure (Scottish Executive 1999). Fourthly,
a suite of proposals designed to modernise crofting legislation, in particular a
special right to buy for crofting communities (Scottish Executive news release
SE1426/1999) will be made available for consultation early in 2001 and, finally,
legislation on countryside and natural heritage issues has also been included
under the Land Reform legislation umbrella.
As mentioned above, conservation groups and local communities have emerged as
two of the most significant new land ownership groups in recent years. The
rationale and evolution of these two forms of land ownership display significant
variations. This section of the paper presents an overview of the development of
community and conservation ownership and subsequent sections examine, through
the use of two case studies, how these ownership structures have evolved in
practice.
Despite many collective land schemes in the nineteenth century, the first
instance of modern community ownership came in 1923, when Lord Leverhulme gifted
his Lewis estate to the community, in the form of the Stornoway Trust (Boyd,
1999). Community ownership developed little until the 1980s when interest in
this type of ownership grew again. In 1982, for example, the Dalnavert Community
Co-operative was formed, a small-scale ownership group in Strathspey. It was in
the 1990s that community ownership grew significantly, developing on an
opportunistic basis, where communities responded to particular circumstances
which allowed a change in ownership to be an option.
The Assynt Crofters Trust was on of the first large-scale community purchases,
completed in 1993. The Trust was formed by the community to purchase and manage
the 21,300-acre North Lochinver Estate, which consists entirely of croft land.
Assynt was seen as a historic achievement by those advocating reform and
received considerable support from the general public (MacKenzie, 1998a). Other
crofting communities, such as Borve and Melness, also set up crofting trusts to
purchase land, following the Assynt example.
The development of community ownership has been marked by certain high profile
purchases that have received national attention. Communities have been able to
capitalise on public sympathy in cases of poor management in order to fund
purchases. The structure of community ownership has evolved over recent years.
The early crofting trusts such as Assynt are pure community groups, owned and
managed solely by local inhabitants (MacKenzie, 1998b). Other community
initiatives, such as Laggan and Abriachan, have been based on a rural
development forestry approach. Laggan's bid to purchase the forest in fact
failed, but they did negotiate a management structure that directly involves and
benefits the community (Laggan Community, 1997).
The origin of modern conservation ownership in Scotland dates back to 1931 when
the National Trust for Scotland (NTS) was founded to promote the permanent
preservation for the benefit of the nation of lands and buildings of historic or
national interest or natural beauty (Johnston, 2000, p3). In the early 1930s,
when estates in the popular climbing area of Glencoe came onto the market,
mountaineers organised a nation-wide appeal to purchase the land. It was then
gifted to the NTS for the benefit of the public (Boyd, 1999).
Since then, several other organisations have entered the land market. Early
experience convinced conservation groups that outright ownership was the best
way to achieve their objectives (Riddell, 1998). In the last decade in
particular, conservation organisations have become a significant force in the
land market, capitalising on the growing environmental concern among the general
public (Cramb, 1996). Between 1980 and 1995, voluntary sector ownership
increased by 146 percent of which 70 percent occurred between 1990 and 1995. If
the growth continues at this rate, then the voluntary sector will own 10 percent
of Scotland by 2010 (Wightman, 1996).
Conservation organisations are generally pseudo-public agencies. They are
largely non-profit making or charitable bodies that seek to provide public
benefits, supported by a public membership and public funding (Dwyer & Hodge,
1996). This explains the rationale behind their entry into the land market in
recent years. At a time when environmental concern has been high, conservation
groups have stepped in to safeguard the public interest. They are effectively a
compromise, in the middle of the private-public continuum. They are private
organisations, but pursue objectives they perceive to be in the public interest
(Woodland Trust for Scotland, 1998). However Wightman (1996) expresses
reservations about the growth of conservation ownership. Describing conservation
groups as first aid organisations, he suggests that their role is limited and
that, ultimately, communities and individuals should be responsible for managing
the natural heritage. Looking at its development in the wider context, Wightman
describes the rise of conservation ownership as a statement of failure.
Conservation groups should be asking themselves not how much more land they can
buy, but how soon they can get rid of it (Wightman, 1996, p183) .
