Overview
David Reid
-
The historical review, "To Restore the Land to the People and the People to the
Land", surveys some 150 years of organised attempts by conservation organisations
and community groups in the Highlands and Islands to own land on a not-for-profit basis.
These attempts took their lead from the pre-co-operative club farm and smallholding land
purchase schemes that arose between 1840 and 1890. These initiatives were followed by the
setting-up of the first community land trust in the 1920s. In the following decade the
outdoor-recreational movement successfully purchased a number of estates of national
scenic importance and bequeathed them to the nation.
The 1970s saw a number of large, voluntary conservation organisations acquire
properties of importance for wildlife, whilst in the 1980s and 1990s a diverse range of
new community owners has emerged. These recent pioneering land purchase initiatives by
crofting trusts and other groups with a community base are seen in the wider perspective
of social history, and linked with the past efforts of a movement that has struggled for a
very long time against both the forces of private capital and the failure of government to
take timely action. The review concludes that social ownership of land by civic
organisations is now emerging as the radical alternative to both the lottery of private
ownership and the benign bureaucratic state.
Together the case studies that follow illustrate the complexity and diversity of the
not-for-profit land ownership movement in the last decade of the century. They describe
initiatives taken by a range of owners and aspiring owners - conservation organisations,
crofting communities, community-based organisations, groups of private individuals, and in
one case a private forestry company. The owner groups vary not only in type of
organisation, but also in legal structure, main purpose, size of landholding, financial
assets and other resources, and form of land tenure. There are also marked differences in
how the initiatives began and how long they have been maintained.
The Assynt Crofters Trust,
which now manages 9,000 hectares in north-west Sutherland, came into being when its
members took joint action to safeguard their livelihoods which were threatened by the
liquidators attempt to sell off the crofting estate in a number of separate lots.
The partnership developed between the crofting community of Sconser on
the Isle of Skye and the John Muir Trust was also a response to the offer for sale of
an estate. The agreement negotiated between the partners safeguards both the conservation
and local interest in an area of land which includes the Red Cuillins and is therefore of
substantial recreation and landscape value as well as providing crofters with valuable
additional hill grazing for their sheep.
The next four accounts deal with proactive attempts to acquire land, or make possible
the acquisition of land, in order to safeguard its value as landscape, natural heritage,
or productive asset, and in doing so create economic and other benefits for local
communities and others with a special interest in these areas.
In 1982 a small group of individuals in Badenoch established Dalnavert Community Co-operative
to demonstrate that it was possible for owners to live on the land and to manage it, so
that it generated employment and paid its way, without degrading its biodiversity and
productive potential.
Another small group of committed individuals in the Forres area set up EarthShare, the first
community supported agriculture (CSA) scheme in the north of Scotland, which provides
subscribers not only with fresh organic produce in season but also with opportunities to
participate in its production and in associated ecologically sound co-operative
activities, and in this way to develop equitable bonds between growers and consumers.
Highland Renewal was
conceived as an ambitious rural regeneration project intended to address in a holistic
manner the linked problems of ecological degradation, depopulation, cultural decline,
housing shortage and economic fragility in a small community in a remote part of the
island of Mull.
The Whitebridge proposals
envisaged the conversion of a conventional forestry plantation into four
forest-farms. These could have been developed as a rural development forestry
(RDF) pilot project to provide different models of small, viable enterprises trading in
their own timber and associated products. Small businesses of this kind would show not
only that small-scale sustainable forestry is financially viable but also that it can
bring benefits to areas with scattered populations through creating local employment. The
influx of small groups of families can make the difference between services being
maintained or withdrawn.
The two accounts of RSPBs management of its reserves in Badenoch and Strathspey
demonstrate that conservation-based development does not threaten livelihoods. Both show
that conservation management has provided substantial economic benefits for neighbouring
communities, both directly from the societys measures to protect the habitats of
relatively rare native birds and also indirectly from the spending of visitors attracted
to the area by its birdlife, diversity and scenic beauty.
