Land reform in a Net Zero nation: consultation analysis

4. Compulsory Land Management Plans

The consultation paper notes that some large-scale landowners prepare and publish plans that set out their intentions with regard to the use and management of their land, and how they will invest in its improvement. However, there is currently no legal requirement to do so. Going forward, it is proposed that a requirement for large-scale landholdings to prepare and publish a Land Management Plan should be introduced.

Question 8 – We propose that there should be a duty on large-scale landowners to publish Management Plans. Do you agree or disagree with this proposal?

Responses to Question 6 by respondent type are set out in Table 21 below.

Table 21 Question 8 – We propose that there should be a duty on large-scale landowners to publish Management Plans. Do you agree or disagree with this proposal?

	Agree	Disagree	Don’t know	Total
Organisations:
Academic group or think tank	4	0	0	4
Community or local organisations	19	1	0	20
Government and NDPB	13	1	3	17
Landowner	10	19	5	34
Private sector organisations	7	5	1	13
Representative bodies, associations or unions	16	5	4	25
Third sector or campaign group	26	2	1	29
Total organisations	95	33	14	142
% of organisations	67%	23%	10%
Individuals	274	53	13	340
% of individuals	81%	16%	4%
All respondents	369	86	27	482
% of all respondents	77%	18%	6%

Percentages may not sum to 100% due to rounding

A majority of respondents, 77% of those answering the question, agreed that there should be a duty on large-scale landowners to publish Management Plans. Of the remaining respondents, 18% did not agree and 6% did not know. Individual respondents were more likely to agree than were organisational respondents at 81% and 67% respectively. A majority of all groups of organisations agreed, with the exception of Landowner respondents.

Please give some reasons for your answer.

Around 330 respondents provided a comment at Question 8.

Reasons in support of a duty to publish Management Plans

Among reasons given in favour of publication of Management Plans, those cited most frequently were improved transparency and accountability in relation to land ownership. It was also suggested that publishing a plan would or could:

• Provide an effective way to ensure large-scale landowners comply with the LRRS, or for landowners to demonstrate that they are doing so.
• Support benchmarking, or provide criteria that can be used to assess whether the plan has been successful and to allow effective monitoring of progress.
• Promote landowner-community engagement and provide a platform for information sharing.
• Encourage landholdings to be more aware of the impacts of their activities, and provide an incentive for good practice.
• Help communities who are seeking to acquire land for woodland creation or rural housing.
• Help to overcome the impact of succession/landowner transition on community relationships.
• Generate higher quality quantitative and qualitative data that the Scottish Government and SLC can use to develop effective and targeted policies going forward.
• Highlight opportunities for collaboration with neighbouring areas. For example, allowing neighbouring landowners to identify positive habitat-based activity that can be extended, providing opportunities to improve habitat connectivity.
• Allow developers/investors to identify where there are opportunities for particular land uses.

It was noted that Management Plans are standard practice in the forestry/woodland sectors and that this experience could be shared with other sectors.

There was also a view that making a requirement for a Management Plan into an LRRS obligation would reduce statute requirement and provide flexibility for other changes.

In terms of the requirement to publish the plan it was suggested it should not just be made available online, but also in hard copy at a location accessible for members of the local community.

Reasons there should not be duty to publish Management Plans

Some respondents noted that, while seeing the merit of Land Management Plans in principle, they did not agree with creating a statutory duty to produce one. It was argued that this would risk becoming a compliance exercise, generating little information that is not already in the public domain – for example via estates’ websites. Publication of plans was seen as making sense in some areas but being of no value in others, and it was argued that there is no evidence to suggest the requirement for a Management Plan as it currently exists under the Transparency of Ownership protocol is not working.

It was also argued that Management Plans may be of little value if too generic and high level or if a landowner’s plans change over the plan period. A potential requirement to have an up-to-date plan to access public funding was seen as having the potential to discourage actions that Scottish Government is looking to promote.

Scale of landholdings

As at other questions, some respondents made points with respect to the proposal that the duty should apply only to large-scale landowners, arguing that the requirement should apply to all landowners, to all landowners to whom access rights apply, or to all landowners receiving public support. In particular, it was argued that many landscapes that would benefit from management planning would fall below the proposed threshold for a large-scale landholding, including National Scenic Areas, historic battlefields, and Gardens and Designed Landscapes. A further suggestion was that the duty should be applied only to large-scale landholdings in the first instance, but then extended more widely as the process is developed and refined.

Characteristics of Land Management Plans

General points on the nature of plans included that a one-size-fits-all approach would not be appropriate and that there should be flexibility to reflect different types of ownership, or to allow reaction to changes – for example to different financial circumstances or to unforeseen events, such as storm damage. It was also suggested that there could be proportionate application of the proposals for holdings of different sizes or according to the importance of the land held. Potential challenges were anticipated with respect to achieving some consistency in depth and quality of plans across a wide variety of land use types.

Other proposed criteria included that Management Plans should be simple, easily understood by all potential stakeholders and should include measurable objectives. It was also argued that the required content should be clearly specified, including with respect to review periods, and that landowners should be provided with guidance in formulating their plans. Existing SLC templates were suggested as providing good examples of what a plan should contain.

A further specification was that Management Plans should not be time-consuming to produce and should not require consultants to do so. Among a range of views expressed with respect to how onerous an undertaking the production and publication of a Management Plan would be were that:

• Completing the current SLC template is not a major undertaking.
• Producing Management Plans may be an onerous requirement against a background of diminishing resources.
• A duty to publish Management Plans represents an unnecessary burden on landowners.

Suggested content

With respect to topics that respondents wished to see included in Management Plans, requirements for community consultation/engagement were frequently cited, with some respondents expressing a view that this should extend to Management Plans being developed in participation with the local community or being agreed by the local community. However, there was also a view that proposals to ‘publicly engage’ on a Management Plan would be inappropriate, and that no corporation would be expected to engage customers on operational or management plans.

There were also calls to include:

• Information on public funding (both grants and tax emptions).
• Information on how a landowner will fulfil principles of agroecology and transition agriculture.
• Information on peatland restoration.
• Information on maintaining access in accordance with the Scottish Outdoor Access Code.
• Measures for landowners to diversify landholdings in terms of offering land to communities for their development purposes.
• Succession plans.
• Climate change mitigation/adaptation needs if there are known local climate change risks.
• Community Wealth Building Principles.
• Nature restoration targets.
• Meeting needs for affordable housing.
• Local repopulation.
• The principles of a just transition to net zero.