More recently, partnership approaches have developed in which conservation and
community interests have come together. The Isle of Eigg Heritage Trust, for
example, comprises representatives from the Eigg Residents Association, Highland
Council and the Scottish Wildlife Trust. Its constitution ensures that there is
always 50 percent community representation on the board (MacDonnell, 1998). The
purchase of Eigg in 1997 was particularly significant in that it coincided with
the general election that saw Labour elected to office following 18 years of
Conservative government. On the day of the purchase, Highland and Island
Enterprise was asked by the Scottish Office to set up a Community Land Unit to
assist communities in the purchase and management of land (Community Land Unit,
1998). This represented the start of a significant shift in status for community
ownership. For the first time, Government began to actively promote community
ownership and management, and crucially to offer financial support for up to 20
percent of the acquisition costs (Community Land Unit, 1998).
The partnership approach pioneered on Eigg has developed further in the
formation of the Knoydart Foundation. In a long-running attempt to buy the
Knoydart estate several interest groups came together. The John Muir Trust and
the Chris Brasher Trust joined the Highland Council and local residents to form
the Knoydart Foundation when the estate was put on the market in 1995 (Garavelli,
1999). This multi-agency approach has been offered as a way forward by some
organisations. Having developed independently, conservation and community
interests are coming together to form a new social ownership sector (Boyd,
1999).
In the case of Eigg, the Scottish Wildlife Trust had a long-standing
relationship with the island and its community under the previous owners. The
case of the Knoydart Foundation, however, confirms fears regarding internal
tensions. Having virtually secured a deal whereby neighbouring land owner Sir
Cameron Mackintosh would buy the estate and lease it back to the community for a
peppercorn rent, splits emerged (Ross, 1999a). The John Muir Trust announced
that it could not accept the deal without a right to buy clause. The residents
backed this demand, causing the two members of the Highland Council involved in
the negotiations to speak out against them (Garavelli, 1999). In March 1999, the
Knoydart Foundation finally purchased the estate for £750,000 (Ross, 1999b). The
multi-agency approach as illustrated above may not be the ideal solution but in
many cases communities have needed the financial backing that conservation
organisations can offer. The formation of the Not-for-Profit Landowners Group
indicates that this approach is likely to continue. The group draws together
conservation interests and community interests, aiming to bring a collective
influence to bear on the land market and promote the social sector in ownership
(Boyd, 1998).
The development of community and conservation ownership raises questions over
their future direction in the changing context of Government policy and land
tenure. Their rise has been opportunistic and a response to particular
circumstances. If conservation ownership developed as a response to a failure in
the system, does the changing context mean that it is no longer required to
protect the public interest? If these structures emerged as a stopgap until
reform, to bridge the extremes of the historical debate, then reform legislation
may render them unnecessary. Will conservation ownership simply become a step on
the road to community ownership, or do both have a long-term future?
In an attempt to answer these important questions research was conducted in two
areas of north west Scotland where community and conservation ownership have
replaced the private estate system of land ownership. In depth interviews with
key actors in the Assynt Crofters Trust and the Sandwood Estate (owned by the
John Muir Trust) provided an insight into how community and conservation
ownership is evolving. Short, informal interviews with crofting and non-crofting
residents of the two case study estates provided valuable insights into
day-to-day matters and described the relationship between local communities and
the management structure in a candid manner. Building a picture of alternative
management structures allows an informed commentary about the strengths and
weaknesses these land ownership structures embody to be made. At a time when
land reform legislation is nearing the statute book it is important that the
management practicalities as well as the ideals of community and conservation
ownership are aired.
The following case studies examine community and conservation ownership
structures in practice, in an attempt to answer these important questions.
The North Lochinver Estate is situated on the West Coast of Sutherland, to the
north of the fishing village of Lochinver. It consists almost entirely of
crofting land, with thirteen townships housing approximately 400 residents.
There are 130 crofters, 100 non-crofting residents and a significant number of
seasonal residents. The area is a popular tourist destination, renowned for its
natural beauty.
