Suchergebnisse

The Deer Working Group was established by the Scottish Government in 2017, as a result of the Government's concern at the continuing issues over the standards of deer management in Scotland and the levels of damage to public interests caused by wild deer. The Group was appointed as an independent working group to review the existing statutory and non-statutory arrangements for the management of wild deer in Scotland, taking account of the position with each of the four species of wild deer in Scotland and the varying circumstances across Scotland. This Report is the result of the Group's review and contains a wide range of recommendations to fulfil the Group's remit to make "recommendations for changes to ensure effective deer management that safeguards public interests and promotes the sustainable management of wild deer".

This report - Part 1: Socio-economic impacts of moorland activities in Scotland is part of a larger, multipart study commissioned by the Scottish Government to Assess Socioeconomic and Biodiversity Impacts of Driven Grouse Moors and to understand the Rights of Gamekeepers. 3. The key objectives which Part 1 of this Phase 2 research aimed to address were to: i) Examine the extent and impact of economic connections between grouse shooting estates and surrounding businesses and communities; and ii) Evaluate the socioeconomic impacts of alternative land uses for moorland and how they compare against land used for grouse shooting.

Scotland is at the heart of modern, sustainable upland management. Large estates cover vast areas of the uplands, with a long, complex and emotive history of ownership and use. In recent decades, the Scottish uplands have increasingly been the arena for passionate debates over large-scale land management issues. Crucially, what kinds of ownership and management will best deliver sustainable futures for upland environments and communities? Although the globally unique dominance of private ownership remains a distinctive characteristic of Scotland's uplands, increasing numbers of estates are now

Poverty is perceived as an urban problem, yet many in rural Britain also experience hardship. This book explores how and why people in rural areas experience and negotiate poverty and social exclusion. It examines the role of societal processes, individual circumstances, sources of support (markets; state; voluntary organisations; family and friends) and the role of place.It concludes that the UK's welfare system is poorly adapted to rural areas, with the COVID-19 pandemic, Brexit and cutbacks exacerbating pressures. Voluntary organisations increasingly fill gaps in support left by the state. Invaluable to those in policy and practice, the book recommends a combination of person-based and place-based approaches to tackle rural poverty.

LEADER is the European Union's place-based, participatory and bottom-up approach to rural development. It is based on a set of seven core principles, which have remained unchanged over time: - area-based local development strategies; - a bottom-up approach; - public-private partnerships; - facilitating innovation; - integrated and multi-sectoral actions; - networking; and - co-operation. LEADER has been delivered in rural Scotland since 1991. This research, commissioned by the Scottish Government and carried out by a team from SRUC's Rural Policy Centre, reviews the achievements of LEADER in Scotland over time to explore its legacy and the key factors which have contributed to the impacts that it has had.

This report - Part 2. The Employment Rights of Gamekeepers - is part of a larger, multipart study commissioned by the Scottish Government to Assess Socioeconomic and Biodiversity Impacts of Driven Grouse Moors and to understand the Rights of Gamekeepers. The report delivers to a Scottish Government commitment to undertake "work in relation to protecting gamekeepers' employment and other rights", this report provides evidence on the working lives and employment rights and benefits of gamekeepers, stalkers and ghillies across Scotland, with key findings specific to the driven grouse sector drawn out where appropriate.

Concern about who owns Scotland, and how much of it they own, has been central to the land reform debate for decades. While many people are utterly convinced that landownership is a key determinant of rural development outcomes, others insist it is irrelevant, and what is important is how land is managed. The Scottish Government wants to create a more diverse pattern of land ownership and asked the Scottish Land Commission to investigate the issues associated with large scale and concentrated land ownership. In early 2018 the Commission did this by inviting people with experience of living and working in such areas to share their experiences.

The Scottish Government has recently made several policy commitments to stem rural depopulation and attract more people to live and work in rural and island communities. This report presents Scottish and international examples of successful policy interventions to support repopulation of island and remote rural communities, which could be piloted in similar communities in Scotland. The report considers examples from six countries, including Scotland.

This report presents the findings of research commissioned by the Scottish Land Commission to review the effectiveness of community ownership mechanisms and options for simplifying or improving these mechanisms to enable and support the expansion of community ownership in Scotland. This included reviewing processes relating to negotiated sales or transfers of land and/or assets to communities, as well as legislative mechanisms including the Community Right to Buy (CRtB), Crofting Community Right to Buy, the Transfer of Crofting Estates (Scotland) Act 1997 and Asset Transfer measures under the Community Empowerment (Scotland) Act 2015.

