In "The Growth of Community Land Management and Ownership in the Highlands and
Islands in the 1990s and Beyond" Lorna Campbell traces the development of support and
financial assistance for social landowners following initiatives in the early 1990s by
both crofting and non-crofting communities. The Crofting Trust Advisory Service was
established in 1995, followed by Highlands and Islands Enterprise's Community Land Unit in
1997.
With many crofting communities unsure about whether to follow the lead of Assynt and
Borve, the Community Land Unit has provided most of the assistance made available to
social landowners. In less than four years it has dealt with over 400 enquiries and
provided financial assistance to about 100 projects. This has included 27 'start up'
grants (to help meet the costs of feasibility studies, business plans, property surveys
and valuations, constituting and organisation, property conveyancing) and 37 cases of
assistance with purchases of land or the negotiation on management agreements. The unit
also provides several other types of support for new social landowners after they have
acquired land, and carries out some research, which will underpin policy development.
Earlier this year the unit was appointed to administer the Scottish Land Fund from a new
office in Auchtertyre in Skye and Lochalsh.
The first case study - of Glendale Estate - describes one of the very first attempts,
almost a century ago, to use public funds to provide a crofting community not just with
security of tenure but also with inalienable ownership of their land. George Macpherson, a
descendant of John Macpherson, the Skye Martyr, describes how in 1904 the Congested
Districts Board used public funds to buy the estate of Glendale on the Isle of Skye on
behalf of the crofters. Each crofter received a share in the estate - his individual
holding and a share of the 'club' property on the estate owned jointly by all the
shareholders. In return the crofters repaid what was in effect a loan over the next 50
years.
Around the same period the Congested Districts Board made several other purchases in
which crofters were offered the opportunity to buy the property over a 50-year period - in
Eolaigearraidh in Barra, Staffin on Skye and Syre in Sutherland. Crofters on these
properties were known as the '50-year purchase' crofters. However Glendale was and remains
unique, because in all the other cases in 1911 the crofters declined the offer of
ownership in favour of tenancies - in order to benefit from a variety of newly-introduced
grants that were available only to agricultural tenants.
The account of Glendale is followed by four other studies of more recent land
acquisition assisted by funding from the public purse. Of these Fernaig Community Trust,
near Plockton in Skye and Lochalsh, is the most recent - the purchase of the land being
concluded only just in time to be referred to in the study case as a fact rather than a
prospect. The transfer of ownership marked the end of a long struggle by a very small and
quite isolated community to overcome the difficulties of acquiring land from a private
landowner who was prepared to sell, but not below the market rate. The purchase would not
have been possible without a substantial amount of financial assistance by the Community
Land Unit, but the trust might not have been able to take advantage of such help if it had
not been in the fortunate position of being able to sell house sites to raise its share of
the purchase price. The trust now owns 110 acres of agricultural land which it intends to
divide into smallholdings to be let to local people and has also agreed a concordat with
Forest Enterprise for joint management of South Strome Forest.
The projects described in the next two studies also benefited from support and
financial assistance - from the Community Land Unit in the case of Isle Martin and from
the Crofting Trusts Advisory Service (CTAS) in the case of Melness. However neither
acquisition would have happened without a free transfer of ownership of the land. In the
case of the Isle Martin Trust local people discerned the opportunity of bringing the
management of the island into community control, and so ensuring access to the amenity and
heritage interest. With assistance from the Community Land Unit and substantial support
from The Highland Council they negotiated a means of transferring ownership of the island
from one charitable owner - the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) - to a
new community-based, democratically accountable charitable trust - the Isle Martin Trust.
Since the handover the trustees have used slender resources to improve access to the
island, make an audit of its resources and encourage local involvement. They now face the
challenge of raising the project funding and other revenue needed to upgrade those assets
which are most likely to generate income and finance the development of the island in
accordance with the aims of the trust.
The crofters of Melness also had the good fortune to acquire their land without having
to find a purchase price as a result of a generous offer by their landlord. After only
momentary hesitation they accepted this offer, and with the help of CTAS set up Melness
Crofters Estate Limited, as a Company Limited By Guarantee without a share capital, which
has the general aim of using any financial surpluses to improve the welfare of local
people. As they have set about "putting their house in order", they have
discovered, in contrast to the Isle Martin Trust, that they have acquired or have access
to a number of assets and revenue streams which had not been immediately apparent. This
has meant that they have been able to pay a company secretary and so have been spared some
of the difficulties of driving development projects suffered by the Assynt Crofters Trust
(see John MacKenzie's case study in Volume One) and by the Isle of Eigg Heritage Trust in
its early days (see Camille Dressler's case study in Volume Two).