The North Lochinver Estate was purchased by the Assynt Crofters Trust in 1993 in
order to safeguard the interests of the residents. Under previous ownership,
projects viewed as vital to the development of the community were stifled as a
result of the owner's views of the area: he wanted to maintain the estate as he
knew it as a child. Blocking a harbour development, a project viewed as crucial
to the future economic success of Lochinver, and the release of only poor
quality marshland for council housing projects are cited as illustrations of
this reluctance to support new developments . In 1989, the 21,300 acres
(formerly part of the Lochinver Estate) were sold for £1,080,000 to Scandinavian
Property Services Ltd, a Swedish land speculator. In 1992, the company went into
liquidation and the estate was once again put on the market, now in seven lots.
In order to protect the community from the possible break-up of the estate, the
Assynt branch of the Scottish Crofters Union called emergency meetings and
resolved to raise the funds to purchase the entire estate. After two offers were
rejected, the Trust eventually bought the estate for £300,000 with financial
support from Caithness and Sutherland Enterprise, Scottish Natural Heritage and
Highland Regional Council.
The estate is run by a board of directors, comprising of one elected director
from each of the thirteen townships. There is also a part-time administrator.
The board meets every six weeks, while an executive committee meets every three
weeks to deal with day-to-day business. All decisions have to pass through the
full board, giving each township formal representation. This management
structure has operated since 1993 but there are disadvantages. Some townships
are very small, limiting the potential pool of directors and personal conflicts
have created splits in the community. Crofters are generally not keen to join
the board due to the responsibility it entails and the delicate balance involved
in being both crofter and landlord. Having been administered by a wealthy
landowner in the past, many crofters find it difficult to adjust: to having your
affairs run by your neighbour down the road is a different matter altogether .
This structure is essentially endogenous management, the opposite of the
ownership structure prior to the community purchase. The endogenous approach is,
however, largely alien to many of the crofters and it is sometimes difficult to
involve large sections of the community. The assistant to the Trust suggests
that there is insufficient communication between the small group of people
actively involved in the management and the remaining crofters in the townships.
This is a common problem with endogenous approaches, which are often initially
directed from outside the community (Remmers, 1996).
There is no external representation on the board. Non-crofting residents are not
directly involved in the management structure, although they may attend two
general meetings each year. While the Chairman of the Trust would like to
involve non-crofters to a greater extent, he feels that: they're
disenfranchised, although many of them contributed at the time of the take-over
. Nonetheless they are recognised as a valuable resource and local-incomer
conflicts are few. The existence of the Trust structure allows for long-term
planning. While some may question why the crofters do not own individual parcels
of land themselves; this would be to miss the point of community ownership. The
Trust acts as facilitator, creating opportunities for the residents to develop
further.
The Trust's principle aim is to prove that we can run the estate a lot better
than any other landlord . Assynt is seen as a model that people look to for
inspiration and leadership, and so the estate must therefore strive to be
successful.
Community ownership can create problems, for example: because some of the
crofters think that now they own the land, which they technically do, they
should be able to do anything they like. They think that to do what you like is
democracy, it's not, that's anarchy . When a croft becomes vacant it is the
responsibility of the Trust to decide who should take over. This is normally
done in full consultation with, and with the full agreement of the township
concerned. In one particular case the township was made up largely of one family
who wanted to amalgamate the vacant croft with their existing holding. The Trust
had to insist that someone else take over the croft, in order that the township
might develop with more people. The existing crofting family felt that since the
estate is owned by the crofters they should be able to do as they wanted, but
the Trust was concerned with the wider picture, hoping to make that township
more sustainable in the long-term. This example clearly demonstrates the benefit
of maintaining an overall landlord in the form of a community trust to limit the
potentially damaging effects of individual interests taking precedence over
wider community interests.
The estate has to cover all its costs and there is no regular source of external
funding. Any surplus is ploughed back into developing projects to benefit the
community. At present, fishing provides a significant income and the Trust is
investigating the opportunity of letting some shooting. In March 1999 after
several years of negotiations, a micro-hydro-electric scheme at Loch Poll was
approved (West Highland Free Press, 29th March 1999). The Trust are developing
the scheme with Highland Electric Power who will run the project for the first
15-years, following which the Trust will take full responsibility. By selling
power to the National Grid this scheme will generate a relatively stable income,
something the Trust regards as vital to its long-term development.