With respect to the last point, some respondents argued that it is unclear how increasing transparency would further achieving Net Zero.

Potential concerns raised

The concern raised most frequently was that some of the information required by Management Plans could be commercially sensitive. It was suggested that commercial and business sensitivity need to be respected and that a landowner should not be required to put potential management changes into the public domain prior to consultation with parties who may be affected – for example, their tenants. With respect to the language used in the consultation paper it was argued that it is not generally appropriate to ask a business to demonstrate how and where it is investing its money: rather than asking landowners to ‘set out their plans for investing in their land’ it was suggested it would be more appropriate to ask landowners to ‘share their thinking’ about how they manage their land, for information purposes only.

Data protection issues and national security considerations were also suggested as reasons that not all information should be made public.

Concerns were also raised that:

• If not implemented appropriately, Management Plans could reduce the flexibility that land management requires.
• A proposed land use might be delayed because a Management Plans is not considered adequate, or a land manager penalised despite having made good efforts to produce their Plan.
• Any requirement for land to be used for a particular purpose, would require specific legislation and should not be part of the current proposals. It was suggested that human rights (including under ECHR Protocol 1, Article 1 in particular) could be impacted if the necessary provisions of Management Plans would have the effect of requiring certain things to be done with the land.

Issues in relation to potential financial costs associated with producing Management Plans were also raised, with suggestions that the Scottish Government should consider whether financial assistance may be required in specific circumstances (for example, for communities or environmental NGOs) or whether more general funding (such as that available for preparation of Long-Term Forest Plans) should be provided.

Importance of alignment with other land management processes

It was argued that it will be important for Management Plans to take account of any spatial strategies that are relevant to the landholding, with examples including NPF4, Local Development Plans (LDPs) and Local Place Plans, Open Space, Forest and Woodland, and Food Growing strategies, Local Authority climate or climate adaption plans, RLUPs and Frameworks, and Local Biodiversity Action Plans. It was also suggested that:

• The potential relationship between Management Plans and RLUPs should be clarified.
• Careful consideration should be given to how conflicting uses under the land management and planning systems can be avoided.

Some respondents noted the potential for duplication of effort or argued that it will be important for Management Plans to complement other mechanisms for land management and reporting. In the context of addressing potential duplication there were references to:

• Management Plans produced on a voluntary basis shortly before a legal requirement was introduced.
• Plans for Whole Farm plans under the forthcoming Agriculture Bill.
• The existing IACS form that provides farmland management information.
• Deer Management Plans.
• Long-Term Forest Plans.
• Existing business plans produced by community groups.
• Existing practice and reporting requirements relating to LDPs.

Respondents from across a range of respondent groups noted the Management Plans already produced by their own organisations. One Government and NDPB respondent observed that their own Plans already cover much of the content of the Management Plans proposed by the consultation paper, although at a higher level, querying whether additional plans would be needed or if there could be flexibility to determine how requirements outlined in the consultation are addressed.

Respondents also raised a number of issues for clarification around tenanted land, sporting-lease tenants and crofting tenure. It was argued that clarity will be required regarding specific responsibilities in developing and implementing the Plan, with one suggestion that both responsibility and administrative burden should lie with the landowner rather than the tenant. However, it was also argued that where tenants have an exclusive right to use the land, the landowner is not responsible for land management, and a Management Plan prepared by the landowner would be of no effect.

A requirement for Management Plans on a crofting estate to be consistent with crofting tenure and crofting rights and obligations was also noted. It was argued that, where the landowner owns croft land and common grazings and where some or all of the estate is a crofting estate, the landowner should be under a legal obligation to consult with the crofting community or crofting communities affected when drawing up the Land Management Plan.

Potential penalties for non-compliance

As suggested by the consultation paper, some respondents agreed that publishing a Management Plans should be a condition of receipt of public subsidy, with the requirement for Long-Term Forestry Plans noted as a potential model. How a landowner who is not receiving public funding could be made to comply was also queried.

Other points were raised with respect to the quality of the plans produced, including that the consultation paper does not make clear whether a requirement to submit, register or seek approval for a plan is envisaged, or whether there will be a process to check the accuracy of the information provided. It was argued both that there does need to be a mechanism to ensure that the Management Plans produced are fit for purpose, and that they should be assessed against the required objectives by a public body with relevant expertise. How monitoring of activity against the published Plan would operate and what, if any, recourse there would be if landowners did not act on their Plans was also thought to be unclear.

It was also suggested that the role for incentives to drive good practice should not be overlooked, with Wildlife Estates Accreditation suggested as an example.

Question 9 – How frequently do you think Management Plans should be published?

Around 430 respondents answered Question 9. Some of these respondents restated that they did not support a requirement for Management Plans to be published.

Other comments addressed the factors that should be considered when deciding on an appropriate timeframe. In addition to general suggestions that Management Plans should be published as necessary, there was specific reference to:

• Information contained in the Plan becoming obsolete, for example because major changes or developments are planned, and these are not already covered.
• A change of ownership.

It was also suggested that any timeframe(s) could be similar to, or aligned with, the requirement to provide or publish information for other plans, or with applications for public funding or subsidies. Other suggestions included that:

• Any timeframes could vary according to the size of the landholding and/or the type of use(s) to which the land was being put.
• The approach could include timescales for review or the publication of statements of confirmation, as well as for full renewal.

Among respondents who proposed a specific timescale, the most frequent suggestion was that a Management Plan should be published every 5 years. The other frequently made suggestion was annually.

Other suggestions ranged from every 3 years through to every 10 years or more.

Question 10 – Should Management Plans include information on:

• Land Rights and Responsibility Statement compliance?
• Community engagement?
• Emission reduction plans?
• Nature restoration?
• Revenue from carbon offsetting/carbon credits?
• Plans for developments/activities that will contribute to local and inclusive economic development or community wealth building?

Responses to Question 10 by respondent type are set out in Tables 22 - 27 below.

Table 22 Question 10 – Should Management Plans include information on Land Rights and Responsibility Statement compliance?

