Land Use Strategy 2016-2021 SRUC January 2016 Consultation Response
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Land Use Strategy 2016-2021
SRUC January 2016
Consultation ResponseLand Use Strategy 2016 – 2021 Consultation
Introduction
SRUC (Scotland’s Rural College) welcomes the opportunity to contribute to the Scottish
Government’s Land Use Strategy 2016 – 2021 Consultation.
SRUC is an innovative, knowledge-based organisation that supports the rural sector through
research, education and expert consultancy services. SRUC wishes to see, and contribute
significantly to delivering, a sustainable agricultural and rural land use sector in Scotland.
SRUC staff work in a broad range of areas (for more information see www.sruc.ac.uk) and
our responses to the questions below reflect this broad expertise, but draw on specific
research projects where appropriate.
Several SRUC staff have contributed to this submission1 which has been co-ordinated by
SRUC’s Rural Policy Centre.
1
Rob McMorran, Davy McCracken, Alistair McVittie, Malcolm Young.
1Vision, Objectives and Principles
The Land Use Strategy 2016 – 2021 continues the policy direction established in the first
Strategy. We consider that the Vision, three long term Objectives and Principles for
Sustainable Land Use are still relevant and fit for purpose therefore we propose that they are
retained.
Q 1a Do you think that the Vision, Principles for Sustainable Land Use and three long term
Objectives are still fit for purpose?
Yes
Q 1b Please provide your reasons for your answer.
Other factors such as integration could be included. Given the over-arching importance of
climate change to Scottish Government and linkages to land use this should also be
considered. A further objective could also be written related to the translation of the strategy
into action on the ground. This would bring the strategy more up to date with the current
context.
Policy Context
This group of policies and proposals is intended to raise awareness and provide clarity in
relation to the status and context of the Land Use Strategy and a range of current Scottish
Government policies. It covers natural resource management, statutory planning, forestry
and the relationship between land ownership, use and management.
Natural Resource Management
Our understanding and thinking about natural resource management and ecosystem
services has progressed since the publication of the first Land Use Strategy. We consider
that the use of an ecosystems approach is a helpful means to better understand our
environment and factor it into decisions. This has been successfully demonstrated in the
work of the land use pilot projects in Aberdeenshire and the Scottish Borders.
Policy 1: We are committed to better understanding and managing Scotland’s natural
resources to enable their fair, wise and productive use, and to conserve stocks of ecosystem
services for future generations. We will do this by promoting an ecosystem approach to
managing our natural capital.
Q 2a Do you agree that continued use of an ecosystems approach is an effective way to
manage Scotland’s natural capital?
Yes
Q 2b Please provide reasons for your answer.
It is the only feasible way forward - there is no other current mechanism which can be used
as an alternative. Government agencies are also now well aware of the ecosystem services
(ES) concept, but there is a barrier in that government agencies are (generally) not
responsible for managing the bulk of the land (except Forestry Commission Scotland (FCS)).
The key challenge then becomes translating the ES concept into incentives for land
managers who can operationalise the ES concept. Unless ES is supported by a range of
2appropriate economic instruments, it is little better than jargon. We recognise that there are
market failures: the key question is how to resolve these failures to deliver the range of
outcomes; and to send land managers clear signals which can be translated into income.
Policy Alignment
We set out the relationship of the LUS2 to key Scottish Government policies including the
National Planning Framework 3 and the National Marine Plan as well as a range of sectoral
policies such as forestry, agriculture, peatland, and soils.
Policy 2: The Land Use Strategy sits alongside and has informed the National Planning
Framework 3, Scottish Planning Policy and the National Marine Plan to support the
Scotland’s Economic Strategy 2015. Relevant sectoral strategies (e.g. forestry and
agriculture) will take account of the Land Use Strategy Objectives and Principles in their
design and delivery.
Q 3a Is the relationship as set out in the draft Land Use Strategy 2016 - 2021 clear?’
In parts – see 3b
Q 3b Do you have any comments on the relationship between the LUS and Scotland’s
Economic Strategy 2015, National Planning Framework, National Marine Plan and other
relevant policies?
The relationship is clear in terms of where the LUS sits within the wider policy framework.
However, it is not clear how the LUS will be integrated across these policies: to date, the
LUS has been highlighting the potential linkages with a wide variety of other policies but few
of those other policies appear to be taking the LUS into account. The LUS should be the
means by which the Scottish Government’s Economic Strategy is achieved with respect to
land.
