Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) for the Small Landholdings and Land Use Tenancy Proposals Environmental Report

4. Assessment of reasonable alternatives

Assessing reasonable alternatives in SEA

4.1 The assessment of ‘reasonable alternatives’ is a key element of the SEA process to meet the requirements of the Environmental Assessment (Scotland) Act 2005.

4.2 A central facet of the SEA process to date has been the appraisal of reasonable alternatives for the Small Landholdings and Land Use Tenancy proposals. The Environmental Assessment (Scotland) Act 2005 is not prescriptive as to what constitutes a reasonable alternative, stating only that the Environmental Report should “identify, describe and evaluate the likely significant effects on the environment of implementing the plan…and reasonable alternatives to the plan… taking into account the objectives and geographical scope of the plan…”

4.3 In developing reasonable alternatives for the SEA, a central consideration has been with respect to the key choices being made relating to the provisions. In this regard this Environmental Report has assessed a range of options as reasonable alternatives, with a view to exploring the options with particular potential for significant environmental effects. These assessments are designed to inform plan makers and stakeholders on the relative sustainability merits of alternative approaches the proposals could take on various elements associated with the proposals.

Development of options to assess as reasonable alternatives

4.4 In developing options to assess through the SEA process, the SEA team engaged plan-makers and stakeholders to understand where the focus of alternatives assessment should be. To aid in these discussions, a workshop was undertaken in June 2023 with plan-makers to discuss reasonable alternatives in the context of the proposals.

4.5 The purpose of this workshop was to discuss what options can be assessed as reasonable alternatives for the Small Landholdings and Land Use Tenancy proposals, in conjunction with the objectives, issues, challenges and opportunities associated with the proposals.

4.6 The options formulated through the workshop relate to the following key components of the proposals:

• Diversification
• Right to buy
• Land Use Tenancy

4.7 The following chapter presents details of the options assessed and the reasoning behind their choice as reasonable alternatives. This is accompanied by an assessment of these options against the SEA Framework developed during scoping.

4.8 Infographics are presented in relation to the four SEA topics and show the relative performance of each option against each other.

4.9 A green ‘outer ring’ is used to highlight the best performing option (ranking 1st), whilst a red ‘inner ring’ represents the option which performs less well (ranking 2nd). Where options are ranked equally, or it is not possible to differentiate between the options, an equals sign is used within both diagrams.

Diversification options

4.10 Under the current tenancy agreements based on the Small Landholders (Scotland) Act 1911, small landholders have an obligation to use the land for cultivation. In this context holdings used for cultivation are defined as being used for “horticulture or for any purpose of husbandry, inclusive of the keeping or breeding of livestock, poultry, or bees, and the growth of fruit, vegetables, and the like”. There are also provisions that allow for subsidiary activities for letting dwellings or holiday homes on the land.

4.11 Responses to the 2016 consultation found there was confusion amongst small landholders and landlords about whether diversification is allowed or possible. These definitions offer little flexibility to diversify activities beyond the definition of cultivation.

4.12 To explore potential approaches further, two options have been assessed through the SEA process, as follows:

• Option D1: A limited approach whereby minimal changes are made to the current legislation relating to land use on small landholdings.
• Option D2: Changes to provisions which would provide flexibility to allow for other types of land use management approaches beyond cultivation, including activities which mitigate climate change and enhance biodiversity.

Table 4.1: Appraisal of options relating to diversification

Option D1: Minimal changes to current legislation

Option D2: Changes to provisions which would provide flexibility to allow for other types of land use management approaches beyond cultivation, including activities which mitigate climate change and enhance biodiversity.

SEA theme: Biodiversity and geodiversity

Discussion of potential effects and relative merits of options

Overall, Option D2 is likely to perform the most favourably in relation to biodiversity and geodiversity. By directly enabling habitat restoration, tree planting, peatland restoration and other nature-based solutions, Option D2 provides the clearest benefits for enhancing priority habitats and species, improving ecological connectivity, supporting recovery of declining species, and restoring degraded areas. It also provides the opportunities for small landholder and tenant engagement with conservation and restoration activities on their land, through enabling an understanding of how to implement these physical changes and monitor and manage the restoration and enhancement of habitats and associated species. As a result, increased levels of environmental enhancements across small landholdings are likely to provide additional opportunities to access biodiversity, not only for tenants but the wider general public.