The account of Abernethy
Forest Reserve also describes the societys attempts to give the local
community a greater say in decisions about the management of those parts of the reserve
adjoining settlements. The second account from the RSPB - of the management of its Insh
Marshes Reserve - shows that the maintenance of suitable habitats for important
bird populations depends on the continued practice of traditional farming activities,
which have not impaired the ability of the marshes to absorb, and store for a critical
period, the floodwaters of the Spey, an incalculable economic benefit to the communities
of the Badenoch and Strathspey.
Despite their differences, all the initiatives have a common element - a concern for
the wider community interest, and all, with the exception of Whitebridge, have significant
records of achievement, even if they have not made as much progress as they would have
liked or achieved their ends in the manner they anticipated. Despite the ills affecting
agriculture and other setbacks, Dalnavert Community Co-operative has succeeded over the
years in making the surpluses necessary to allow its members to live on, and work, the
land they own. The Assynt Crofters Trust and Highland Renewal, two very different
organisations, have each made substantial progress on several fronts, despite having to
start virtually from scratch in small, remote, sparsely populated communities. The
increase in the scale of EarthShares operation over the relatively short period of
five years demonstrates the soundness of the CSA model. RSPBs policies for pursuing
its members conservation aspirations in ways which involve and benefit local
communities now have an impressive record of practical success at Abernethy and Insh
Marshes. And the John Muir Trust can point to its joint management agreement with the
Sconser crofters as an illustration of the potential of another model of partnership
between large conservation landowners and small communities which cannot currently fulfil
their aspirations to own land.
These achievements stand out in sharper relief when viewed against the difficulties
not-for-profit groups have to contend with. Certain themes predominate: access to land and
natural resources, land ownership, finance, support, range of expertise required, reliance
on voluntary effort, isolation, level of development assistance, and institutional
capacity to implement policy.
Access: Owning the Land - a necessary condition?
The range of experience described here, drawn from both land owning groups and from
others which aspire to own land, highlights the importance of land ownership. A
partnership, as in Sconser, can lead to an agreement which gives security of access for a
partner without title to the land, but a lease may impose restrictions or have conditions
attached which may hinder and even thwart the achievement of important goals, unless it
can be re-negotiated. Thus not-for-profit organisations aspiring to own land depend on the
good will of other landowners. Highland Renewal, having revised their vision, have found
difficulty in moving forward because their landlords do not share their new objectives,
despite their original support which has been a crucial element in Highland Renewals
achievements. EarthShare also suffer from the disadvantages inherent in leasing
agricultural land - short leases, uncertainty about the future - which are compounded for
organic farmers by the time-lag between acquiring land and being able to work it
organically, and the losses they incur when improved land reverts to the landowner.
Landownership - not necessarily a sufficient condition
Ownership may remove certain obstacles and disadvantages, but doe not of course
guarantee smooth progress. Landowners are hostages to fortune; and not-for-profit groups
and organisations are no more immune than other landowners to a range of setbacks -
natural disasters, changes in economic conditions and internal tensions - as
Dalnaverts experience illustrates.
Finance: Limited Income
Whether owners or tenants, not-for profit groups, especially those with marginal or
hill ground in the Highlands and Islands, may have very few developed sources of income,
and face severe financial constraints. Some groups, for example, the Assynt Crofters Trust
and Highland Renewal, operate shoestring budgets, in which income from Woodland Grant
Schemes has been very important. Income from conservation as at Dalnavert and from tourism
as in Assynt may be small but important additions. Even the larger organisations are aware
of financial constraints. The RSPB may enjoy a considerable income from members
subscriptions, but finds government grants very beneficial to the implementation of its
woodland management plans.
Finance: Restricted Assets
Not-for-profit landowners may also suffer from a lack of assets which they can offer as
security for loans to finance development plans. Dalnavert were able to borrow on the
value of their agricultural land, but not all land owning groups are as fortunate.
