Land Use Strategy (LUS) Delivery Evaluation Project - Volume 2: Appendices

• The overview of the WEDP approach within the Queensberry Pilot Report describes how "...[land use] change does not necessarily have to refer to the substituting of one enterprise activity [land use] for another...it may be possible to have more than one land use present on the same area of ground and certain activities...could complement each other" (Buccleuch Group, 2011 p.8). The Queensberry Pilot report lists five main enterprises (land uses). These land uses aren't described in terms of multiple benefits but in light of the statement above, there is potential for opportunities to be sought where the same area of ground could deliver multiple benefits (e.g. using existing forestry as shelter for the rearing of game birds as per the example in the Queensberry Pilot Report)
• The WEDP approach recognises primary and secondary land uses e.g. a single parcel of land can be identified as having, for example, sporting and farming uses. These land uses are considered within other layers - which include the 'ecosystem' and 'community' (socio-economic) layers. In this way individual parcels of land are understood to deliver multiple benefits
• In terms of the impact of the WEDP approach it is not yet clear to what extent changing land management to promote single land uses (which are found to be more efficient) will be prioritised. The processes within the WEDP approach, as described above, have the potential to guard against this - i.e. where focussing on a given primary land would be inappropriate
• Phase 1 of the WEDP approach included the use of semi-structured interviews with estate employees across all enterprise/land use areas to support the mapping of each enterprise land use using ArcGIS. This aspect if the approach supports the inclusion of a range of internal stakeholders who are separately responsible for different types of land use 'benefit'. These interviews also build links across internal departments/organisations

• The WEDP does not introduce any new regulation, not does it revise or streamline the management of existing regulation

• The WEDP process requires the description and mapping of a number of primary land uses within the estates. In effect, these primary land uses form the baseline for considering potential future land use options (including multifunctional land uses as per the above)
• Key primary land uses include forestry and in-hand farming (arable and pasture ground). Furthermore, the Queensbury Pilot report states that "unlike other enterprise activities, woodlands can be classed as a more fixed land use, with respect to the fact that it is difficult to reclaim an area of land that is occupied by woodland" (Buccleuch Group, 2011 p.21)
• The WEDP approach uses a variety of means to determine potential areas of primary land use. In particular, the land resource across the whole estate is appraised in terms of the Macaulay Land Capability for Agriculture Classification^[3] (see figure below). This data can be used to determine which land is best suited to arable and pasture land uses (Grade 3 and 4 land in the case of the Queensberry Estate) and which is best suited for forestry and hill sheep farming land uses (Grade 5 and 6 land in the case of the Queensberry Estate). This information is at the heart of the application of the WEDP and the results are used to 'zone' the estates

WEDP Queensbury Pilot - Macaulay Land Capability Classification for Agriculture (Buccleuch Estates, 2011)

Note: lighter green areas have a higher land capability class, are more suited to a diverse range of productive land uses and accrue a higher value to the estate owners

• The WEDP approach also identifies a 'core heritage estate' within each of their estates. These areas are not to be subjected to significant change - in this way the WEDP approach accounts for the socio-cultural and landscape values of parts of the land within their estates (i.e. a type of primary land use)
• A lack of understanding and data around flood/water management and carbon storage related land use/management means that these primary land uses are accounted for less well at present

• Although there is no explicit mention of the ecosystems approach, the Queensberry Pilot Report states that to "complement the financial analysis it was also appropriate to examine the indirect or non-financial impacts that a particular land use strategy may have on areas out with Buccleuch, such as local communities and economies, landscapes and ecosystems" (Buccleuch Group, 2011 p.7). Additionally, the section on 'wider considerations' includes provision for an assessment of the indirect impacts of proposed land use on soil quality and stability which are key supporting services/ecosystem processes
• Ecosystem services are implicitly translated within the WEDP approach. GIS is used to integrate a range of spatial data sets to evaluate the existing or potential supply of provisioning (e.g. food, timber, fibre, energy etc.) and cultural (recreation and tourism) ecosystem services
• The analysis also considers a range of indirect impacts of proposed land use change that are not spatially defined in the GIS. Again, the consideration of ecosystem services per se is not explicit but the range of issues captured reflects other cultural services (e.g. access, recreation, education in the countryside, community participation etc) and also a range of regulatory services including water purification, flood regulation, soil erosion regulation and carbon sequestration
• Although GIS is used extensively, key regulatory services that could potentially be defined spatially by proxy (e.g. flood regulation) are not considered in the spatial analysis - partly due to data availability (see LUS Principle C also)

• The Executive Summary to the WEDP Queensberry Pilot Report mentions the importance of considering the Buccleuch Scottish estates at the "highest level of strategic planning" to ensure that "they continue to remain an important part of the Scottish landscape for generations to come" (Buccleuch Group, 2011 p.3). In terms of landscape planning at an appropriate scale as per LUS Principle E, it is perhaps appropriate to consider the WEDP approach at the national level given the size of the land area covered by Buccleuch Estates owned land (equivalent to 1% of the Scottish land area)
• As per the above, landscape is considered alongside a range of other issues that fall outside the estate's boundary (i.e. local communities, economies and ecosystems)
• Landscape impacts are discussed as a potential limiting factor to renewable energy development which although commercially viable "could be unpopular due to the impact large turbines could have on the landscape" (Buccleuch Group, 2011 p.28). It is not clear whether or not relevant stakeholders were consulted on potential plans for renewable energy development as part of the pilot though the controversy of wind farm development is clearly recognised in the report
• Landscape assessments are also undertaken for major land use change within estates such as wind turbines, afforestation or fencing controls
• The designation of a 'core heritage estate' that is subject to less change than other areas is based on the recognition of the landscape value of these areas
• Despite the extensive use of GIS described above, it appears that spatial data sets relating to landscape (e.g. landscape character areas, core areas of wild land etc.) were not considered in the analysis

• A. The WEDP Queensberry Pilot Report does not include any explicit references to climate change per se though there are multiple implicit references to various land uses that have potential to support the climate change mitigation agenda. This includes the management of existing forestry (a sizeable portion of the total land area - see the figure below), the potential for expansion of productive forestry and the potential for renewable energy development (see above also)
• Indirect impacts of proposed land use change on "peat bogs or deep peat-land" and the "production of greenhouse gases" (Buccleuch Group, 2011 p.33) are discussed in the section on wider considerations. It may also be the case that carbon storage is less well considered, potentially due to poor data availability (e.g. finer scale data on soil organic carbon content). Another potential issue is that there are no clear financial incentives to consider carbon storage as a functional land use^[4]

WEDP Queensbury Pilot - Existing and Potential Forestry Land Use (Buccleuch Estates, 2011)

Note: purple polygons represent potential areas for the expansion of productive forestry. All other polygons are existing forestry land uses which comprise 8.7% of the land area across the estate

• Within the WEDP Queensberry Pilot report, the impacts of climate change and potential adaptation responses do not seem to be considered on a par with mitigation i.e. it appears that relevant spatial data sets (e.g. hydrology, flood extent etc) are not considered within the GIS analysis. Local climate change impacts have not been identified
• Indirect impacts of proposed land use change on flood alleviation are included under the wider considerations section though land use/management interventions that would provide this service do not seem to have been spatially prioritised as part of the GIS analysis. Similarly to the issues around carbon storage highlighted above, this may be because there is no clear incentive to consider flood storage/natural flood management as a functional land use

• Vacant and derelict land is not a recognised issue on the estates or considered within the WEDP approach

• Outdoor recreation is considered as an explicit component of the WEDP approach as it is one of the key revenue earning enterprises/ land uses within the WEDP model. As a primarily commercial enterprise therefore, the WEDP approach to outdoor recreation and access perhaps goes against the basic tenets of the LUS Principle in this regard which is more concerned with increasing public access and developing outdoor recreation as a key component of health and well-being
• That said, the WEDP approach is premised on supporting the identification of optimal land use strategies for sustainable financial return therefore the quality of the offer at paid entry recreation and tourism facilities is likely to be high. This may encourage more people to use these sites for outdoor recreation (with the associated health benefits etc.)
• In the case of the Queensberry pilot, the recreation and tourism land use is focussed around Drumlanrig Castle and its immediate environs which offers multiple services including estate grounds/castle itself, walks, cycle-ways and mountain bike tracks, playground and tea room
• Within the general WEDP approach and the Queensberry pilot specifically there doesn't appear to be any consideration of the maintenance or development of non-revenue earning outdoor recreation/access related land uses

• The WEDP approach and the Queensberry Pilot Report do not include any provision for wider stakeholder or community engagement beyond the semi-structured interviews undertaken with estate employees at the beginning of the process
• Engagement with local communities is felt to be relevant when considering specific land uses changes - at the whole estate level however there are no plans to involve people in decision-making
• The discussion around wider considerations recognises that "...it is necessary to take account of the consequences to local communities, the environment and the landscape in any decision making process" (Buccleuch Group, 2011 p.29) though this type of approach is a top-down analytical process considering likely changes to employment and not an engagement opportunity

• The WEDP approach seeks to make more explicit the value of the estates and to provide greater transparency about how land use decisions are made. In this way the WEDP has some potential to make this link clearer - the scope for dissemination of these concepts is not very clear though
• The wider considerations section of the reporting includes provision for an assessment of indirect impacts of proposed land use change in terms of "opportunities for provision of education in the countryside" and "opportunities for skills training / work experience" (Buccleuch Group, 2011 p.32)

Consideration of LUS Principle A within the CSGN Vision:

• The CSGN initiative and most of its strategic framework pre-date the LUS by a year or so. Despite this, most of the LUS Principles are present implicitly at the Vision level as outlined below. The key exception to this however is the notion of 'land providing multiple benefits'. There isn't a specific reference within the Vision on multifunctional land use, multipurpose land use etc whereas most of the other Principles can be traced back to one or more implicit, yet highly specific reference (i.e. the Vision doesn't actually reference the Principle but it specifically covers the same or very similar issues)
• Despite this, when taken as a whole, the Vision and its constituent principles, outcomes and ambitions is clearly concerned with how land might be better used and managed for multiple benefits - in effect, delivery of the Vision will be predicated on the development of a multifunctional green network that supports the Vision's five ambitions and outcomes^[7]. In addition, the Vision includes specific reference to working with a range of stakeholders as partners: "...to achieve these ambitions we have to make sure that others share our vision including local government, health boards, urban regeneration companies, enterprise and tourism agencies, private sector, third sector and local communities" (CSGN Partnership Board, 2011 p.3). This sort of partnership approach can support the delivery of multiple benefits through the representation and action of multiple interests

Consideration of LUS Principle A within the CSGN Work Plan 2012-2015:

• Much of the analysis of the CSGN Vision above applies to the 2012-2015 Work Plan albeit in a more focussed manner. As with the Vision, the Work Plan only includes one specific mention of 'land providing multiple benefits' (in relation to a specific project in the annual progress review section). Although from the scope of the actions and milestones it is apparent that the issue of multiple benefits is on the agenda (e.g. urban greening and greening of VDL to support adaptation to multiple climate change impacts, linking catchment scale IHN analysis with support for WFD objectives etc). Additionally, the Work Plan includes specific actions for partners as well as actions to be delivered jointly by partners, supporting delivery across a range of objectives

Consideration of LUS Principle A within the CSGN Development Fund application process:

• Similarly, the 2012/13 Development Fund application and assessment forms do not include any specific reference to 'land providing multiple benefits'. In some ways however, the Development Fund application process is weaker on multiple benefits than the Vision and the Work Plan as the focus here is on individual projects, including site specific projects that will deliver the CSGN 'on the ground'. Accordingly, there is perhaps recognition that there is less scope for delivering multiple benefits at the project scale than at the strategic scale
• That said, the application form includes a list of seven priorities^[8] and the more priorities addressed by prospective projects, the greater the likelihood of a positive outcome from the application process. This particular aspect of the Development Fund application process is therefore a key driver for the delivery of multiple benefits at the project level

Consideration of LUS Principle A within CSGN Development Fund supported projects:

• During interviews, representatives of all eight CSGN Development Fund supported projects described how the scope of their CSGN supported activities would contribute to the delivery of multiple benefits. Importantly, this ranged from landscape scale projects (e.g. the Pentland Hills Woodland Strategy and the Reviving and Sustaining the Clyde Valley Orchards project) down to site level projects (e.g. East Renfrewshire Council's Barrhead Green Network project and ELGT's Greening VDL in Edinburgh project)
• Scale is potentially an important issue defining the way in which multiple benefits from land use/management are framed. At the broader/landscape scale, multiple benefits are described more in terms of broad objectives (e.g. the Pentland Hills Woodland Strategy seeks to deliver landscape, biodiversity, habitat network and access/recreation benefits from discrete woodland creation projects) and translating these broad objectives into practical land management on the ground (as is the case with the LUS itself) may present a key challenge for delivery

ERC Barrhead Green Network Project - Hurlet site Concept Plan (ERC, 2012)

Note: the figure above indicates how design and layout of land use/management intervention at the site level can deliver multiple benefits including biodiversity/ landscape/habitat networks (existing and proposed woodland), clean-up of contaminated land (phytoremediation site) and access/outdoor recreation (public access path)

• Conversely, by their very nature, site level projects were generally described in more detailed/certain terms and it is possible to identify how projects might deliver multiple benefits by virtue of the objectives, design and layout of proposed intervention. For example, ERC's Barrhead Green Network Project includes site specific proposals for green network intervention with the expressed objectives of supporting biodiversity/landscape enhancement in conjunction with socio-economic and environmental regeneration (including clean-up of contaminated sites) and opportunities for environmental education, recreation and active travel. Many of these benefits are evidenced on the figure above which shows a concept plan for one of the sites addressed in the project

Consideration of LUS Principle B within the CSGN Vision/Work Plan 2012-2015:

• The CSGN Partnership recognise how partnership working with the 19 CSGN local authorities will be key to the successful delivery of the CGSN on the ground. In particular, Single Outcome Agreements (SOAs) and Local Development Plans (LDPs) are seen as key mechanisms for delivering and protecting the green network on the ground^[9], especially through the inclusion of specific LDP policy on green network issues. In this manner, development proposals will be required to integrate relevant green network protection and enhancement measures as part of scheme design
• The CSGN Vision includes a principle on harnessing the potential of development including specific reference to "working with developers, not against them" (CSGN Partnership Board, 2011 p.7). Despite this, new planning policies on green network in CSGN area LDPs will undoubtedly place an additional consideration on developers (though this may be no more onerous than the requirements of proposed green network/infrastructure provisions within the draft Scottish Planning Policy^[10])
• As evidenced within their Work Plan 2012-2015, the CSGN also have a broader policy, good-practice development and research agenda that seeks to demonstrate the benefits of green network/infrastructure (i.e. as a counter to the costs) e.g. Thematic Milestone A2.2 on "priority areas for urban greening to help address climate change issues" and "demonstration projects to test the retrofitting of urban greening solutions" (CSGN Partnership Board, 2012 p.7-8). In addition, the CSGN Regional Advisory Forum provides a sounding board to ensure that CSGN policies/programmes are realistic and achievable^[11]
• Through these various measures, the CSGN are arguably working to facilitate green network integration across the activities of the public and private sectors, in effect helping to 'soften the blow' and make the case for green network policy within LDPs and SOAs. In this regard, the CSGN's activities have the potential to support the delivery of existing regulation (e.g. green network policy within SPP, LDPs etc). Within the scope of this research however it has not been possible to engage with those affected by these policies on the ground

Consideration of LUS Principle C within the CSGN Vision:

• The CSGN Vision does not include any implicit or explicit provision related to LUS Principle C. However as discussed above, the CSGN Partnership arguably favour a multiple benefits approach to land use in order to deliver the various outcomes and ambitions expressed in the Vision
• Despite this, the CSGN Support Unit recognise that land in lowland Scotland is under pressure from competing demands and that final decisions concerning land use/management ultimately come down to landowner preferences (i.e. the CSGN recognise that their opportunity to influence land use is limited)
• Although the CSGN arguably support a more multifunctional approach to land use, the reality is that land use decisions are taken by landowners and that those decisions are influenced primarily by land values (e.g. agricultural land, peri-urban land that may be valuable for housing etc). In this manner, the CSGN region contains many areas of primary land use though the CSGN partnership acknowledge that their influence over what and where these land uses are is constrained (although there is recognition that primary land use can be influenced by regulatory, funding and planning policy e.g. SRDP, LDP, FWS)

Consideration of LUS Principle C within the CSGN Work Plan 2012-2015:

• The Work Plan includes an implicit reference to LUS Principle C in relation to forestry as a primary land use and Scotland's afforestation targets. In particular, Thematic Milestone A2.1 refers to the development of a "CSGN Woodland Creation Action Plan […] that draws together key elements of the Forestry and Woodland Strategies for the CSGN area" (CSGN Partnership Board, 2012 p.7)
• The specific reference to CSGN Forestry and Woodland Strategies (FWS) is important in relation to LUS Principle C. Forestry Commission Scotland's (FCS) guidance on FWS^[12] identifies four main types of woodland including softwood forests (i.e. commercial conifer plantations). Such woodlands are more likely to be managed for commercial timber production and are likely contain some compartments where management is geared primarily towards timber production (i.e. with limited wider multiple benefits such as landscape, biodiversity, recreation etc). FWS can potentially play a key role informing the CSGN's approach to woodland (including primary use woodlands) in this regard as they are evidence based and subject to environmental assessment/public consultations

Consideration of LUS Principle C within the CSGN Development Fund application process:

• The CSGN Development Fund application process is arguably geared towards projects that have the potential to deliver multiple benefits as discussed above

Consideration of LUS Principle C within CSGN Development Fund supported projects:

• Five of the eight CSGN Development Fund supported projects interviewed in the research reported consideration of LUS Principle C type issues. All of these five projects were working at broader/landscape scales (e.g. Campsie Fells Review and Action Plan, Inner Forth Landscape Partnership, Clyde Valley Orchards). Due to their geographic scope, it is unsurprising that areas of primary land use were encountered (see the Figure below for example)

Inner Forth Landscape Initiative - constraints/sensitivities analysis (IFLI, 2013)

Note: GIS based analysis of key constraints/sensitivities is identified as a useful way of identifying and mapping areas of primary land use. On the map above, purple areas are important nature conservation sites (SSSI/Ramsar), red areas is prime agricultural land and yellow areas are peat/carbon rich soils

• Key primary land uses identified include landscape (Pentland Hills Woodland Strategy), agriculture/food production (all projects), forestry (Pentland Hills Woodland Strategy) peat/carbon rich soils (Clackmannanshire Green Infrastructure Strategy, Inner Forth Landscape Partnership - see figure above) and flood risk management (Inner Forth Landscape Partnership). Crucially, all projects recognised that although an area of land may be particularly suited to providing a given primary use, in almost all circumstances the land would also provide wider multiple benefits, even if it is being managed for a given primary use (e.g. the sites identified for managed realignment/FRM as part of the Inner Forth project will also be crucial for biodiversity and recreation/wildlife watching)
• The five projects adopted various means of identifying areas of primary land use including reference to related plans and strategies (Clackmannanshire Green Infrastructure Strategy), GIS based constraints analysis (Pentland Hills Woodland Strategy, Inner Forth Landscape Partnership) and engagement/workshops with land owners/managers (Pentland Hills Woodland Strategy, Campsie Fells Review and Action Plan)