	Yes	No	Don’t Know	Total
Organisations:
Academic group or think tank	4	0	0	4
Community or local organisations	19	0	0	19
Government and NDPB	12	1	0	13
Landowner	12	17	3	32
Private sector organisations	10	1	2	13
Representative bodies, associations or unions	14	5	4	23
Third sector or campaign group	25	1	1	27
Total organisations	96	25	10	131
% of organisations	73%	19%	8%
Individuals	273	39	15	327
% of individuals	83%	12%	5%
All respondents	369	64	25	458
% of all respondents	81%	14%	5%

Table 23 Question 10 – Should Management Plans include information on community engagement?

	Yes	No	Don’t know	Total
Organisations:
Academic group or think tank	4	0	0	4
Community or local organisations	19	0	0	19
Government and NDPB	12	1	2	15
Landowner	25	8	0	33
Private sector organisations	9	1	3	13
Representative bodies, associations or unions	15	3	5	23
Third sector or campaign group	24	0	2	26
Total organisations	108	13	12	133
% of organisations	81%	10%	9%
Individuals	275	30	21	326
% of individuals	84%	9%	6%
All respondents	383	43	33	459
% of all respondents	83%	9%	7%

Percentages may not sum to 100% due to rounding

Table 24 Question 10 – Should Management Plans include information on emission reduction plans?

	Yes	No	Don’t know	Total
Organisations:
Academic group or think tank	4	0	0	4
Community or local organisations	18	0	1	19
Government and NDPB	12	1	1	14
Landowner	15	14	2	31
Private sector organisations	10	2	1	13
Representative bodies, associations or unions	13	4	6	23
Third sector or campaign group	25	0	2	27
Total organisations	97	21	13	131
% of organisations	74%	16%	10%
Individuals	264	34	27	325
% of individuals	81%	10%	8%
All respondents	361	55	40	456
% of all respondents	79%	12%	9%

Table 25 Question 10 – Should Management Plans include information on nature restoration?

	Yes	No	Don’t know	Total
Organisations:
Academic group or think tank	4	0	0	4
Community or local organisations	18	0	1	19
Government and NDPB	13	1	0	14
Landowner	22	10	0	32
Private sector organisations	8	2	3	13
Representative bodies, associations or unions	15	3	5	23
Third sector or campaign group	24	0	2	26
Total organisations	104	16	11	131
% of organisations	79%	12%	8%
Individuals	277	32	16	325
% of individuals	85%	10%	5%
All respondents	381	48	27	456
% of all respondents	84%	11%	6%

Percentages may not sum to 100% due to rounding

Table 26 Question 10 – Should Management Plans include information on revenue from carbon offsetting/carbon credits?

	Yes	No	Don’t Know	Total
Organisations:
Academic group or think tank	4	0	0	4
Community or local organisations	16	1	2	19
Government and NDPB	11	2	1	14
Landowner	6	24	1	31
Private sector organisations	6	6	1	13
Representative bodies, associations or unions	11	7	5	23
Third sector or campaign group	17	2	7	26
Total organisations	71	42	17	130
% of organisations	55%	32%	13%
Individuals	236	57	30	323
% of individuals	73%	18%	9%
All respondents	307	99	47	453
% of all respondents	68%	22%	10%

Table 27 Question 10 – Should Management Plans include information on plans for developments/ activities that will contribute to local and inclusive economic development or community wealth building?

	Yes	No	Don’t Know	Total
Organisations:
Academic group or think tank	4	0	0	4
Community or local organisations	19	0	0	19
Government and NDPB	14	0	0	14
Landowner	14	14	2	30
Private sector organisations	9	3	1	13
Representative bodies, associations or unions	12	4	7	23
Third sector or campaign group	22	0	4	26
Total organisations	94	21	14	129
% of organisations	73%	16%	11%
Individuals	265	34	28	327
% of individuals	81%	10%	9%
All respondents	359	55	42	456
% of all respondents	79%	12%	9%

A majority of those who answered the questions agreed with each of the six suggested elements of a Management Plan, with the level of support varying as follows:

• 84% of those answering the question thought that Management Plans should include information on nature restoration.
• 83% thought information on community engagement should be included.
• 81% thought that information on LRRS compliance should be included.
• 79% thought that information on emission reduction plans should be included.
• 79% thought that information on plans for developments/ activities that will contribute to local and inclusive economic development or community wealth building should be included.
• 68% thought that information on revenue from carbon offsetting/carbon credits should be included. In this case, those who did not agree included some who had agreed with all the other types of information being included.

Please provide some reasons for your answers and any additional suggestions.

Around 310 respondents made a comment at Question 10.

General observations

In addition to specific comments about the six types of information that could be required, some respondents also made general observations about the value of including a range of information in Management Plans. Many of these comments reflected themes covered at Question 8, including the benefits of increased transparency, particularly for communities. There was also reference to the advantages of setting out all the information in a single plan, including to ensure that the overall approach taken by a landowner is cohesive. It was hoped that, taken together, it would provide a useful framework upon which Management Plans can be based.

It was also suggested that all of the information suggested is of key public interest, including in terms of a just transition and net zero, fulfilling Fairer Scotland obligations and ensuring community benefits. In terms of particular communities, it was thought that the information could be useful to the local crofting community and could help to inform the way that crofters engage with their landlord.

Other respondents raised reservations or concerns, including sometimes commenting that they had set out their reasons for disagreeing with compulsory Management Plans at earlier questions.

In terms of how any approach might be framed going forward, the importance of avoiding a ‘tick box;’ approach was highlighted, and it was suggested that each plan should be bespoke and tailored to the scale and type of land use proposed. It was also suggested that there has to be a balance between useful information and an over-heavy administrative burden and that requirements should be varied depending on an organisation’s capacity to respond.

Respondents also commented that, with a number of plans and policies already addressing the themes covered, clarity around how Management Plans should relate and interact with other published documents would be helpful. It was also suggested that some of the themes – emission reductions plans, nature restoration and revenue from carbon – may be better covered through other existing or developing regimes, such as those in the Agriculture Bill.

It was also noted that the information referred to appears to go beyond that required to complete the template land management plan produced by the SLC and there was an associated query about what is actually proposed? Other comments included:

• If the listed information is required, it should be produced in a short, standard format that can be completed without the requirement to produce an in-depth plan. However, it was also suggested that this would raise questions about its value.
• Information which might be considered commercially confidential should not be required, possibly excepting receipts from public funds.

