We have responded to the consultation on the next iteration of the Land Use Strategy. We are concerned that Regional Land Use Partnerships are only mentioned in passing in this consultation and there is a lack of any levers or processes by which the vision in this document can be realised. Land Use Planning could be a powerful tool to help manage the land use change needed due to climate impacts – planning out the best places to deliver land-based adaptation and mitigation, realise the potential of multi-functional land use and to guide the places where renewables and energy infrastructure should be located and which areas should be avoided.
Question 1: Do you find Map Figure 1 to be a helpful representation of current land cover?
☒ No
Question 2: How can we most effectively represent housing and renewable energy alongside current land cover maps?
The map provided is inadequate at showing relevant layers of relevant information for decision making on land use. More useful will be an interactive GIS map showing information that is already available on Government and other platforms. We suggest that a map that brings in the information from maps already publicly available on information such as natural and historic heritage, flood risk, agriculture etc. The existing data is in a variety of places such as sitelink, environment web, spatial hub, Trove, landcsape charachter assesment, SEPA flood risk information and also data on soils and agricultural potential is absolutely necessary. There should also be, as was done in the Land Use Framework for England consultation, mapping of the potential of different areas, for example, to restore peat, or to link up existing areas of habitat in Nature networks etc.
Question 3: What sort of information about current land use would you find useful? (and how would you use it?)
See answer to Question 2
Question 4: Do you agree that these are the key areas that need to be delivered by Scotland’s land?
☒ Yes
Question 5 Are there any important land uses that you feel are missing or underrepresented in this list?
Some important areas need to be included including Access code and core paths. It needs to bring together government policy especially to bring together land use and planning – and therefore NPF4 Is very important to include
Question 6: How do you think data and mapping can evolve to better support our understanding of future land use and national ambitions—including the impacts, benefits, opportunities and trade-offs of change?
Data collection and mapping must fully integrate climate change considerations into land use planning. The vulnerability of different areas to climate impacts is essential for developing informed adaptation strategies across multiple scales. This includes identifying areas—such as priority peatland restoration sites—that are likely to be more resilient to future climate conditions. Likewise, maps showing the relative potential of different land uses should be regularly updated to reflect the evolving realities of a changing climate.
Question 7: What tools, data, or approaches would help improve this understanding over time?
See the answer to Question 6.
Question 8: Do you think the description provided captures what is meant by ‘integrated landscapes’?
☒ Yes
Question 9: Do you agree that integrated landscapes are the most effective approach to addressing Scotland’s land use ambitions?
☒ Yes
Together with Scottish Environment LINK, we believe that a joined-up approach to strategic land use planning is vital for achieving national climate and biodiversity objectives.
Regional Land Use Partnerships (RLUPs) can play a crucial role in promoting integrated land use that is effective, locally relevant, and ecologically connected. This could work as follows:
● Targets from the Scottish Government alongside a comprehensive open access map of land characteristics including the datasets suggested in Q2, potential for land use change (eg nature networks, peat restoration) and other spatial data alongside guidance.
● RLUPs translate these national ambitions into regional context, identifying local priorities and opportunities for investment;
● Regional frameworks then guide the allocation of public funding and, through opportunity mapping, provide a prospectus for philanthropic or responsible private investment.
We need a far more locally and regionally relevant framework for decision making. Currently, most public funding for land use is delivered through national schemes or competitive grants. This model often fails to promote landscape-scale collaboration or targeted investment. RLUPs could address this gap by pinpointing key habitat networks and areas where stakeholders can work together effectively.
To maximise this potential, RLUPs should be empowered to influence how public funds are distributed (including conditional farm payments, forestry grants, the NRF, and similar programmes).
RLUPs could further act as conveners for large-scale projects, as the National Parks do at the moment, that fall outside traditional public funding routes but could attract capital from elsewhere.
Through opportunity mapping, and constraint mapping RLUPs can also help the right development and land use change happen in the right places.
The Scottish Government urgently needs to build on the RLUP pilots to unlock the full potential of this approach and deliver truly integrated, place-based land use planning across Scotland.
Question 10: Have we identified the right factors influencing land use integration?
☒ No
Question 11: Which of these factors do you feel are the most influential?
All the listed factors are important but the most important factor is government support for integrated land use planning and support for mechanisms to make it happen. For example RLUPs and RLUPs need far more support and intention to roll them out further. Without any mechanism to deliver this Strategy it will have no effect on patterns of Land Use and decision making.
Question 12: Are there any important factors we have missed?
Please see the response to Question 11.
Question 13: Would the inclusion of case studies help to illustrate the practical delivery of integrated land use?
☒ Yes
Question 14: Would the inclusion of information on ecosystem services and opportunities for increased benefits help to illustrate the wider value of integrated landscapes?
☒ Yes
Question 15: Do you agree that the role of LUS4 should be to influence policy makers and regulators in order to create an enabling environment that incentivises and/or supports land managers, communities and partnerships to further integrate land use/management?
☒ Yes
Question 16: Are there other ways in which LUS4 could support alignment and integration?
While the third Land Use Strategy took promising initial steps towards addressing regional land use challenges through the establishment of Regional Land Use Partnerships (RLUPs), this current document has no plans for how to make it happen. To ensure progress, the new vision and objectives should build upon the experience and lessons learned from the pilot RLUPs, harnessing their potential to deliver genuinely integrated and place-based land use planning. There needs to be a way that the LUS can make an impact on policy making and decisions.
A combination of detailed mapping of the existing land uses, constraints and potential for land use change, combined with guidance would help guide decision makers. Without structures and possibilities for delivery, the new objectives risk remaining aspirational rather than actionable, undermining the delivery of the transformative land use changes urgently needed to safeguard Scotland’s landscapes, ecosystems, and rural communities.
Question 17: Do you agree with the proposed approach to developing a new vision and integrated set of objectives for the Land Use Strategy?
☒ Yes
We agree that the new vision and objectives more actively situate climate and nature as the priorities in driving land use change; however, members are also concerned that focus should remain on delivery. If these objectives are to be revised, then these should be expressed in SMART terms (Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant and Time-Bound).
Question 18: Which approach would you prefer for LUS4?
☒ Establishment of a refreshed set of principles (if this is your preference, please tell us what you think they should cover and how you envision their application)
We believe that there should be principles that inform how decisions would be taken but that the focus should be made towards delivery and tangible action in land use transformation and that revising a set of principles may detract from this. Having said this, if this strategy is for the benefit of influencing policy-makers and regulators, then this refreshed set of principles must reflect this new audience.
Question 26: Are you aware of any potential costs and burdens that you think may arise as a result of the vision and objectives within this consultation? If so please give details?
There must be adequate funding made available – as we suggested earlier – learning from RLUPs and building on them to cover other areas. If the Scottish Government genuinely wants to see the best use of our land, and integrated land use planning they will need to invest in regional land use planning and the RLUPs are a way to do this.
There is no point having a strategy with no means to deliver no matter how warm the words.