‘Look overseas for land reform ideas’
Experts say Norway and Mexico could hold key to shift power back to communities, reports Alistair Grant
SCOTLAND should look to countries as diverse as Norway, the US and Mexico as it moves to shift power away from private landowners and towards communities, according to a new report.
The Scottish Land Commission (SLC) said drawing on international experience would help boost land reform efforts and enhance “collective wellbeing and prosperity”.
It said Scotland continues to exhibit one of the most concentrated patterns of private land ownership in the world.
The dominance of large-scale private owners has been associated with the loss of cultural ties between communities and the land, the quango said, as well as issues of insecurity, neglect, and disempowerment.
This contrasts with the situation in some European countries, according to the SLC, where communities are often more “culturally embedded” in the land and more involved in land management.
Its report examined a variety of international models, including in countries such as Kenya, Norway and Canada where land is owned or managed by indigenous people.
Collective properties and commons, where land is owned and managed through co-operative business models, or where the rights of landowners are restricted, were also looked at.
Elsewhere, the report explored municipal ownership and commonage, where local authorities own and manage land in the public interest, and where land is co-owned by the state and community with varying degrees of public input, such as in Norway, France, South Africa and Germany.
Third sector and Community Land Trusts (CLTS), where non-profit organisations own land with the primary aim of community benefit, such as in the US and England, were also analysed.
The report said there is “an opportunity to investigate further the potential application of the CLT model to deliver affordable housing in Scotland”.
There is no single blueprint for land ownership, but this report highlights the possibilities
It also argued municipal ownership “may offer considerable potential”, although Scotland’s larger councils represent “a key challenge for implementation”.
Hamish Trench, chief executive of the SLC, said the international research will help shape reform that works for Scotland.
He said: “There is no single blueprint for land ownership, but this report highlights the possibilities and opportunities for thinking differently about land ownership in Scotland.
“It poses questions that go beyond the usual debate on land reform and ask us to think beyond the sectoral divides we sometimes assume are fixed.
“We will be using this work to explore new governance models and I hope it will stimulate wider discussion and ideas.
“We should be drawing on this international experience to shape reform that works for Scotland, reform that is designed to enhance our collective wellbeing and prosperity.”
Facilitating community ownership of land and assets is seen as a cornerstone of the current Scottish land reform agenda.
Community bodies own just 2.9 per cent of Scotland.
More than 85% of this is taken up by 13 large landholdings, as a result of the buyout of entire estates.
Two-thirds of the Western Isles is under community ownership.
The SLC said these acquisitions
“have been directly linked with far-reaching socioeconomic and environmental outcomes”.
These include increased investment, population retention, employment creation, community empowerment and sustainable land management.
However, it added: “Despite these positive impacts, communities engaging in acquisitions or those having acquired land and/or assets often encounter a wide range of challenges.
“These include: legislative and administrative hurdles; limited funding availability (for purchase and subsequent development); obstructive landowners; ensuring economic viability of the asset/landholding; division and conflict in the community; and limited community capacity.”
The SLC said there is a “unique approach to land reform in Scotland”, adding: “The focus is on the expansion of community ownership, as opposed to increasing public or private ownership, in ways that deliver benefits for communities, as is the case in many other countries.”