Consideration of LUS Principle D within the CSGN Vision:

• As a high level, non-technical document, the CSGN Vision succinctly captures the essence of LUS Principle D and the ecosystem services concept at an appropriate level. In particular, the notion of ecological networks is implicit at various points e.g. "the CSGN will connect green and blue spaces in our towns and cities with the wider countryside and coast" (CSGN Partnership Board, 2011 p.5) and in the specific principle on a connected CSGN - "where green or blue spaces have been reduced or links have become broken we need to reverse this" (CSGN Partnership Board, 2011 p.7)
• These principles are spelled out with further clarity under the a place for nature theme which includes specific provisions on integrated habitat networks (IHNs), landscapes and wildlife corridors
• Crucially, both Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH) and FCS are lead CSGN partners^[13], both of whom have a crucial (and sometimes statutory) role in wildlife conservation and ecosystem management for ecosystem services

Consideration of LUS Principle D within the CSGN Work Plan 2012-2015:

• Although ecosystem services aren't mentioned specifically, the concept is implicit at several points throughout with a particular emphasis on the role/importance of ecological networks supporting ecosystem function
• In particular, the use of integrated habitat network (IHN) modelling^[14] is referenced as a key tool for land use planning and there is a focus on raising awareness of the utility of these tools with decision-makers. Furthermore, Thematic Milestone A5.1 includes specific provision for developing a "number of new landscape scale habitat network enhancement projects" (CSGN Partnership Board, 2012 p.9) demonstrating the desire to move from modelling and planning to land management action on the ground

Consideration of LUS Principle D within the CSGN Development Fund application process:

• Consideration of LUS Principle D is implicit to the 2012-2013 application form through multiple of the expressed priorities for Development Fund applications including joining up the network, woodland creation and enhancement, addressing known greenspace deficits (including community growing spaces and urban green infrastructure) and collaboration/cross-boundary working
• The emphasis on networks/connectivity reflects the importance attached to ecological networks in the Vision/Work Plan and woodland creation and urban green infrastructure development has the potential to provide a range of ecosystem services depending on location, context and design

Consideration of LUS Principle D within CSGN Development Fund supported projects:

• Seven of the eight CSGN Development Fund supported projects interviewed in the research considered LUS Principle D type issues though the focus was primarily related to ecological connectivity and ecosystem processes (e.g. habitat networks, hydrology and river processes)
• This is unsurprising given the CSGN's emphasis on ecological networks (e.g. within the Vision, Work Plan and Development Fund application process) and also the free availability of CSGN region IHN data (in ArcGIS format) from SNH^[15]
• Some projects (Pentland Hills Woodland Strategy and Clackmannanshire Green Infrastructure Strategy) did consider wider ecosystem services (e.g. landscape, environmental settings, peat/carbon rich soils etc) provided by the land though this was often as a constraint to another form of land use (e.g. forestry) rather than being recognised as a distinct benefit in its own right
• Site level projects like the ELGT Greening VDL in Edinburgh project also sought to consider wider landscape/ecosystem process issues (e.g. linking greening on site with wider habitat networks) and to protect and enhance soil resources

Consideration of LUS Principle E within the CSGN Vision:

• The CSGN Vision succinctly captures the essence of LUS Principle E and key landscape concepts at an appropriate level. The treatment of scale is particularly relevant in this regard - the Vision recognises landscapes at different scales from "towns and cities [to] the wider countryside and coast" (CSGN Partnership Board, 2011 p.5) as well as the importance of place-making and environmental settings influencing landscape at more human scales e.g. "people feel good about their physical surroundings" (CSGN Partnership Board, 2011 p.11)
• There is specific mention of the role played by natural/semi-natural habitats in the CSGN whereby "habitats and integrated habitat networks [support] characterful, high-quality landscapes that add value to the region" (CSGN Partnership Board, 2011 p.13). As with Principle D, CSGN lead partners SNH and FCS both have a crucial (and sometimes statutory) role in landscape planning and management

Consideration of LUS Principle E within the CSGN Work Plan 2012-2015:

• Landscape issues are discussed explicitly and implicitly throughout the work plan. As with the Vision, scale is an important distinction with landscape discussed implicitly in relation to place-making/environmental settings at the neighbourhood scale e.g. Thematic Milestone A2.2 includes a specific provision on "demonstration projects […] to test retrofitting of urban greening solutions within existing built environments and new build projects" (CSGN Partnership Board, 2012 p.8). At broader scales, there is a specific reference to mapping and promoting policy on wild land and other special landscape qualities
• The Work Plan also includes specific reference to the use and/or development of specific tools to support landscape planning and management including proposals for the use of Placebook Scotland^[16] to promote awareness and appreciation of CSGN landscapes and the development and dissemination of "technical guidance […] to inform future landscape change in peri-urban areas" (CSGN Partnership Board, 2012 p.9)

Consideration of LUS Principle E within the CSGN Development Fund application process:

• There is no specific mention of landscape though landscape issues are implicit in relation place-making/environmental settings at the neighbourhood scale (e.g. the priority on addressing known greenspace deficits including greenspace around businesses/social housing/schools, community growing spaces and urban green infrastructure^[17])
• The role of natural/semi-natural habitats and their networks contributing to landscape is also recognised through specific priorities on joining-up the network (including habitat networks) and woodland creation and enhancement

Consideration of LUS Principle E within CSGN Development Fund supported projects:

• Landscape change issues were not addressed specifically in the interviews with CSGN Development Fund supported projects. That said, five of the eight projects (Campsie Fells Review and Action Plan, Inner Forth Landscape Partnership, Clyde Valley Orchards, Pentland Hills Woodland Strategy and Clackmannanshire Green Infrastructure Strategy) are working at the landscape scale and include specific consideration of landscape issues e.g. restoring historic landscape features (Clyde Valley Orchards, Inner Forth Landscape Partnership), identifying areas of important landscape character and protecting them from inappropriate land use change (Pentland Hills Woodland Strategy, Inner Forth Landscape Partnership - see figure below) and identifying landscapes important for economic development (Campsie Fells Review and Action Plan)

Inner Forth Landscape Initiative - mapping landscape character: lowland hills and valleys (IFLI, 2012)

Note: the Inner Forth Landscape Study assessed the landscape character of the Inner Forth area using existing data and fresh field work. The map and image above show areas of landscape defined as 'lowland hills and valleys'. The study also considered landscape pressures and restoration opportunities. The use of Landscape Character Assessment (LCA) in this regard can be a useful tool to guide and manage landscape change, at a range of scales^[18]

Consideration of LUS Principle F within the CSGN Vision:

• The CSGN Vision considers a range of climate change mitigation and adaptation issues. In particular, there is specific reference to the role of key CSGN land uses (woodland and peat) contributing to climate change mitigation: "It [the CSGN] should also aim to increase the amount of CO₂ that is captured and stored in the area, through, for example, creating woodland and managing peatland" (CSGN Partnership Board, 2011 p.7)
• Although the Vision doesn't discuss specific CSGN relevant climate change impacts, these can be inferred through the treatment of specific climate change adaptation issues. Namely sustainable urban drainage (flooding) and urban green infrastructure such as tree planting and roof gardens (urban heat island and flooding)

Consideration of LUS Principle F within the CSGN Work Plan 2012-2015:

• There is specific reference to climate change adaptation issues in relation to the CSGN's strategic context, especially as a result of the National Planning Framework 2 (NPF2) and the Water Framework Directive (WFD) and River Basin Management Planning (RBMP) process. The latter are seen as key drivers of sustainable flood management which has distinct overlaps with green network and land use/management e.g. "woodland planting, the installation of buffer zones including wetlands, control of invasive non-native species and the use of SuDS" (CSGN Partnership Board, 2012 p.2)
• There are also specific thematic milestones addressing land use/management related mitigation and adaptation issues though peatland management is not evidenced within this specific Work Plan. Key mitigation measures under the a place in balance theme include the development of a CSGN Woodland Creation Action Plan and the identification of new mechanisms for delivering afforestation on the ground. Adaptation measures focus on urban issues through the promotion of urban greening "to help address climate change issues e.g. flooding, sea level rise, urban heat island effects" (CSGN Partnership Board, 2012 p.7)

Consideration of LUS Principle F within the CSGN Development Fund application process:

• There is no specific mention of climate change issues within the Development Fund application and assessment forms. Despite this, climate change issues are implicit, to a degree, within the expressed 2012/13 priorities which include joining-up the network for people and wildlife (i.e. promoting ecological connectivity and active travel), woodland creation and enhancement (i.e. potential support for mitigation if appropriate siting/design/management is used) and addressing urban greenspace deficits including community growing and green infrastructure (i.e. potential support for mitigation through local food growing and for adaptation through innovative use of green infrastructure)
• The Development Fund application process also requires prospective projects to demonstrate support for the CSGN Vision and extant Work Plan therefore the key climate change issues described above should, in principle, be reflected in project applications and decision-making

Consideration of LUS Principle F within CSGN Development Fund supported projects:

• All eight of the CSGN Development Fund supported projects considered climate change issues to a degree. Four of the projects considered both climate change mitigation and adaptation. Climate change mitigation issues were featured in all eight projects, to varying degrees.

ELGT Greening VDL in Edinbugh - identifying opportunities where VDL sites may contribute to sustainable FRM (ELGT, 2011)

Note: the map on the left shows hydrology and flood risk in Edinburgh. The map on the right shows VDL sites that are infleunced by their proximity to flood risk areas. Sites highlighted in red have been identified as potentially critical for FRM due to their proximity to flood risk areas, size and topography

• Some projects (ELGT Greening VDL in Edinburgh, Inner Forth Landscape Partnership, Clackmannanshire Green Infrastructure Strategy) made specific assessments of climate change implications and used the findings to support the identification of specific mitigation and adaptation measures (e.g. opportunities for managed realignment to support FRM, opportunities for VDL to support FRM - see figure above)

Consideration of LUS Principle G within the CSGN Vision:

• A key part of the CSGN's strategic intent is focussed on addressing Central Scotland's legacy of industrial dereliction. As such, it is unsurprising that the CSGN Vision highlights the need to address VDL as a key issue from the outset e.g. "Although the [CSGN] area has a shared industrial heritage, the condition of the physical environment differs widely across it. There are areas of exceptional beauty offset by landscapes which are in significant decline" (CSGN Partnership Board, 2011 p.6) as well as including a specific principle on regeneration "the CSGN should reduce social and health inequalities as well as repairing the physical environment" (CSGN Partnership Board, 2011 p.7)
• Crucially the specific reference to "landscapes in significant decline" exemplifies the scale of the problem in the CSGN region - i.e. it is not just isolated sites or pockets of VDL; rather numerous (often large) sites combine to contribute to landscape degradation

Consideration of LUS Principle G within the CSGN Work Plan 2012-2015:

• The Work Plan references NPF2 highlighting the CSGN's status as a National Development and the NPF's proposed role for the CSGN including "bringing vacant and derelict land back into beneficial use" (CSGN Partnership Board, 2012 p.2)
• Although there is no specific mention of an assessment of the CSGN VDL resource, thematic milestones under the a place for growth theme include specific reference to integrating VDL greening with Scottish Government policies, programmes and funding, the development of pilot projects promoting best-practice in funding models, mechanisms and approaches for VDL greening and the development of technical guidance on VDL greening

Consideration of LUS Principle G within the CSGN Development Fund application process:

• In line with the CSGN Vision (see above), addressing VDL has been a named priority within the CSGN Development Fund application process since its inception. It is a specific priority within the 2012/13 application documentation which also includes links to the Scottish VDL Register.

Consideration of LUS Principle G within CSGN Development Fund supported projects:

• Although VDL is clearly a key priority for the CSGN (see above), it is one very specific priority amongst several others and it is therefore unlikely (and probably undesirable) that there would be an opportunity for every Development Fund supported project to address VDL. In line with this, consideration of VDL issues in three of the projects considered (nearly 50%) seems appropriate
• In two of these projects, VDL was an integral part of the overall project (ELGT Greening VDL in Edinburgh and Barrhead Green Network) including the delivery of multiple benefits from VDL e.g. habitat networks, biodiversity, community food growing, access and active travel, health and wellbeing, place-making and environmental settings etc (see figure above also)

Consideration of LUS Principle H within the CSGN Vision:

• Outdoor recreation and access issues are central to the CSGN Vision where recreational land uses are highlighted as key elements of the CSGN: "It [the CSGN] will be made up of parks, public spaces (formal and informal) and gardens (public and private), street trees, green roofs and green walls in urban areas [and] existing path and cycle networks and greened transport corridors" (CSGN Partnership Board, 2011 p.5) and enshrined within a specific principle on the desired life enhancing nature of the CSGN: "it is vital that members of the public use and enjoy it [the CSGN] actively (for example for walking and cycling to school and work) and for recreation, relaxation, education and community activities" (CSGN Partnership Board, 2011 p.7)
• The desired role of the CSGN in this regard is further set out under the 'a place to feel good theme' which includes specific outcomes relating the use and enjoyment of outdoor spaces, improved levels of physical and mental wellbeing and reductions in health inequalities and preventable health problems
• Accordingly, the Vision sets out a broad range of outdoor recreation activities and greenspace functions that the CSGN seeks to deliver. Also, FCS and SNH are CSGN lead partners have a role supporting and promoting outdoor recreation

Consideration of LUS Principle H within the CSGN Work Plan 2012-2015:

• Given the centrality of LUS Principle H type issues within the CSGN Vision it is unsurprising that this is also reflected in the Work Plan. The Work Plan references NPF2 highlighting the CSGN's status as a National Development and the NPF's proposed role for the CSGN including "developing footpath and cycleway networks and other facilities and attractions to contribute to a more sustainable transport network and expanding the range of recreational opportunities close to major centres of population, helping to encourage active travel and healthier lifestyles" (CSGN Partnership Board, 2012 p.2)
• LUS Principle H type issues are also prevalent in the thematic milestones section under the 'a place to feel good' and 'a place to belong' themes. Crucially, this includes proposals for a range of different activities including the use of greenspace on the NHS estate, promotion of outdoor physical activity and active travel, development and promotion of long distance paths (John Muir Way) and addressing gaps in the strategic path network

Consideration of LUS Principle H within the CSGN Development Fund application process:

• Joining-up the network (for people and wildlife) is an expressed priority within the 2012/13 application documentation. There is also a priority on areas of multiple deprivation which perhaps reflects the strategic intent in the Vision (see above) in terms of addressing health inequalities. There may be synergies therefore between prospective Development Fund projects that join-up the access network and provide outdoor recreation/active travel opportunities whilst also helping to address health inequalities and other issues of multiple deprivation

Consideration of LUS Principle H within CSGN Development Fund supported projects:

• Outdoor recreation and access issues were not addressed specifically in the interviews with CSGN Development Fund supported projects. That said, issues concerning access, recreation, active travel and health and wellbeing were highlighted as key multiple benefits by seven of the projects. In particular, many of the projects sought to improve access and active travel options through the development and/or enhancement of key routes (Barrhead Green Network, ELGT Greening VDL in Edinburgh, Campsie Fells Review and Action Plan, Pentland Hills Woodland Strategy) and others sought to raise awareness of the benefits of outdoor recreation and healthy lifestyles (ELGT Greening VDL in Edinburgh, Barrhead Green Network, Inner Forth Landscape Partnership)

Consideration of LUS Principle I within the CSGN Vision:

• The CSGN Vision includes a principle on locally distinctive and respectful of the past that incorporates stakeholder and community engagement provisions: "communities should be at the heart of decision-making and should be involved in developing assets…" (CSGN Partnership Board, 2011 p.7)
• In addition, the 'a place to belong' theme includes provisions on volunteering and community action and also the notion of the CSGN as a "community resource which encourages local pride and ownership and provides opportunities for volunteering, education, training and developing skills" (CSGN Partnership Board, 2011 p.12)
• As such, the CSGN Vision can be seen as incorporating both elements of community engagement and involvement in land use/management - i.e. input to land use decision-making and opportunities to participate in land management activities. Crucially, the Vision itself has been informed by a consultation process though there is no record of who was engaged in the process or the engagement strategies adopted

Consideration of LUS Principle I within the CSGN Work Plan 2012-2015:

• CSGN Work Plans are approved by the Partnership Board though there doesn't appear to be a mechanism by which communities and residents within the CSGN region can input to the Work Plan. There is some reference to engagement within the section on thematic milestones though this relates primarily to promotion of activities (e.g. the John Muir Trail) as opposed to engagement with decision-making processes

Consideration of LUS Principle I within the CSGN Development Fund application process:

• There is no specific requirement for prospective CSGN Development Fund supported projects to involve people in the development/design of projects. However survey information is mentioned within the 2012/13 application documentation as potential evidence when defining the project need and fit with local priorities. This provision could feasibly cover surveys of local residents, communities, businesses and other stakeholders (as well as habitats, protected species, hydrology etc)

Consideration of LUS Principle I within CSGN Development Fund supported projects:

• Six of the eight projects considered LUS Principle I type issues to varying degrees. All six projects included an element of consultation on key land use issues with various stakeholders including local communities, the public, land owners, land managers, businesses and key statutory agencies. One project only consulted the public on decisions affecting public land (i.e. land use/management decision issues on private and MOD land were not considered)
• The ELGT Greening VDL in Edinburgh project engaged local communities, housing associations and elected members including an opportunity to comment on draft designs. The Inner Forth Landscape Partnership utilised the networks of partnership members to increase attendance at community events
• Crucially, all six of the projects anticipate there being opportunities for people to get involved in practical land management activity through volunteering e.g. planting days, supporting outreach activities, habitat management, community growing etc
• Although there is a good degree of engagement with stakeholders in evidence at the project level (at least in relation to the sample projects reviewed as part of this research), the apparent lack of opportunities to inform the CSGN's strategic work planning activities is a concern e.g. opportunities for wider stakeholders (including the public) to input to the development of annual Work Plans

Consideration of LUS Principle J within the CSGN Vision:

• The CSGN Vision includes several references to LUS Principle J type issues, reflecting the CSGN's general premise of "bringing change to life in central Scotland by restoring and transforming the landscape"^[19]. In particular, there is a distinct focus on land providing a medium for community growing and also opportunities for land based volunteering, education, training and skills development activities

Consideration of LUS Principle J within the CSGN Work Plan 2012-2015:

• Reflecting the issues considered in the Vision, the Work Plan's treatment of LUS Principle J type issues focusses on the promotion of opportunities for community growing e.g. Thematic Milestone A3.3 on community growing includes provision for helping to ensure that "public land is becoming available to develop formal allotments and informal growing spaces" (CSGN Partnership Board, 2012 p.8)

Consideration of LUS Principle J within the CSGN Development Fund application process:

• See evaluation against LUS Principle I

Consideration of LUS Principle J within CSGN Development Fund supported projects:

• See evaluation against LUS Principle I - six of the projects considered are likely to provide opportunities for people to get involved with practical land management through volunteer activities. Depending on the specific approach adopted and uptake, this has the potential to help raise awareness of the role of land (e.g. in the production of food, contributing to environmental settings, storing carbon, supporting biodiversity and other key ecosystem services).