There was also a query as to whether content of the plan would be ‘just for information’, or if it is expected that an individual or organisation could raise a complaint based on this content?

Suggestions relating to how the proposals could or should be taken forward included that:

• A template format for Management Plans should be provided, along with guidance for landowners and land managers. This template should align with the information gathered for other purposes, for example through Whole Farm Plans and Woodland/Peatland Carbon Codes.
• It would be helpful for landowners to have access to examples of ‘good Management Plans’ to help to guide design and delivery.
• A standardised methodology for data recording and appropriate mechanisms for monitoring and evaluating whether progress has been made will be required.
• Landowners should receive financial support and other incentives for fulfilling this obligation; it was suggested that this would be helpful in them entering fully into the spirit of this task and attempting to do a worthwhile job of it.
• The legislation should require plans to be produced in collaboration with local communities and other relevant stakeholders.

Land Rights and Responsibilities Statement (LRRS)

Support for including information

Comments included that the principles within the LRRS should provide the framework for information to be included in Land Management Plans and that this should include sufficient detail to show how landowners are complying with the LRRS principles on their landholdings. Specific suggestions included that there should be a requirement to include information on:

• How the LRRS principles are being put into practice during the implementation cycle of the Plans.
• Local contextual factors of relevance to development activities.
• An acknowledgement of the landowner’s duties, under Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2016, to responsibly manage land in a way which respects public access rights.

However, it was also noted that the extent to which landowners can report meaningfully on LRRS compliance will depend on the reworded statement and protocols.

Reservations or concerns

Those who commented sometimes referred back to concerns they had raised about strengthening the LRRS. Given these concerns, it was suggested that the LRRS is not appropriate as a basis for legal compliance, particularly as its interpretation is so subjective. There was also a view that, from a practical perspective, it would be an onerous and not entirely useful exercise for land managers to be asked to demonstrate compliance with relatively open ended and vague concepts.

Community engagement

Support for including information

Reasons for supporting this approach included that land reform is intended to give local communities a greater stake in the way land is used and that Management Plans should be clear on how the community’s needs have been taken into account and where they might benefit from the landowner’s plans. It was also suggested that engagement with communities should be underpinned by the Place Principle and developing a shared vision rather than simply seeking agreement. There was also reference to engaging with a range of local stakeholders, including the local Community Council, local business groups and organisations representing the land-based activity communities in which the landholding is involved.

Suggestions for particular information to be required included the SLC protocols that the landowner has considered in their community engagement efforts and the potential channels for engagement with the community.

Reservations or concerns

Issues raised by those who had reservations or concerns included that while community engagement is appropriate for public land it may not be appropriate for private land. There was a view that committing to community engagement needs to remain the prerogative of the landowner.

It was also suggested that there is no evidence to suggest that existing protocols, guidance and arrangements are not proving effective. For example, it was noted that applicants are required to engage with communities for planning applications, so the Management Plan would simply be stating something which is a requirement already. It was also suggested that the level and nature of engagement will depend on the types of projects proposed and that approaches are constantly evolving.

Emission reduction plans

Support for including information

Comments tended to be brief but included that emissions reduction information will already be public knowledge from the land manager’s agri-environment scheme. It was also noted that reporting on emission reduction plans assumes a well understood baseline.

In terms of the management Plan itself, further comments included that emission reductions plans should accompany data on revenue from carbon offsetting and credits (discussed further below) and that publishing and adhering to these plans would be helpful in ensuring we arrive at net zero as an entire nation, and that land managers do not over-sell carbon credits that they will need to offset their own remaining emissions.

Other comments or suggestions included that:

• The requirement could be variable and determined by setting thresholds, for example related to landholding size, value or type.
• Support should be provided for emission reduction plans to ensure they are meaningful, achievable and measurable through a standardised approach. This support could be financial or be in the form of advice.

Reservations or concerns

There were some concerns about land managers having the necessary understanding and resources to develop emission reduction plans, with comments on the plans themselves including that they are complex, business-centred and set out detailed actions – there was a view that this makes them unsuitable to be covered in Management Plans.

There was also a view that they should not be a requirement set out by legislation, especially given that, in some instances, measurements of success cannot be accurately defined or measured. There were also queries around acceptable targets and the consequences if targets are not met.

Other comments included that:

• Emissions reductions would seem to be a better fit with SEPA’s consenting processes.
• The infrastructure does not exist in rural Scotland to support emission reduction plans and land managers cannot be held responsible for doing something that is beyond their control.
• If emission reduction targets are introduced, then it would be discriminatory to apply them to a large-scale landholding but not all landholdings and indeed all other forms of businesses in Scotland.

Nature restoration

Support for including information

Comments included that many traditional landowners are already undertaking significant nature restoration efforts and that these should be recognised, and land managers encouraged and supported to report on them. However, it was also suggested that this should be on a voluntary basis, with reasons given including that this aspect of land management may not apply to some landowners, such as religious organisations. There was also a suggestion that it may not be appropriate to require information on nature restoration from the outset, but that it could be included in due course.

Other comments addressed the type of information that should be provided, with an associated concern that referencing ‘restoration’ excludes the proactive and positive management of existing biodiversity, as well as potential for enhancement. In terms of specific content, there was reference to information on:

• Nature management, biodiversity net gain agreements and land that is part of a Nature network.
• Rewilding.
• Creation and financing of nature-based enterprises.

There was also a suggestion that any requirement should be tied in with Scotland’s Biodiversity Strategy, with each Management Plan being an action plan for that strategy. There were also calls for links to Regional Land Use Frameworks, and alignment with other Scottish Government policy and guidance on nature restoration.

Reservations or concerns

As in relation to emission reduction plans, there were concerns about whether what qualifies as nature restoration, along with success, can be accurately defined or measured.

It was also noted that those with a large and diverse landholding, mainly occupied by tenants, are unlikely to be party to any agri-environment schemes that their tenants may be engaged in.

Revenue from carbon offsetting/carbon credits

As noted above, this was the proposal that attracted the lowest level of support.

Support for including information

Some of those commenting at this question raised concerns about selling carbon credits to offset current or future emissions, with views that the practice can perpetuate unsustainable practices elsewhere and remains vulnerable to fraud and misuse in carbon accounting practices. Given their concerns, some were keen to see the practice of carbon offsetting/carbon credits scrutinised under Management Plans.

