8. Future Landscapes of Scotland
Whilst the LCS88 project was initiated to provide a baseline against which to monitor land cover change, it is impossible to judge whether measured changes are “good” or “bad” unless we have a stated set of targets. The question that is raised by the LCS88 survey is: “Where do we want to go from here?”
Which factors influence land use/ land cover change?
Changes in land use enterprises will continue to drive changes in land cover. This is obvious in relation to gross changes like the transfer of land out of a hill sheep system into coniferous plantation. However, there are many more subtle changes. For example, when hill sheep farmers adopt new heavier sheep breeds, effectively increasingly stocking density and increasing grazing pressure on semi-natural communities like heather moorland. These may induce vegetation changes. So land cover change is intimately linked to land use enterprises and changes in their management.
Factors which influence the farmers/land managers choice of land use enterprise might be summarised as follows:
| land suitability | are soils, climate, landform and drainage suitable? |
|---|---|
| investment potential | will the land use enterprise provide a realistic return on the money invested in it? |
| social acceptance | is the land use acceptable within planning policy guidelines; are there problems with pollution/impact on nature conservation interests? Does “society” accept it? |
| individual motivation | does the farmer/land manager have the necessary skills? Does it satisfy his/her ambitions? Is it acceptable to other members of the household? |
The important point to note is that choice of land use is not determined simply by land suitability or economic returns or social factors. It is a combination of all these [Figure 8.1]. Clearly land managers on better quality land have more choice than those on marginal lands where livestock grazing, forestry or sport/recreation may be the only options. Think about the implications of this in terms of the geography of land use in Scotland.
From: Macaulay Land Use Research Institute.
Many farms are now owned by so-called “hobby farmers”. Their economic circumstances are hugely influenced by the fact that the farm does not provide their sole source of income. Indeed, many rural economists now focus on the farm household as the logical economic unit, since there are many cases of off-farm employment. The range of circumstances in farm or estate households will have a major impact on the nature and rate of future land use changes.
It is important to understand that all land use changes are a result of changes in individual behaviours rather than planning regulation. The critical question is: “What factors will influence farmers/land managers to change their management regimes?”
Economic viability is a critical factor to most, if not all, full-time farmers. Under the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) Scottish farmers have been protected from the fluctuations in world market prices for agricultural products via a system of guaranteed prices and subsidies. The CAP is immensely complex and has evolved through time from a food security policy to one where the objective of food security has been joined by ones of rural support and environmental protection/enhancement. The latter is exemplified by such schemes as the Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESA).
The current cost of the CAP in Scotland is around £460M per annum. Farmers in some of the most disadvantaged areas receive over 50% of their income from payments made under the CAP. There are also celebrated cases of farmers receiving very large amounts of subsidy for effectively doing nothing with their land (Set-Aside).
When we put together these strands we see:
- (from LCS88) how the countryside of Scotland currently looks;
- a system of land use management which is driven through the behaviours of individual land owners/land managers, rather than planning regulation;
- an agricultural support regime which currently sends very strong economic signals to land managers, and strongly influences their behaviours.
The agricultural support regime is paid for by the taxpayer. This raises the question: “is the taxpayer getting value for money in terms of agricultural products and quality of countryside?”
If the taxpayer is already investing heavily in the Scottish countryside, is he or she getting what they want or need? How do we decide what Scotland’s future countryside should produce? What should it look like?
It is a significant feature of the UK planning system that there is no rural land use planning per se. Nearly all rural planning is done through the sectoral interests: agriculture, forestry, natural heritage, housing, roads, etc. There are no rural affairs departments. Changes in land use and the creation of more integrated planning policies are therefore left to the individual agencies. There are many positive signs that more integrated approaches are developing. For example, many agricultural schemes now specify the need for environmental benefits. Likewise, the forestry industry has taken the initiative to receive environmental assessments for new schemes.
Given the overwhelming influence of the CAP (Common Agricultural Policy) on the existing land uses in Scotland, it is likely that the most effective means of achieving general countryside objectives will be by linking them to changes in the CAP.
Setting objectives for the future
The Scottish countryside is a national asset. Both rural and urban dwellers have a considerable interest and investment in it. Whilst it is common to consider rural areas simply in terms of the agricultural products they provide, it is also important to see them as providers of other countryside goods. These can be as basic as good quality drinking water or as subjective as visual amenity. They provide habitats for wild plants and animals, places for recreation, and their appearance and artefacts contribute greatly to natural psyche. So any debate on what we collectively want from Scotland’s countryside of the future is bound to involve many different opinions.
As a class exercise, pupils might list the “products” they currently see being provided to them by the countryside. Be aware of all the so-called “non-market goods” such as amenity recreation etc. Try asking: “What is it not producing well at the moment?”
In looking to the future, there are probably two concepts that need exploring: principles and targets.
Principles might be those of sustainable development: (i.e. this generation must pass on to the next at least the same natural capital that it inherited). So a target might be no losses of any land cover type. You can explore other targets. These might include increasing woodland cover. Note that any move beyond the no-change scenario means that you will have to explore trade-offs. This can be approached by assessing costs and benefits, which may be monetary (e.g. quantified estimates of production foregone) or non-monetary (e.g. aesthetic or wildlife value).
An alternative approach is to define the targets and then work backwards to determine what needs to be done to achieve them [scenarios illustrated in the poster provide an example of this]. These are driven essentially through manipulation of stocking levels: so they will cost in terms of lost farm income.
There are no hard and fast answers to the question of what we want Scotland’s future countryside to look like and produce. It should be both informative and fun to explore the different options and their costs, but ultimately the crux is whether they can be realistically achieved. Also, bear in mind that any analysis is going to be conditioned by current “beliefs” (e.g. greening our environment). Imagine what the views of our grandparents might have been (e.g. need for secure food supply) or those of our great grandchildren (e.g. when the fossil fuels run out).
Always question our assumptions!