Consideration of LUS Principle A within the CALL Programme Plan:

• Some consideration within the Programme Plan's strategic provisions
• A key premise of CALL is partnership working between landowners and communities, as enshrined by strategic objective 1 and an underpinning value on working in partnership
• The inclusion of multiple partners may support the delivery of multiple benefits from the land. Each partner is likely to have different objectives - balancing these objectives at the landscape scale has the potential to support multifunctional land use/management plans and projects
• There is also a specific underpinning value on multiple benefits stating that "all projects should look to deliver a range of benefits" (CALL, 2011 p.4). This is crucial given that a good deal of CALL's project activity is land based

Consideration of LUS Principle A within sample CALL projects:

• Considered implicitly in three of the six projects. However, the access plans project is more concerned with the use of good planning and design to ensure that access improvements do not negatively affect the multiple benefits provided by existing land use/management i.e. the access plans are designed to take account of existing land uses (especially productive and conservation land uses e.g. forestry, agriculture and important areas of wildlife habitat). In this instance therefore, the project will not necessarily provide additional multiple benefits, rather it will help ensure that the status quo is maintained
• Conversely, the local venison business project proposes an integrated deer management approach geared towards delivery of multiple revenue streams including meat, cultural heritage/tourism and habitat management

Consideration of LUS Principle A & sample CALL projects within Steering Group meetings:

• LUS Principle A considered implicitly in relation to the access plans, woodland establishment and management plan projects
• Proposals to produce a draft habitat connections opportunity map (using the Integrated Habitat Network Model - the IHNM) and to use Highland Council's map-based footpath inventory to prioritise CALL footpath works/promotion has the potential to support the delivery of multiple benefits through the projects listed above e.g. avoiding land use conflicts, identifying opportunities for woodland creation to deliver multiple benefits etc
• The proposed SWT information gathering trip round CALL partners to inform the IHNM work may identify sites where woodland design and management can be undertaken to deliver multiple benefits

LUS Principle A - translation 'on the ground' following decision-making input from yourCALL:

• In relation to the sample CALL projects discussed above (i.e. where consideration of LUS Principle A type issues has been implicit), several key proposals have been approved and resulted in consequent action
• For example the draft habitat connections opportunity map (that will support access plans, updated management plans and the woodland creation pilot project when finalised) has been developed collaboratively with CALL partners. However, the focus of the opportunities mapping to date has primarily been on landscape and ecological connectivity and the scope for addressing multiple benefits is limited (e.g. the mapping work does not consider wider benefits such as water management, shelter belt, opportunities for energy forestry etc)
• CALL recognise that the map is necessarily broad-brush at this stage (e.g. the map has not yet been subject to community consultation) and anticipate giving further consideration to multiple benefits at the detailed design stage, especially given the range of partners involved and their range of different objectives

• The CALL initiative does not introduce any new regulation, not does it revise or streamline the management of existing regulation

Consideration of LUS Principle C within the CALL Programme Plan:

• No explicit or implicit consideration of primary use issues within the CALL Programme Plan vision, objectives or underpinning values

Consideration of LUS Principle C within sample CALL projects:

• Key primary land uses (conservation and agriculture) are considered as constraints within the access plans project. The value of the land (either in terms of its conservation or agricultural value) appears to have been a deciding factor in the identification of areas of land that may need protection for primary use objectives

Consideration of LUS Principle C & sample CALL projects within Steering Group meetings:

• LUS Principle C considered implicitly in relation to the access plans, woodland establishment and management plan projects. In the same way that the proposals listed above may help to identify opportunities for the delivery of multiple benefits, they may also identify areas of primary land use (e.g. sensitive landscapes and habitats, peatland, agriculture etc)

LUS Principle C - translation 'on the ground' following decision-making input from yourCALL:

• On the basis of the evaluation summarised above, LUS Principle C type issues are arguably not an important consideration in the CALL Programme Plan or within the summary documentation on five of the six sample CALL projects considered. Conversely, these issues have been considered in relation to several projects at CALL Steering Group meetings including in discussions concerning several key proposals that have since been approved and resulted in action
• In particular, development of the draft habitat connections opportunity map (that will support access plans, updated management plans and the woodland creation pilot project when finalised) has been informed by consideration of key sensitivities that may constrain land use/management change e.g. CALL's programme of habitat/National Vegetation Classification (NVC) survey has identified and mapped areas of sensitive habitat - undisturbed deep peat, grassland (a rare habitat in the CALL area) and other areas rich in flora (with input from SNH etc) - that are likely to be inappropriate for woodland creation
• Furthermore, the identification of sensitive areas drew on input from the CALL partners (i.e. sitting down round the map and scoping out key constraints), an approach that was felt to be very useful for this purpose. Also, there is an aspiration for the future to use Highland Council's map based inventory of paths to prioritise future footpath promotion and planning work. In the manner, CALL anticipate being able to design access improvements in such a way as to avoid sensitive areas

Summary note:

• Although there is no/very limited consideration of LUS Principle C type issues within the CALL Programme Plan and other more strategic documents, the approach and depth with which these issues have been considered at the more detailed project delivery and decision-making level (e.g. clarity over priority land uses, use of data and fresh survey work to identify priority land uses, development of spatial plans that delineate priority land uses etc) is such that LUS Principle C is felt to have been translated effectively into decision-making on the ground

Consideration of LUS Principle D within the CALL Programme Plan:

• Substantial consideration within the Programme Plan's strategic provisions. The ecosystems approach, as per the Convention on Biological Diversity^[20] (CBD) and SWT's Living Landscapes policy^[21], provides the strategic context for the CALL initiative. Accordingly, LUS Principle D type issues are considered extensively, especially in relation to landscape scale ecological connectivity which is reflected at the vision level
• Strategic objective 3 is focussed on nature and landscape and includes specific mention of native woodland expansion linked to connectivity and resilience. The reference to the ecosystems approach within strategic objectives 4 and 5 (on research and knowledge transfer respectively) may support wider stakeholder engagement on ecosystem service issues within CALL activities

Consideration of LUS Principle D within sample CALL projects:

• Considered implicitly in three of the six projects. In the local venison business project, specific processes are to be adopted including assessment of habitat condition, deer counts etc to ensure that integrated deer management plans are based on an understanding of ecosystem health/capacity. Planning is undertaken at the landscape scale and neighbouring land owners are engaged to account for the transient nature of deer populations and their ecology
• In the access plans project, access related land use decisions are informed by the IHN modelling - i.e. use of a specific ecosystem evaluation tool. The intention is to ensure that access improvements are integrated with existing and planned habitat networks, thereby supporting CALL's overarching objectives on ecological connectivity etc

Consideration of LUS Principle D & sample CALL projects within Steering Group meetings:

• LUS Principle D considered implicitly in relation to the access plans, woodland establishment, management plan and local venison business projects
• The draft habitat connections opportunity map (see Principle A also) is designed to support the identification of woodland habitat network enhancement opportunities to improve landscape scale ecological connectivity
• The SWT information gathering trip (see Principle A also) will help to ensure that relevant stakeholders are engaged in the planning of landscape scale ecosystem management. The proposed deer habitat impacts assessment day considers the wider objectives of sustainable deer management, potentially including consideration of deer impacts on natural regeneration etc

LUS Principle D - translation 'on the ground' following decision-making input from yourCALL:

• As per the above, LUS Principle D type issues are an implicit yet highly important consideration within CALL's strategic documents. Furthermore, these issues have been considered at CALL Steering Group meetings, in relation to several projects (see above), resulting in key proposals being taken forward to action on the ground
• In particular, several projects have a key focus on landscape ecosystem processes and the potential impacts of land use/management change - for example the local venison business project, through its branding initiative, seeks to raise awareness of the strategic importance of deer and habitat management for a range of ecosystem processes. Similarly, the well-attended habitat impacts assessment training day sought to raise awareness of the wider objectives of deer management
• Although there are potentially wider benefits to consider in relation to land use and management within the CALL project area (see Principle A), the draft habitat connections opportunity mapping work (which will inform a range of CALL projects - see above) considered key ecosystem services that are particularly important for the area e.g. peat/carbon rich soils and carbon storage, landscape, food production (crofting on the coastal margins) and the importance of the area's biodiversity underpinning ecosystem function and other ecosystem services

Consideration of LUS Principle E within the CALL Programme Plan:

• Substantial consideration within the Programme Plan's strategic provisions. Similarly to Principle D, LUS Principle E is central to CALL's approach and is reflected implicitly within the vision which describes landscape in terms of its biophysical and social/cultural characteristics and the interactions therein i.e. the "shared active management [of the landscape]" (CALL, 2011 p.3)
• LUS Principle E type issues are also central to strategic objective 3 on nature and landscape - in effect, the landscape aspects of this objective are adopting elements of a re-wilding^[22] approach by seeking to restore substantial elements of the landscape back to a wooded state (i.e. its pre-intensive/extensive land management state), with planning and design being undertaken at the landscape scale

Consideration of LUS Principle E within sample CALL projects:

• Considered implicitly within four of the six projects. In the local venison business project, integrated deer management planning is undertaken at the landscape scale, recognising the ecology of red deer and the scale of their impacts on landscape e.g. browsing vegetation/halting woodland regeneration, trampling/soil erosion and impacts on peatland habitats etc
• The photography competition as part of the 2020Vision project encourages participants to engage with their landscape at a range of scales
• The woodland establishment pilot project will use native local provenance tree species inherent to the CALL area landscape. Locations for pilot projects are informed by the IHN modelling which considers the biophysical parameters of landscape i.e. locations where soils, aspect, altitude etc would support the establishment of appropriate native woodland cover

Consideration of LUS Principle E & sample CALL projects within Steering Group meetings:

• LUS Principle E considered implicitly in relation to the access plans, woodland establishment, management plan and local venison business projects
• Similar issues to LUS Principle D - in particular, production of the draft habitat connections opportunity map has the potential to support habitat restoration at the appropriate landscape scale

LUS Principle E - translation 'on the ground' following decision-making input from yourCALL:

• As with LUS Principle D above, Principle E type issues are an implicit yet highly important consideration within CALL's strategic documents. Furthermore, these issues have been considered at CALL Steering Group meetings, in relation to several projects (see above), resulting in key proposals being taken forward to action on the ground
• This has involved practical landscape planning where action on the ground will be informed by key sensitivities (e.g. collating and utilising habitats and land cover data, as part of the habitat connections opportunity mapping work, to inform proposed land use/management change from the perspective of biophysical constraints) as well as initiatives to engage local communities in landscape issues (e.g. communicating the impact of deer and deer management on landscape as part of the local venison project branding initiatives and engagement activities as part of the 2020 Vision Roadshow project^[23])

Consideration of LUS Principle F within the CALL Programme Plan:

• Extensive consideration of LUS Principle F type issues within the Programme Plan's strategic provisions with a focus on adaptation and resilience. The importance of considering climate change impacts and land management based adaptation strategies is captured within the vision
• Strategic objective 3 on nature and landscape implicitly addresses climate change adaptation in the context of ecological connectivity and climate change resilience
• Land management based strategies for climate change mitigation are not addressed explicitly or implicitly, neither are the potential tensions between woodland expansion and peatland management/restoration
• Strategic objective 4 on research is, in part, concerned with improving knowledge to support better planning for land management based climate change adaptation

Consideration of LUS Principle F within the CALL Projects:

• Although considered extensively within the Programme Plan (see above), the explicit or implicit consideration of LUS Principle F type issues within the six sample projects is sparse. For example there is no specific mention of local climate change impacts or how the projects will support adaptation
• Although the woodland establishment and management plan projects are key to the delivery of the Programme Plan's strategic objective on nature and landscape (which is focussed on ecological connectivity and resilience - see above), these projects do not discuss climate change impacts or adaptation

Consideration of LUS Principle F & sample CALL projects within Steering Group meetings:

• Similarly to the above, there is no explicit or implicit consideration of LUS Principle F type issues within Steering Group minutes

LUS Principle F - translation 'on the ground' following decision-making input from yourCALL:

• As per the above, consideration of LUS Principle F type issues is sparse in the Steering Group proposals that have been taken forward on the ground. Although the protection of peat/high carbon soils through the sensitivities mapping work and the general move towards appropriate woodland creation will no doubt deliver carbon storage benefits, there is no specific mention of climate change issues or how management will be targeted to support mitigation objectives
• Climate change adaptation is implicit in relation to all proposals and activities that seek to restore and enhance ecological connectivity at the landscape scale (e.g. improved deer management, strategic/IHN based habitat opportunities mapping etc. Locally specific climate change impacts are not discussed

Summary note:

• As per the above, various aspects of the CALL initiative consider climate change/LUS Principle F type issues. This includes both climate change mitigation and adaptation issues though the focus of adaptation appears to be on ecological connectivity and ecosystem resilience as opposed to other adaptation issues (e.g. protection against storms and extreme weather). This combined with the limited consideration of climate change issues within CALL projects means that LUS Principle F has only been translated 'to a degree'

Consideration of LUS Principle H within the CALL Programme Plan:

• No explicit or implicit consideration of outdoor recreation and access issues within the CALL Programme Plan vision, objectives or underpinning values

Consideration of LUS Principle H within the CALL Projects:

• Although not considered explicitly or implicitly within the Programme Plan, LUS Principle H is considered extensively within the access plans project

Consideration of LUS Principle H & sample CALL projects within Steering Group meetings:

• LUS Principle H considered implicitly in relation to the access plans project. In particular, a meeting is proposed to discuss projects including representation from relevant stakeholders (Highland Council Access Officers) and an open invitation to others (e.g. local communities, specific interest groups)

LUS Principle H - translation 'on the ground' following decision-making input from yourCALL:

• Despite extensive consideration in relation to the access plans project, LUS Principle H type issues have not been considered in the Steering Group proposals and subsequent actions reviewed as part of this research. Access issues are considered but only in terms of the potential for conflicts with other land uses (e.g. sensitive habitats). In this manner, key issues relating to the promotion of outdoor recreation and access are not reflected in decision-making on the ground though there is arguably some implicit consideration in relation to the 2020 Vision Roadshow (e.g. encouraging local communities to take part in the photography competition/workshops - "what is your living landscape?"^[24])

Consideration of LUS Principle I within the CALL Programme Plan:

• Some consideration within the Programme Plan's strategic provisions. A key premise of CALL is partnership working between landowners and communities. Effective facilitation of this partnership working, particularly with local communities, will likely be predicated on involving people and effective community engagement
• The vision emphasises that delivery will involve "…the communities of Coigach and Assynt working together" (CALL, 2011 p.3). Achieving this vision will therefore require the support and close involvement of the community. Strategic objective 1 on partnership working calls for "a strong partnership involving landowners, crofters and the wider community" (CALL, 2011 p.3), implying that there should be opportunities for community input
• There are also two specific underpinning values on inclusiveness and openness and transparency including the expressed core value that "the partnership […] must be open to local groups and local people" (CALL, 2011 p.4)
• Although the strategic provisions within the Programme Plan do not pin down exactly how people will be involved, the strategic importance attached to working in partnership arguably paves the way for community input to all aspects of CALL project planning and decision-making

Consideration of LUS Principle I within the CALL Projects:

• Considered implicitly within three of the six projects. In the access plans project, there is an opportunity for community engagement through volunteer work around path construction activities
• Community engagement is the core objective of the 2020Vision project which adopts a creative approach (photography competition and 2020 Vision Roadshow^[25]) to engaging people in landscape issues. Equally, community engagement is a core objective of the tree nursery project which seeks to provide employment and training opportunities
• There is no reference to a planned stakeholder engagement approach within the material reviewed

Consideration of LUS Principle I & sample CALL projects within Steering Group meetings:

• The implicit consideration of LUS Principle I type issues is extensive in relation to all projects. All of the projects have a community engagement component and engagement issues have clearly been discussed at Steering Group meetings
• In particular, a core objective of the 2020 Vision roadshow is engagement and there were discussions about the Tree Nursery Outreach Officer's strategy for promoting inclusiveness and engaging all sectors of the community

LUS Principle I - translation 'on the ground' following decision-making input from yourCALL:

• The intention of the yourCALL/Review Group mechanism is to provide local communities in the CALL project area with an opportunity to comment and input to Steering Group proposals and decision-making. Of the 14 key Steering Group proposals considered in this research, 8 (57%) had been tested through the yourCALL/Review Group mechanism
• Furthermore, several of the Steering Group proposals that have resulted in subsequent action provide an opportunity for people to get involved with practical land management e.g. through volunteering or environmental education/outreach projects
• In particular, the tree nurseries project drew on local knowledge in the identification of seed sources for local provenance native trees and a wide variety of local people were involved in the seed collections themselves (e.g. the tree nursery runs fortnightly volunteering session which has included seed collections). Also in relation to the tree nurseries project, children from the o local high school involved in the Rural Skills scheme took part in seed collections including seed processing
• In addition, the NVC survey work undertaken to support the IHN modelling and development of the draft habitat connections opportunity map provided significant employment for a local contractor who also ran a habitat assessment training day for local people (attended by c.18 people)

Consideration of LUS Principle J within the CALL Programme Plan:

• Some consideration within the Programme Plan's strategic provisions. LUS Principle J type issues are central to the whole CALL approach and philosophy - there is a recognition that the communities of Coigach and Assynt are intrinsically 'linked to the land' as land management and the iconic nature of the landscape are key to much of the area's economic activity
• In this sense the 'link to the land' is about more than just the role of the land in some abstract sense - the landscape of the CALL area is fundamental to the livelihood of its communities. The vision, for example, suggests that the landscape and biodiversity aims of the project can be met "[through the] creation of local employment and training opportunities, and, building on the communities strong cultural heritage linked to the land" (CALL, 2011 p.3)

Consideration of LUS Principle J within the CALL Projects:

• Considered implicitly within four of the six projects. The local venison business project seeks to develop markets and business opportunities around integrated deer management, potentially supporting the creation of local jobs in land based (e.g. deer/habitat management) or land related (marketing and sales of CALL area venison) businesses
• The access plan proposals include provision for heritage interpretation showcasing the best of the CALL area - this may include land based heritage also. More generally, access plan related improvements to the CALL area's footpath infrastructure, including the development of way-marked trails, may drive tourism related economic activity

Consideration of LUS Principle J & sample CALL projects within Steering Group meetings:

• Much like LUS Principle I, the implicit consideration of LUS Principle J is extensive in relation to all projects. For example, the tree nursery project seed source mapping activity worked with specific members of the community, tapping into local knowledge and understanding of the landscape
• Minutes also note wider interest in setting up satellite tree nurseries and therefore the potential for further land based enterprise. There are also various proposals for survey work and training in survey/habitat monitoring skills, potentially helping to raise awareness of land based employment opportunities

LUS Principle J - translation 'on the ground' following decision-making input from yourCALL:

• As per LUS Principle I, several of the Steering Group proposals that have resulted in subsequent action implicitly consider Principle J type issues. As described in relation to the Programme Plan and other aspects of the CALL initiative's strategic intent (see above), CALL has a distinct focus on the promotion of 'living landscapes' - i.e. landscapes that function for nature and for people. In people terms therefore this notion of a living landscape equates to sustainable land based employment and volunteering opportunities
• Key volunteering and direct employment benefits delivered through CALL are described above against Principle I - in particular there is an emphasis on tapping into local knowledge about the land to help develop a tree nursery business that will eventually support CALL's woodland creation activities. In this manner, CALL is building on and developing the local community's existing connection to the land
• Building on this approach, other activities are seeking to engage those parts of the community that perhaps don't have this innate connection to the land (e.g. school groups, elderly people, volunteer groups from beyond the CALL project area) through volunteer activities such as those run by the tree nursery outreach officer