It was also suggested that publishing data on revenue from carbon offsetting / credits is aligned with Scottish Government’s ambition to establish a high-integrity, values-led carbon market in Scotland, and that transparency on schemes and revenue from carbon will help communities benefit from green finance.

In terms of the type of information that should be included, there was reference to how the revenue from carbon offsetting/carbon credits will be spent; this was linked to ensuring this meets with the community’s approval, with funds being spent on relevant, sustainable, land-related expenditures.

Some of those supporting the approach, as well as some who were not sure, raised possible challenges relating to information provision. These included that:

• It is not entirely clear how revenue from carbon offsetting would be included given it is such a fast-moving marketplace. For example, it was reported that price may be set year-to-year, could change significantly within the period covered by a Management Plan, and may not be accurately predicted.
• A number of new institutional purchasers aim to use the land for ‘insetting’ their own corporate emissions rather than selling carbon credits through ‘carbon credits’; this would mean no data would be publicly available.
• The significant challenges of, for example, peatland restoration is already coming to the attention of institutional buyers, and it is unclear how any compulsory Management Plan can be enforced where the intentions were appropriate but the reality on the ground means they are unachievable.

Reservations or concerns

A frequently made point, reflecting more general observations made at Question 8, was that the revenue from carbon offsetting and carbon credits is, or may be, commercially sensitive. An associated point was that other land-based outputs, such as income from sales of crops or livestock, rents and mineral royalties, are not expected to be reported in in this way, and that the consultation paper presents no policy rationale to explain why revenue from carbon offsetting/carbon credits should be different. It was also suggested that the public or environmental benefit case for requiring this information to be provided is not clear.

Other comments included that:

• Requiring publication could constitute interference with a private owner’s right to peaceful enjoyment of their property according to ECHR Protocol 1.
• It may not be possible to publish this information if confidentiality arrangements are in place.
• The revenue position is only one side of the equation and any requirement to provide details of revenue without understanding the full picture is highly likely to be misleading and result in the wrong conclusions being drawn.
• The information is likely to change over the lifetime of a Plan.

There was also a concern that a consequence of requiring the information to be provided would be landowners declining to get involved with carbon schemes for fear of community complaints about revenue.

Some of those who did not agree with providing information about revenue did point to alternative information that could be relevant or appropriate. Suggestions included:

• Details of carbon and natural capital management activity, such as insetting, nature recovery without trading and carbon credit trading, and its purpose.
• If development involves the creation of carbon units.

Plans for developments/ activities that will contribute to local and inclusive economic development or community wealth building

Support for including information

In terms of the types of issues that this proposal might help address, it was reported that land is often not advertised on the open market, is effectively only available to large investment companies, and is sold before the local community is aware that it is for sale. It was also noted that woodland creation does not require planning permission, and it was reported that the procedures for engaging with organisations like Scottish Woodlands and Scottish Forestry are neither clear nor transparent.

However, it was also argued that a requirement to include information on plans to contribute towards economic development or community wealth building should be clarified to ensure that landowners do not feel required to pursue development activity on land intended for use primarily for nature.

In terms of the scope of information to be provided, points raised included that Management Plans should include basic information on how the land will be used, including identification of the main anticipated land uses for each land parcel for the period of the Plan. It was also suggested that they should cover:

• Any proposed development projects or major changes in land use. This should be irrespective of whether it will contribute to local and inclusive economic development or community wealth building.
• Links to Local Place Plans, along with their relationship to LDPs and regional strategies. It was noted that plans for developments/activities are covered by LDPs, which are prepared by local authorities and subject to public scrutiny. It was also noted that Community Action Plans and Local Place Plans have the opportunity to influence the content of the LDP and local authorities have the ability to encourage/facilitate their preparation.

Reservations or concerns

Some respondents who did not support inclusion of information on plans for development/activities that will contribute to local and inclusive economic development or community wealth building also pointed to the role of existing plans, and questioned the value of duplicating information that is already publicly available. It was also noted that developments/activities will already be covered by other existing statutory planning mechanisms, and that planning regulations require disclosure and consultation of development plans and engagement with local community bodies. There was a concern that adding further to this burden would restrict economic activity.

Other concerns included that:

• If demonstrating compliance with national and local policy is included, the proposed plan would become a complex and challenging document to put together, and would not be user-friendly.
• There has been no comprehensive definition or guidance around community wealth building in rural areas and/or for private owners so it is unclear what this requirement would mean in practice.
• Publishing plans which imply the possibility for community wealth building may raise community expectations and lead to souring of relationships if the plans are subsequently shelved for perfectly good reasons.

Additional suggestions

Respondents were also asked if they had suggestions for other information that should be included in a Management Plan. The most-frequent suggestion was how landowners intend to use and manage the land in the round. Associated points were that it should be possible to identify the main anticipated land uses for each land parcel for the period of the Plan, as well as any proposed development projects or major changes in land use. There was also reference to:

• Existing land management requirements, such as European designations, membership of Deer Management plans and any licences to undertake restricted activities held.
• An overview of the financial system of a landholding, including key income streams and outgoings.
• Funding received from the public purse, and any tax emptions. Any subsidies, what they are given for and how they were used.

Other suggestions, which sometimes reflected points made in connection with one of the types of information already identified, included that Plans should provide information on climate adaptation and resilience measures. There was reference to:

• Plans to manage climate risks and resources affecting community resilience such as water.
• Plans for securing nature restoration, and ecosystem services plans developed with other partners.
• Biodiversity net gain agreements.
• Land that is part of the Nature Network or linked to 30x30 ambitions.^[9]
• Tackling threats such as Invasive Non-Native Species.
• Active participation in catchment and other landscape scale initiatives.

An audit of natural assets on the land was also suggested, including information on the extent and condition of native woodland assets, information on deer populations and plans to reduce deer impacts.

Other themes highlighted included:

• Local food systems and agroecological transitions, including how existing agricultural production could better serve the local area, how access to land for new entrant farmers could be improved, and how community food growing could be promoted. Specifically, the transition from land management based on large-scale farming of ‘domesticated’ animals to plant-based management.
• Within crofting areas, the potential for the creation of new crofts.
• Housing, including affordable housing. There was reference to the steps landowners are taking to meet local housing demand to buy and how they are upgrading their own housing stock. Also, information on opportunities to develop affordable housing either directly or by releasing land to others.
• Cultural heritage and the historic environment, including any protected areas or designated sites and how the use of land or other considerations interacts with the historic environment.
• Outdoor access and recreation, including recreational access features within the landholding. It was suggested that there should be a requirement to include detailed information on public access and also places where the landowner believes statutory rights do not apply.