The Trust is also keen to develop housing for both the existing population and
to encourage inward migration. It is currently examining the possibility of
building houses in partnership with Scottish Homes. The process of releasing
land for this purpose involves discussions with, and the approval of, the
grazings committees. In theory, the Trust could take the land if it wanted and
compensate the crofters, but that's not the way it works . The Trust prefers to
work with the full support and involvement of the crofters.
Although there is no external representation in the ownership structure, the
Trust does make use of outside consultants and contractors. In this way, it has
access to knowledge and skills that are not available within the community.
Tilhill Economic Forestry for example carries out the woodland management. In
the initial scheme, the main board of the Trust dealt with Tilhill, whereas now
the relationship is directly with the individual townships. Local people are
employed in the planting and maintenance work. There have also been noticeable
social changes on the estate since the Trust took ownership. Whereas people used
to refer to Lochinver when speaking about the area, they now refer to Assynt as
a whole. The estate community has grown stronger and developed socially and
people's perception of their community and themselves has changed . The increase
in social interaction stimulated for example by informal ceilidhs held regularly
since the Trust took ownership, supports the premise that social development is
as important as economic development in maintaining a viable rural community (Duthchas
Project, 1999). The emphasis at Assynt is on animation and capacity building in
order to stimulate development. The Trust does not aim to provide for the
residents directly, but to create opportunities which enable members of the
community to create and realise further opportunities. As the Chairman of the
Trust stated, it is not the fact of ownership that is important but what
ownership enables .
The Sandwood Estate also lies on the Atlantic coast, just south of Cape Wrath,
near the fishing village of Kinlochbervie. The 11,500-acres that comprise the
estate were previously part of the neighbouring Kinlochbervie Estate. The
Sandwood Estate includes seven crofting townships and a significant length of
coastline including Sandwood Bay, a popular walking area of conservation
interest.
The John Muir Trust bought the estate to further its aim to protect and conserve
wild places and to increase awareness and understanding of the value of such
places (John Muir Trust, 1997, p1). Their ownership was not a response to
existing problems, rather a concern about possible problems in the future, that
land could be purchased by whoever wanted and they could do what they wanted …
some of the selling points of the estate at the time were development of
buildings and fisheries . Thus, in the eyes of the John Muir Trust, they sought
to protect the value of the land for the benefit of the public.
The Trust was concerned from the outset to maintain close dialogue with the
community. It wanted to make it clear that it was not solely interested in the
conservation value. The community on the estate was also important. The purchase
was funded largely through the Trust's own resources and donations from its
members with significant assistance from the National Heritage Memorial Fund (NHMF).
The funding from the NHMF came through Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH) and
carried a number of management agreements that have given rise to difficulties .
While the Trust would like to remain flexible and free to respond to individual
circumstances, the management agreements bind it to restrictive policies in some
cases.
This estate is run by a management committee consisting of six crofters and two
to three representatives of the John Muir Trust. Although the Trust would like
to involve non-crofting residents, friction between locals and incomers led
crofters to state that they would not work on a committee that included
non-crofters. The committee meets four times a year to discuss important issues.
Day-to-day management is overseen by the resident conservation manager, employed
directly by the Trust (with financial assistance from SNH). The Trust gives the
estate considerable autonomy in management, to activate the community here,
trying to free their hands by saying we've got such and such amount of money, do
with it what you want, you decide . There is an emphasis upon a partnership
approach between the Trust and the community with the inclusion of members of
the central Trust organisation on the management committee resulting in the
Trust being directly involved in the management process. This level of Trust
involvement means that a more endogenous style of management is realised than
would have been possible if the Trust had chosen to direct policy from out with
the estate. Like Assynt however, this endogenous approach is not a concept with
which the community has been fully at ease. One of the main purposes of the
Trust is, however to encourage management decisions to be taken by residents.