• The purpose of the DCP is to deliver the objectives of a large number of stakeholder organisations. The process of developing the Business Plan involved identifying the objectives of the partners and looking for common themes and outcomes that could be used to prioritise the work of the DCP as a whole
• This structure of prioritising objectives that deliver against multiple partner objectives is very much in line with LUS Principle A as it is more likely that projects and work streams that deliver multiple benefits are prioritised, given that they are likely to be more acceptable to more partners. It is also felt that demonstrating multiple benefits as an outcome helps to improve value for money of any investments made
• This Principle was something that the partners were felt to be increasingly comfortable with as more partnership based projects developed
• Specific examples of outcomes relevant to this Principle include one of the projects in the DCP Work Programme (Number 11) - to "make catchment-scale improvements to morphology which deliver[s] multiple benefits including natural flood management"

• The DCP is based on partnership working rather than regulation - the Executive Summary indicates that the Dee CMP is "not associated with dedicated legislation, inspections or regulation" (DCP, 2013 p.iii).
• The 2010 - 2013 Business Plan refers to the 'legislative context' (DCP, 2010 p.1) which includes the Water Framework Directive (WFD), Habitats Directive, Floods Directive and the National Parks (Scotland) Act 2000. This is mirrored in the 2013 - 2016 Business Plan which includes these regulations within the 'policy status of the Dee CMP' section (DCP, 2013 p.3).
• The Business Plan recognises links between the DCP and 'other plans and processes' and states that the Dee Management Plan (DMP) incorporates relevant objectives from these plans (which often have some regulatory weight). This is relevant to the Business Plan as this is the document that sets the structures for the delivery of the DMP. In this way the Business Plan can be seen to seek to integrate the delivery of regulatory (and other) objectives
• The role of the Business Plan in seeking to integrate existing regulation is supported by the result of the prioritisation workshop. The record of this event indicates the importance of the WFD and the role that the Directive should have in setting priorities

• The text of the Business Plan does not consider specific types of land use or their suitability hence this Principle is less explicitly relevant. There are no direct or indirect references to LUS Principle C type issues across the document
• From discussion it was generally felt that this Principle is managed informally across the partnership and is not explicitly considered within the Business Plan in either its processes or outcomes

• The function of ecosystems with regard to water management is fundamental to the work of the DCP and their desired outcomes. The DCP and the Business Plan take a holistic approach to land use and to the restoration of ecosystems and ecosystem services. In that respect, consideration of LUS Principle D type issues is relevant to the outcomes of the DCP but in terms of process it is not clear how this Principle may have directly influenced the Business Plan
• The 'Vision' refers to the "river system and the services it provides" (DCP, 2013 p.ii). Within the DCP Work Programme it is stated that DCP will "investigate the consequences of land-use decisions and implementation of measures of Ecosystem Service delivery" (DCP, 2013 p.13) and "deliver projects to raise awareness of the concepts and purposes of ecosystems approaches to natural resource management" (DCP, 2013 p.13)
• The document also refers to some strategies and partners that use ecosystem services within their strategies and tools (such as the Cairngorm National Park Plan, James Hutton Institute and SNH)

• The Cairngorms National Park Authority have a long term outcome of "the special landscape qualities [of the Cairngorms] are conserved and enhanced" (DCP, 2013 p.25). The Authority says that the DCMP contributes directly to this objective. Beyond this there are only two other references to landscape, only one of which is relevant to LUS Principle E type issues (DCP, 2013 p.ii)
• Many of the predicted outcomes of the projects prioritised through the Business Plan are expected to have positive landscape benefits but this is not specifically dealt with in the document. Rather it is intended that the landscape impact of any project will be assessed and managed at the level of individual projects
• 'Landscape scale' projects were felt to be a priority particularly as this is felt to be the most appropriate scale for considering morphological changes, which are one of the key outcomes for the DCP

• The one mention of climate change within the Business Plan is within the list of partner objectives. One of SNH's four priorities is climate change - specifically the objective relates to riparian shading by trees reducing climate impacts on water temperature (and therefore on certain species)
• Beyond that there is no explicit mention of climate change mitigation or adaptation and there are no aspects of the Work Programme which appear directly aimed at or framed around climate change
• Although climate change is only referred to once across the Business Plan a number of the outcomes are likely to result in greenhouse gas (GHG) reductions and improvements to the resilience of ecosystems to climate change
• From discussion this lack of explicit consideration of climate changes is felt to be an issue of framing as climate change adaptation and mitigation are priorities for the DCP. This is supported by reviewing the results of the priorities workshop which refer to climate change numerous times, for example as one of five overarching issues to consider - particularly with regard to possible funding streams. As such it is likely that this Principle has been translated, to a degree, in the processes and outcomes of the Business Plan but that the language of climate change is not used within the documentation

• This Principle is not referred to implicitly or explicitly within the Business Plan
• It is understood that there is little VDL within the catchment

• 'Access and Recreation' are one of the objectives of the DCMP, specifically reducing the impact of any recreational activity by improved management of the catchment. This reflects the fact that three of the partners' objectives refer to access
• Recreation is mentioned a number of times as one of the benefits that the Dee provides and 'responsible recreation' and three other references to recreation (four in total) are included within the Work Programme
• Responsible recreation refers to the fact that some recreational activities are felt to reduce the water quality of the Dee by promoting erosion and pollution. This issue is therefore an example of possible conflict with numerous partners looking to increase recreation and access whilst others wish to see its impact reduced
• The DCP Business Plan looks to prioritise projects that address this potential conflict but in reality it was felt that detailed consideration of this potential conflict was best managed at the project/site level

• One of the four aims of the DCP is to increase "stakeholder and community engagement in […] delivery" (DCP, 2013 p.12). Projects that promote this have been prioritised within the Work Programme for example "gather citizen-source data on river conditions [...] as an awareness and engagement tool" (DCP, 2013 p.13). More detail on specific actions is provided on the same page. It is intended that this aim will be delivered by 15 actions set out within the Work Programme
• The development of the Business Plan involved consultation with a large number of stakeholders. The partnership approach of the DCP is based on working with others to deliver the DCP's aims hence how the structure of the DCP is based around involving people, especially sector and organisational stakeholders
• It was not felt necessary or appropriate to engage with local communities as part of the development of the Business Plan. This was due to the relatively narrow scope of the Business Plan and the fact that the DMP had been subject to significant consultation and also that consultation occurs around specific projects in many cases

• The aim of "stakeholder and community engagement" (see above) includes actions somewhat relevant to this Principle

Consideration of LUS Principle A within the Glasgow LDP MIR

• The MIR describes how the natural environment "fulfils a much wider range of functions than purely aesthetic ones" (GCC, 2011a p.66). Furthermore, a number of specific multiple benefits provided by the urban natural environment are described including ecological connectivity and wildlife movements, carbon storage, routes for active travel and as a resource for relaxation, social interaction and formal/informal recreation
• Crucially, special mention is given to the natural environment's role supporting and contributing to the city's flood risk management (FRM) and drainage systems, including in the context of the Metropolitan Glasgow Strategic Drainage Partnership^[28] (MGSDP). In particular, special mention is given to the role of the LDP guiding the "restoration of natural features and characteristics of catchments so as to slow, reduce or manage flood waters and provide for enhanced biodiversity" as well as the activities of the MGSDP "reducing flood risk and supporting regeneration and economic development" (GCC, 2011a p.68)
• The MIR and the LDP process more generally is informed by a broad range of stakeholders with a broad range of interests, which may help to ensure that multiple objectives are considered along with the potential for the LDP's spatial strategy to deliver multiple benefits. In particular, the Planning etc (Scotland) Act 2006 sets out a range of statutory consultees that must be consulted in the LDP development process including the Scottish Government, neighbouring local authorities and key statutory agencies such as Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH) and the Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA)^[29]
• Working in partnership with SNH and SEPA has the potential to support the integration of a range of environmental objectives/benefits within the LDP whilst engagement with neighbouring authorities can support consideration of key cross-boundary issues such as flooding and habitat networks (see LUS Principles D and F also)

Consideration of LUS Principle A within the Glasgow LDP Proposed Plan and Green Network Supplementary Guidance

• The development of the LDP Proposed Plan and Supplementary Guidance are running behind schedule (the Proposed Plan is due to go out to public consultation in May 2014). Accordingly it has not been possible to evaluate the degree to which LUS Principle consideration in the MIR has been translated into provisions within the Proposed Plan and relevant Supplementary Guidance
• However the LDP Background Paper on Green Network and Green Belt highlights the important role of green network providing multiple benefits including climate change mitigation and adaptation, improved physical and mental health, place setting and amenity, biodiversity, active travel, recreation and flood management. In this regard, multiple benefits/LUS Principle A type issues are likely to be central to LDP policy and supplementary guidance on green network issues

Consideration of LUS Principle B within the Glasgow LDP MIR

• The LDPs currently being produced by Scottish local authorities are the first round of development plans to be produced under the new Scottish planning legislation (see above). A key objective of planning reform in Scotland and the new style LDPs is to simplify the planning process and streamline development management. In this regard, LDPs are intended to be simpler more map based documents than their predecessors with detailed policy, local development frameworks, masterplans etc held in Supplementary Guidance. As such, although the LDP is not reducing or adding to the regulatory burden per se, it is intended to improve planning from a business perspective
• Also, the LDP process is such that there is an opportunity to integrate LUS Principles, implicitly or explicitly, within the development and adoption of LDPs - i.e. a lower level regulatory framework implementing primary legislation^[30]. From discussion with Glasgow City Council it is clear that several proposed LDP policies are likely to incorporate consideration of LUS Principle type issues in this regard. In particular, there is a proposal for an overarching policy on placemaking that is being designed in such a way that it will require developers and DM planners alike to think 'beyond the red line' of a planning application. This approach has the potential to capture consideration of a number of LUS Principle type issues including D on ecosystem services (e.g. ecological networks), E on landscape and F in relation to climate change adaptation (e.g. the hydrological/flood risk impact of development)

Consideration of LUS Principle B within the Glasgow LDP Proposed Plan and Green Network Supplementary Guidance

• The development of the LDP Proposed Plan and Supplementary Guidance is running behind schedule - see LUS Principle A for further information

Consideration of LUS Principle C within the Glasgow LDP MIR

• Key primary land uses are identified in relation to townscape/cultural heritage through proposals for potential additional Conservation Areas^[31] (see map below)
• Within Part 2 of the MIR under the environment section there is no further information on how these potential Conservation Areas have been identified (e.g. through related strategies, assessments etc). Crucially, the proposal to consider additional Conservation Areas is one of two options and the MIR opens up wider public and stakeholder debate on the desirability of this primary land use in the six areas proposed (e.g. in relation to potential constraints on other land uses/types of development)
• Also, other key primary land uses are not considered within this section e.g. floodplain/key sites for FRM, strategic urban habitat network links etc

Glasgow LDP MIR - Potential Conservation Areas (GCC, 2011a)

Note: the map above shows potential for new/extended Conservation Areas considered within the Glasgow LDP MIR. Due to the constraints on development and land use change imposed by planning legislation^[32], Conservation Areas are, in effect, key areas of primary land use where heritage and townscape objectives are given precedence over other forms of development or land use change

Consideration of LUS Principle C within the Glasgow LDP Proposed Plan and Green Network Supplementary Guidance

• The development of the LDP Proposed Plan and Supplementary Guidance is running behind schedule - see LUS Principle A for further information. The LDP Background Paper on Green Network and Green Belt highlights key primary land issues in relation to the City's green belt resource, in particular the need to release some additional green belt sites to ensure adequate land supply to satisfy identified housing requirements from the Glasgow and Clyde Valley Strategic Development Plan (SDP). This is balanced with the need to protect the City's limited green belt resource including for key primary land use objectives such as agriculture, flood risk management, carbon storage and biodiversity

A. Consideration of LUS Principle D within the Glasgow LDP MIR

• Ecosystem services and the importance of functioning ecosystems underpinning these services are referenced explicitly within the MIR: "ecosystems are the basis on which the food we eat, the water we drink and the air we breathe are made available and replenished - they provide the ecosystem services that we need to survive and prosper" (GCC, 2011a p.72). Ecosystem services are also recognised implicitly in relation to the benefits of green networks e.g. amenity, biodiversity, recreation etc
• Crucially however, there is no recognition within sections on green network or ecosystems/integrated habitat networks (IHNs) of the key regulating services that can be provided by urban natural environments (e.g. flood storage, maintenance of an equable climate, protection against extreme weather events etc). Flooding and drainage is discussed in a separate section but explicit links with green network and ecosystem services have not been made
• There is a useful and appropriate focus on ecosystem function, especially in relation to ecological networks and the importance of these networks for species migration etc, especially in relation to climate change. Specific features of ecological networks are referenced (e.g. IHNs, green corridors and stepping stones) and Glasgow's role within the wider Central Scotland Green Network (CSGN) is also discussed, particularly in the context of supporting and enabling strategic habitat networks

Glasgow LDP MIR - Green Network Strategic Priorities (GCC, 2011a)

Note: the priority areas shown on the map above have been identified from the Glasgow and Clyde Valley SDP which used a green network opportunities mapping approach^[33], drawing on four key data sets: 1) biodiversity opportunities; 2) active travel opportunities; 3) economic development/regeneration priorities; and 4) areas of multiple deprivation. The spatial analysis uses geographic information system (GIS) technology to integrate multiple data sets and identify where green network development has the potential to deliver the greatest range of benefits

• As a specific tool, the use of strategic environmental assessment (SEA) in the development of the MIR has potential to support consideration of key ecosystem services/LUS Principle D type issues. In particular, the SEA Environmental Report includes biodiversity, flora and fauna within the SEA framework. The assessment of potential environmental effects against these issues can therefore be used to support an understanding of the plan's impact on key aspects of ecosystem function. The Environmental Report identifies specific SEA objectives for each of these issues e.g. "to protect, enhance and, where necessary, restore habitats" (GCC, 2011b p.24) although specific indicators are not identified
• Green network priorities for Glasgow have been identified from the Glasgow and Clyde Valley Strategic Development Plan (SDP) - see the map above. The SDP used a green network opportunities mapping approach^[34] which has an element of ecosystems/ecosystem services thinking behind it through the use of biodiversity opportunities data which identifies areas of land with good ecological potential to support habitat establishment. Wider ecosystem services are however not considered within this approach e.g. flood storage, carbon storage, soil processes, protection against extreme weather etc

Consideration of LUS Principle D within the Glasgow LDP Proposed Plan and Green Network Supplementary Guidance

• The development of the LDP Proposed Plan and Supplementary Guidance is running behind schedule - see LUS Principle A for further information. Biodiversity and integrated habitat network are listed as key potential functions of the green network within the LDP Background Paper on Green Network and Green Belt

Consideration of LUS Principle E within the Glasgow LDP MIR

• A central premise of the MIR's environment section is the recognition that "Glasgow's natural and historic environments help establish much of the recognisable character of the city" and that the city's "backdrop of attractive landscapes and other natural heritage elements enhance the city' distinctiveness" (GCC, 2011a p.66)
• Furthermore, the MIR highlights how land use and development planning needs to take place at different scales (e.g. through the use of masterplans and local development strategies), implicitly recognising that landscape planning needs to take place at a range of scales
• Despite this, there is no reference to any tools or guidance documents that may have informed consideration of landscape issues within the MIR environment section's key issues and options
• As per LUS Principle D however, landscape/LUS Principle E type issues are considered within the SEA which includes specific cultural heritage and landscape topics and associated SEA objectives e.g. "to protect and enhance landscape character, distinctiveness and scenic value" (GCC, 2011b p.30). There is also reference within the Environmental Report to specific landscape studies including the Ayrshire and Clyde Valley Windfarm Landscape Capacity Study^[35] and the relevant Landscape Character Assessment (LCA) from the national set of LCAs produced between 1994-1998 in Scotland^[36]

Consideration of LUS Principle E within the Glasgow LDP Proposed Plan and Green Network Supplementary Guidance

• The development of the LDP Proposed Plan and Supplementary Guidance is running behind schedule - see LUS Principle A for further information. The LDP Background Paper on Green Network and Green Belt includes some reference to landscape/LUS Principle E type issues in relation to the function of the green belt acting as a buffer to protect countryside adjacent to the urban area (i.e. from inappropriate development, land take etc). Also, the proposed overarching LDP policy on placemaking (see LUS Principle B above) will consider key issues of relevance to LUS Principle E. Crucially, the notion of forcing developers and DM planners to think 'beyond the red line' (see LUS Principle B) could be very powerful in this regard e.g. ensuring that project/site level decision-making considers broader scale issues, including landscape and place

Consideration of LUS Principle F within the Glasgow LDP MIR

• There is a particular focus on the natural environment's ability/function supporting climate change adaptation through the provision of water management services: "It [the natural environment] also holds water, releasing it gradually into the drainage systems and helping to ameliorate flooding" (GCC, 2011a p.66). Within the environment section of the MIR however, there is no substantive discussion or options on climate change mitigation
• Flooding is identified as the principle climate change impact through reference to recent legislation on flooding^[37] and the requirement for local authorities to develop new statutory FRM plans^[38]
• Furthermore, the sources and impacts of flooding in Glasgow, as influenced by climate change, have been identified through modelling work undertaken by the MGSDP that has sought to understand the "relationships between the City's rivers, sewers and watercourses during normal and storm conditions, with a view to identifying the most effective flood management and drainage solutions" (GCC, 2011a p.68)
• Opportunities for adapting to flooding impacts of climate change are identified with particular reference to natural environment/ecosystem based approaches e.g. "restoring natural features and characteristics of catchments, so as to slow, reduce or manage flood waters and provide for enhanced biodiversity" and the role of the MGSDP delivering "substantial improvements in drainage infrastructure and water catchment management" (GCC, 2011a p.68). Opportunities have also been identified through new studies (e.g. the Glasgow Surface Water Management Study) and new approaches to sustainable urban drainage such as surface water management planning^[39] (SWMP)
• As per LUS Principles D and E, climate change/LUS Principle F type issues are considered within the SEA which includes a specific climatic factors topic and associated SEA objective "to reduce GHG emissions and support climate change mitigation measures" (GCC, 2011b p.26). Crucially however, consideration of climatic factors within the SEA objectives does not incorporate climate change adaptation though these issues are considered within the baseline discussion e.g. in relation to climate change impacts identified through the UK Climate Projections^[40] data and SNIFFER's handbook of climate trends^[41]. These are both key sources of national level data in Scotland that can be used to identify climate change impacts

Consideration of LUS Principle F within the Glasgow LDP Proposed Plan and Green Network Supplementary Guidance

• The development of the LDP Proposed Plan and Supplementary Guidance is running behind schedule - see LUS Principle A for further information. The LDP Background Paper on Green Network and Green Belt includes some reference to climate change/LUS Principle F type issues in relation to the key functions of the green network and green belt as described at LUS Principle A

Consideration of LUS Principle G within the Glasgow LDP MIR

• The environment section of the MIR does not include any specific reference to VDL/LUS Principle G type issues. That said, the resources section does include extensive consideration of the VDL resource in Glasgow and its potential utility across issues like housing, energy, recreation, wellbeing and community growing e.g. through GCC's Stalled Spaces initiative^[42]. As such, it is known that LUS Principle G type issues are considered extensively within other parts of the DP