Question 11 – Do you think the responsibility for enforcing compulsory Land Management Plans should sit with:

• The Scottish Government?
• A public body (such as the Scottish Land Commission)?

Responses to Question 11 by respondent type are set out in Tables 28 - 29 below.

Table 28 Question 11 – Do you think the responsibility for enforcing compulsory land management plans should sit with the Scottish Government?

	Yes	No	Don’t know	Total
Organisations:
Academic group or think tank	1	0	2	3
Community or local organisations	2	4	7	13
Government and NDPB	0	5	4	9
Landowner	2	26	2	30
Private sector organisations	3	8	1	12
Representative bodies, associations or unions	2	12	7	21
Third sector or campaign group	3	9	9	21
Total organisations	13	64	32	109
% of organisations	12%	59%	29%
Individuals	105	117	47	269
% of individuals	39%	43%	17%
All respondents	118	181	79	378
% of all respondents	31%	48%	21%

Percentages may not sum to 100% due to rounding

Table 29 Question 11 – Do you think the responsibility for enforcing compulsory land management plans should sit with a public body (such as the Scottish Land Commission)?

	Yes	No	Don’t know	Total
Organisations:
Academic group or think tank	2	0	2	4
Community or local organisations	11	1	5	17
Government and NDPB	6	1	4	11
Landowner	4	21	5	30
Private sector organisations	4	8	1	13
Representative bodies, associations or unions	9	6	6	21
Third sector or campaign group	14	4	6	24
Total organisations	50	41	29	120
% of organisations	42%	34%	24%
Individuals	210	67	40	317
% of individuals	66%	21%	13%
All respondents	260	108	69	437
% of all respondents	59%	25%	16%

Among those who answered the question, only 31% of respondents thought that responsibility for enforcing compulsory Land Management Plans should sit with the Scottish Government. This dropped to just 12% of organisational respondents, where a majority of all but ‘Academic’ respondents disagreed.

In contrast, 59% of respondents though responsibility should sit with a public body. This rose to 66% of organisational respondents, where most groups agreed, the exceptions being ‘Landowner’ and ‘Private sector organisation’ respondents.

These responses followed a similar pattern to those at Question 5(c), where respondents were offered the same options with respect to where responsibility for investigating and dealing with complaints should sit.

Please provide some reasons for your answers and any additional suggestions.

Around 305 respondents provided a comment at Question 11.

Some respondents referred back to their answer at Question 5 or at Question 5(c) in particular and, in general, the arguments made at this question very much reflected those at Question 5(c).

Additional points raised here included that:

• The body responsible for enforcement in relation to Land Management Plans should be the same as that responsible for investigating and dealing with complaints with respect to the LRRS.
• What is meant by ‘enforcing compulsory Land Management Plans’ requires clarification – whether ensuring plans are produced, that they include certain information as outlined at Question 10, or that they are delivered once in place?
• How Management Plans would interact with the planning system may require consideration – for example, whether an existing Land Management Plan would stop a landowner applying for planning permission for development of land because it conflicted with the management proposals set out in the plan.

Reasons for responsibility to sit with the Scottish Government

A small number of respondents suggested parallels with the arrangements for Long-Term Forestry Plans where the relevant Scottish Government department has responsibility for enforcement. Other suggestions with respect to Land Management Plans included that:

• Responsibility should sit with the Scottish Government if cross-compliance penalties are envisaged.
• There should be a self-contained, specialist department within the Scottish Government.
• Responsibility must ultimately sit with the Scottish Government but could be delegated to a public body.

Reasons for responsibility to sit with a public body

As at Question 5(c) respondents who thought responsibility should sit with a public body often went on to argue that this should be the SLC, which was seen as having appropriate expertise and being well positioned for such a role, although also as requiring new powers. However, a concern was raised that the SLC’s reputation for neutrality could be put at risk if required to operate as both advisor and enforcer.

It was also suggested that:

• While the SLC could have responsibility for enforcement, aspects of Land Management Plans should also be reviewed by appropriate statutory agencies and government directorates such as Scottish Forestry and NatureScot, with a possible role for Environmental Standards Scotland.
• Cases requiring serious enforcement action should be referred to the Scottish Government for enforcement action, after considering the SLC’s recommendation.

Some respondents were clear they saw no case for creating a new body for the purpose of enforcing compulsory Land Management Plans.

Both, either and neither

A small number of respondents indicated that either or both options would be acceptable, or that their preference would depend on how plans develop. A larger number argued that neither option should be pursued as Land Management Plans should not be made compulsory.

Characteristics of the organisation charged with enforcement

Also as at Question 5(c), some respondents argued that any organisation charged with enforcement must be completely independent, impartial, transparent, and should ensure balance and proportionality. The importance of separating enforcement from advisory functions was also suggested, as were both that the organisation in question should not be swayed by political pressures and that it should not be dominated by vested interests.

Other features highlighted as important with respect to enforcement of Management Plans included that:

• The organisation in question should have clear ownership of land management plans and their enforcement.
• It should be provided with adequate resources and with appropriate powers and authority.
• There should be a right of appeal against its decisions, for example to the Scottish Land Court. This was seen as particularly important if a large landholding were to be prevented from accessing public funding opportunities available to all other landowning businesses.

Additional suggestions

In terms of other bodies that might assume the role or be part of the process, the most frequent suggestions involved local authorities, although there was also a view that they would not have capacity to do this without additional resources. Other suggestions included:

• An independent, democratically elected panel.
• An existing body such as SEPA or NatureScot.
• The Scottish Land Court/ Lands Tribunal.
• A new Scottish Land Agency.
• An independent ombudsman.
• The Park Authority, with respect to landholdings in National Parks.

Question 12 – Do you think the proposal to make Management Plans a legal duty for largescale landowners would benefit the local community?

Responses to Question 12 by respondent type are set out in Table 30 below.