Instead of taking the final decision away from the community, as was the case
prior to the John Muir Trust's purchase, the Trust now uses the management
committee to pass decisions back to the community. Residents are therefore faced
with having to take responsibility, something, which many seem reluctant to do.
Despite the efforts of the Trust, it has been difficult to motivate the
community to take management responsibility: it's been difficult to try to get
people to grasp the idea that this is their committee . A significant change of
attitude amongst the community itself is required, a task approached largely
through the Trust acting as facilitator and guide, creating opportunities and
giving residents the support necessary to realise these opportunities.
The estate is run, as a non-profit making organisation, but it must cover its
costs. The running costs are relatively low and income from crofting rents,
wayleave agreements and donations supplement funding from the central coffers of
the John Muir Trust. The Trust has developed a positive relationship with the
community and has avoided conflicts by developing effective lines of
communication. Local crofters appear to be very happy with the approach taken by
the Trust. All those interviewed in the field research conducted in 1999 stated
that the community enjoys a good relationship with the Trust and there is
support for particular initiatives such as tree planting and general estate
maintenance. One of the grazing clerks went so far as to say that the purchase
by the John Muir Trust was the best thing that ever happened to the estate. From
the crofters' point of view, the Trust does not interfere with their activities
but is there to help when required. One of the crofters stated that they are
also happy to pay rent to the Trust, knowing that it will be used for the
benefit of the estate. As well as improving the physical infrastructure, several
developments have strengthened the relationship between the Trust as owners and
the community as a whole. Through the conversion of ruined building into a
community hall for example, the Trust is trying to involve the non-crofting
residents in the process of regenerating the Sandwood Estate.
Tree planting has been a significant new development on the estate with 40-acres
of woodland recently planted on former grazing land at Sandwood Loch. This
scheme is significant in that it involves the crofters directly in forestry
activities. It is more common practice for landowners to resume grazings and
undertake forestry activities alone. The conservation manager pointed out that
the crofters said it would have been a lot easier if the Trust had just taken it
out of the grazings and just done it itself. I can see their point and the fact
that they would have been willing to hand it over to the Trust is good, but by
involving the crofters, it means that the benefits go to them. Keeping them
involved is important, even if it is complicated . The Trust also organises a
number of volunteer work parties to undertake conservation work, particularly
erosion control on the machair and footpath maintenance. The conservation work
however does not have a direct impact on crofting activities. Crofting practices
have not had to change to fit with the Trust's policies.
The emphasis on community is perhaps surprising from a conservation owner, but
it is clear that the Trust believes that the conservation of the environment is
best secured by the maintenance of a viable community structure. The
conservation manager admitted that, in an ideal world, the John Muir Trust
should be able to walk out of Sandwood in the future, having set up an effective
community management structure. This observation returns the discussion to the
concept of conservation ownership as a first-aid measure. Can conservation
ownership, particularly in the case at Sandwood where the crofting community has
taken on a management role, have a long-term independent future?
The case studies although selected because it was assumed they would illustrate
distinct ownership patterns revealed converging management approaches with a
common focus on community interest and involvement. Both management structures
are intended to be long-term, through the formation of a trust to guard against
short-sighted individualism. The management aims of both the North Lochinver and
Sandwood Estates emphasise animation and capacity building, where the ownership
structure acts as facilitator, not a provider. The examples of North Lochinver
and Sandwood Estates do however, indicate that community and conservation
ownership are not with out their problems.
The convergence to a community focus at estate level matches the emphasis in the
political change. The focus of policy emerging from the Scottish Executive is
firmly on community interest and empowerment. The political reform underway
seeks to alter the framework of land tenure to encourage a greater role for
communities and alter the balance of power in rural development. The land reform
action plan published by the Scottish Executive in August 1999 sets out a
wide-ranging agenda for action. Of particular relevance to this paper are draft
proposals for legislation to allow time to assess the public interest when
properties change hands, legislation to give a community right to buy such land
as and when it changes hands and a back-up compulsory purchase power to deter
evasion. These proposals will be put out to consultation in February 2001 and
the Executive's target is to introduce legislation to the Parliament by
September 2001 (Scottish Executive, 2000b). Legislation to give all crofting
communities a right to acquire their croft land is also expected to be
introduced to Parliament by September 2001. Detailed policy proposals for other
crofting legislation, including plans to allow the creation of new crofts, to
allow the extension of crofting tenure to new areas and to clarify the law on
crofter forestry should be published in the summer of 2001 (Scottish Executive,
2000b). The legislative programme will alter the very conditions that have
delivered a prominent position to community and conservation land ownership.