Consideration of LUS Principle F within the Glasgow LDP Proposed Plan and Green Network Supplementary Guidance

• The development of the LDP Proposed Plan and Supplementary Guidance is running behind schedule - see LUS Principle A for further information

Consideration of LUS Principle H within the Glasgow LDP MIR

• There is recognition of how the natural environment "provides routes for active travel and a resource for relaxation, social interaction and formal and informal recreation" (GCC, 2011a p.66). This overall vision captures a range of outdoor recreation and access issues but is not comprehensive
• The LDP development process allows provision for engagement with a range of stakeholders^[43], including those with an interest in outdoor recreation and access and the public/local communities, though there it is not clear if/how these groups have been engaged in the development of the plan's outdoor recreation/access provisions
• Outdoor recreation and access have been discussed particularly in the context of the City's green network (as well as links to the wider GCV green network and indeed the CSGN) through the provision of a "strategic network of [...] active travel routes" (GCC, 2011a p.70) designed to provide active travel opportunities

Consideration of LUS Principle H within the Glasgow LDP Proposed Plan and Green Network Supplementary Guidance

• The development of the LDP Proposed Plan and Supplementary Guidance is running behind schedule - see LUS Principle A for further information

Consideration of LUS Principle I within the Glasgow LDP MIR

• The LDP process includes statutory provision for the involvement of people in land use/management decision-making through the requirements of legislation on planning^[44] and SEA^[45]
• Development of the Glasgow LDP to date has also involved some non-statutory innovations in consultation and engagement including the use of MIR summary postcards^[46] and an MIR summary video hosted on Youtube^[47]

Consideration of LUS Principle I within the Glasgow LDP Proposed Plan and Green Network Supplementary Guidance

• The development of the LDP Proposed Plan and Supplementary Guidance is running behind schedule - see LUS Principle A for further information

Consideration of LUS Principle J within the Glasgow LDP MIR

• There is some consideration of LUS Principle J type issues e.g. through proposals for increasing community growing space provision, including on brownfield sites through the Stalled Spaces initiative (see LUS Principle G)

Consideration of LUS Principle J within the Glasgow LDP Proposed Plan and Green Network Supplementary Guidance

• The development of the LDP Proposed Plan and Supplementary Guidance is running behind schedule - see LUS Principle A for further information

Consideration of LUS Principle A within RTRP:

• The overarching objective of RTRP is to "support the Scottish Ministers' desire to see a significant expansion in woodland cover, delivering multiple benefits to society" (FCS, 2010 p.4). Accordingly, the role of FWS supporting the delivery of multiple benefits is central to the guidance
• Consideration of multiple benefit type issues is implicit within 4 out of the 21 key provisions from RTRP reviewed. In particular, the following key points were noted as directly supporting and promoting the consideration of LUS Principle A on multiple benefits within FWS:
  • Promotion of a cross-boundary approach to FWS-development (FCS, 2010 p.12) - potentially captures a greater range of stakeholders, organisations, interests and land use objectives
  • The RTRP guidance outlines some fourteen potential roles or objectives for forestry that authorities "will normally wish to consider" in the development of their FWS (FCS, 2010 p.13). Integrated FWS therefore have the potential to deliver multiple objectives/benefits
  • Forestry development (i.e. creation and restructuring) within the 'preferred' land category should be designed to "deliver a very wide range of objectives" (FCS, 2010 p.14)

Consideration of LUS Principle A within draft FWS and SEA reporting

• Consideration of LUS Principle A type issues is heavily implicit within the draft Perth and Kinross Forestry and Woodland Strategy (PKFWS). The executive summary describes how the strategy aims "to promote sustainable forest management with a wide range of economic, social and environmental benefits" (PKC, 2013 p.5). This was reiterated through discussions with Perth and Kinross Council where it was felt that the whole purpose of FWS is to deliver multi-use forestry. Furthermore, it was felt that LUS Principle A type issues are very intuitive to the FWS approach and the RTRP guidance
• Further, the Strategy's themes reflect all seven of the broad forestry themes/objectives covered in the Scottish Forestry Strategy^[48] (SFS) and the strategy has been developed in partnership with FCS and other key stakeholders
• There is also recognition that more diverse forests (especially native and mixed woodland categories as per RTRP) have a greater capacity for delivering the full range of multiple benefits outlined in the SFS - this is reflected in a general presumption that forests/holdings should incorporate a range of different types of woodland
• The Strategy also includes a clear vision for forestry in Perth and Kinross that spells out the broad range of benefits anticipated from multifunctional forestry: 1) landscape - helping to make P&K "more beautiful, more varied and, in parts, more tranquil" (PKC, 2013 p.25) and contributing to local distinctiveness and sense of place; 2) supporting the economy through land based/related business - "many more people live and work in the countryside" and "the local timber sector [takes] advantage of the area's well managed forest resource" (ibid); 3) health and wellbeing - attractive/accessible woodland in the area's towns and villages provide a breathing space for residents and visitors; 4) integrated land management/rural diversification - "while farmland still dominates our countryside, there is much more woodland, […] and many farmers have diversified into forest related businesses" (ibid); 5) biodiversity and ecological networks - forests are connected by a network of wildlife corridors and large scale felling and restructuring of commercial conifer plantations contribute to a more diverse woodland habitat mosaic; and 6) climate change - forests are to contribute to both mitigation and adaptation

PKFWS Opportunities Map (PKC, 2013)

Note: the map above shows opportunities where it may be possible for forestry and woodland development in Perth and Kinross to deliver wider multiple benefits.

• Both the PKFWS and the Stirling and Clackmannanshire Forestry and Woodland Strategy (SCFWS) take a spatial analysis based approach (using spatial data and geographical information system (GIS) based analysis) to the identification of opportunities for forestry and woodland to deliver multiple benefits. In PKFWS, this considered issues around water management (water quality and flood risk management - FRM), ecological connectivity (forest habitat networks), health and wellbeing/community development (woodland in and around towns) and biodiversity (ancient woodland). This is indicated on the map above
• In the SCFWS case, key additional spatial data sets were interrogated to identify spatial opportunities whereby the creation of mixed woodland (i.e. one of the most multifunctional types of woodland as per the above) may be able to deliver wider multiple benefits. In particular, land capability for agriculture data^[49] was analysed to identify "more marginal areas where woodland could add value for farmers and the environment alike" (S&CC, 2012 p.53). In effect, these are areas where farmers and other land managers may wish to diversify and manage land for wider multiple benefits through woodland creation (and potentially improve resilience of the land based business through the creation of additional forest product related revenue streams). SEPA's indicative flood risk map data^[50] was also interrogated to identify areas where floodplain and riparian woodland planting could contribute to FRM objectives. Thesis issues are indicated on the map below:

SCFWS Mixed Woodland Opportunities Map (S&CC, 2012)

Note: based on an analysis of key additional data sets (see text above) the map above shows areas where woodland creation may be able to deliver wider multiple benefits. The blue areas show locations where the creation of floodplain and riparian woodland could be used to deliver sustainable FRM. Pale green areas show marginal quality agricultural land where woodland creation could help farmers/land managers to diversify whilst also providing wider multiple benefits

Consideration of LUS Principle B within RTRP:

• The adoption of FWSs as supplementary guidance to Local and Strategic Development Plans (LDPs and SDPs) will not impose any additional regulatory burden as they replace Indicative Forestry Strategies (IFS), which were adopted as part of Structure Plans in line with Circular 9/1999 (now withdrawn following the publication of RTRP)
• However RTRP suggests that FWS can help to "reduce conflict over [forestry] proposals [by] articulating democratically expressed views about this major land use" (FCS, 2010 p.10). In principle therefore, FWSs developed through a collaborative, stakeholder-led process involving consultation with the public have the potential to speed up a range of consent and grant application processes (e.g. felling license applications, planning applications, SRDP woodland creation/improvement grants etc) where the proposal accords with the FWS. The spatially explicit nature of FWS is particularly important in this regard by identifying preferred locations for forestry development as well as the types of forestry likely to be supported in a given location. As such, FWS have significant potential to help streamline forestry grant applications (i.e. a form of incentive)

Consideration of LUS Principle B within draft FWS and SEA reporting

• Similarly to the discussion above in relation to RTRP, the PKFWS discusses the strategy's utility in streamlining and supporting a range of forestry related decision-making processes e.g. Development Management decisions that include proposals for woodland removal/creation, guiding the development of Regional Priorities for SRDP and informing planting proposals/applications for SRDP forestry grant support and screening and scoping for forestry proposals that fall within the scope of the Environmental Impact Assessment (Forestry) (Scotland) Regulations 1999. As per the above however, FWS replace IFS and do not add to or reduce the regulatory burden
• Discussions with Perth and Kinross Council echoed the sentiment above. In particular, it was felt that the main purpose of FWS is to inform how FCS distribute forestry grant support i.e. FWS are, in effect, a key mechanism for targeting forestry incentives through the SRDP Forestry Grant Scheme

Consideration of LUS Principle C within RTRP:

• The issue of primary land use is considered implicitly within 3 out of the 21 RTRP provisions reviewed. In particular, primary land use issues are considered within the guidance's threefold categorisation of land for forestry use: 1) preferred; 2) potential; and 3) sensitive where potential areas of primary land uses are, in effect, the "detailed list of sensitivities [constraints] locally that should inform the categorisation of land" (FCS, 2010 p.15) including priority species and habitats, carbon rich soils, valued/protected landscapes etc
• The guidance notes that it is the role of the planning authority to identify/agree the detailed list of locally relevant constraints for consideration within FWS though constraints (and opportunities) are likely to be identified through the use of spatial data and geographic information systems (GIS) based analyses
• The requirement to consider related spatial plans as part of FWS-development will also help to identify primary land uses (e.g. agriculture, energy etc). Finally, the guidance suggests that for very fine grained landscapes (i.e. multiple land uses and landscape features in one place), authorities may wish to produce more detailed plans at a more detailed scale to facilitate the development of FWS that are highly integrated with other land uses, including primary land uses (i.e. sensitivities and constraints as per the above)

Consideration of LUS Principle C within draft FWS and SEA reporting

• FWS provide a "strategic framework [that] seeks to balance forestry and other land uses" (PKC, 2013 p.10). In this manner, consideration of LUS Principle C/primary land use issues is central to the development of FWS where proposals for forestry related land use/management must be interwoven and balanced with a broad range of other land uses, some of which may be of primary importance
• Given the strong steer from RTRP on the consideration of primary land uses (see above), it is unsurprising that the draft PKFWS and SCFWS both consider LUS Principle C type issues extensively. As with the identification of opportunities for multiple benefits (see above) both draft strategies adopt a GIS based spatial analysis approach to the identification of sensitivities and constraints i.e. the key primary land uses where forestry land use/management is likely to be inappropriate (or at least less appropriate)
• Both strategies use the RTRP forestry land categorisation[51], informed by data, in the identification of sensitivities/areas of primary land use. This includes data on "biological and other land use constraints such as non-woodland designated sites, blanket bogs, priority areas for heathlands, landscape sensitive areas and archaeologically sensitive areas" (PKC, 2013 p.30)

SCFWS Natural Heritage Designations Map (S&CC, 2012)

Note: the map above shows key international, European, national and local level natural heritage designations considered in the SCFWS sensitivities analysis. These are important primary land uses where woodland creation is likely to be inappropriate (or at least less appropriate). The map above therefore begins to sketch out a spatial plan, delineating where land is likely to be more suitable for conservation.

• The SCFWS' approach to primary use issues involved the interrogation of specific spatial data sets in order to identify specific forestry land categories^[52]. For example, land categorised as sensitive was identified by integrating key natural heritage data sets on international (Ramsar), European (Natura 2000), national (SSSI and NNR) and local (LNR) level designations along with data on key designated cultural heritage features (scheduled monuments, conservation areas etc) to identify highly constrained sites where a range of other important primary uses were present (see map above)
• Crucially, the SCFWS approach considers scale issues including (as per RTRP - see above) recognition that finely grained sensitive landscapes (i.e. landscapes comprised of many land uses) may still provide opportunities for carefully sited and designed woodland creation. Similarly, the strategy recognises that it is operating at a regional scale and how many of these finer grained planning issues will not be picked up at this scale (i.e. they will be considered in detailed assessments of individual woodland creation proposals)
• The SCFWS also mapped native and mixed woodland types against the thirteen Landscape Character Types found within the FWS area to identify, from a landscape sensitivity perspective (i.e. a potentially important primary land use), where woodland creation is likely to be suitable, suitable with some sensitivities, limited, very limited or not suitable
• Key primary land uses/sensitivities considered i the PKFWS are wild land areas, bird habitats, cultural heritage, peat/carbon rich soils, best agricultural land and approved windfarms (see map below). From discussions with Perth and Kinross Council it became apparent that it would have been desirable to consider natural flood management (NFM) as a primary land issue but data availability and methodological challenges precluded this from happening

PKFWS Sensitivities Map (PKC, 2013)

Note: key primary land uses in the PKFWS include wild land and peat/carbon rich soils. Crucially, much of the strategy area is comprised of these land uses as shown on the map above - red areas are wild land and the grid of red squares is peat/carbon rich soils. These are both important primary land uses providing a range of ecosystem services. Both of these land uses can be negatively affected by poorly sited and poorly designed woodland creation projects^[53]

Translation 'on the ground': Yes

Consideration of LUS Principle D within RTRP:

• Ecosystem services and aspects of the ecosystems approach are well represented within RTRP (considered implicitly within 8 out of the 21 RTRP provisions reviewed). In particular, "conserving and enhancing biodiversity, including the development of habitat networks [and] conserving and enhancing finite soil resources" (FCS, 2010 p.14) are included as specific roles for FWS, thus imposing a requirement for forestry land uses to protect key aspects of ecosystem function/supporting services
• RTRP also includes recommendations for the use of specific tools in the development of FWS that can support an ecosystems approach e.g. use of spatial data, GIS, modelling approaches and FCS^[54]/SNH^[55] guidance for identifying and mapping woodland and integrated habitat networks
• The guidance mentions the "delivery of [specific] ecosystem services as part of broader landscape/catchment approaches to natural resource management" (FCS, 2010 p.54) including natural flood management and pollution control
• Finally, the RTRP highlights that FWS may qualify for strategic environmental assessment (SEA) and/or appropriate assessment (AA). SEA/AA can provide a framework for assessing the potential effects of FWS on woodland biodiversity, the water environment, functional connectivity of habitat networks etc

Consideration of LUS Principle D within draft FWS and SEA reporting

• Although the language of 'ecosystem services' is not used explicitly in either the PKFWS or the SCFWS, consideration of LUS Principle D/ecosystem service type issues is implicit throughout both documents. In particular, key ecosystem services provided by areas of primary land use (i.e. key sensitivities/constraints - see above) are identified to ensure that they are not degraded by forestry related development. Key ecosystem services in this regard include landscape and environmental settings (including wild land), peat/carbon storage and important provisioning services relating to crops/livestock
• Opportunities for forestry related development to enhance other land based benefits (i.e. ecosystem services) are also considered, primarily in relation to water management, health and wellbeing, recreation and access and farm diversification (see LUS Principle A also)
• Both strategies also address primary use/ecosystem service issues in relation to biodiversity and the ecosystem processes/intermediate services that underpin other ecosystem services. Key issues in this regard include ecological networks, areas of ancient and semi-natural woodland and natural heritage designations
• Both strategies consider issues relating to ecosystem function, particularly in relation to the structure and composition of the forest ecosystem. For example, the PKFWS considers the current forest resource in terms of its composition (i.e. a mixture of conifer, broadleaved and mixed woodlands) and structure (e.g. the forest resource contains one fifth young trees following recent woodland creation and restocking operations) before drawing some conclusions about the opportunities and challenges that this presents for forest development in the area
• As discussed in relation to LUS Principle A and C, GIS based spatial analysis is used extensively in both strategies for a variety of purposes. In the context of Principle D, GIS can be a useful tool for understanding and modelling ecosystem function/services. In this regard, both strategies have used GIS to map existing and potential ecosystem services as well as important landscape scale ecological processes
• In particular, the PKFWS recognises how "all aspects of biodiversity - native woodlands, designated sites, open ground habitats - need to be managed and conserved at landscape as well as site scale" (PKC, 2013 p.21). Both strategies put this principle into practice through the use of GIS and woodland habitat networks data. The SCFWS for example uses habitat network data for broadleaved and yew woodland to identify opportunity areas for native woodland creation (see map below). In this manner, the creation of new native woodlands is steered towards sites where new habitat will contribute to improved ecological connectivity at the landscape scale (i.e. by enhancing connectivity within existing habitat networks)

SCFWS Native Woodland Opportunities Map (S&CC, 2012)

Note: the map above shows existing native woodland (dark green) and ancient woodland (light green) habitat patches along with the networks formed by these habitat patches (yellow). Creation of new native woodland within these habitat networks (yellow areas) can improve ecological connectivity, supporting a range of landscape scale ecosystem processes and contributing to overall improvements in the health and functioning of forest ecosystems

• Both strategies have also been informed by related strategies and initiatives that consider ecosystem/ecosystem services issues (e.g. openspace strategies, green infrastructure strategies, LBAPs etc) and key stakeholders with an interest in ecosystems have been integral to the strategy development process (e.g. FCS, SNH etc)
• The development of both strategies has also been informed and supported by statutory SEA as per the Environmental Assessment (Scotland) Act 2005. Furthermore, a Habitat Regulations Assessment (HRA) was also required for the SCFWS due to the potential for the strategy to cause adverse effects on the integrity of Natura 2000 sites - Special Areas for Conservation (SAC) and Special Protection Areas (SPA)
• The nature of strategic HRA in particular is that it considers the impacts of plans and programmes on the ecological integrity of key designated natural heritage sites. In this regard, it can provide a useful framework for considering LUS Principle D type issues for certain areas of land (i.e. Natura 2000 sites) and particularly in relation to ecosystem function issues
• The HRA of the SCFWS considered a range of key forestry related pressures on the Natura 2000 sites within the strategy area including "water quality/quantity, extent of habitat, disturbance to roosting or foraging sites and woodland encroachment as a result of seed dispersal" (LUC, 2013 p.4) amongst others. The potential impacts of the FWS contributing to these pressures was then assessed using GIS and expert judgement
• The SEA of the SCFWS also included key ecosystem function type issues under the SEA theme/topic of biodiversity. Key issues identified included "habitat fragmentation through inappropriate forestry or development activity, spread of invasive species through enhanced habitat networks, potential reduction in opportunities for species movements and migration as a result of climate change and a possible loss of core areas of biodiversity significance through inappropriate forestry operations or infrastructure development" (LUC, 2012 p.19).
• Given the above, SEA and HRA has arguably provided a useful mechanism and insight into consideration of LUS Principle D type issues, particularly in relation to ecosystem function. This was reinforced on discussion with Perth and Kinross Council who felt that ecosystem services thinking formed the basis for the SEA

Consideration of LUS Principle E within RTRP:

