Scotland's fourth land use strategy: consultation analysis

Executive Summary

Introduction

This summary captures key insights from the consultation on LUS4, highlighting priorities for mapping, integration, and monitoring and evaluation.

Building a Baseline for Future Use

A majority of respondents found the land cover map presented in the consultation paper helpful, although a number also emphasised the need for the use of mapping in support of the strategy to be developed further. Many responses highlighted the importance of reflecting multifunctional land uses and avoiding oversimplification. There was a clear desire for granular, locally relevant data and for maps to support both technical analysis by professionals and be accessible to the public.

Land Use Moving Forward

Almost half (48.72%) of respondents agreed that the consultation paper presented the key areas that need to be delivered by Scotland’s land, while 30.77% did not.

Some respondents emphasised the need to take a qualitative, rather than an overall quantitative approach to understanding the key aspects of land use. It was also suggested that the strategy should focus more on a reciprocal relationship with nature and not characterise land as primarily a resource to meet human needs.

It was also suggested that to better support our understanding of future land use and national ambitions, data and mapping tools must evolve to reflect the complex, layered nature of land use.

What is Integration and Why is it Relevant?

Many respondents agreed that integrated landscapes are essential for achieving Scotland’s land use goals and balancing competing demands such as: food production; biodiversity restoration; climate resilience and; community wellbeing.

A number of respondents particularly highlighted the importance of integration to climate goals, such as Net Zero by 2045. It was suggested that nature-based solutions (e.g. peatland restoration, agroforestry) offer co-benefits and that climate resilience should be embedded in land-use planning.

It was recognised that integration may not be feasible everywhere, for example, irreplaceable habitats which should be spared from other forms of land use. It was also argued that some landscapes are currently prevented from integration by the dominance of particular land uses within that landscape. The existence of financial and statutory barriers to integration for land managers was also noted.

Some respondents suggested that ‘integration’ should not solely mean the physical integration of land uses on the ground but should also involve integration at the level of planning and management of land use to ensure that these align with national targets and strategies. These respondents argued that integration should be supported by joined-up policy and that funding a holistic, long-term strategy is needed to guide implementation

Proposed new role and approach of LUS4 and how we communicate the benefits and opportunities of integrated land use?

There was broad agreement with the need for LUS4 to create an enabling environment as well as support for the proposed two-phased approach. However, respondents also emphasised the importance of ensuring that the proposed delivery plan is a living document.

While a significant majority of respondents were in favour of establishing a refreshed set of principles, there were differing views on the degree to which the principles should be revised. A number of responses favoured a minor update or clarification and cautioned against a fundamental review, which could be time-consuming, suggesting that the current principles were effective. It was noted that there was no option to vote for maintaining the principles in their current form.

In terms of how we can communicate the benefits and opportunities a clear majority of respondents supported the inclusion of case studies to illustrate the delivery of integrated land use, and information on ecosystem services.

Monitoring and Evaluating Integrated, Resilient, and Sustainable Land Use

While more respondents agreed that the draft indicators presented in the consultation paper provided a strong basis for measuring progress to towards improved outcomes, there were also substantial numbers who did not agree, on each of the three relevant questions (19,21 and 23). A number of respondents made suggestions for specific data sources that could support monitoring and evaluation.

A number of respondents commented on the overall approach to monitoring and evaluation. Some suggested that it was necessary for the indicators to be clearer about what objectives they were measuring; SMART indicators were proposed. Some respondents expressed concern that the proposed indicators are too output-focused (e.g. hectares planted) rather than outcome-based.

Assessing Impact

Respondents highlighted a number of potential ways in which the proposed vision and objectives could affect different groups. These responses will help inform impact assessments.

Respondents identified a number of potential costs and burdens that could arise as a result of the vision and objectives proposed by the consultation. It is important to note that the strategy does not impose any regulatory requirements or prescribe any actions. It was not clear from all responses what degree of prescription and regulatory intervention had been assumed when identifying costs and burdens.