The changing legislative framework will require conservation owners in
particular to re-examine their rationale for purchasing tracts of land in rural
Scotland. While the existence of a formal community structure such as the Assynt
Crofters Trust is largely necessary to facilitate community management (indeed
it is central to the proposed legislation), conservation ownership is not. The
community purchase option may well limit the number of opportunities that arise
for conservation bodies to purchase land in the future. It is, however, likely
that a more co-ordinated social sector of land ownership will emerge, combining
the aims of community and conservation groups into a broader rationale. The
objectives of community and conservation interests are increasingly seen as
complimentary, as demonstrated in the case studies, and the co-operation
pioneered in the construction of the Isle of Eigg Heritage Trust and the
Knoydart Foundation is likely to be driven forward by the changing framework of
land tenure and policy.
The financial resources of conservation organisations will continue to play a
vital role in sustaining alternative ownership and management structures. The
changing political context however points to the need for conservation groups to
look beyond a straightforward quest for ownership, towards partnerships which
achieve the optimum use of resources and realise a broader set of aims. As the
land ownership debate matures and legislation on a range of issues directly
related to land reform enters the statute books, an opportunity emerges for
community and conservation interests to evolve into a social land ownership
sector that can offer long-term benefits for areas of Highland Scotland.
Am Bratach (1995) Forsyth seeks Assynt advice on Trusts, November issue.
Bird, S. (1982) The Impact of Estate Ownership on Social Development in a
Scottish Rural Community, Sociologia Ruralis, Vol 22 (1).
Boyd, G. (1999) To restore the land to the people and the people to the land, in
Boyd and Reid (eds) Social Land Ownership: Eight Case Studies from the Highlands
and Islands, Inverness: Not-for-Profit Landowners Group, pp13-22.
Callander, R. (1987) A Pattern of Land Ownership in Scotland, Finzean: Haughend
Publications.
Cramb, A. (1996) Who Owns Scotland Now? Edinburgh: Mainstream.
Community Land Unit (1998) Action Framework, Inverness: Highlands and Islands
Enterprise.
Duthchas Project (1999) Norway Scotland Study Tour, Inverness: Duthchas
Dwyer, J. and Hodge, I. (1996) Countryside in Trust, Chichester: Wiley
Fry, M. (1987) Patronage and Principle: A Political History of Modern Scotland,
Aberdeen: Aberdeen University Press.
Garavelli, D. (1999) No Place to Call Their Own, Scotland on Sunday, 24th
January.
The Herald (1995) Follow my lead, Forsyth tells croft estate owners, 21st
October.
John Muir Trust (1997) Conserving the Wild, Dundee: John Muir Trust.
Johnston, J. L. (2000) Scotland's Nature in Trust, London: Poyser Natural
History.
Laggan Community (1997) Laggan Information Pack, Laggan.
Land Reform Policy Group (1998) Identifying the Problems, Edinburgh: Scottish
Office.
MacDonnell, J. (1998) Introduction to the Isle of Eigg Heritage Trust, In Reid,
D. (ed) Report of the Isle of Eigg Residential Workshop, Inverness:
Not-for-Profit Landowners Group, p1.
MacGregor, B. (1993) Land Tenure in Scotland, First John McEwan Memorial
Lecture, Perth: Rural Forum.
MacKenzie, J. (1998) Assynt Crofters Trust: Realisation of a Dream, Lochinver:
Assynt Crofters Trust
MacKenzie, J. (1999) Business Planning: The Assynt Experience, in Boyd and Reid
(eds) Social Land Ownership: Eight Case Studies from the Highlands and Islands,
Inverness: Not-for-Profit Landowners Group, pp22-28.