In contrast, Option D1 is less likely to provide direct benefits for biodiversity or opportunities for biodiversity engagement. In this respect minimal change to current legislation is not likely to resolve the barriers that are currently experienced relating to diversification on small land holdings. Depending on the current activities undertaken, the business-as-usual approach may pose risks to biodiversity through practices that continue to contribute to potential habitat loss, fragmentation, disturbance and other impacts associated with development.

In summary, the analysis shows Option D2 as most supportive of biodiversity objectives, while Option D1 would largely resemble a business-as-usual approach that could result in furthering negative impacts on biodiversity.

Ranking

D1: 2

D2: 1

SEA theme: Climate change

Discussion of potential effects and relative merits of options

Overall, Option D2 is more supportive of meeting climate goals and provides the clearest benefits for mitigation and adaptation. By developing legislation that could facilitate activities such tree planting, peatland restoration, and other nature-based solutions, Option D2 directly contributes to carbon sequestration and enhancing natural carbon sinks. This will help mitigate climate change by removing and storing more carbon in soils and biomass. D2 would also enable changes in land use such as wetland and floodplain restoration that, if appropriately designed, could increase the resilience of small landholders to impacts of extreme weather events like floods and droughts. This will help tenants effectively manage existing and emerging climate change pressures. This would in turn support the development of landscape-scale resilience to the impacts of climate change. In addition to potentially encouraging nature-based climate solutions, diversification facilitated by the option may also encourage renewable energy production and mixed-use land models.

In contrast, Option D1 does little to directly enable natural climate solutions or adaptation for small landholdings and does not offer significant scope for the delivery of renewable energy provision. Without careful strategic/landscape scale management there is also a risk that carbon sequestration and storage from natural assets may even decrease under D2 if areas are continued to be used for intensive agricultural purposes.

In summary, the analysis shows Option D2 as potentially providing the most adaptation benefits and potential avenues to mitigate climate change through creation, enhancement and protection of natural assets. Furthermore, it may also provide additional opportunities for the delivery of renewables such as wind or biomass energy on agricultural land. In contrast, the business- as-usual approach that would be pursued by option D1 could risk reinforcing negative trends in relation to climate adaptation and mitigation.

Ranking

D1: 2

D2: 1

SEA theme: Landscape and historic environment

Discussion of potential effects and relative merits of options

Option D2 would provide additional benefits for protecting landscape character and quality. By directly facilitating habitat restoration, tree planting, and other nature-based solutions, Option D2 has the potential to reinforce and enhance landscape character and align with the management objectives of protected areas such as National Scenic Areas. However, it may negatively impact the current baseline of these NSAs, in terms of their special qualities, which may in some cases be characterised by the arable and agricultural use of the land. In this respect activities such as tree planting would have a dramatic impact on a landscape dominated by agriculture, creating new features that have not been typically associated with those areas. Option D2 could also result in mixed effects on the historic environment. On the one hand it may support the conservation of traditional agricultural landscape features such as hedgerows and stone walls. On the other hand, moving land away from agricultural use may risk the loss of traditional practices, and changes in local character. It should be noted though that diversification may provide a greater level of income for tenants, and this may allow for resources to be used to restore or better reveal the significance of features and area features of architectural or historic interest.

In comparison D1 will do little to directly influence the landscape beyond the current impact. It is likely the D1 would result in a business-as-usual approach that may miss opportunities to transform landscapes based on nature restoration and restore native habitats that may be missing from the rural landscape, such as the Caledonian forests. Furthermore, a lack of opportunities to diversify may limit small landholders’ income potential and as such could negatively impact their ability to effectively manage features and areas of historic environment interest. Diversification of any kind however has the potential to pose a risk to conserving the cultural heritage associated with traditional agricultural practices as further revenue avenues provide different land management options.