Highland Renewal might envy Assynt Crofter Trust its title to the North Lochinver estate,
but like a newly independent nation Assynt is aware that political independence must be
accompanied by some measure of economic freedom if aspirations to better the lot of local
people are to be fulfilled within acceptable time-scales. (Assynts position is made
more difficult by their understandable refusal to offer their land as security and so
jeopardise their hard-won title.)
Range of Skills and Expertise Required
Not-for-profit organisations need people with a range of skills and expertise:
practical skills - particularly those needed to run projects in sectors which have not
previously featured in the local economy (for example, the skills required for chain-saw
maintenance, tree-planting, footpath construction, horticulture); more specialist
technical expertise as required for instance in fish-farming, renewable energy projects,
ecological surveys, habitat management; as well as a range of management skills, such as
the skills of estate management, financial management, business planning, bringing
partners on board, fund-raising and making applications for development assistance.
Reliance on Voluntary Effort
Financial constraints may mean, however, that not-for-profit organisations are unable
to employ people whose skills they desperately need and may have to depend on individuals
who are able and willing to give voluntary help. Assynt Crofters Trust has benefited from
the unstinting commitment of its first secretary acting on an unpaid basis. Highland
Renewals achievements owe much to the energy of one individual working as unpaid
project director. EarthShare derived much of its initial momentum from the combined
part-time work of a small group of enthusiastic volunteers. Dalnaverts members
contribute ten days work a year.
Isolation
Geographical isolation and scattered and/or sparse rural populations may compound these
problems. Community-based groups may have a very small pool of specialist skills available
locally to manage or staff projects. The time and expense involved, even in these days of
electronic communication, in finding out crucial information (even at the most basic level
of knowing who to ask), obtaining advice, liaising with potential funders, setting up
partnerships, submitting applications, finding contractors, negotiating training, handling
finances, attracting and catering for volunteer helpers, can place a considerable burden
on the group if they mean long journeys to larger centres. The problem is compounded in an
area like the Highlands and Islands by the difficulties of travel and communication not
just between periphery and centre but also between peripheral groups. Physical distance
can impede community-based groups in their attempts to develop networks which allow them
to share common problems and obtain advice and support.
Level of Development Assistance
Several of the accounts suggest that, despite the Local Enterprise Company network,
despite European Objective 1 status, despite the current emphasis on rural partnerships,
sources of development assistance have fallen some way short of providing not-for-profit
organisations, particularly community-based groups, with sufficient support to overcome
these difficulties. For example, Caithness and Sutherland Enterprise gave the Assynt
Crofters Trust financial assistance towards land acquisition on the condition that there
would be no further ongoing revenue contribution from them. (However, this pre-dated the
establishment of Highlands and Island Enterprise's Community Land Unit, which now has the
facility to provide such ongoing development support.) Highland Renewal have had
difficulty in finding funding agencies able to respond positively to their attempts to
implement holistic projects. At a more strategic level, planning and legal frameworks can
make it difficult to ensure a balance between conservation and economic development, as
the Assynt Crofters Trust has discovered. There is no public agency actively engaged in
promoting rural development forestry projects, to which the promoters of the Whitebridge
initiative could turn for support. Despite its policy statements, the Highland Council
does not have a rural development forestry unit, nor does Forest Enterprise - despite the
UKs endorsement of the Helsinki Guidelines and Agenda 21.
Institutional Capacity to Implement Policy
The fate of the Whitebridge initiative makes clear it is not just a lack of specific
development assistance which handicaps not-for-profit groups, but also a crucial gap
between declared policy and institutional capacity to implement policy. The existence of
this gap is partly explained by financial constraints, but has more to do with the
readiness of public sector institutions to respond to shifts in policy and promote new
objectives in the face of opposition from those with vested interests in maintaining the
status quo.
Key
Factors in Overcoming these Difficulties - Lessons from Practice
These considerations shed light on key factors in enabling the achievements of the
not-for-profit initiatives featured here: