Supporting Scotland's transition - land use and agriculture: consultation analysis report

6. Assessing impact and additional information

Q22: Are you aware of any ways in which the proposed outcomes and objectives need to take into account the different experiences, both positive and negative, current or future, of the following groups:

• island communities;
• young people, (children, pupils, and young adults up to the age of 26);
• those with protected characteristics (age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex and sexual orientation); and/or
• groups or areas at socio-economic disadvantage (such as income, low wealth or area deprivation)?

14 respondents provided additional information.

Respondents highlighted the importance of tailoring outcomes to reflect the lived realities of island communities, young people, socio-economically disadvantaged groups, and those with protected characteristics.

Island communities

• Isolation leads to higher costs for transport, inputs, and limited access to services and training.
• There is a need for investment in local food supply chains, processing facilities, and market gardens.
• Examples include the Carbon Neutral Islands project and Food for Life initiatives on Islay and Jura.
• Indicators should reflect unique vulnerabilities and opportunities in island settings.

Young people

• Barriers include access to land, fair incomes, and training opportunities.
• Support for schemes like NSA Next Generation and Land-based Pre-apprenticeships is essential.
• Long-term planning is needed to ensure sustainable livelihoods and intergenerational equity.

Socio-economically disadvantaged groups

• Includes tenants, crofters, and small farmers facing barriers to finance and land access.
• Redistributive payments, market garden schemes, and community food infrastructure are recommended.
• Community-led models like Glengarry Community Woodlands offer inclusive development pathways.

Groups with protected characteristics

• Rural women face barriers to training and leadership. Funding for programmes like Women in Agriculture are vital.
• Migrant workers face challenges around pay, visa uncertainty and working conditions.
• Public health interventions must consider gender-specific needs, such as iron deficiency in women.

Structural inequities and policy design

• Concerns about land ownership concentration and exclusion from natural capital finance.
• Indicators lack granularity and may overlook localised inequities.
• Need for governance mechanisms that represent current and future generations.

Q23: Are you aware of any potential costs and burdens that you think may arise as a result of the outcomes and objectives within this consultation?

16 respondents provided additional information.

Respondents identified financial, administrative, and social burdens that may disproportionately affect small-scale producers, rural communities, and vulnerable groups.

Financial costs and investment needs

• Transitioning to sustainable practices requires upfront investment in infrastructure, equipment, training, and certification.
• Returns may be delayed, creating financial strain for small farms, crofts, and new entrants.
• There were calls for redistributive payments, removal of minimum thresholds, and targeted support for agroecological practices.

Administrative and compliance burdens

• Increased complexity in funding applications, compliance checks, and reporting requirements.
• Risk that small or family-run farms may struggle to meet evolving administrative demands.
• Need for streamlined processes and peer-to-peer support.

Risk of exclusion and inequity

• Competitive or criteria-based schemes may exclude crofters, new entrants, and those without formal qualifications.
• Migrant workers may face increased risks of exclusion if not considered during planning processes.
• Communities may bear additional costs if land-use shifts occur without redistribution of power or ownership.

Sector-specific vulnerabilities

• Livestock producers and small abattoirs face higher compliance and infrastructure costs.
• Risk of losing critical capacity in domestic food systems unless there are fair incentives.
• Hemp and other alternative crops require investment in processing infrastructure.

Need for collaborative and flexible policy design

• Policies should be co-produced with stakeholders and avoid abrupt changes.
• Agricultural planning requires long-term clarity and consistency.
• Support for education, training, and financial aid is essential to reduce transition risks.

Broader social and economic impacts

• Rising production and housing costs may affect local communities and food security.
• Inaction or half-hearted measures pose greater societal risks than transition costs.
• Redistribution of privileges may be necessary to achieve just outcomes.

Questions 24 and 25 were included in the consultation to help us understand the activities external organisations are undertaking that are related to the Just Transition. This will help with our ongoing engagement. The open text responses are specific to those organisations and would not inform development of the Plan itself. They are therefore excluded from this report but can be accessed via the Citizen Space platform if you are interested.

Q24: Are you involved in any organised groups, (for example a campaigning group, industry working group or public sector forum, which does not have to be climate-related), that considers how the land use and agriculture sectors are changing or could change in future?

21 respondents provided additional information.

Q25: Can you tell us of actions you or your organisation is taking or plan to take that will contribute to achieving any short-term objectives outlined in this draft plan?

22 respondents provided additional information.

Q26: Please provide any further comments on the proposals set out in this consultation in the box below.

19 respondents provided additional information in answer to this request.

Lack of actionable detail

Many respondents expressed frustration about the lack of actionable detail, having expected the LAJTP to be a concrete roadmap with defined actions, timelines, and responsibilities. Instead, they found a high-level vision that, while positive, lacks the operational clarity needed to guide real-world change. There is a strong call for the Scottish Government to articulate its preferred pathway to net zero, including the investments it will make, the sectors it will prioritise, and the mitigation strategies it will deploy to address negative impacts. Without this, the plan risks being perceived as aspirational rather than transformative.

Need for sector-specific and locally informed policy design

Contributors stress that rural Scotland is not homogenous. Upland sheep farming, crofting, and small-scale agriculture each face distinct challenges and opportunities. A one-size-fits-all approach is seen as inadequate. Respondents urge the government to recognise the diversity of land use practices and to tailor support schemes accordingly, ensuring accessibility for smaller enterprises, new entrants, and those in marginal areas.

Community empowerment and agency. There is strong support for enabling communities to define their own priorities and solutions, rather than imposing top-down directives. Organisations like the Community Woodlands Association (CWA) are highlighted as valuable intermediaries that, with adequate resources, could accelerate locally driven action. Respondents advocate for a policy environment that supports community-led initiatives and recognises the validity of local responses to local issues.

Environmental justice and historical context

Contributors argue that the plan must address not only present and future inequalities but also the historical processes that have shaped land ownership, access, and use. This includes tackling structural issues such as wealth concentration and land reform and ensuring that those who have been historically marginalised are not further disadvantaged by the transition. Both environmental justice and historical context are seen as essential components of a truly ‘just’ transition.

Integration and coherence across policy frameworks

Respondents emphasise the need for alignment between the LAJTP and other strategies, including the Land Use Strategy, the Good Food Nation Plan, and climate and biodiversity policies. Without this, there is a risk of duplication, contradiction, or missed opportunities for synergy.

Food security and multifunctional land use

While some contributors advocate for reduced livestock numbers to meet climate targets, others stress the importance of maintaining red meat production on land unsuitable for crops. Respondents propose a balanced approach that recognises the multiple benefits agricultural land can deliver — biodiversity, carbon sequestration, flood defence, and food production — and supports strategic land use planning to optimise these outcomes.

Monitoring and evaluation

Contributors recommend combining quantitative indicators with qualitative evidence, such as farmer and community feedback, to capture the lived experience of the transition. They also call for clarity on the Rural Delivery Plan’s role in tracking impact, including its publication frequency and reporting mechanisms. Monitoring and evaluation are identified as critical to ensuring accountability and progress.

Fair work and inclusion

Respondents advocate for clear definitions of workers across the food system, protections for migrant and seasonal labour, and commitments to union recognition and collective bargaining. These social dimensions are seen as integral to a just transition and must be embedded in the plan’s implementation.