McCrone, D. (1992) Understanding Scotland: The Sociology of a Stateless Nation,
London: Routledge.
Mc Crone, D. (1997) Land, Democracy and Culture in Scotland, Fourth John McEwan
Memorial Lecture, Perth: Rural Forum.
McEwan, J. (1978) Who Owns Scotland, Edinburgh: EUSPB Press.
Remmers, G. (1996) Hitting a Moving Target: Endogenous Development in Marginal
European Areas, London: International Institute for Environment and Development,
Gatekeeper Series No. 63.
Riddell, C. (1999) Highland Renewal: A Highland Land Restoration Project, in
Boyd and Reid (eds) Social Land Ownership: Eight Case Studies from the Highlands
and Islands, Inverness: Not-for-Profit Landowners Group, pp45-51.
Ross, J. (1999a) Sir Cameron Walks Out on Knoydart, The Scotsman, 21st January.
Ross, J. (1999b) Residents Win Fight for Knoydart, The Scotsman, 3rd March.
Scottish Office (1997) Scotland's Parliament Cm3658, Edinburgh: The Stationery
Office.
Scottish Executive (1999) Land Reform: Proposals for Legislation, Edinburgh:
Scottish Executive
Scottish Executive (1999) Crofting right to buy to be in Land Reform, News
Release SE1426/1999, 24th November, Edinburgh: Scottish Executive
Scottish Executive (2000a) Agriculture Holdings Reform, Edinburgh: Scottish
Executive
Scottish Executive (2000b) Land Reform Action Plan Progress Report, 19th
September,
www.scotland.gov.uk/landreform/progress4.asp
West Highland Free Press (1999) Assynt Hydro go-ahead, 29th March.
Wightman, A. (1996) Who Owns Scotland, Edinburgh: Canongate.
Woodland Trust for Scotland (1998) Response to Identifying Solutions,
Auchterarder: Woodland Trust for Scotland.
Lorna Philip can be contacted at the Department of Land Economy, University of
Aberdeen, St Mary's, Kings College Aberdeen AB24 3UF, Scotland
Tel: + 44 (0) 1224 272358
Fax: + 44 (0) 1224 283487
E-mail: l.philip@abdn.ac.uk
Hamish Chenvix-Trench can be contacted at Bidwells Property Consultants, Perth
- The legislation establishing the Scottish Parliament specifies the
powers reserved to the UK Parliament. They include: matters associated
with the constitution of the UK; UK defence and national security; the
stability of the UK fiscal, economic and monetary systems; UK foreign
policy; employment legislation; social security; most aspects of transport
safety and regulation; and common markets for UK goods and services. The
Scottish Parliament has law making power over matters not included in the
list of reserved powers, including responsibility for: health; education
and training; local government, social work and housing; economic
development and transport; the law and home affairs; the environment;
agriculture, fisheries and forestry; sports and the arts; and research and
statistics in relation to devolved matters. (Scottish Office, 1997)
- See Wightman (1996) for a concise explanation of the feudal system.
Incidentally, a Bill to abolish the feudal system and to replace it with a
system of outright ownership of land obtained Parliamentary assent on the
9th of June 2000.
- Proposals for Land Reform legislation were published by the Scottish
Executive in July 1999.
- A Progress Report outlining recommendations for legislation, targets
for completion and progress to date was published by the Scottish
Executive in August 2000.
- It is interesting to note that Wightman is a Trustee of the John Muir
Trust.
- Taken from an interview conducted in January 1999 with the Chairman of
the Assynt Crofters Trust.
- Ibid.
- Ibid.
- Ibid.
- Ibid.
- Ibid.
- Ibid.
- Ibid
- Taken from an interview with the Conservation Manager at the Sandwood
Estate conducted in January 1999.
- For example, one condition states that the Trust cannot sell parts of
the estate. This has been taken to mean that they cannot sell individuals
plots for new housing, which is inconsistent with their desire to expand
the community.
- Taken from an interview with the Conservation Manager at the Sandwood
Estate conducted in January 1999.
- Ibid.
- Ibid.