• Forestry related landscape change and landscape planning issues are well represented within RTRP (considered implicitly within 6 out of the 21 RTRP provisions reviewed). In particular, "enhancing landscapes" (FCS, 2010 p.14) is identified as a specific role for FWS and the guidance states that "landscape character should help to guide decisions about the location and design of forests" (FCS, 2010 p.45)
• The guidance is flexible on scale issues suggesting that FWSs may use different scales depending on the granularity of land use and landscape features in the plan area (see Principle C also). In this regard, there is a clear directive for FWSs to consider landscape and place-making at a scale appropriate to the specific decision-making context
• As per the above, SEA/AA may be required for FWS - these assessment tools (SEA in particular) can provide a framework for assessing the potential effects of FWS on landscape, using specific tools and data e.g. Landscape Character Assessments (LCAs) and associated spatial data. The statutory requirement for public consultation as part of SEA can help to ensure that the meaning and value of landscapes/places in the plan area are captured and reflected in FWSs

Consideration of LUS Principle E within draft FWS and SEA reporting

• Consideration of landscape planning and management issues is extensive throughout both draft FWS i.e. consideration of LUS Principle E type issues is extensive yet implicit. LUS Principle E type issues are embedded within the PKFWS vision where landscape is discussed at a variety of scales e.g. from the more local - "woodland and forests enhance local distinctiveness and sense of place" to the more broad "some remote upland areas have been deliberately left to nature and natural processes, becoming wilder in character" (PKC, 2013 p.25)
• In both cases, landscape has been approached as a key primary land use (see LUS Principle C above). Also, both cases have used GIS/spatial analysis and/or Landscape Character Assessment (LCA) and Landscape Character Types (LCTs) data to support consideration of landscape issues in FWS-development - these are all key tools in this regard. The PKFWS has a particular focus on wild land (see the PKFWS Sensitivities Map above) and the SCFWS considers the thirteen different LCTs within the strategy area
• On discussion with Perth and Kinross Council it became apparent that a number of datasets and tools were used to inform consideration of landscape/LUS Principle E type issues within FWS development. In particular, the Tayside Landscape Character Assessment^[56] (LCA) and SNH's Core Areas of Wild Land Map^[57] were fundamental in the identification of wild land areas though there were issues with the use of this data for landscape planning/management more generally as described at Chapter 6
• The SCFWS used LCA and LCT data to support FWS-development in an innovative and structured way: "the 13 LCTs found within [the strategy] area have been used within the FWS to identify links between each LCT and potential woodland types. These links […] help to shows how and where to best target appropriate woodland expansion" (S&CC, 2012 p.24)
• Similarly to LUS Principle D, SEA can provide a useful means of understanding the potential impacts of FWS on landscape issues. Given the potential implications of forestry for landscape, it is unsurprising that SEAs of both FWS consider landscape issues extensively. For example the PKFCS SEA Scoping Report identifies a number of key landscape issues that the development of the FWS should account for e.g. the potential landscape implications of large-scale timber production

Translation 'on the ground': Yes

Consideration of LUS Principle F within RTRP:

• Forestry related climate change issues are well represented within RTRP (considered implicitly within 6 out of the 21 RTRP provisions reviewed). As per Principles D and E, SEA can provide a framework for assessing the potential effects of FWS on both climate change mitigation and adaptation objectives, supporting the integration of climate change issues with FWS-development (e.g. the potential role of forestry in adaptation/natural flood management)
• RTRP identifies energy woodlands (i.e. short rotation coppice/forestry) as a specific woodland type for consideration in FWS, thereby encouraging appropriate land use/management for climate change mitigation objectives
• Climate change impacts have been identified with reference to related legislation and tools (e.g. flood risk assessments) and are discussed implicitly in relation to flooding issues. The opportunity for forestry land uses to support both mitigation and adaptation are also discussed e.g. "forestry and trees can offer a suite of natural flood management measures, including floodplain and riparian woodland, to contribute to sustainable flood management at a catchment scale" (FCS, 2010 p.50) and in terms of protecting other land uses over forestry where appropriate e.g. carbon rich soils/deep peats

Consideration of LUS Principle F within draft FWS and SEA reporting

• Consideration of climate change issues is extensive throughout both draft FWS i.e. consideration of LUS Principle F type issues is extensive yet implicit. Climate change is one of the seven key themes from the SFS (see above) which provides the framework for both strategies. The PKFWS recognises climate change as a key driver and opportunity for forestry development and fuelwood and short rotation [forestry] crops are identifies as specific opportunities for forestry in Perth and Kinross
• In terms of impacts and climate change adaptation, the PKFWS identifies water management (FRM) and habitat networks as key opportunities whereby forestry can contribute to this agenda (see the PKFWS Opportunity Map) although there is no description of how these specific impacts or opportunities were identified (e.g. the spatial delineation of water management and IHN related opportunities)
• Similarly, the SCFWS identifies FRM and habitat network provision/enhancement as key climate change adaptation opportunities for forestry (see the SCFWS Native and Mixed Woodland Opportunities Maps above) including a description of the process/method adopted (see LUS Principle A and D above)
• Within both FWS there is recognition that other land uses can be of greater importance for climate change objectives than forestry, especially peat/carbon rich soils. That said, this issue is considered more thoroughly within PKFWS where carbon rich soils are identified as a key sensitivity on the PKFWS Sensitivities Map (see above/LUS Principle C). Within the SCFWS there is a passing reference to peat in relation to the Clackmannanshire Open Space Framework which includes specific provisions on the protection of peatland
• In terms of the mitigation agenda, discussions with Perth and Kinross Council indicated that carbon storage issues were considered in relation to species choice i.e. what types of tree should be grown to yield the greatest carbon storage benefits. This also considered key life cycle impacts of forest products e.g. the properties of different timbers and the use of certain forest residues as biomass for energy/electricity generation
• Climate change issues (i.e. climatic factors in terms of the SEA legislation) have also been considered in the SEAs of the two FWS. The PKFWS SEA Scoping Report describes key environmental issues relating to climatic factors and includes climate change specific SEA objectives e.g. "ensure that woodland and forestry planning and management takes account of the need to adapt to climate change" and "increase further the role of woodland and forestry in achieving carbon sequestration" (PKC, 2013b p.43-44). In this manner, the degree to which the draft PKFWS supports climate change mitigation and adaptation will be considered in the SEA
• The SCFWS SEA Environmental Report identifies a range of primarily positive effects in relation to climate change e.g. "the expansion of woodlands on appropriate soils to create carbon sinks and the development of forests and woodlands for biomass are likely to have the biggest influence in terms of climate change mitigation" (LUC, 2012 p.31). It is unclear whether or not the SCFWS SEA supported the identification of specific measures for enhancing the strategy in this regard, recognising that the development of enhancement recommendations is a key area where SEA may be able to add value to FWS

Translation 'on the ground': To a degree

Consideration of LUS Principle G within RTRP:

• VDL is considered in 2 of the 21 RTRP provisions reviewed. In particular, "improving vacant, derelict and underused land" (FCS, 2010 p.14) is identified as a specific role for FWS and the "creation of woodland on former extraction and industrial sites to contribute to both habitat networks and green networks" (FCS, 2010 p. 52) is identified as a specific objective that may be pursued
• RTRP does not include any specific assessment of the VDL resource in Scotland though planning authorities are encouraged to engage with developers and extraction site operators to identify opportunities. The guidance highlights how the Forest Research Urban Regeneration and Greenspace Partnership^[58] can advise on restoration options and issues, including in relation to contaminated land

Consideration of LUS Principle G within draft FWS and SEA reporting

• Within both FWS there is minor reference to LUS Principle G/VDL type issues e.g. as an opportunity for action within the PKFWS under the community development theme - "supporting the use of woodlands as a way of improving derelict, underused and neglected land" (PKC, 2013a p.40) and, similarly, within the SCFWS under the community development theme - "Well designed, well managed woodlands can transform degraded surroundings and brownfield sites into community assets by 'greening and screening', improving environmental quality, increasing attractiveness to inward investment, and providing a landscape framework for new development" (S&CC, 2012)
• Despite this, there is no specific assessment of the VDL resource within the strategies and/or specific recommendations or policies to target forestry related development with respect to VDL

Translation 'on the ground': To a degree

Consideration of LUS Principle H within RTRP:

• The issue of outdoor recreation and access is considered in 2 of the 21 RTRP provisions reviewed. In particular, "providing a setting for formal and informal recreation" (FCS, 2010 p.14) is identified as a specific role for FWS to consider
• The guidance places an emphasis on woodland for outdoor recreation in or close to urban and peri-urban areas i.e. where there is high demand for recreation services. Accordingly, there is a key role for FWS considering where need/demand for woodland related recreation is highest and using this evidence to target woodland creation, management and restructuring in an appropriate manner (e.g. altering management of existing woodland to focus on recreation objectives, investing in path infrastructure etc)
• The statutory requirement for public consultation as part of SEA can help to ensure that local communities are engaged in the FWS-development process to ascertain their needs as regards outdoor recreation etc

Consideration of LUS Principle H within draft FWS and SEA reporting

• There is some consideration of recreation and access issues in both draft FWS i.e. implicit consideration of LUS Principle H type issues. This is unsurprising as access and health is one of the seven key themes from the SFS (see above) which provides the framework for both strategies
• The PKFWS takes a strategic/broad-brush approach to the identification of forestry related recreation and access opportunities by embedding key provisions within the strategy's vision, a key priority on "maximising the [contribution that] forests and woodlands make to improve the residents of Perth and Kinross' quality of life" (PKC, 2013a p.41) and a key theme on access and health. Related opportunities and actions are also broad-brush in nature e.g. "maintain public rights of way through woodland" and "improve access to high quality open space for the local population" (PKC, 2013 p.41)
• Crucially, recreation and access issues are generally less prevalent in the detailed spatial analyses that underpin the development of both FWS. It may be the case, for example, that it is more appropriate to integrate recreation/access objectives through management at the site level (e.g. ensuring that woodland management considers footpath maintenance etc to promote access) as opposed to incorporating these objectives within the FWS opportunities mapping and spatial plans (e.g. highlighting locations within the strategy area where it may be beneficial to develop and/or manage woodland for recreation and access objectives)
• That said, the PKFWS does include woodland in and around town on the PKFWS Opportunities Map (see above) implying, therefore, that there can be a spatial aspect to planning woodlands for recreation and access (e.g. woodland managed for these objectives should arguably be in proximity to population centres in order to facilitate access)

Translation 'on the ground': Yes

Consideration of LUS Principle I within RTRP:

• The need to involve people in debates and decisions about forestry related land use/management is considered in 4 of the 21 RTRP provisions reviewed. Promotion of a cross-boundary approach to FWS-development (FCS, 2010 p.12) can broaden out the scope of the FWS-development process to a greater range of stakeholders and interests, including those in neighbouring authorities. RTRP also suggests that authorities adopt a collaborative approach in the development of FWSs including representation from NGOs and local communities
• The statutory requirement for public consultation as part of SEA would ensure that local communities and the wider public are engaged in the FWS-development process, including opportunity to comment on a draft strategy and its potential environmental effects
• Finally, the guidance also highlights how planning authorities should engage with communities to identify the types of woodland (i.e. native, mixed, softwood, energy) that they would wish to see being developed in their area

Consideration of LUS Principle I within draft FWS and SEA reporting

• Both FWS have been subject to statutory SEA processes including requirements for consultation^[59] with the public and statutory consultation authorities^[60]. As such, consultation processes for the draft FWS have followed established procedures including the publication of press notices, availability of documents online and in hard copy and also a statutory requirement to take account of all comments made on the draft strategy/SEA Environmental Report in the adopted strategies.
• In both cases^[61][62], the local authorities held public meetings to discuss the draft FWS and provide the public and other stakeholders with an opportunity to input to strategy-development

Consideration of LUS Principle J within RTRP:

• The issue of increasing understanding of the links between land use and daily lives is considered in 3 of the 21 RTRP provisions reviewed. There is a particular emphasis on the role of forestry - as a land based enterprise - in job creation, regeneration and supporting the Scottish Government's overarching objective of sustainable economic growth e.g. "promoting rural development and supporting diversification of the rural economy [and] helping to regenerate deprived communities through the creation of attractive environments in people which to live, work and invest" (FCS, 2010 p.14)
• Crucially, there is also discussion around the role of community forestry and forests as a "community owned or managed asset" (FCS, 2010 p.4) - developing these sort of initiatives, particularly in urban/peri-urban areas, can provide people with a real opportunity to learn about the role of land management in the provision of a wide range of social and environmental benefits

Consideration of LUS Principle J within draft FWS and SEA reporting

• As per the above, the development of both FWS involved a degree of statutory and non-statutory public and stakeholder consultation. In this manner, there has been an opportunity for the public to engage with the role of land supporting the forestry sector and other key sectors that the FWS have considered (e.g. agriculture, upland management, conservation management, energy etc)
• Informed by the SFS (see above), both strategies have key priorities/themes relating to timber, business development and community recognising the important role of forestry - as a key land based business - supporting jobs and economic development

Consideration of LUS Principle A within the NPPP:

• The whole premise of the NPPP is to provide an agreed framework to coordinate the actions and activities of the various organisations that operate within the National Park (including four local authorities, key statutory agencies, community groups, NGOs and the private sector). In this regard, the NPPP's policies on conservation, visitor experience and rural development are intended to "provide guidance for all organisations that operate in the National Park" (LLTNPA, 2012 p.16). As such, the NPPP offers significant scope for the multiple objectives of the various partner organisations to be integrated for the delivery of multiple benefits
• Partner organisations are involved from the outset in the development of the NPPP. A workshop based approach is used to identify actions for the National Park that are mutually beneficial to all partners - the key role of the NPA is to then identify additionality through enabling and coordination. In this regard therefore, stakeholders are involved early on in the NPPP-development process which may help to identify objectives and actions for multiple benefits that are practical and reasonable within the scope of available resources/timescales
• The NPPP includes explicit and implicit reference to multiple benefits. For example, there is recognition of how "environmental policy in Scotland is increasingly being directed towards obtaining multiple benefits" and "the need for an increase in spatial planning to achieve multiple benefits from land" (LLTNPA, 2012 p.15). The LUS is referenced explicitly as a key policy driver in this regard. Key multiple benefits of integrated land use/management implicitly identified in the NPPP include natural flood management (NFM), carbon storage (from peatland restoration/management and increasing woodland cover at appropriate locations), economic development, landscape, biodiversity, ecological networks, recreation, active travel, and renewable energy provision (primarily biomass and run of the river hydro)
• The NPPP also includes specific mechanisms and provisions that can help to ensure the delivery of multiple benefits over the lifetime of the NPPP (not least the IPAs themselves - see below). Specifically, this includes a priority for action on "the development of long-term land management plans that help to guide investment in land based businesses" (LLTNPA, 2012 p.20) and a 2017 target that would see 25% of all private land in the National Park subject to a long-term management plan. The NPPP also includes a suite of indicators that will be monitored annually though the degree to which they are able to capture the integrated nature of ecosystem services and multiple benefits from land use/management is unclear (e.g. the indicator for landscapes is the % of land under agri-environment schemes and the indicator for natural heritage is % of designated site features in favourable condition)

Consideration of LUS Principle A within the SNH IPA:

• SNH have a role to play supporting NPPP action on land management plans. As per the above, there is scope for these plans to be designed to incorporate land management objectives for the delivery of multiple benefits. SNH will also provide specific support on a "collaborative approach [working] with NPAs to develop [an] SRDP that helps to deliver the NPPP" (LLTNPA - undated draft SNH IPA). As such, there may be scope for the development of SRDP schemes that better reflect the policies and actions of the NPPP for the delivery of multiple benefits
• SNH also have a specific role in the management of peatlands within the Park including the identification of areas for restoration and management. Depending on the approach, there may be scope for this aspect of SNH's role to deliver multiple benefits e.g. if peatland restoration/management is targeted to deliver carbon and flood storage

Consideration of LUS Principle B within the NPPP:

• The NPPP recognises how the "integration of public and private objectives for land in the National Park" (LLTNPA, 2012 p.15) is a key challenge for the period 2012-2017. As per the above however, the overarching premise of the NPPP is to align the multiple actions and objectives of all partner organisations (private, public and third sector organisations) operating in the National Park
• In this regard, the NPPP arguably has the potential to support key private/third sector partners meet the requirements of existing regulation e.g. through the development of agreed long-term management plans for land based businesses operating in the National Park as per the above
• The NPPP also includes a priority for action to engage with the development of the Scotland Rural Development Programme (SRDP) for 2014-2020^[63] including the "promotion of the National Park as a priority area within the new SRDP" to ensure that "the National Park [has] an [SRDP] scheme that is responsive to local needs and that delivers park and national outcomes" (LLTNPA, 2012 p.20)
• In this regard (and depending on the nature of the SRDP 2014-2020 to be adopted in due course), applications to the SRDP from land managers in the National Park may become more streamlined, potentially reducing the 'burden' of grant applications for certain types of land management
• The propositions above are all potential benefits/considerations of LUS Principle B type issues within the NPPP. In essence, they all remain to be proven hence why this principle has been scored as translated 'to a degree' only

Consideration of LUS Principle C within the NPPP:

• The NPPP includes implicit discussion of a range of LUS Principle C type primary land use or land characteristic issues. Key primary uses in this regard include wild land, peat/carbon rich soils and biodiversity (incorporating designated natural heritage sites and important habitats/species). Wild land and landscape more generally are considered to be characteristics of land that can be influenced, positively or negatively, by land management
• The NPPP includes specific policy across many of these primary land uses/characteristics. For example, the NPPP's landscape policy gives priority to "protecting the relative wildness of the National Park, specifically the core areas of wild land character, acknowledging the role of land management in maintaining these core areas" (LLTNPA, 2012 p.16). The implementation of this policy is directed by a baseline map of relative wildness in the Park (see below) - i.e. spatial delineation of a specific landscape type/character
• Crucially, there is recognition within the NPPP of the relationship between key primary land uses/land characteristics, such as landscape/wild land, and support for wider multiple benefits e.g. there is a specific target to apply for Dark Sky Reserve^[64] status for the Park by the end of 2014. Securing Dark Sky Reserve status would have potential to contribute to the economic development of the Park (i.e. a wider benefit of maintaining landscape and wild land quality by avoiding the adverse impacts of light pollution within/near the designated area)
• Although the NPPP doesn't clearly state how potential areas of primary land uses have been identified, there is reference to several key policy documents that could be used in this regard e.g. the Scottish Biodiversity Strategy, the European Landscape Convention, the Scottish Landscape Charter, the Scottish Forestry Strategy and the Scottish Outdoor Access Code. Equally, several of the partner organisations have an important (and sometimes statutory) role promoting the protection of key primary land uses such as SNH (e.g. designated natural heritage sites, landscape, wild land etc), SEPA (e.g. floodplains, diffuse pollution priority catchments etc) and FCS (e.g. as a key stakeholder in the development of for Forestry and Woodland Strategies, designation of preferred land for woodland creation etc)

LLTNP map of relative wildness in the National Park (LLTNPA, 2012)

Note: the map above shows the distribution of wild land within the National Park. Green areas indicate the core areas of wild land and the yellow areas indicate the buffer area where the wild land component of landscape is sensitive to inappropriate development

• The NPPP also includes several mechanisms to ensure that primary land use issues are considered in relevant decision-making processes. For example, there is a specific land of wild land character target to develop supplementary guidance on relative wildness and the incorporation of these issues within policy in the forthcoming LLTNP Local Development Plan (LDP). There is also a target of maintaining the area of wild land in the Park as per the 2011 baseline (i.e. the map above)

• The Authority's approach to visitor management also takes cognisance of primary land use issues, particularly as they relate to sensitive natural heritage issues. The intention is to ensure that "managed solutions […] deliver the right balance between visitor enjoyment and protecting the environment" (LLTNPA 2012, p.29) where protection of the environment in this regard can include key primary use issues, including sensitive natural/cultural heritage sites. Although the NPPP doesn't clearly state how this is to be delivered in practice, it does spatially delineate high and medium pressure visitor management zones (see map extract opposite). As such, key sensitive primary land uses (e.g. natural heritage sites) could therefore be identified by interrogating the visitor management zones data with other key spatial data sets (e.g. natural heritage sites where the designated features are in an unfavourable or declining condition)
• On discussion with the NPA, the importance of the close relationship between the NPPP's three different themes (i.e. conservation, visitor experience and rural development) in this regard was evident. In particular, careful management of 'honeypot' areas (e.g. the east side of Loch Lomond) is undertaken to ensure that high numbers of visitors to the Park (and therefore revenue) can be maintained without any detrimental impacts to key primary land use issues e.g. areas of conservation interest

Consideration of LUS Principle C within the SNH IPA:

• SNH have a specific role in relation to species management (including contributing to the development and implementation of the revised National Park Biodiversity Action Plan) and peatland restoration/management. As such, they have an important and clearly defined role supporting the delivery of two of the three main primary land use issues identified in the NPPP.