There follow three studies of community woodland projects (the first of which is also
the fourth example of assisted land acquisition). Each was set up by a small community
group in response to news of an impending sale, in an attempt to ensure that local people
could safeguard amenity and access and have some say in the management of a local asset.
Despite this common starting point, each achieved a different outcome. Together they
illustrate a range of models for achieving a large measure of control over local woodland
management
In Forres in Morayshire a local group had already engaged in action to address concerns
about the degree of protection afforded to amenity woodland when they received word of the
impending sale of a neighbouring wood which had once been part of the Forres Common Good
Properties. In less than three months they formed a second constituted organisation -
Forres Community Woodlands Trust - and raised the purchase price with the help of grant
aid and a loan from the Community Land Unit. The unit also helped with the costs of
constituting the trust and preparing their bid, and after the purchase funded a team of
part-time animateurs recruited locally to help raise funds to repay the loan.
The study of Portmoak Moss and Kilmagad Wood near Loch Leven in Perth and Kinross
illustrates a different arrangement. The two woods are now fully owned by the Woodland
Trust, a national conservation organisation, and managed jointly by the trust and Portmoak
Community Woodland Steering Group. On hearing that these important local assets were for
sale, community leaders approached the Woodland Trust Scotland (WTS) to suggest they work
together to raise funds to buy the woods and thereafter manage them in partnership.
However the Steering Group made it clear from the outset that they wished WTS to assume
legal responsibility for ownership of the woods. WTS were able to accede to this request,
and there followed two very successful joint fund-raising campaigns in which each member
of the partnership was able to access funds which were not available to the other. The
initial phase of joint management was a learning process in which the two parties used
participatory methods to clarify expectations for the woods, improve communication and
reach mutual understanding, on which harmonious collaboration in planning and management
has been developed.
As at Forres, the people of Minard on the west shore of Loch Fyne in Argyll set out
with aspirations to own woodland valued locally for its amenity. However, the major
objective of the project group was to try to ensure that the economic potential of the
woodland, which was on Forest Enterprise's property disposals list, was not lost to the
small community. Valuations of the timber resource and a feasibility study encouraged them
to make a funding application to the Heritage Lottery Fund. However, when this was
rejected, the group negotiated a partnership agreement with Forest Enterprise, who removed
the wood from their disposals list. The agreement has proved very successful. It allows
the Minard Community Woodland Trust to have overall financial control of the woodland, to
participate jointly with Forest Enterprise in planning its management, and to 'use' Forest
Enterprise as managers and contractors. This has allowed the group to achieve most of
their original aims, though the group has had to accept that revenues from timber sales
can only be re-invested in the woodland and cannot be used to fund other local projects as
had originally been envisaged. It has also relieved them of the responsibility of
ownership at a time of uncertain timber markets. The trust was set up with assistance from
the Community Land Unit, which has continued to support the project.
The last case study is of the Borders Forest Trust which was set up in 1995 and is
based at Ancrum, near Jedburgh. The impetus for the trust was provided by Border Community
Woodland, which brought together local people, other NGOs and public sector organisations
to put together a successful bid for Millennium Forest Scotland funding for an integrated
range of woodland-related projects which would have important social, environmental and
economic benefits for the Borders. The trust now owns land and also manages land in
partnership with a wide range of landowners including small community groups. It
co-ordinates a wide range of projects and activities throughout the Borders. These include
community woodlands, biodiversity initiatives, ecological restoration, new native
woodlands, the sustainable use of woodland resources, marketing timber, promoting new
timber products, and piloting integrated land management; as well as training in
woodworking and woodland management, education, arts and cultural activities and also more
general encouragement of a woodland culture. The trust is currently looking at ways of
bringing in funding from a wider range of sources.
Further Evidence of the Capacity of the Social Land
Sector
These latest case studies, like their predecessors in the two earlier volumes,
illustrate the diversity, the strength of aspiration, the practical commitment, the
persistence in the face of delay and difficulty, and of course the achievements of the
social landownership sector. They provide further proof, if needed, of its commitment to
boosting local production and increasing local skills. They also provide further evidence
of the challenges which the majority of social landlords - whether established, new, or
aspiring - have to surmount. These include: finding access to the land resource; accessing
funding; raising capital; coping with the shortcomings of current support structures,:
maintaining momentum in the face of slowness of officialdom and the inefficiency of
organisations whose raison d'être is to help; needing to work harder than other
organisations to compensate for the lack of a track record and establish credibility;
overcoming the challenges of sustaining project development; and managing the tensions
which may arise within partnerships and communities.