There also seems to be a fundamental disconnection between the LUS and the policies it
needs to connect with, particularly with regard to the timeframes over which developments
are occurring in those policies. For example, the Common Agricultural Policy and associated
SRDP are the major drivers of a lot of land use and land use change – but this consultation
on LUS is occurring after the direction of travel for CAP and SRDP has been set through
until 2021.
Planning
Planning policy refers to the Land Use Strategy and highlights it as a key document for
planning authorities when considering the wider context for development plans. We wish to
raise awareness of the relevance of the LUS2 to planners and to enhance their
understanding of how the LUS Principles and ecosystems approach to environmental
assessment can add value to the planning process.
Policy 3: We will undertake a programme of information and awareness-raising. This will
provide:
More detail and clarity on the relevance of the Land Use Strategy to the planning
system;
Information about the added value the Land Use Strategy can bring, particularly to
development planning;
Information on the use of an ecosystems approach in Strategic Environmental
Assessment (SEA), which in turn supports development planning.
3Q 4a Do you think that the activities described above could be useful?
Yes
Q 4b Do you have any suggestions on other kinds of information and activities that could be
useful?
The key element to stress in awareness raising/education will be the development and
communication of the practical aspects of how to implement ES in the real world. If the LUS2
has practical applications for landowners, the outcomes it seeks to achieve are more likely to
be realised.
This process should also look for evidence beyond the LUS Pilots – for example the
outcomes of the Carse of Stirling project and the SNH LIFE project with Central Scotland
Green Network (for examples of rural-urban linkages).
Forestry
Forestry is a key land use, covering around 18% of Scotland. It is also a key contributor to
climate change and biodiversity targets. The existing Scottish Forestry Strategy was
published in 2006 prior to the publication of the first Land Use Strategy. Given the age of the
existing Scottish Forestry Strategy, a review could ensure better alignment between forestry
policies and the Land Use Strategy Principles.
Policy 4: We will undertake a review of the Scottish Forestry Strategy.
Q 5 How could the content of the current Scottish Forestry Strategy be updated to better
reflect the Objectives and Principles of the Land Use Strategy and other key priorities?
An Ecosystem Services approach should be further built into the Scottish Forestry Strategy
(SFS). Whilst the language in the SFS is somewhat out of date, the strategy is basically
sound in relation to forestry although it now needs to move further towards developing the
implementation of ES on the ground. Alignment of stakeholders is an important wider aspect
of this, requiring greater level of inter-agency cooperation and joint-working
Land Reform
In light of evidence provided to the Parliament in connection with the Land Reform (Scotland)
Bill, we intend to explore further the potential advantages of an overarching policy statement
that deals with ownership, use and management of land.
Proposal 1: We will further consider the relationship between current land related policies
and the potential advantages of a single policy statement about land which deals with
ownership, use and management.
Q 6a Do you consider that there could be advantages in having a single policy statement
about land which deals with ownership, use and management?
See 6b
Q 6b Do you have any comments on the relationship between current land related policies
and how these would relate to a single policy statement?
4The LUS2 should create a new framework and add momentum to positive developments;
however the proposed framework does not appear to create that impetus. The LUS and
National Planning Framework are over-arching policy pillars which create the environment
for both land management and economic development. Both must connect with other policy
strands (e.g. climate change, biodiversity, water quality, natural flood management, forestry,
agriculture, food and drink, land reform/ownership/tenancy, marine environment and
access/sport/tourism), and clearly sign-post priorities. The LUS2 needs to be meaningfully
incorporated into other policy documents.
The LUS should inform what sustainable land use is and how it can be defined; through this
process it could then underpin land reform policy. Putting a focus on ownership takes the
focus away from the main goal of sustainable integrated management. Notably, land reform
doe not appear in the table of policies. Additionally, the inherent conflict/challenge between
more owners achieving public policy objectives has not been resolved.
To create momentum and impact, the new LUS must make collaborative land management
and the delivery of multiple benefits a significant driver within the rural environment. To
achieve this aim, new LUS2 targets should be defined (which are not in conflict with other
targets); and, given the uneven progress of LUS priorities, each distinct policy area should
be charged with driving innovation that enhances positive outcomes. To this end, an
innovation strategy should be clearly articulated. In addition, local advisors and facilitators
could be a catalyst for driving rural development which will be increasingly important in
delivering bio-diversity, forestry, and water targets including whole catchment flood
prevention.
Informed Decision-making
This group of policies and proposals supports decision making with the development of
improved data, increased accessibility and wider empowerment of communities and
stakeholders in decision-making.