Consideration of LUS Principle D within the NPPP:

• Unsurprisingly given the nature of a National Park, the NPPP incorporates a particular emphasis on LUS Principle D type issues including the protection and enhancement of biodiversity and ecosystem function. This includes reference to specific species that are under threat in the Park (e.g. wading birds, red squirrel, black grouse), sites designated for their natural heritage value and also specific mention of the threat from invasive non-native species and other biosecurity issues such as Phytophthora ramorum and Chalara fraxinea affecting larch and ash trees respectively. The Sandford Principle^[65] also has prominence within the conservation policy section of the NPPP, emphasising the greater importance of objectives for conserving and enhancing the Park's natural/cultural heritage over other objectives (e.g. sustainable use, economic development etc)
• Crucially however, the NPPP considers all of the above issues within an overall context of landscape scale action i.e. protecting and enhancing the Park's biodiversity by helping to increase resilience at the landscape scale - "the National Park's habitats are still too fragmented. To encourage ecological sustainability there is a need to join up areas of woodland and other priority habitats across the National Park as part of the National Ecological Network for Scotland and linking to adjacent areas, such as the CSGN" (LLTNPA, 2012 p.18)

LLTNP map of UKBAP priority habitats grouped by ecosystem (LLTNP, 2012)

Note: the map above shows the distribution of key UKBAP priority habitats in the National Park grouped by ecosystem/broad habitat: 1) blue areas are freshwater and wetlands; 2) brown areas are upland habitats; 3) green areas are native woodlands; and 4) yellow areas are grassland and farmland. The NPPP has a particular focus on carbon and flood storage ecosystem services that will be provided, to varying degrees, by wetland (e.g. blanket bogs, lowland raised bogs), upland (e.g. uplands fens and marshes) and native woodland ecosystems/broad habitats

• The NPPP includes specific reference to the ecosystems approach though not as an overall framing to the whole plan. Rather, it is mentioned in the context of natural heritage policy and with a specific focus on "peatland, wetlands, heath, moorland and woodland at a landscape scale to deliver carbon sequestration, [natural] flood management and the creation of IHNs across the Park" (LLTNPA, 2012 p.16). As such, the focus of the NPPP's consideration of the ecosystems approach in this regard is on key regulating services (i.e. carbon and flood storage) and key ecosystem processes/intermediate services (i.e. ecological networks). This is indicated on the map above. The NPPP includes implicit reference to other ecosystem services (e.g. cultural services including the role of the Park's environmental settings and landscapes contributing to recreation and tourism) but this is very much from a use perspective (i.e. as opposed to a management perspective) and there is no specific/explicit mention of these services
• Many of the partners to the NPPP have a key (and often statutory) role to play concerning ecosystem/conservation management and ecosystem services. Key partners in this regard include SNH, SEPA, FCS, RSPB, National Trust for Scotland and the Woodland Trust Scotland. The LUS (and therefore by association Principle D on ecosystem services as well as the general ecosystems approach to land use that is endorsed by the LUS) is referenced as a key national policy document providing part of the context for the NPPP's conservation and rural development policies and actions

Consideration of LUS Principle D within the SNH IPA:

• SNH have a specific role in relation to species management and supporting the development of the IHN. They also a clear role in relation to peatland management/restoration actions, supporting key ecosystem services provided by the park (i.e. carbon and flood storage). As such, SNH have clear responsibility for the delivery of key strategic priorities from the NPPP relating to the protection/enhancement of ecosystem function (i.e. biodiversity management and IHN) and ecosystem services

Consideration of LUS Principle E within the NPPP:

• Landscape and place are discussed in a variety of ways and at a range of scales within the NPPP. There is also specific reference to the European Landscape Convention^[66] and Scotland's Landscape Charter^[67] as key policies providing part of the context for the NPPP's conservation policies and actions
• Landscape/LUS Principle E type issues are considered at a range of scales. At broader scales, the Park's core areas of wild land is a key landscape management and planning issue with the emphasis placed on protecting existing (2011 baseline - see LUS Principle C above) wild land from inappropriate development

LLTNP maps of relative wildness (left-hand map) and existing woodland cover (right-hand map) (LLTNPA, 2012)

Note: the maps above indicate how a significant portion of the National Park's core wild land area is located to the north of the Park (i.e. the upland areas around Ben Vorlich, Ben Lui, Ben More and Stob Binnein). This area is also relatively un-wooded at the moment with most of the park's woodland located along the Cowal Peninsula to the south-west, the Queen Elizabeth Forest Park to the south-east and the A84 corridor to the east/northeast

• Closely related to this, the NPPP recognises the importance of "using locations and design [for afforestation] that bring landscape and biodiversity benefits whilst avoiding adverse impacts on landscape special qualities" (LLTNPA, 2012 p.23) where special qualities in this regard can include wild land. There is potential for particular tensions between woodland creation (including woodland for carbon storage) and landscape objectives given the desired rate of afforestation in the National Park (600ha/year up to 2017) though this will depend on the type of woodland etc - see maps above
• The NPPP also recognises in more general terms the influence that the Park's network of habitats/semi-natural land uses has on landscape. There is also a specific target on "supporting applications to the SRDP that deliver landscape scale habitat enhancement" (LLTNPA, 2012 p.18). In this regard, the NPPP takes a landscape scale approach to the planning and management of habitat enhancement works, recognising potential implications for the Park's landscapes
• At more local scales, the NPPP has a strong focus on sense of place and local distinctiveness recognising the importance of "continuing to secure high standards of design and landscape fit in new developments" (LLTNPA, 2012 p.47) as a key rural development challenge for the plan period
• The NPPP uses key tools to support landscape planning and management at a range of scales. The NPPP's rural development policies and actions are guided by a Spatial Development Strategy that seeks to ensure that "new development in the Park is in the most sustainable locations with design and siting that safeguard and enhance designated sites or other special qualities" (LLTNPA, 2012 p.48). The Spatial Development Strategy is informed by key spatial issues including visitor management zones and wild land (see LUS Principle C). In this regard, the Strategy is intended to guide development towards locations where there is environmental capacity, including landscape capacity
• As with LUS Principle D, many of the partners to the NPPP have a key (and sometimes statutory) role to play concerning landscape planning and management. Key partners in this regard include SNH, SEPA, FCS, RSPB, National Trust for Scotland and the Woodland Trust Scotland

Consideration of LUS Principle E within the SNH IPA:

• SNH have a dual role in relation to landscape. Firstly, they will input to the development of the IHN and secondly, they will work with LLTNPA "to ensure that the National Park is protected from inappropriate windfarm developments that impact on the landscape and setting of the National Park" (LLTNPA - undated draft SNH IPA). In this regard, SNH's IPA picks up on several of the key landscape issues from the NPPP though it is perhaps surprising that they don't have a specific role implementing wild land policy

Consideration of LUS Principle F within the NPPP:

• The NPPP identifies land use/management related climate change adaptation and mitigation opportunities with reference to related policies and strategies and through the use of available data
• Identified adaptation opportunities are related to NFM (see LUS Principle A also) and the enhancement of ecological networks. In terms of NFM, key climate change impacts (i.e. flooding) have been identified with reference to SEPA's data on Potentially Vulnerable Areas^[68] (PVAs) as per the National Flood Risk Assessment^[69] (NFRA). The NPPP highlights how "the National Park contains the headwaters of four river systems" and how "the Park's uplands have the ability to hold flood waters for longer through land use management" (LLTNPA, 2012 p.23). In line with this, NFM opportunities for the 2012-2017 plan period are focussed on the Teith catchment to help reduce flooding in Stirling and Callander
• Identified mitigation opportunities are related to peatland management and restoration, woodland creation and the development of small scale renewable energy capacity (primarily run of the river hydro and biomass). The NPPP highlights how opportunities for woodland creation will be identified where there are no adverse impacts on biodiversity, landscape, designated sites or soil carbon
• The NPPP includes a specific action to "identify and assess the condition and management of peatland in the National Park [including] the identification of areas for restoration and management focussing on the most degraded sites first" (LLTNPA, 2012 p.23). As such, there is a clear strategy for the identification of peatland related mitigation actions over the plan period. The Authority have also recently recruited a peatland restoration officer and the SRDP 2014-2020 includes specific proposals/budget (£15M) for peatland restoration within the proposed agri-environment-climate scheme^[70]

Consideration of LUS Principle F within the SNH IPA:

• SNH have a specific role supporting action on carbon storage through peatland restoration and management. Although the focus of this role is on carbon storage (i.e. climate change mitigation), SNH's actions here have potential to support adaptation too through increased water storage in upland areas (e.g. through rewetting of peatlands etc). SNH also have a role supporting landscape management, especially in relation to renewable energy development (see LUS Principle E)

Consideration of LUS Principle G within the NPPP:

• There is no consideration of VDL/LUS Principle G type issues within the NPPP. There is one reference to the sustainable re-use of vacant historic buildings in the context of cultural heritage policy within the conservation section of the plan but no explicit or implicit consideration of wider VDL issues
• Despite this, VDL is a significant issue in East and West Dunbartonshire^[71], both of which, in part, fall within the boundaries of the National Park. Urban areas in West Dunbartonshire just adjacent to the park's southern boundary, such as Alexandria and Dumbarton, contain significant VDL sites which could potentially raise both opportunities and constraints for key transboundary land use/management issues in the park e.g. landscape planning, ecological networks, natural flood management etc

Consideration of LUS Principle H within the NPPP:

• Unsurprisingly given the nature of a National Park, the NPPP incorporates a particular emphasis on LUS Principle H type issues i.e. the third aim for National Park's is "to promote understanding and enjoyment (including enjoyment in the form of recreation) of the special qualities of the area by the public" (LLTNPA, 2012 p.11)
• A significant portion of the NPPP's policies and actions on visitor experience are focussed on LUS Principle H type issues including consideration of a range of different outdoor recreation activities. There is a specific target on developing a database of routes for different purposes (including horse-riding, walking, cycling and canoeing) which will be publicised using various means. This has the potential to support wider involvement in a range of outdoor recreation, over and above walking
• The NPPP does have a particular focus on walking however though this covers different ability levels e.g. "addressing the gaps in core paths network and local path networks" as well as "investment in and the promotion of the West Highland Way, John Muir Way, key upland paths and other long distance routes as appropriate" (LLTNPA, 2012 p.30). There are also specific targets on improving local path connections around communities and footpath works to address erosion issues on key upland paths (see map below). Upland path maintenance can also help manage landscape impacts (see LUS Principle E)
• In terms of access, the NPPP includes specific targets on linking public transport with the Park's recreation and tourism opportunities to help reduce the need for private car usage within the Park

LLTNP map of paths and walking related outdoor recreation (LLTNPA, 2012)

Note: the map above shows the range of outdoor recreation opportunities available in the National Park including lower level (in terms of altitude and required ability) feature paths and more strenuous upland paths. Not all these paths will be suitable for all types of outdoor recreation - the NPPP includes provision for developing a database of routes for different purposes. This can also help to reduce inappropriate use, helping to protect some primary land use issues such as sensitive landscapes, designated natural heritage sites etc

• As with LUS Principles D and E, some of the partners to the NPPP have a role to play as key stakeholders in the planning and management of outdoor recreation and access (e.g. SNH, FCS, NGOs, local authorities). Crucially the involvement of local communities and representative groups (e.g. the National Park Community Partnership^[72]) may help to ensure that local needs/issues are addressed in the planning and design of outdoor recreation/access provision

Consideration of LUS Principle I within the NPPP:

• The nature of the NPPP is such that it is designed to incorporate the views, objectives and priorities of the stakeholder and community partners that affect or are affected by the management of the National Park. Crucially, this includes the National Park Community Partnership, Community Councils and Community Development Trusts
• For example public sector partners include all of the key land/environmental management agencies (SNH, SEPA, FCS and the four local authorities) within the park as well as the key economic development agencies whose actions may have a more indirect (yet still significant) influence on land and environmental management (e.g. Scottish Enterprise and Visit Scotland)
• Also, the formal IPA process provides a mechanism by which involvement (in terms of roles and responsibilities) can be clearly set out and agreed upon in a transparent manner - this includes IPAs for key community, third and private sector organisations

Consideration of LUS Principle J within the NPPP:

• The NPPP recognises how much of the economic activity within the National Park is reliant on a high quality natural environment and landscapes e.g. "[the] National Park has the potential to be a real generator for growth in Scotland and a showcase for the very best of the scenery and natural heritage that Scotland is famous for" (LLTNPA, 2012 p.12)
• Similarly, the NPPP's policy on asset management recognises how the Park's most important assets are natural assets through the inclusion of specific targets on "raising awareness of the role that natural assets perform in the economic performance of the National Park" and "developing an approach that takes into account the value of natural resources in all decision-making by public bodies in the National Park" (LLTNPA, 2012 p.17)
• In line with the above, the NPPP places a strong emphasis on the role that land and its use and management (especially in relation to natural heritage/scenic quality and tourism related business) plays in the lives of the communities, businesses and public bodies within the Park

• With regard to process the Monitor Farm Strategy refers to the private and societal benefits of productive livestock farming. Specifically, reference is made to multiple environment benefits delivered by buffer strips (i.e. on the farms supported by subsidy) as well as the socio-economic benefits of agricultural productivity
• The Strategy states that land can support agricultural productivity and biodiversity and other environmental aspects but it is recognised that enhancing the delivery of multiple benefits is not an objective of the programme - unless it supports the efficiency of specific farms.
• The outcomes delivered on individual farms are based on the topics identified, the recommendations made and the farmers' response to these. In this regard, the delivery of multiple benefits will be subject to the commercial decisions and specific circumstances of the farmer and the holding
• Considering this, the delivery of multiple benefits was felt to be indirectly relevant in some instances but it is not a priority of the programme or of individual farmers

• Quality Meat Scotland (QMS) try to involve key regulatory bodies by suggesting to the facilitators that regulators are invited to events. The value of this was that the events can provide a neutral space for regulators and farmers to meet and to discuss issues
• At the level of the individual farms, options to improve the management of regulation, in particular reporting and paperwork, might be considered. Also, the facilitators and other parties are aware of the need to minimise the actual burden of 'being' a Monitor Farm on the farmers. As a result it is likely that some integration of existing regulation is possible within individual farms - where it is deemed necessary

• Increasing the efficiency of the land under food production is the focus of the programme and those involved, therefore this Principle is relevant to the process and outcomes of all Monitor Farms
• These farms are managed on an understanding of which areas are most appropriate for specific farming practices and areas that can be managed (when subsidy support is sufficient) to deliver environmental outcomes

• The value and function of ecosystems is not directly considered within the processes of the Monitor Farms programme or at the level of individual farms
• Grants for managing habitats are discussed at events in many instances. This is due to the availability of subsidy for environmental management (e.g. grant support for agri-environment measures through the SRDP)
• A 2008 evaluation of Monitor Farms^[74] mirrored this general finding. There was a general feeling from the facilitators who were interviewed that the programme should not seek to consider environmental topics as this would be 'restrictive'. However this was not a consensus view with a number indicating that environmental benefits would be considered where there were incentives to the farmers. From the farmers perspective, the evaluation report indicated that a number saw the role of the programme as identifying good practice and that this would provide an opportunity to improve environmental management in some cases. But most recognised that this was not a priority for the scheme. Members of the community group, when asked, supported this general view
• SNH staff members often attend the events to input on relevant topics and there have been funding opportunities from SNH which seek to incentivise projects relevant to this Principle. It is up to the discretion of individual farmers whether or not these opportunities are then taken up

• This Principle is not directly considered in either the processes or outcomes of the programme
• Maintaining productive landscapes is felt to be an indirect benefit of effectively managed farms. In particular ensuring optimal grazing levels was felt to have benefits for the livestock but also for the landscape (e.g. reducing the landscape impacts of erosion from overgrazing, protecting and enhancing diverse farmland habitat mosaics etc)
• SNH and SEPA representatives are often involved in the events and it was felt that representatives of these organisations attending Monitor Farm events would be likely to express concerns, should any land use change advocated through the project have the potential to cause negative landscape impacts

• This Principle was not felt to directly impact the processes of the programme though it might be relevant to some outcomes
• For example, funding was made available to explore options for improving infrastructure to reduce carbon emissions of the farms. The programme did encourage Facilitators and farms to consider this funding though it was not taken up by any farms due to the bureaucratic burden associated with the funding
• Some farms do explore options to reduce energy use and it was felt that an efficient farm produces fewer greenhouse gases (GHG) so this Principle is indirectly relevant in some instances
• Climate change adaptation was not considered relevant to process or outcomes

• Selected farms are unlikely to have issues with vacant and derelict land. Furthermore ensuring that all land is actively managed to maximise the efficiency of the farm is one of the priorities of the programme
• It was recognised that there are barriers to managing land; these include transport infrastructure, fencing, ownership and conflict with other land uses -such as forestry. Individual farms will raise and address these issues where relevant

• This Principle is not a priority of the programme
• In some areas tourism is a large industry and some farms might consider diversification (this is not necessarily encouraged as the programme is focused on livestock management) or they might have to deal with conflicts around access on individual farms

• The programme is based on consultation with appropriate stakeholders. As such, this Principle is relevant to the process and any outcomes
• Some farms allow members of local communities to attend and engage with farms via the events and through annual open days
• The events are open, in that no one is excluded from attending them. But it is recognised that the facilitators do not regularly engage with or invite communities unless they have specific interests in the farm or topic

• Each of the farms has an annual open day where groups and individuals can view the work of the farm. The programme as a whole is intended to boost the competitiveness of the livestock sector which, it was felt, will help to maintain links between land use and livelihoods etc

