‘IT is a revolution.” Highland historian Professor Jim Hunter was speaking to its vanguard. Community Land Scotland (CLS), representing a sector now covering more than 500,000 acres of land, was meeting in Edinburgh. It’s a rare example – alongside renewables – where a significant, positive economic change has been achieved under devolution.
That revolution, however, is far from finished. The government aims for community ownership to double by 2020, and for CLS to provide an example for urban projects. This is a single slice of the land reform agenda, which has moved on to implementing the moderate measures of March’s 2016 Land Reform Act.
Reformers, however, are eager that expectations for radical change do not fizzle out and they spy another opportunity: the proposed Scottish Government Forestry Bill.
If you’re unfamiliar with forestry matters, here’s a quick introduction. Scottish Ministers are the country’s largest landowner. The 1.6 million-acre forestry estate is by far the largest holding. The Forestry Commission has managed land for nearly a century, following state intervention in the timber industry and rural economic development.
Now it’s having an update to reflect the devolved nature of politics in Scotland. The government has launched a consultation on how to do this, which is dull as dishwater. It mainly considers two administrative changes: setting up a forestry and land agency, and the "general duties" of state forestry management.
This is far from the heights of radical rhetoric that the government uses when discussing Scotland’s land. And this is the land its ministers own themselves. Campaigners hope there is still plenty of time for a rethink.
What practical proposals could a Forestry Bill include? At a glance, there are plenty of ambitious, well-researched groups that are eager to get stuck in. Reforesting Scotland, the Forestry Policy Group, and community forestry organisations all have direct experience in how to help forests flourish in the public interest.
This means embracing democratic participation to create real public ownership of our 1.6 million acres. It means including communities and individuals who can benefit from smallholdings for timber production, forest chalets and cabins.
This has the potential to energise the timber economy, tourism, and give more power to local communities over the land around them. "A Thousand Huts", a Reforesting Scotland campaign, has already seen success is getting people more involved in enjoying forest landscapes.
An ambitious Forestry Bill can link into plans to repopulate the Highlands and Islands after centuries of abuse and misuse by its landowners. It would represent a return to the Forestry Commission’s earlier social policies.
Following post-war land raids and laws such as the 1919 Land Settlement Act, the commission created forest smallholdings to encourage timber activity. Later in the century it constructed thousands of cottages on forest land. Doesn’t the Scottish Government have a duty to revive this strategy and diversify ownership, as is its stated objective?
Scottish Green MSP Andy Wightman is looking for exactly this type of opportunity, and has begun discussions with colleagues in Parliament to expand the bill. A graduate in forestry, Wightman has called for change across the sector for decades.
While other European nations have thriving forest co-ops, small-scale owners and municipality-run estates, Scotland has “inherited a feudal, statist and elite monied state of affairs”. A report he authored for the Forestry Policy Group, titled Forest Ownership in Scotland, found that while 60 per cent of forest landholdings in Europe were under one hectare, in Scotland this was just six per cent.
With such large estates, forestry is still traded as property investment, as assets that can accumulate in value while mooching off grant subsidies. The Forestry Commission is trapped in this system of vast estates and high land prices.
In 2014 it tried to sell Rosal Forest, Strathnaver, Sutherland, for nearly £2 million. But this was reversed when no community buyout could be found. Last year the commission sold Tioran Forest, Isle of Mull, to a community group – but they still faced total costs of £930,000.
In a ridiculous twist of bureaucracy, the community had to raise nearly one million pounds through public agencies only to pay it back to the government through the Forestry Commission. Surely there’s a simpler way.
Wightman suggests a simple tweak to forestry law so that Scottish Ministers can give “delegated authority” to community groups who want a greater say in managing local forests. If the 1.6 million acres are really in public ownership, why do communities have to raise millions to run them?
The Forestry Bill process shows no sign of changing how forests are owned and run, but it’s early days yet. Reforesting Scotland hold their annual gathering in a fortnight. Discussions will develop in parliament. Impatient voices outside will begin to demand bolder action. Then we will see whether the government is prepared to practice what it preaches on its own land.
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules here