The debate over land-use in Scotland is getting left behind
On Wednesday 4th May at the Royal Geographical Society of Edinburgh, a group of like-minded individuals met to hear about the launch of an exciting new product from Ecometrica: the Scottish Earth Observation Service (SEOS). A tool designed to allow those who make decisions about land in Scotland to understand that land in more detail: what is the forest like, where exactly are the trees located, what are the rates of biodiversity, are there any hidden environmental health issues?
‘Those who make decisions about land in Scotland’ — a simple enough sentence that hides a vastly complex set of stakeholders, challenges, opportunities, arguments, agreements and emotions. An hour after the SEOS launch event, another conversation was happening at the University of Edinburgh’s Business School. With the (deliberately, I’m sure) provocative title of ‘Green Lairds and the great carbon offset’ the stage was set for a debate on who, exactly, should be responsible for ensuring Scotland’s land is used responsibly to help us limit the climate and nature crises.
The first event: an innovative new service to aid technical decisions about land use for anyone who has an interest. The second: a wide-ranging and, at times, uncomfortable conversation about who has a right to that interest. What stood out to me at the end of the evening was that the debate over land use in Scotland is getting left behind by the reality on the ground.
The following statements have been said to the point of cliché: First, Scotland’s land has vast potential for helping us tackle climate change (1). Second, land use in Scotland is an intractably complex issue that urgently needs attention.
People have been making these points for decades now. But over the last few years the speed of progress, through services like SEOS, and through private transactions where individuals, corporations and public bodies move to take advantage of the offset potential, is moving faster than any agreements or reforms can be made. New policies and regulation are then needed, with the result being an ever more confusing and complex system (such as Regional Land Use Partnerships, to give an example). And the thing about carbon offsetting is this: projects are long-term. This is both a good thing — we want carbon to be stored with as much permeance as scientifically possible — and a bad thing — the wrong decisions can have decades of impact.
Perhaps this is okay: it is not unusual for innovation to occur leaving the academic and policy debate to catch up (hello, social media and the free speech debate). The other thing that is moving at pace is, of course, the climate crisis. So, anything that takes carbon out of the atmosphere can be considered, generally speaking, a good thing. Perhaps we don’t have the luxury of time for debates over whether corporations always equal bad and communities always equal good, or how to manage the unassailable fact that deer don’t respect ownership boundaries. Get the carbon sequestered, and keep it there, as fast as you can.
But, but, but…in tackling the climate crisis are we only seeking to reduce atmospheric carbon dioxide, or are we also trying to make the world a generally better place? Do we want to live in a world where we have helped to limit the climate crisis but the whole of Scotland is blanketed in Sitka spruce and owned by the CEO of BrewDog (2)? You could argue yes, because climate change is the largest threat and is a multiplier of other issues, but that is not exactly a compelling picture for anyone (except, the CEO of BrewDog).
In failing to move quickly to make decisions and stay ahead of progress on the ground, those who make policy decisions are having to react to land-use changes, rather than setting the direction. The result of this is a fragmented landscape. Within this landscape there are examples of community ownership, and places where carbon offsetting is ‘done right’ (3), there are examples where private landowners are progressive and forward thinking, and help to accelerate progress rather than hinder it (Glenfeshie springs to mind(4)). But there are also plenty of areas where things are less rosy, with the overall result being a landscape operating essentially on a postcode lottery of ‘good’ or ‘bad’ land use.
Innovation like SEOS opens up exciting new possibilities for improving how we use land in Scotland. More innovation is coming, and fast. Policymakers, academics, advisors and others who are in positions to regulate how land is used in Scotland need to act more quickly and get ahead of the action on the ground, because change is already happening.
Further reading and references
(1) For example: https://www.vivideconomics.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/WWF_Report_VIVID_Jan_2019.pdf
(3) What this looks like merits a separate post