In summary, Option D2 is likely to offer the most direct and indirect landscape and historic environment benefits.

Ranking

D1: 2

D2: 1

SEA theme: Soil and water quality

Discussion of potential effects and relative merits of options

Option D2 provides the clearest benefits for maintaining and enhancing soil and water quality by enabling regenerative agriculture practices which support regulating ecosystem services. This includes, potentially, through facilitating participation in environmental markets. Specifically, this would allow tenants easier access to emerging carbon, water quality, and biodiversity markets that provide payments for practices like cover cropping, riparian buffers, and habitat restoration. However, proving additionality (i.e. that the benefits delivered are additional/new to what is being currently provided) and stacking of ecosystem services (i.e. where multiple ecosystem services or benefits are being claimed by one intervention) would need to be addressed to ensure the integrity of these environmental markets is upheld.

At best Option D1 would result in incremental soil and water benefits compared to the status quo. While activities such as rotational agricultural practices form a foundation for soil quality, they have mixed results for improving soil health, reducing erosion, and mitigating nutrient runoff issues. In this respect further intensification of agricultural practices under current practices has the potential to result in further deterioration of water and soil quality.

In summary, Option D2 provides the clearest direct and proactive approach to soil and water quality enhancements by removing barriers and encouraging regenerative agriculture practices and leveraging environmental market opportunities.

Ranking

D1: 2

D2: 1

Summary

Overall, Option D2 performs the strongest across the environmental objectives relating to biodiversity, climate change, landscape and historic environment, soil quality, and water quality. By directly enabling nature-based solutions and regenerative agriculture practices, D1 is likely to deliver targeted and significant positive effects.

Option D1, through initiating minimal changes to current legislation on diversification, would likely result in business-as-usual approach to land use management. As such, the approach would be less likely to deliver benefits relating to the SEA themes and raises risks that negative trends associated with existing land management approaches would continue.

Assessment of options relating to diversification

Option D1 – Minimal changes to current legislation

Ranked 2^nd:

• Biodiversity and geodiversity
• Climate change
• Landscape and historic environment
• Soil and water quality

Option D2 – Changes to legislation which would provide flexibility to allow for other types of land use management approaches beyond cultivation, including activities which mitigate climate change and enhance biodiversity

Ranked 1^st:

• Biodiversity and geodiversity
• Climate change
• Landscape and historic environment
• Soil and water quality

Options relating to right to buy

4.13 The proposal for a right to buy looks to allow the tenant the opportunity to purchase the holding where the owner or creditor takes any action with a view to the transfer of the land or any part of it. An alternative option is to not seek to facilitate a priority right to buy for tenants.

4.14 An option to allow absolute right to buy was considered, however it was noted that this had the potential to have implications relating to human rights legislation. For this reason, a potential similar option was scoped out as not being appropriate to assess through the SEA.

4.15 The two options assessed are therefore as follows:

• Option RB1: Do not introduce a right to buy for small landholders.
• Option RB2: Introduce a right to buy clause for small landholders.

Table 4.2: Assessment of options relating to right to buy

Option RB1: Do not introduce a right to buy for small landholders

Option RB2: Introduce a right to buy clause for small landholders

SEA theme: Biodiversity and geodiversity

Discussion of potential effects and relative merits of options

Introducing a right to buy under Option RB2 has the potential to provide small landholders and tenants with empowerment opportunities that could be leveraged to support biodiversity and geodiversity through habitat restoration, species conservation, protected area enhancements and public engagement/education. However, any benefits remain largely dependent on the priorities and actions of the new landowner after purchase rather than being inherent outcomes of the policy itself. In this context right to buy has the potential for longer term biodiversity and geodiversity benefits but does not guarantee it.

Option RB1 represents a continuation of the status quo barriers that constrain small landholder empowerment and limit biodiversity and geodiversity improvements on tenanted agricultural lands. However, it also avoids risks of the land being purchased by another party with an intention to increase intensive production that could degrade and negatively impact biodiversity and geodiversity.