• The decision making processes of the Trust are not explicitly relevant to this Principle but the intended outcomes of their work is
• Although the term multiple benefits is not used in their documentation, the Trust does seek to maximise a range of benefits to the local community via environmental and economic activities. Often these two sectors are strongly integrated reflecting a strong support for the concept of multiple benefits
• Within specific funding or land management decisions it was felt that maximising the social and environmental benefits of the land was essential and represented the most efficient use of the available resource
• Decisions are generally informed by the experience and expertise of individuals and the group but the Trust has also investigated the use of the PETAL model (which is managed by the Carnegie Trust^[77])

• There is no reference to minimising the burden of regulation and requirements but the opportunity of the Trust to impact on regulation is very limited
• The Trust's approach is focussed on education, discussion and compromise rather than regulation and enforcement

• Specific land use or land management decisions are based on an understanding of the most preferable use for the finite land on the Island
• Specific primary uses of land include wild land, food production, peat/carbon rich soils and the creation of native woodlands in appropriate areas

• Reference is made to ecosystems and the role of various species within them. However the Trust, although aware, have not used tools or approaches explicitly linked to ecosystem services or the ecosystem approach
• The management of the ecosystems on the Island is based on understanding their functions and trying to optimise these. For example peat cutting by crofters is managed so that areas of very high quality peat (in terms of carbon storage and biodiversity) are maintained. This is also a key primary use/LUS Principle C type issue
• The Trust engage with land managers (e.g. crofters) to raise awareness of good-practice in land management and signpost to relevant guidance and legislation where required (e.g. the Muirburn Code^[78] and the Wildlife and Natural Environment (Scotland) Act^[79])

• The Landscape of North Harris is recognised as a key asset. As a result much of the work and description of North Harris is in terms of its landscape and the need to manage this effectively
• The NHT consider landscape management as a dynamic activity but there is an awareness that many members of their community (and visitors) don't want to see much change. Landscape impacts are addressed within specific project discussions and assessments

• Climate change is included on various parts of the NHT website and other documentation with a focus on finding opportunities for renewable energy development and climate change mitigation
• Renewable energy and reducing energy use are viewed as a good example of environmental improvements which can bring socio-economic benefits - in line with the aims of NHT. Example projects include the Community Carbon Challenge (which aims to reduce resident's energy use), hydro-electric power, energy from biomass and wind turbines. These projects are managed through the North Harris Trading Company Limited
• There are no explicit references or responses to climate change adaptation

• NHT seek to be aware when vacant crofts come on to the market. They publish details of vacant crofts on their website
• Beyond crofting, VDL is not felt to be an issue on the Island

• Facilitating the enjoyment of the natural heritage by enabling open responsible access for all is an objective of the NHT
• The NHT website and various other documentation includes numerous references to improving recreational use of North Harris' land as this is a major contributor to the Island's economy
• NHT regularly undertake footpath maintenance and access improvements
• NHT also undertake guided walks across the Island and provide information about recreational activities via their website

• NHT is community owned so, unsurprisingly, community engagement and involvement is referred to across various of the Trust's documentation. Notably in the aims and objectives which state that the Trust's strategy will be formulated "with full participation of the community". There are also objectives to increase community development and ownership of the land
• The Trust employs a Community Engagement Officer to develop work relevant to this Principle. Also, the majority (10 of 11) of the Trust's board members are elected by the community (i.e. the townships, communities and common grazings across the island) so there is a direct line of accountability from the community the board member to the board and, ultimately, the overall governance of the Trust
• NHT undertake periodic consultation exercise in which responses are sought from the community as to the sort of work the Trust should be involved in. The community were consulted in 2007 and 2012^[80] with a specific Youth Consultation held in 2013^[81]. The 2012 consultation was followed up with public events discussing and presenting the results, this consultation response and the results of the events are then used by NHT to inform future prioritisation of projects and funding
• The Trust actively works to increase membership for which there is a nominal £1 joining fee for lifetime membership. Currently (February 2014), circa 40% of the North Harris population are members and this rate increases gradually all the time. The Trust runs comprehensive public consultations for any decision that may be contentious and always works on the premise of aiming to secure significant majority support for projects (i.e. as opposed to scraping a decision through on a 1% majority)
• Where there is dispute over the Trust's activities, the Trust endeavours to hold one on one meetings with the concerned party to better understand the nature of their concerns and to explain proposals in more detail - in essence there is a process of dialogue to try and resolve issues

• This Principle is relevant to much of what the Trust do (see Principle I as above also in this regard)
• Examples include a School project called Crofting Connections - retaining crofting skills in younger generation. The Crofting Commission are supporting the project which includes training and education in land management issues beyond crofting
• NHT seeks to make clear the importance of potential jobs in environmental management sector and having practical experience from early ages is seen as giving young people support and a chance to work the land and learn about their heritage etc

• The Biosphere Partnership's Integrating Land and Water Management in the Biosphere approach/toolkit explicitly considers the LUS and has a particular focus on LUS Principle A. In particular, the approach is described as a "process of negotiation and hopefully resolution between stakeholders to achieve more benefits through a land use outcome which is better balanced and more integrated" (Biosphere Partnership, 2012 p.2)
• The approach/toolkit provides background information on the catchment across a range of issues (e.g. land use, climate, water quality, geology etc). In effect, this information helps participants/stakeholders to scope out key land use issues and opportunities that can be accounted for in the development of an integrated and more balanced land use/management strategy
• For example, by considering baseline data on land cover and water quality (see maps below), it may then be possible to identify land use/management based strategies for addressing water quality issues whilst also delivering wider multiple benefits e.g. addressing sedimentation pressures on the water environment by moving areas of forestry from clear-fell to continuous cover forestry (CCF) silviculture and linking this up with habitat network improvements

Doon catchment - land cover and water environment pressures (Biosphere Partnership, 2012)

Note: the maps above show land cover (left-hand map) and water environment pressures (right hand map). By considering land use/management and water management issues together, it may be possible to identify integrated land use/management strategies that help to address water environment problems whilst also delivering wider multiple benefits (e.g. landscape, ecological connectivity)

• UNESCO describe Biosphere Reserves as "sites established by countries and recognised under UNESCO'sMan and the Biosphere (MAB) Programmeto promote sustainable development based on local community efforts and sound science" (UNESCO, 2013)^[85]
• Crucially, the management of Biosphere Reserves is focussed on a bottom-up, multi-stakeholder approach with a particular emphasis on the involvement of local communities and the fostering of dialogue for conflict resolution^[86]. In this regard, the designation of a Biosphere is not intended to impose any additional regulatory burden, nor is the ongoing management of the reserve
• The Galloway and Southern Ayrshire Biosphere Vision and Framework document reflects UNESCO's objectives for Biosphere Reserves including a specific reference to the non-statutory nature of Biospheres. There is also an expressed intent that "[the Biosphere] will require no new or additional legislation, regulation, bureaucracy or policy change" (Galloway and Southern Ayrshire Biosphere Partnership Board, 2012 p.11)
• In line with the evaluation criteria and the specific routes highlighted through this research for land use delivery mechanisms to translate LUS Principle B, the Biosphere is considered to translate LUS Principle B to a degree. It does not impose any new or amend any existing regulation (therefore there is no opportunity to support compliance with additional regulation) though the enabling, bottom-up focus of the intervention is such that it may support the delivery of existing regulation e.g. WFD and GAEC responsibilities

• The Biosphere Partnership's Integrating Land and Water Management in the Biosphere approach/toolkit allows for the consideration of several LUS Principle C/primary land use type issues including prime agricultural land (i.e. Macaulay Land Capability for Agriculture classes 1 - 3.1: land capable of supporting arable agriculture^[87] - see map below), deep peat/carbon rich soils, areas of land important for the protection of drinking water resources and natural flood storage areas
• Areas of primary land use are identified with reference to spatial data on existing land use as per the map above (e.g. potential areas of deep peat/carbon rich soils), spatial data relating to existing biophysical constraints and/or opportunities within the catchment (e.g. the relationship between geology/soil type and therefore what is feasible in terms of land management) and also with reference to objectives and targets from current policy (e.g. woodland creation grant policy in terms of constraints to planting on peat/carbon rich soils^[88], natural heritage designations, climate change policy etc)
• Consideration of objectives and targets from relevant policy, in effect, define key primary land uses - e.g. Scotland's statutory greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reduction targets are a key driver for the protection and restoration of deep peat/carbon rich soils. Indirectly, the approach also considers issues relating to land value/ownership, especially in relation to prime agricultural land (see map below)

Land capable of supporting arable agriculture classes 1 - 3.1 (adapted from Macauley Land Use Research Institute, 2013)

Note: the map above shows areas of land in Scotland capable of supporting arable agriculture (i.e. prime agricultural land), noting that most of this land is on the east coast where climate, topography and soils create the right conditions for growing a wide variety of crops. There are also pockets of prime agricultural land in south-west Scotland, including in the Biosphere as indicated by the red square

• In essence, the Biosphere Partnership's Integrating Land and Water Management in the Biosphere approach/toolkit is framed within an ecosystems approach as the focus is on analysis and planning at the catchment/whole ecosystem scale. In this manner, the approach has the potential to consider all aspects of ecosystem function (composition, structure and process) and the full range of ecosystem services as they relate to a specific study catchment
• The approach implicitly discusses a range of ecosystem services though there is a particular focus on the relationship between land use/management and ecosystem function. Key ecosystem services that are discussed implicitly include flood storage/regulation, water purification, carbon storage/climate regulation and erosion control. The overall aim of the approach, through a process of bottom-up stakeholder dialogue, is to support the identification of integrated land use/management strategies for the provision of these and other services i.e. multiple benefits - see LUS Principle A above
• In terms of ecosystem function, there is a particular focus on forest ecosystems with specific objectives for restructuring in terms of species and age class diversity. Whilst such an approach would improve forest ecosystem health, it would also enhance the provision of key ecosystem services including erosion control and water purification (i.e. increasing age class diversity/permanent cover would help to reduce runoff and soil erosion and protect water quality). There is also a specific objective on improving ecological connectivity within the landscape more generally
• The approach has been piloted and documented for the Doon catchment (see maps at LUS Principle A above). Within the pilot, several key stakeholders with an interest in ecosystem management and ecosystem services were involved including Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH), Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA), Forestry Commission Scotland (FCS), the Ayrshire Rivers Trust^[89] and the Southern Upland Partnership^[90].

• LUS Principle E type issues have been considered implicitly to a degree. As per Principle A, the LUS itself provides an overall framing for the approach/toolkit including reference to "landscape scale management of change" (Biosphere Partnership, 2012 p.1)
• Within the material reviewed there is no mention of specific tools or guidance that can be used to support landscape planning and management (e.g. Landscape Character Assessment) though underlying biophysical processes/features are considered (e.g. the relationship between geology, soils, land use/management and, ultimately, landscape - see map below)
• Crucially, the approach necessarily operates at a range of scales - from the very broad/whole catchment level down to the more granular/site level. This distinction in scale is reflected in the approach's focus on a bottom-up approach (including the involvement of farmers and local communities) whilst also considering top-down/catchment-wide data and planning. Such a mixed scale approach has the potential to incorporate landscape planning/management issues reflecting a range of scales and interests

Doon catchment - geological map (Biosphere Partnership, 2012)

Note: the map above shows the geology of the Doon catchment. Geology has a major influence on topography, soils, hydrology etc and therefore the type and distribution of natural/semi-natural habitats that can be supported as well as human land use/management such as agriculture and commercial forestry. In this manner, geology also has a profound influence on an area's landscape. Geology and other biophysical issues are considered within the Biosphere's approach in relation to constraints/opportunities for land management within the catchment (see LUS Principle C)

• As per the above in relation to LUS Principle D, key ecosystem services considered implicitly in the Biosphere Partnership's Integrating Land and Water Management in the Biosphere approach/toolkit relate specifically to climate change mitigation and adaptation - i.e. flood storage, carbon storage and erosion control
• The catchment summary information provided to stakeholders to inform the workshop based approach includes a climate section that identifies current and forecasted climatic conditions (temperature and rainfall) and anticipated climate change impacts - "increased risk of flooding is likely to put more buildings, transport and other water related infrastructure at risk" (Biosphere Partnership, 2012 p.4) - based on the UK Climate Change Risk Assessment for Scotland^[91]
• Anticipated climate change impacts are translated into specific land based issues for consideration in the workshop/stakeholder-led development of integrated land use/management strategies for the Doon catchment e.g. "increased flooding along rivers with impacts on agriculture and the built environment" and "creation of habitat networks to allow greater species dispersion across the landscape" (Biosphere Partnership, 2012 p.13)
• The workshop based approach also includes specific consideration/guidelines on renewable energy - stakeholder participants are required to identify land for the provision of target levels of renewable energy. Crucially, the guidelines estimate the area of land required to provide 1MW of renewable energy by energy source e.g. 1MW of biomass based energy is assumed to require 500ha of short rotation coppice whereas 1MW of wind based energy is assumed to require only 12.5ha (though there will clearly be different impacts between these two different generation technologies)

• The Biosphere Vision and Framework document includes reference to "deep mining for coal and its associated industries formerly dominating the landscape along the [Biosphere's] northern periphery" and how this has left behind a "legacy of industrial dereliction" (Biosphere Partnership Board, 2012 p.9)
• In line with the above, LUS Principle G type issues are considered to a degree within the Biosphere Partnership's Integrating Land and Water Management in the Biosphere approach/toolkit which includes reference to open cast coal extraction as a land use and also a specific provision on identifying alternative approaches to restoration
• However, within the scope of the materials reviewed as part of this research there is no specific discussion of how vacant and derelict sites (i.e. former open cast coal extraction) might be used or any assessment of the VDL resource within the project area (i.e. the Doon catchment) in terms of the area of land available or its condition

• LUS Principle H type issues are considered to a degree within the Biosphere Partnership's Integrating Land and Water Management in the Biosphere approach/toolkit. Consideration of outdoor recreation/access issues includes objectives on "expanding the core path network, creation of new paths/cycleways for recreation and active travel and linking path networks to public transport, settlements and wider networks" (Biosphere Partnership, 2012 p.15). Unlike other land use/management issues (e.g. renewable energy, flood risk management, forestry etc) however there are no specific targets for these measures
• Furthermore, relevant stakeholders with an interest in outdoor recreation/public access were engaged in the approach though it is not clear the degree to which they were engaged specifically on outdoor recreation/access issues
• Relevant stakeholders in this regard include FCS, SNH, the Southern Uplands Partnership, representatives from the two local authorities within the Biosphere, the Ayrshire Rivers Trust, community councils and a representative from the Adventure Centre for Education^[92]

• The whole approach to the Biosphere initiative in general and the Integrating Land and Water Management in the Biosphere approach/toolkit more specifically is predicated on a bottom-up approach to land use/management. Crucially, this involves a workshop based approach to engaging a broad range of stakeholders in the consideration of land use issues and opportunities - this includes local communities in affected areas and land owners/managers with a stake in specific areas of land and the wider catchment/ecosystem

• As described above in relation to LUS Principle B, the management of Biosphere reserves is focussed on a bottom-up, multi-stakeholder approach with a particular emphasis on the involvement of local communities and the fostering of dialogue for conflict resolution - this objective is also highly relevant to LUS Principles I and J
• There is also a strong emphasis on delivering natural environment conservation objectives in conjunction with development objectives to foster economic and human development in a manner that is environmentally and socially sustainable and culturally appropriate^[93]. In this regard, land based business and enterprise should be delivered within an overall context of conservation i.e. recognising the are strong interdependencies between development and the natural environment
• This notion is reflected in the Galloway and Southern Ayrshire Biosphere's overall vision which is "to make life better in our Biosphere while caring for the natural environment" (Biosphere Partnership Board, 2012 p.1). In this regard, human wellbeing and development (i.e. the first part of the vision highlighted in bold) is placed in the context of the natural environment, inextricably linking the two. This approach chimes well with the ecosystem services concept that is central to the LUS itself and, implicitly, the Biosphere initiative's approach (see LUS Principle D evaluation above)

• Key outcomes that may be delivered through successful WES accredited estates are likely to include a wide range of benefits. In essence, the nature of the accreditation process is such that it incentivises estates that exhibit diversity in land use and land management
• The process of accreditation supports this Principle somewhat, for example the accreditation states that it hopes to identify, from the management of the estates, benefits for society and the environment. Other examples include specific questions which introduce a number of the benefits of specific land uses, for example woodlands are referred to as having carbon, conservation, and recreational benefits. In another example deer are referred to as having benefits for the economy, environment and communities
• Demonstrating management that supports the delivery of these and other benefits is necessary for accreditation. This is achieved in part through the structuring of the assessment of the estate's applications which means that it is felt to be very hard to pass without scoring well across all the sections

• The accreditation is an additional process which estates can chose to undertake if they feel it is appropriate to their specific circumstances. There is an expectation that WES accredited estates will be able to use their accreditation to demonstrate, in an efficient manner, that their estate is managed in line with good practice and that regulators (e.g. relevant regulation under the Wildlife and Natural Environment Act^[98]) will recognise and account for this - although this is currently not formalised in any way
• The rationale for WES is about industry self-regulation with the hope of avoiding Government regulation. The process and outcomes of WES serve to integrate different regulatory pressures - for example the accreditation asks for evidence of compliance with various regulatory and policy drivers. In this way LUS Principle B is relevant to a degree

• From discussion with estate representatives, it is recognised that areas of land can be more or less appropriate for different land use/management, depending on a range of issues. However, the accreditation process does not explicitly account for this issue and therefore LUS Principle C is felt to only be of indirect relevance to the outcomes of the WES accreditation scheme

• This Principle is relevant as the concepts and language are used in the application forms and the rationale for WES
• For example, the framing of certain land uses and habitats in terms of benefits and the holistic consideration of land use promoted by WES is consistent with the Principle. In addition, the effective management of certain species is referred to in the context of 'environmental services'
• One of the objectives for WES is improving data on the habitat and ecology of the estates

• The role of estates in Scotland's landscapes is referred to in the introduction of the accreditation pack
• Applicants are asked to input information around landscape features and there is a consideration of different forms of landscape such as farmed landscapes, wetlands and forests across the estate though the accreditation scheme does not explicitly address this Principle. However WES accreditors do wish to see management plans that account for landscape change within land management on the estate

• The accreditation refers to the carbon storage benefits of woodland
• The development of renewable energy schemes on land holdings is viewed positively
• There is no explicit reference to climate change adaptation but the accreditation does refer to SEPA guidance on the reduction of flood risk from certain estate activities and on the restoration of meanders and floodplains to reduce flood risk

• This is not addressed within the accreditation and it not felt to be a relevant issue to the estates

• Estates are based on specific forms of outdoor recreation hence that aspect of this Principle is highly relevant. Access/LUS Principle H type issues are also raised through the accreditation process which includes provisions on whether the estates have taken any measures to positively encourage access and recreation. Other questions relate to access and recreational use in relation to game and wildlife management and the provision of tourism management plans which are viewed positively

• WES makes 10 commitments which include maintaining active engagement with local communities and undertaking education/awareness raising activities
• This is carried through into the accreditation process which includes a number of questions relating to the extent to which estates are connected to and contribute to local communities. This is less about involving people in decision making and more about the estates contribution to the local economy and whether the estates allow access, where appropriate

• As above 1 of the 10 commitments of the WES programme is relevant to this Principle
• There is a section on communications and education which is relevant to this Principle. The accreditation also encourages educational visits and the provision of information boards on the estates