Table 30 Question 12 – Do you think the proposal to make Management Plans a legal duty for large- scale landowners would benefit the local community?

	Yes	No	Don’t know	Total
Organisations:
Academic group or think tank	4	0	0	4
Community or local organisations	18	0	0	18
Government and NDPB	10	0	4	14
Landowner	8	20	5	33
Private sector organisations	5	4	4	13
Representative bodies, associations or unions	11	3	9	23
Third sector or campaign group	22	2	4	28
Total organisations	78	29	26	133
% of organisations	59%	22%	20%
Individuals	240	56	33	329
% of individuals	73%	17%	10%
All respondents	318	85	59	462
% of all respondents	69%	18%	13%

Percentages may not sum to 100% due to rounding

A majority of respondents, 69% of those answering the question, thought that the proposal to make Management Plans a legal duty for large-scale landowners would benefit the local community. Of the remaining respondents, 18% did not think so and 13% did not know.

These figures are very similar to those at Question 6 (on whether making the LRRS a legal duty would benefit communities) with a large majority of respondents giving the same answer at Questions 6 and 12.

Please give some reasons for your answer.

Around 285 respondents provided a comment at Question 12.

Some respondents expressed a view that it is difficult to know whether the community will benefit or that they would need more information in order to comment.

General points included that potential community benefits should have a clear, national definition which landowners’ actions can be measured against, or that plans should be required to demonstrate impact on the local community. It was also noted that effective management planning could provide benefits to both communities of place and communities of interest, as well as at national level.

Reasons the local community might benefit

Access to information

Better access to information and improved understanding of proposals for local land use were seen as having the potential to improve transparency and accountability around land use, providing communities with clarity on the direction of travel and scope for scrutiny of land use change. It was also suggested that:

• A community’s ability to plan ahead, and negotiate with the landowner from an informed position, could allow more effective management of their own natural capital.
• Crofting communities may be able to engage with their landlord/ landowner in a more informed way.
• Communities could be alerted to possibilities for community purchase or partnership with a landowner to improve local facilities or infrastructure.

Issues relating to how and where Land Management Plans should be available are covered at Question 13.

Community engagement

Opportunities for community consultation, engagement, involvement or participation were also cited as benefits, although some respondents were clear that benefits would be dependent on the extent to which a community is able to influence the development of the Land Management Plan. One respondent noted their own experience, as a landowner, that community consultation on management plans can be constructive for both parties, but that it is resource intensive to do well.

Improved communication and better relationships

Opportunities for increased understanding, improved relationships or more constructive working between land managers and local communities were also suggested as potential benefits of Management Plans. One suggestion was that Plans could be particularly important during periods of ownership transition or where there is absentee land ownership. Other potential benefits that were highlighted included that Plans could provide:

• An opportunity for landowners to consider how their land use contributes to national priorities – for example with respect to net zero or sustainability.
• An opportunity for landowners to showcase work that they feel is not currently understood or appreciated.
• Information of interest to both public stakeholders and national bodies with a connection to the land.

Other potential benefits

Among other potential benefits suggested as arising from a duty for large-scale landowners to publish Land Management Plans were:

• Safeguarding public access rights.
• Environmental benefits, including with respect to climate and biodiversity.
• Increased community volunteering.
• Opportunities for local housing, small-scale renewables and ecotourism.

Reasons the local community might not benefit

Some respondents noted that the extent to which individual communities benefit from Land Management Plans is likely to vary. It was suggested that the benefits experienced by communities will depend on:

• The scale at which the threshold is set and hence the number of landholdings to which the duty applies.
• Whether landowners already engage or are already operating with management strategies in which case additional benefits would be limited.
• The content and quality of plans, with a risk that their value could be reduced if plans become too formulaic.
• Whether the landowner is willing to engage or chooses to do only the minimum necessary to meet requirements and, as above, the extent to which communities have real opportunity to influence Management Plans.
• The capacity for individuals and communities to take part in engagement processes, potentially with respect to multiple Management Plans if an area is influenced by more than one large-scale landholding. It was suggested that both landowners and communities should be supported to ensure effective community engagement.

The absence of any clear mechanism to monitor implementation and the effectiveness of enforcement were also suggested as factors that could limit the benefits experienced by communities. It was also suggested that communities would need to be aware that there will be circumstances where matters are uncertain or are commercially sensitive, where projects evolve, or where timings change after a plan has been produced. These issues are discussed further at Question 13.

Specific situations where respondents thought benefits might be limited included:

• Where a proportion of a large-scale landholding is let on agricultural tenancy agreements that give landowners little control over land management.
• The local natural asset inventory, and the extent to which areas are nature-rich or depleted.

Reasons the community is unlikely to benefit

Some respondents argued – as in respect of a duty to comply with the LRRS – that there should be no duty to produce Management Plans, or that the duty should apply to all landholdings or to none at all. Also as with regard to the LRRS, it was argued that there would be no benefit to communities that are not near to large landholdings, and that large estates are often remote, with limited local communities. It was also suggested that Management Plans are likely to be high-level and compliance-based and will lack detail.

Potential negative impacts

Rather than seeing benefits, it was suggested a duty to publish Land Management Plans could have negative impacts including damaging relationships or creating confrontation, or by inhibiting investment and, potentially, inhibiting activity that would be in the public interest. There was also concern that requirements for detailed plans or specific consultation timescales could disrupt normal management and commercial activities. Instead of creating a compliance approach that could detract from more meaningful engagement it was argued that better outcomes would be achieved from retaining a voluntary approach.

In terms of the content of Management Plans, it was thought to be unclear what information might be included that is not already available to interested parties and it was argued that no evidence to indicate that the absence of a Land Management Plan has a detrimental effect has been presented.

Extent of policy and existing mechanisms

Some respondents highlighted the large volume of policy in relation to land use in Scotland, arguing that it may be unrealistic to expect either land managers or communities to read and understand everything that might be relevant. Potential for confusion was suggested if different policy strands are, or appear, contradictory.

It was also observed that guidance already in place means landowners are expected to consult on land use change, and that planning procedures already provide opportunity for community input on a regular basis rather than at a single point when a Management Plan is being prepared. If looking to promote community involvement in local decision making, it was suggested the Scottish Government could do more to support communities in producing Community Plans and Local Place Plans

Question 13 – Do you have any other comments on the proposal to make a legal duty for largescale landowners?

Around 200 respondents answered Question 13, although many of the issues raised have been covered at previous questions in this section, particularly at Question 8.

With respect to their title, it was suggested Land Management Plans should be called Sustainability Plans to emphasise importance of tackling the nature and climate emergencies.

Complementing other processes

Complementing other land management plans and/or avoid duplicating other processes was seen as important, with suggestions that:

• Organisations that already have Management Plans in place should be allowed to use these to meet any new duty, as long as they are broadly compatible with the requirements imposed by a new duty.
• Existing plans should be reviewed on their usual cycle.
• There may be a requirement for such plans to be amended in future to better reflect LRRS principles in their formulation and implementation.

There were specific references to the importance of alignment of a duty to publish Land Management Plans with requirements under:

• NPF4.
• The Planning (Scotland) Act 2019, Local Place Plans and LDPs.
• The forthcoming Agriculture Bill.

It was also noted that a duty to publish Management Plans could be delivered through a standalone provision or alternatively through a duty to comply with a Code of Practice under a revised LRRS, with the latter option enabling close links to the LRRS and other associated Codes. It was also suggested this approach would aid proportionality and allow any requirement to evolve in line with the LRRS.

There were suggestions a duty to publish management plans should also apply to urban areas or to buildings and property on the land.

Support and guidance

Some respondents highlighted practical issues relating to the production of Land Management Plans, including that their presentation will need to be clear and accessible and that landowners will need support and guidance on content. Providing a template and guidance, seminars/workshops, and a range of example Land Management Plans were all suggested. Existing SLC templates were suggested to require further development in order to be suitable.

Although it was noted that the consultation paper highlights Forestry and Land Scotland’s Land Management Planning process as a potential model for Land Management Plan development it was argued that this would not be a good choice, with variable implementation and often-poor community engagement both cited as reasons. Other suggestions for potential models included:

• Processes associated with production of Long-Term Forest Plans.
• The UK Woodland Assurance Standard (UKWAS).
• Guidance for developing Local Place Plans and LDPs.

It was also argued that an appropriate standard, drawn up in consultation with Scottish Land and Estates, could see best practice become the norm.

Some respondents addressed the potential resources associated with production of Land Management Plans, including that costs could be significant for large landholdings, and that the Scottish Government should ensure communities are given sufficient resources to support the successful implementation of good Management Plans.

Requirements

Consultation

Some respondents highlighted the importance of meaningful engagement and consultation, with views that Management Plans should be subject to a formal consultation process or that, as a minimum, legislation should advise early engagement, in line with the National Standards for Community Engagement. Requirements to consult with adjacent properties or to consult tenants and crofters who will be affected were also proposed. However, it was also noted that several existing regimes provide routes for public consultation and engagement, and it was suggested that both how any new processes might sit alongside existing mechanisms and how to avoid consultation fatigue should be considered.

It was also suggested that, as well as the local community, there should be a mechanism to allow qualified independent experts to comment on the Management Plan or that Plans should be subject to independent assessment by scientists and ecologists with relevant land management expertise.

Content

Suggested content for Land Management Plans included:

• Maps and work plans.
• A summary of likely impacts of management proposals and details around any appropriate mitigation.
• Views of the landowner on employing local people.
• Information on management of the historic environment, or on cultural heritage.
• Proposed actions to contribute to reaching net zero.
• Information on nature-focused management.
• Information on water and soil health actions, and on water resources.
• Information on existing local plans, particularly those that have been led by communities and reflect community priorities (for example community action plans) and a requirement for Land Management Plans to reflect the priorities and aims of such plans.
• Information on land released for housing.
• Details of the community/stakeholder consultation undertaken and an explanation of how comments have been addressed in the development and implementation of the Plan.
• At renewal, a report on compliance with the previous plan, its successes and failures, and actions being taken to address non-compliance.

It was also suggested that, if the duty to publish a Management Plan were to be extended to smaller landholdings, the scope and detail required should be proportionate to the scale of landholding.

Publication arrangements

Comments on publication of plans included calls for these to be:

• Publicly available online via a central portal, potentially administered by the SLC.
• Easy to find, with one suggestion for an interactive map.
• Presented in an accessible format including contact details for queries about the plan, and details of who is accountable for its implementation.
• Freely available to communities.

It was also suggested that published Management Plans may provide a valuable opportunity for gathering data on land management and land use objectives, and on how policy is being implemented or is influencing land management outcomes.

Specific issues were raised with respect to publication of Management Plans for Ministry of Defence land, including that some aspects of land management cannot be made publicly available for national security reasons. It was argued that each establishment will have to be assessed on a case-by-case basis, with significant implications in terms of time and resources, meaning that appropriate timeframes for compliance will be required.

Enforcement

The absence of any clear mechanism to monitor implementation and the effectiveness of enforcement were noted at Question 12 as reasons that some respondents thought communities might not benefit from the duty to publish a Land Management Plan. It was argued that there needs to be reporting and monitoring mechanisms, along with scope for appropriate and proportionate enforcement action in situations where Management Plans do not adhere to LRRS principles in practice. There were also calls for communities to have the opportunity to challenge a landowner’s failure to deliver their Management Plan or for significant penalties for not developing and following adequate plans.

However, it was also noted that, although a duty only to publish a plan is rather limited, there may be legitimate reasons why it is not possible to comply with a published plan, including reasons outwith the control of the landowner. It was suggested that it would be burdensome for landowners to report on their adherence to the plan or for this to be subject to oversight and enforcement. Another view was that it should be accepted that a Management Plan provides a snapshot of intentions at the time it is prepared, but that businesses need to retain flexibility to respond to changes in circumstances or opportunities in ways that may not be reflected in the Plan.

Arrangements regarding tenancies

A number of respondents highlighted farming tenancies and crofting tenancies as requiring consideration if the legal duty to provide a management plan rests with the landowner. Points raised included that:

• Many land management decisions will be made by tenants and consideration should be given to how and when these land managers are brought into the process.
• Management Plans must reflect the rights of tenants/crofting tenants and should cover long-term planning for farm tenancies, including the future of fixed term tenancies.
• Management Plans should be produced in partnership with any crofting tenancies and should allow benefits from good management of peatland soils to be realised.

Whether a tenant would have the right to challenge a Land Management Plan was queried and, if so, who would make a decision.