Ecosystem Services Mapping and Tools
We will continue to develop and support the LUS Data Directory, linking in to any future open
data discovery sites and we also propose to explore the practicality of developing methods
and methodologies to assist in the assessment of land use benefits and opportunities at a
more local level.
Policy 5 – We will continue to encourage those holding public data to make it open and
available for others to use and will facilitate access to that data via the Land Use Data
Directory.
We will explore the development of models and Geographic Information System (GIS) tools
to enable assessments of land use/management change.
Q 7a Do you agree that models and GIS tools could help inform decision making about land
use/management change?
Yes
Q 7b Please provide your reasons for your answer.
We agree, but such models do not necessarily already exist and not all areas have sufficient
5layers of data accessible/available to build suitable models. The tools are currently not
always accessible or widely available. The 2016-21 Strategic Research Programme will
develop GIS based tools to inform this process and a number of agencies are collaborating
on developing a web-based portal (Scotland Environment Web); the ongoing research
should add value to that process.
Q 7c Do you think that a baseline ecosystems services mapping tool could be useful?
See 7b and 7d
Q 7d Do you have any comments on a mapping tool?
It is not clear how easy it will be to interpret the outcomes of these sorts of processes. The
Borders LUS Pilot attempted to quantify/characterise a very wide range of services initially
which proved very complex, with six layers eventually being the focus instead of the more
comprehensive approach. This process needs to be developed with suitable guidance to
ensure consistency between areas/projects.
It remains challenging to acquire suitable data. Mapping tools will lack effectiveness without
an understanding and awareness of the level of management occurring on the ground. In
the future, access to IACS data at field level needs to be improved for models to be able to
have a clear understanding of what is actually happening on the ground.
Regional Land Use Partnerships
Local partnerships can be an effective way of bringing people together to consider land use
issues that are relevant to them. We wish to encourage the setting up of regional land use
partnerships to help deliver the Land Use Strategy at a local level.
Policy 6 – We will encourage the establishment of regional land use partnerships.
Proposal 2 – We will further explore the development of regional land use frameworks for
rural areas of Scotland.
Q 8a Do you agree that regional land use partnerships could be a helpful way to support
regional delivery of the Land Use Strategy?
Yes
Q 8b Who do you think could be best placed to lead these initiatives?
We believe that there should be a degree of tailoring within the LUS; with the regions being
configured to cover whole catchments. A local group within the region or catchment should
re-prioritise the core components of the National LUS to fit with the unique character of the
region/catchment, which takes into account land form, land use/biodiversity, infrastructure
and sustainable community development. The proposed rural land use partnerships could
take on this role. The structure of the partnership is crucial, with local community councils
and government agencies having a role as well as land managers and those active in the
rural economy. The Land Use Pilots have been trialling this approach to a degree but it has
been difficult to implement in practice due to the complexity of the ES approach.
In terms of leadership, we would suggest it should generally be government agencies. The
leadership ideally needs to be in a position to then influence land management on the
ground with incentives to alter the policy landscape within which they exist (but in a
partnership/joint-working model) and with suitable support from research/academia. It will be
important at the outset to establish how the local partnerships will be resourced long term.
6Q 8c Can you suggest any alternative means of supporting the delivery of the Land Use
Strategy at regional level?
See 8b
Q 8d Do you have any other comments on this policy?
See 8b
Regional Land Use Frameworks
The regional land use pilots in Aberdeenshire and the Scottish Borders have demonstrated
the potential benefits of the development of regional land use frameworks which could be
used to inform land use/management decisions and to inform development plans. Regional
frameworks may also be useful for local authorities as they undertake a range of statutory
functions or duties such as managing flood risk or biodiversity.
Proposal 2 – We will further explore the development of regional land use
frameworks for rural areas of Scotland.
Q 9a Do you think that regional land use frameworks could be useful to inform regional/local
land use decision-making?
See 9b and 9c
Q 9b Which aspects of this approach do you think require further development?
The requirement to do this needs to be built into the terms of reference for the relevant
agencies: it needs to be a key function. SNH/SEPA were set up for specific reasons, which
raises the question as to whether their key functions need to be reviewed.
Q 9c Do you have any comments on this proposal?
The Farming for a Better Climate programme is already making some progress in this
regard. Hence any additional Scottish Government funded approaches need to be fully
joined up with already existing activities.