Ultimately, while a right to buy can create a platform for small landholders to gain more influence over land management, any biodiversity and geodiversity benefits under Option RB2 rely on new owners proactively choosing to implement conservation and restoration activities. However, it would increase the likelihood of land management activities being initiated which would benefit biodiversity.

Ranking

RB1: 2

RB2: 1

SEA theme: Climate change

Discussion of potential effects and relative merits of options

Introducing a right to buy under Option RB2 provides small landholders and tenants potential empowerment opportunities that could be leveraged to support management activities that contribute to climate adaptation and mitigation. This includes tree planting, peatland restoration, renewable energy production, and resilience capacity building. Any benefits though remain largely dependent on the priorities of the incoming landowner after purchase rather than being inherent outcomes of the policy itself. However, a right to buy, as proposed in Option RB2, could empower small landholders with local knowledge, intergenerational ties and community oversight that could inform effective management of the land which is tailored to the area. The right to buy therefore may increase mitigation and adaptation activities (but does not guarantee it).

In contrast, Option RB1 represents a business-as-usual approach, which would result in a continuance of the barriers and constraints that limits climate action. However, it also does not carry the possibility of purchase resulting in intensified agricultural production and associated carbon emissions.

Ultimately, whilst a right to buy can create openings for small landholders to gain more control over land management and initiate practices which support climate change mitigation and adaptation, any benefits for this SEA theme under Option RB2 depend on incoming landowners proactively choosing to implement initiatives such as nature-based solutions, renewables, regenerative practices and resilience building activities. The purchase right alone does not dictate outcomes either way.

Ranking

RB1: 2

RB2: 1

SEA theme: Landscape and historic environment

Discussion of potential effects and relative merits of options

Introducing a right to buy under Option RB2 provides opportunities to empower smallholder tenants who hold valuable place-based expertise, generational knowledge and intrinsic connections with the land. In this respect the option can create a platform for smallholders with generational ties to the area to apply their traditional and local knowledge in managing the landscape and historic features in an empathetic, place-responsive manner. This has the potential to support land and asset management which reflects and reinforces local character and engages with the historic environment resource. However, any landscape and cultural heritage benefits remain partly contingent on the actions of the incoming landowner. As such positive outcomes are not guaranteed.

In contrast, Option RB1, which does not introduce a right to buy, represents a continuation of status quo barriers that limit small landholder influence over land management. It also to an extent limits opportunities to leverage tenants’ localised understanding to sustainably manage landscapes in line with valued qualities and conserve historic assets in tune with cultural traditions.

Overall, Option RB2 could be viewed as better performing given its potential empowerment opportunities for current tenants and the local knowledge they possess and inherent value they may ascribe the land. Any concrete enhancements though remain dependent on new owners’ actions aligning with landscape and heritage objectives.

Ranking

RB1: 2

RB2: 1

SEA theme: Soil and water quality

Discussion of potential effects and relative merits of options

Introducing a right to buy under Option RB2 provides small landholders potential long-term control over land management, potentially encouraging improvements which support soil and water quality. However, any soil or water quality benefits remain largely dependent on the priorities and actions of the incoming landowner, not the policy itself. The right to buy does not inherently dictate outcomes. Tenants may focus on intensive agriculture rather than diversification after purchase as such there is as much a risk that negative outcomes would be delivered as there are positive outcomes.

Option RB1, which represents a continuation of status quo barriers that limit small landholder influence over land management, may limit longer term enhancements to soil and water quality.

In summary, neither option directly encourages practices that support improving water and/or soil quality. While purchase can provide influence over land use, the right itself does not determine positive soil and water quality impacts either way. Realising improvements relies on new owners prioritising conservation and enhancements alongside broader policy reform enabling land management diversification. As such it is not possible to differentiate the options in relation to this SEA theme.