AbstractDespite the availability of important theoretical insights that could enhance the resilience of rural communities to complex challenges, there is a paucity of guidance on how to apply these insights in practice. This article therefore presents and assesses a deliberative research process using the Delphi technique to elicit expert knowledge from 22 academics, community practitioners and policymakers working in roles related to community resilience delivery in rural Scotland. The participants co‐produced an operational framework for community resilience, with support from researchers who facilitated the three‐stage, interactive process. The methodology enabled participants to work together in an iterative and inclusive manner, culminating in the collective development of a conceptual framework consisting of eight resilience‐enabling factors and corresponding criteria for monitoring change, which can be used to plan practical action and provide feedback to enable ongoing adaptation. The process also produced an in‐depth understanding of participants' perceptions of rural community resilience, identified key factors that enable or impede rural community resilience, analysed the potential to assess community resilience and explored scale‐related issues. The article explores the implications of this framework for those working to make rural communities more resilient and reflects on the benefits and wider application of this type of research approach for developing shared understandings of complex concepts.

This report presents the main findings from a research study exploring the public's attitudes to land reform. The study was conducted on behalf of the Scottish Government by Ipsos MORI Scotland in collaboration with Scotland's Rural College. Fieldwork took place between Spring and Autumn 2020. The aim of this research was to investigate the public's attitudes to land reform and community engagement in decisions about land use and provide a nuanced understanding of what policy options are likely to meet the public's priorities. A mixed-method approach was adopted, comprising: an evidence review, eight interviews with expert stakeholders, a mixed mode (online and telephone) survey of 1,501 respondents aged 16 and over, and a deliberative stage which involved 10 online workshops and 12 interviews.

In Scotland, there are no restrictions on how much land a single individual can own, and a concentrated pattern of large-scale private land ownership exists, particularly in rural areas. The Scottish Government has made it clear that it believes there is a need for change, stating that its vision is for a fairer – or wider and more equitable – distribution of land in Scotland, where communities and individuals have access to land and there is greater diversity of land ownership. This study was commissioned to enable the Scottish Land Commission to learn from international experience of imposing limits on who can own land and/or how much land any single individual or entity can own. The research identified and described restrictions on land ownership in 22 countries (18 in the EU/EEA). The countries were selected using a set of criteria to ensure lessons were learned from countries with a similar legislative context and characterised by strong regulation, governance and transaction processes, low levels of perceived corruption, and a strong property rights regime. Desk-based research identified the range of interventions in the countries, and findings were cross-checked with country experts to ensure accuracy. Interventions in the countries include restrictions that relate to: foreign ownership of land; ownership approval processes; upper and lower area limits; owner characteristics and land use requirements; pre-emptive rights to buy land; and measures to reduce land fragmentation. A range of motivations underpin the implementation of interventions to achieve policy objectives related to land ownership in the various countries. Analysis of the motivations and the interventions allowed countries to be grouped according to the following typology, which identifies 'foreign interest limiters', 'land use stipulators' and 'land consolidators' (Figure in text). In 18 of the countries considered in the study, some form of approval exists in relation to who can own land. Twelve countries require foreign land acquisitions to be approved prior to completion; processes of this nature exist to check the public interest impacts related to land purchase by a non-citizen. Approval processes are not limited to land acquisitions by foreigners: six countries require the relevant authority to approve all purchases of agricultural land. Underlying concerns tend to include: the local residence of the land owner; protection of agriculture; and the avoidance of land fragmentation. A formal approval process related to the purchase of land or property does not exist in Scotland. Based on the experience in other countries, developing such a framework would not be unusual and may present an opportunity to consolidate what is in the public interest, in terms of who can own land. While the ownership of land by foreign interests is subject to regulatory restrictions in nine of the countries, outright bans on foreign ownership are not common (and EU law prevents EU Member States from restricting land purchases by EU citizens). Policy objectives associated with such restrictions generally include: preventing foreign-based speculation in land; controlling the amount and direction of direct foreign investment; ensuring local control over food production; and indirectly controlling immigration. In Scotland, motivations to restrict foreign ownership of large land parcels may be linked to the negative implications of a foreign land owner not being resident on the land, with purchases predominantly for recreational and/or speculative purposes. Where similar concerns have been raised in other countries, approval processes exist to restrict land purchases (regardless of the origin of the purchaser) that may lead to these concerns becoming a reality. In the countries studied, the implementation of restrictions on land ownership was more commonly driven by land speculation than by the intention to limit concentration of ownership. Only a few examples were identified of upper limits to the amount of land that any one individual or entity can own. Where such limits exist, they tend to be targeted at foreign land acquisitions and/or used as planning control mechanisms, rather than being used to restrict ownership rights or as mechanisms for redistribution.