Land Use Mediation and Facilitation
Mediation and facilitation have distinct but complementary roles to play in generating better
understanding and more effective decision making in relation to land use. We consider that
both mediation and/or facilitation could have a role to play in land use to assist communities
and landowners to resolve differences.
Proposal 3 – We will explore options for facilitation and/or mediation between land
owners/managers and communities.
Q 10a Do you think that land use mediation or facilitation could be useful in a land use
context?
Yes
Q 10b Please provide your reasons for your answer.
7It would be essential to involve an independent conflict management professional from the
start of any discussions. Any project land use change will inevitably result in some conflicts –
real or perceived – occurring among stakeholders on the ground. Involving an independent,
objective conflict management professional from the start can help to allow stakeholders to
see others’ views and assist in a common consensus as to the best way forward being
achieved. Waiting until conflicts are already apparent before trying to resolve them means
positions have already become entrenched and hence makes it more difficult to break down
those barriers. To support conflict management, a range of protocols will be needed (e,g, the
Environment Agency Oxford Protocol) to keep disucssions within certain
parameters/boundaries.
Applying the Principles
This group of policies and proposals support the application of the LUS Principles for
Sustainable Land Use either as specific projects or used to influence changes on the ground.
It includes agriculture and climate change measures, agri-environment targeting, possible
approaches to the next CAP programme, urban Scotland and the uplands.
Agriculture
The Future of Scottish Agriculture sets out our aspirations to be world leading in green
farming. A suite of measures is under development which will assist land managers to move
towards more climate friendly farming. Practical measures and approaches are being
developed for the Third Report on Policies and Proposals (RPP3), to be published in 2016,
and there will be an on-going roll out of actions in following years.
Policy 7: We will develop and implement a package of measures to facilitate the step
change to climate friendly farming and crofting. This will promote carbon efficient agriculture,
environmental benefits and increasingly integrated land use.
Q 11 Do you have any suggestions on other potential measures to encourage climate
friendly farming and crofting?
The LUS can influence the shape of advice provision to farmers and the direction of
initiatives. It can help set up priorities for the next round of reforms if there are regional land
use frameworks. As CAP priorities and objectives are set at EU level it is difficult to see how
the LUS can influence these; however it could play an influencing role in the mid-term review
of the SRDP.
There is a strong focus on climate change and resource efficiency in the proposed Pillar II
funded Farm Advisory Service (FAS). The advocacy approach should be continued and
Farming For a Better Climate remains a good opportunity which should be broadened out to
a wider range of land uses on farms. It could be used as a way to encourage farms to
become involved with woodlands.
Agri-Environment
The new SRDP has established the principle of targeting to enable measures and support to
be focused where they are likely to be most effective. The land use pilot projects have shown
there is scope to significantly increase the use of GIS data to assist with a targeted
approach. As more detailed and refined mapping of ecosystem services data becomes
available, through the development of ecosystem services mapping and tools (Policy 5) this
will be used to inform decisions for the current SRDP measures.
8Policy 9 – We will continue to develop a targeted approach in the current Scottish Rural
Development Programme (SRDP) Agri-Environment Climate Scheme and will utilise more
localised map based ecosystems assessments to inform funding decisions as appropriate
and as these become available across Scotland.
Q 12a Do you agree that more localised map-based ecosystems assessments could be
useful to assist in informing funding decisions?
Yes
Q 12b Please provide your reasons for your answer.
The 2016-21 Strategic Research Programme will explore this. It is important that tools and
policies are put in place though to ensure that the appropriate management is happening in
the right place at the right scale. There needs to be greater consideration of how funding
packages are implemented in relation to appropriate scale – for example what scale does
peatland restoration need to occur at to be really effective over the longer term – and has
recent peatland funding adequately considered this?
Agri-Environment
Now that the new SRDP and the Agri-Environment Climate Scheme are operational we have
an opportunity to consider what the next scheme could deliver for Scotland and whether
there is a case to reshape it. The increased emphasis on targeting, the acceptance of
ecosystem health as a means to support the targeting work, and the use of a more spatial
approach could enable the next SRDP to be more focused so that limited financial resources
can be targeted much more precisely.
Proposal 4 – We will explore the further development of a targeted approach to agri-
environment in the next SRDP (post 2020) and how this could make increased use of an
assessment of ecosystem health and a spatial approach.
Q 13a Do you agree that an assessment of ecosystems health and a spatial approach could
be helpful to further inform targeting for the next SRDP?
Yes
Q 13b Please provide your reasons for your answer.
Suitable ecosystem health indicators need to be agreed for a consistent approach.