Ranking

RB1: equal

RB2: equal

Summary

Introducing a right to buy under Option RB2 provides small landholders and tenants potential long-term control over land management, potentially encouraging and empowering small landholders and tenants to deliver improvements which lead to positive environmental outcomes across climate, biodiversity, landscape, and soil and water quality objectives. However, any concrete benefits remain largely contingent on the priorities and actions of new owners, rather than being inherent policy results. Outcomes therefore rely on new owners actively managing lands in line with conservation, restoration, enhancement and stewardship objectives.

In contrast, Option RB1, which does not introduce a right to buy, represents a continuation of business-as-usual barriers. This will limit small landholder and tenants’ long-term influence over land use decisions, potentially reducing the scope for the potential benefits of land ownership for the environment to be realised.

In summary, while a right to buy can open doors for progressive land management, realisation of positive environmental outcomes depends on new owners exercising their influence in line with climate and conservation goals, supported by wider legislative reform. The right itself does not guarantee outcomes.

Assessment of options relating to right to buy

Option RB1 – Do not introduce a right to buy for small landholders

Ranked 2^nd:

• Biodiversity and geodiversity
• Climate change
• Soil and water quality

Option RB2 – Introduce a right to buy clause for small landholders

Ranked 1^st:

• Biodiversity and geodiversity
• Climate change
• Soil and water quality

Options relating to Land Use Tenancy

4.16 The Land Use Tenancy is a letting arrangement which seeks to support a vibrant land tenure sector. In response to the ‘Land Reform in a Net Zero Nation’ consultation, 71% of respondents agreed that there should be a Land Use Tenancy to allow people to undertake a range of land management activities through one tenancy. This has been driven through a desire from stakeholders for a flexible form of tenancy which caters for integrated land management in a way that the current agricultural tenancies do not.

4.17 Currently agricultural tenancy agreements are tied to the definition of agriculture and as such do not allow for flexibility in terms of land management. In light of this, two options relating to this theme have been assessed:

• Option LT1: Limited changes, whereby legislative changes are limited to the existing agricultural tenancy framework.
• Option LT2: Voluntary creation of a Land Use Tenancy, allowing tenant and landlords to enter into a new tenancy agreement allowing for greater flexibility about how to manage their holdings. This is with a view to both parties being aware of and agreeing to their new responsibilities.

Table 4.3: Assessment of options relating to Land Use Tenancy

Option LT1: Limited changes to the existing agricultural tenancy framework

Option LT2: Voluntary creation of a Land Use Tenancy

SEA theme: Biodiversity and geodiversity

Discussion of potential effects and relative merits of options

Option LT1, which would bring in limited legislative changes, is unlikely to result in substantial improvements to biodiversity and geodiversity, and would limit opportunities relating to habitats enhancements, species diversity, ecological connectivity, protected areas and restoration. By maintaining the constraints delivered by the status quo, LT1 does little to enable regenerative, nature-based solutions tailored to local contexts which balance productivity with nature restoration.

In contrast, Option LT2 would voluntarily enable the creation of a flexible Land Use Tenancy that facilitates integrated management approaches bespoke to the local setting. This would allow a diversity of land uses to be engaged, including biodiversity initiatives. This provides clear opportunities for habitat enhancement and species protection, ecological regeneration, tenant engagement and the achievement of biodiversity goals through context-specific management.

Overall, whilst Option LT1 would be likely to continue the barriers to delivering positive biodiversity and geodiversity outcomes present under the current approach, Option LT2 will help engage integrated place-based management that balances production with sustainability. This has the potential to catalyse opportunities for transformative biodiversity improvements through sustainable land use diversification and regeneration.

Ranking

LT1: 2

LT2: 1

SEA theme: Climate change

Discussion of potential effects and relative merits of options

Option LT1, which would bring in limited legislative changes, is unlikely to result in substantial progress on climate change objectives and would limit opportunities relating to emissions reductions, carbon sequestration and building resilience capacity. By maintaining status quo barriers, LT1 is therefore likely to do less to incentivise regenerative practices, nature-based solutions and renewables, or integrate diversification tailored to local climate challenges.

