Scotland's fourth land use strategy: consultation analysis

Other Response Summaries

As noted above, a number of respondents chose to provide responses which did not directly address the consultation paper’s questions but instead highlighted key issues for consideration in a narrative form. These have been considered separately and the key themes raised have been summarised below.

Delivery of Strategy’s Objectives

• questions about how and by whom LUS4 objectives will be delivered, citing gaps in funding and lack of clarity on lessons learned from previous strategies
• need for a clear implementation plan, democratic engagement, and resourcing to avoid tokenistic outcomes - the LUS4 must move beyond guidance to become a binding, enforceable framework
• LUS4 should act as an enabler, not a barrier, to land use change - particularly for climate and renewable energy targets
• recognition that land use change must deliver shared economic and social benefits

Integration

• strong support for moving towards an integrated land use model that considers competing demands and trade-offs rather than sectoral silos
• strong support for the need for policy coherence across planning, biodiversity and climate law, to avoid conflicting signals, as well as alignment with other strategies such as Energy, Transport and the Marine Plan
• calls for clearer evidence, guidance, and alignment of policy, incentives, and regulation to enable practical implementation
• need for holistic planning frameworks that dovetail with other strategies (energy, housing, restoration)
• the need for greater recognition of the role played by particular land uses in supporting integration was emphasised. Examples include:
• historic estates and heritage landscapes as assets for sustainability and biodiversity
• forestry and woodland as central to climate resilience and economic opportunity
• affordable rural housing as a critical enabler for land-based jobs and community vitality
• industrial land use commitments, digital infrastructure, and remediation of vacant or derelict land
• calls for financial support and risk mitigation for land managers adopting integrated practices
• renewable energy, particularly solar, highlighted as a key opportunity for integrated land use, and should not be seen as in conflict with other uses; in particular, solar farms can co-exist with agriculture (agrivoltaics), enhance biodiversity, and support rural economies
• recognition that integration must operate at ecologically meaningful scales (catchments, bioregions) and embed ecosystem health as the foundation for all land uses

Climate Change, Nature, and Ecosystem Services

• climate mitigation, adaptation, and resilience are seen as fundamental objectives
• emphasis on aligning land use change with 30x30 biodiversity targets and net zero commitments
• requests for inclusion of ecosystem services, nature-based solutions (including support for whole-farm nature-friendly systems), rewilding and biodiversity restoration in the strategy
• noted that the term ‘ecosystem services’ term is poorly understood by land managers
• suggestion that some outcomes (e.g. woodland expansion vs. herbivore impacts) are not always compatible, requiring coordinated approaches

Infrastructure and Energy Transition

• energy infrastructure is missing from LUS4 and should be explicitly recognised as a key factor in integrated landscapes
• calls for inclusion of renewable energy under Jobs, Skills and Economy or as a standalone category as it has the potential to unlock rural challenges and supporting green skills development
• calls for affordable rural housing and consideration of socio-economic impacts in land use planning

Mental Health and Wellbeing

• wellbeing recognised as central to climate resilience and a just transition, not a ‘soft add-on’ - respondents suggested embedding wellbeing objectives in LUS4 and cross-sector collaboration with health professionals

Regional and Local Delivery

• regional, catchment-level assessments to evaluate multiple benefits and value for money were suggested; it was suggested that regional targets and frameworks reflect local conditions and trade-offs, while national targets often ignore local realities, leading to disproportionate impacts (e.g. forestry targets harming local habitats)
• support for core-funding for RLUPs as vehicles for locally sensitive, ecologically coherent planning, although there was some scepticism
• it was suggested that RLUPs should: develop RLUFs with opportunity mapping; influence public funding distribution and attract responsible private investment; enable collaborative projects that deliver climate, nature, and community benefits
• concern over lack of long-term funding and resourcing for RLUPs, which undermines confidence and perceived government commitment
• National Parks were highlighted as exemplars of integrated land-use decision making

Monitoring and Indicators

Some concerns were expressed about the approach to monitoring in general:

• more clarity sought on delivery frameworks, timescales, and monitoring
• concern that focusing on specific indicators may reinforce trade-offs rather than multiple benefits
• support for regionalised targets but also suggestion for consistent metrics from field to national scale, proportionate monitoring, and farmer-led learning cycles
• current indicators were questioned as it was suggested they fail to capture local priorities (e.g. peatland maintenance, species-rich grasslands)
• suggestion to link indicators to policy outcomes in planning and biodiversity frameworks

A number of respondents made suggestions for specific indicators including:

• economic outputs (timber, food, renewable energy) and their role in Scotland’s bioeconomy
• suggested outcome-based improvements:
  • metrics for ecosystem connectivity, soil health, water quality, biodiversity resilience, and climate adaptation
  • socioeconomic indicators for community wellbeing, equity, and participation
  • standardised frameworks for monitoring rewilding progress and ecosystem services
• recommendations to include qualitative indicators:
• condition and health of land types (e.g. peatlands, SSSI sites)
• affordable housing and homelessness metrics
• community benefits from renewables and local development plan coverage

Equity and Inclusion

• support for addressing inequalities in access to green space, prioritising deprived and rural areas, supported by community co-design and inclusion of vulnerable groups in governance
• affordable housing highlighted as essential for sustaining rural communities and enabling workforce mobility

Practical Tools and Case Studies

• support for case studies to illustrate integrated land use in practice, demonstrate practical delivery and inspire confidence
• need for plain language principles and better explanation of technical terms highlighted

Governance and Land Ownership

• some respondents suggested the strategy would be ineffective without addressing land ownership and control, arguing that these are within the Scottish Government’s legislative powers but remain unresolved
• calls for integration with National Planning Framework 4 and other statutory instruments to ensure consistency across agriculture, forestry, biodiversity, and climate policy
• calls for community participation and ownership, with mechanisms for dispute resolution and capacity-building

Agriculture and Food Security

• warnings against sidelining food production in favour of climate and nature targets; calls for explicit inclusion of food production as a core outcome.
• trade-offs between woodland expansion, peatland restoration, and maintaining productive farmland highlighted
• the need for accessible funding, minimal bureaucracy, and long-term policy certainty to enable farmers to deliver multiple benefits also highlighted

Mapping and Data

• the need for public access to data on agri-environment schemes (AECS), forestry grants, and natural capital was emphasised - there should be better coordination between data owners and clarity on public access while respecting commercial sensitivities
• several respondents highlight the need for better mapping tools such as interactive, layered maps showing land cover, land tenure, renewable energy zones, ecosystem services, peatland restoration, woodland creation, food production, water systems and flood risk
• need for open access to high-resolution data, regular LiDAR surveys, and integration of citizen science and remote sensing
• proposals included:
• a new classification system based on primary purpose: agricultural (arable/pasture), forestry, built environment, and natural process-led land
• land use potential mapping using soil type, climate, biodiversity, carbon storage, and connectivity data
• interactive maps with overlays for housing, renewable energy, transmission infrastructure and flood risk