Urban Land Use
In order to explore the applicability and effectiveness of an ecosystems approach in an urban
context, and its complementarities with the statutory planning system we propose to explore
the feasibility of establishing an urban land use pilot project.
Proposal 5 – We will explore the feasibility of establishing an urban land use pilot project.
Q 14a Do you agree that an urban pilot project could be useful?
See 14b
Q 14b Please provide your reasons for your answer.
9It could possibly be useful, but it is important to recognise that there are already some
relevant initiatives underway which could be further researched e.g. Edinburgh Living
Landscapes, Central Scotland Green Network and various initiatives in Glasgow. It is
important that future measures build on what is already occurring and do not try to reinvent
the wheel. A further key aspect is ensuring pilots manage to get down to the level of
influencing/making changes on the ground (existing pilots have more been about
characterising services as opposed to guiding land management/implementing change).
Upland Land Use
The uplands have considerable opportunities to contribute to the climate change agenda in
Scotland by delivering multiple benefits from land use. However they are also areas of
challenge and at times tension. The Land Use Strategy provides an opportunity to consider
and agree a new strategic vision for our uplands.
Proposal 6 – We will scope the potential to develop a strategic vision for the uplands,
exploring the multiple benefits they deliver and how they can contribute to climate change
targets.
Q 15a Do you think that a strategic vision could be useful for the uplands?
See 15b
Q 15b Do you have any comments on this proposal?
There is an absence of clear priorities for the uplands, mainly due to the currently conflicting
set of agendas and entrenched positions. There is no quick and easy solution or pathway. A
vision for the uplands offers potential but needs a broad discussion across a very broad
range of groups to determine upland priorities for the future. Local/regional discussions
(perhaps led by regional land use partnerships) could determine priorities and feed into a
national template that could be re-prioritised to recognise local priorities and challenges.
Monitoring Delivery of the Strategy - the Land Use Strategy Indicators
The ten Land Use Strategy indicators were chosen to monitor the delivery of the first
Strategy’s three Objectives. Although they do not provide a comprehensive measure of every
aspect of land use, they represent key aspects of the Strategy and provide a balanced
picture of important representative elements. We consider that these indicators remain fit for
purpose and intend to add to or amend the indicators if appropriate indicators become
available over time or if existing data collection ceases.
Q 16a Do you agree that the Land Use Strategy indicators are still fit for purpose?
No
Q 16b Do you have any comments on the future monitoring of the revised Land Use
Strategy?
Existing LUS indicators are more a list of indicators based on available/existing monitoring
as opposed to a tailor made set of indicators for the LUS. As such they are a bit ad hoc and
only some are actively being used to inform land management change on the ground. The
10NCAI shows gross change over decades but is less useful over shorter time periods.
General Questions
Q 17 Are there any other activities that you think we should be undertaking to achieve better
understanding and application of the Principles or delivery of the Strategy?
LUS2 needs to be over-arching and properly embedded in the underlying strategies (as
opposed to token mentions). This requires Cabinet-level buy-in or it will remain only an
aspiration.
Q 18 Are there any other points you wish to make about any aspect of this draft Strategy?
The LUS2 could be linked to other measures, such as the targets under the convention for
biological diversity.
Equalities
To help inform our Equality Impact Assessment of the revised Land Use Strategy it would be
helpful if you could answer the following question:
Q 19 Do you have any comments on the policies and proposals in this draft Strategy in terms
of how they may impact on any equalities group, i.e. with regard to age, gender, race,
religion, disability or sexuality?
Questions on the Environmental Report
Q 20a: Do you consider that the Environmental Report set out an accurate description of the
current environmental issues/baseline?
See 20b
Q 20b: Please give reasons for your answer.
The Environmental Report is generally comprehensive. However, although the Common
Agricultural Policy is mentioned in principle, the bulk of the comments in the report focus on
relationships between LUS and the SRDP element of the CAP. Although the SRDP is clearly
an important element that the LUS needs to align with, the main driver of land use and land
use change on farms in Scotland comes from the support and signals provided by what is
known as Pillar 1 of the CAP. There is an important need for all aspects of Pillar 1 (not just
the Greening measures) to take LUS aspirations into account, but the Report provides no
indication of how this important linkage will be achieved in practice. As already highlighted
above, in any case both Pillar 1 and Pillar 2 of the reformed CAP are largely now set until
2021 and it would appear that the LUS has missed an important opportunity to help inform
the development of those elements of the CAP over the last few years.
END
11You can also read