Option LT2 would enable the voluntary creation of a flexible Land Use Tenancy that facilitates customised management approaches aligned to the local context. This would enable a diversity of approaches to be engaged allowing diversification to activities that will support climate change mitigation, including those that sequester carbon and renewables, or increase resilience through land-based adaptation strategies. This provides opportunities to leverage integrated place-based solutions that balance production with sustainability to achieve positive climate mitigation and adaptation outcomes. The approach may also provide additional opportunities for small landholders and tenants to access emerging environmental markets.

Overall, whilst Option LT1 would be likely to continue the existing barriers to delivering effective climate action, Option LT2 has the opportunity to catalyse opportunities for transformative climate solutions by enabling context-specific management approaches that balance productivity, diversification, decarbonization and resilience.

Ranking

LT1: 2

LT2: 1

SEA theme: Landscape and historic environment

Discussion of potential effects and relative merits of options

The approach proposed by Option LT1 is unlikely to result in significant landscape or cultural heritage improvements. In this respect, through maintaining existing barriers, LT1 would do less to incentivise landscape character enhancements or secure the conservation and enhancement of the historic environment through approaches tailored to local contexts. This will lead to missed opportunities relating to landscape character enhancements and the protection, rejuvenation and understanding of local heritage assets.

In contrast, Option LT2 would be more likely to facilitate integrated place-based management approaches which are relevant to the local context, allowing diversification to activities that balance production with landscape and heritage conservation and enhancement. This provides clear opportunities to support the proactive management of landscapes while conserving and reinvigorating the historic environment.

Overall, while Option LT1 represents a continuation of the barriers to effective landscape and heritage management seen under current frameworks, Option LT2 provides a platform for the delivery of integrated regenerative solutions tailored to local conditions that have the potential to support valued landscapes and heritage assets.

Ranking

LT1: 2

LT2: 1

SEA theme: Soil and water quality

Discussion of potential effects and relative merits of options

The approach proposed by Option LT1 is unlikely to result in significant additional soil or water quality improvements. Through maintaining existing barriers, LT1 is likely to do less to incentivise wider adoption of regenerative or nature enhancement practices tailored to local conditions that could alleviate some of the environmental pressures resulting from agricultural land use.

In contrast, Option LT2 would be likely to facilitate integrated place-based management approaches, allowing broader implementation of context-specific practices that result in improvements to soils and water quality. For example, the option would be more likely to enable the broader adoption of regenerative practices such as cover crops to enhance soil health or allow activities such as wetland restoration to protect water quality. The approach therefore provides additional opportunities to improve soil and water quality through solutions that are sympathetic to the local context. The approach may also provide additional opportunities for small landholders and tenants to access emerging environmental markets.

Overall, while Option LT1 represents a continuation of the barriers to sustainable soil and water stewardship, Option LT2 provides a platform for the delivery of integrated regenerative solutions tailored to local conditions that have the potential to support enhanced soils and deliver enhancements to water quality.

Ranking

LT1: 2

LT2: 1

Summary

Overall, Option LT2, which enables the voluntary creation of a flexible Land Use Tenancy, will help facilitate the application of integrated, context-specific land management tailored to local conditions. By empowering approaches that are sympathetic to the local context, Option LT2 provides clear opportunities to balance productivity with the enhancement of biodiversity networks, the conservation and enhancement of landscape character and the historic environment, and improvements to soil and water quality. The approach also lends itself more effectively to the achievement of positive climate mitigation and adaptation outcomes.

In contrast, Option LT1, which would bring in limited legislative changes, is unlikely to result in significant gains relating to the SEA themes. By continuing the existing barriers which are present, LT1 represents a missed opportunity to incentivise the application of regenerative, restorative and diversified practices aligned to local contexts.

Assessment of options relating to Land Use Tenancy

Option LT1 – Limited changes to the existing tenancy framework

Ranked 2^nd:

• Biodiversity and geodiversity
• Climate change
• Landscape and historic environment
• Soil and water quality

Option LT2 – Voluntary creation of a Land Use Tenancy

Ranked 1^st:

• Biodiversity and geodiversity
• Climate change
• Landscape and historic environment
• Soil and water quality