However the picture of the social landownership sector is not a static one. It has been
heartening to see changes within the decade in which the majority of the projects in the
three volumes have been initiated, and particularly to see these reflected in this latest
set of case studies. There is now more support and assistance available to new and
aspiring community-based social landowners than there was five years ago. Much of this has
come from the Community Land Unit which has proved a very valuable complement to the
Crofting Trusts Advisory Service (CTAS), which makes assistance available to crofting
communities. It is no exaggeration to say that the Community Land Unit has made the
difference between success and failure on at least two occasions, as the studies of
Fernaig and Forres illustrate, and it has also provided much needed financial assistance
to many aspiring social landowners as they assess the viability of their plans. Its other
forms of support for the social landownership sector are also most important.
However there is still a need to provide more assistance to new social landlords in the
crucial post-acquisition phase - when unless they are in the fortunate position of
Melness, they are faced with the burden of further fund-raising to develop their assets in
ways which will bring benefits to both local people and visitors over the longer term.
Working in partnership is one way of attempting to ease such burdens. And there is much
recognition in this third volume of the benefits of working in partnership with other
groups and organisations in the sector, as the studies of the Borders Forest Trust,
Portmoak Moss and Kilmagad Wood, Minard, Fernaig, Forres and Isle Martin all testify.
The partnership agreements which the Portmoak Community Woodland Steering Group and
Minard and Fernaig have been able to make with Woodland Trust Scotland and Forest
Enterprise respectively have allowed these new social landowners to achieve many of their
original goals which they would otherwise have found it impossible to attain. They have
been able to secure access to land without having to raise very large capital sums and to
participate in mutually beneficial exchanges of resources - for example, local knowledge
and aspirations, expertise, voluntary inputs, and contracted labour.
The case study of the Borders Forest Trust illustrates just how successful such working
can be if it has sufficient support and can be established on a large enough scale.
Through its ability to draw on a vast range of interests, commitment, enthusiasm,
knowledge and expertise and its success in attracting substantial funding (although it too
had problems of proving its acceptability to funders), the trust has been able to promote,
support and co-ordinate a vast range of woodland-related activities, many of which depend
on ad hoc partnerships at the local level. The success of these has generated new interest
and support from local people, and helped to sustain training, educational, artistic and
cultural projects. However, despite its varied programme the trust has not yet succeeded
in solving the problem of attracting continuing funding - a problem which afflicts many
much smaller social landowners too. The trust's experience will be studied with close
interest in other parts of Scotland, and may well have a particular relevance for
scattered community-based landowning groups in the Highlands and Islands.
It is perhaps no accident that the publication of these three volumes of case studies
has coincided with a period of renewed interest in issues of land reform and land use.
They have a special topicality because they contain a wealth of reflection and balanced
assessment by individuals with first-hand experience of advancing social landownership
initiatives under existing arrangements. This third volume has perhaps an even greater
topicality than its predecessors, for its publication coincides with the advent of the
Scottish Land Fund and follows hard on the heels of the Scottish government's draft
legislation on land reform.
This timing gives the study of Glendale Estate a particular importance over and above
its historical interest. George Macpherson's account serves not only as a reminder of the
social land initiatives of the nineteenth century but also of the legislation which
followed the work of the Napier Commission in the 1880s. In doing so it offers a
perspective on current developments, and suggests a standard by which to assess how
adequately the current proposals for land reform meet today's needs.
What unites those - politicians, officials and crofters - who made Glendale happen and
the new social landowners whose experience is documented in these volumes is the belief
that communities have a right to control the management of important local natural assets
so that resources can be used wisely, economies can prosper, communities can thrive, and
the welfare of local people can be improved. By giving us a benchmark against which to
assess the proposed legislation, these case studies make an important contribution to the
national debate on the proper allocation of resources and the adequacy of the political,
legal and financial arrangements by which any allocation is made.
We can take enormous pride in the experience and achievements of the social land
movement which has shone a beacon for 150 years. During that time it has shown that
between the poles of state and private ownership there is another way of stewarding the
land.
