5. Summary and conclusions
Largescale community land acquisitions have grown steadily over the past thirty-five years, punctuated by two short periods of rapid expansion. Over that time, the types and locations of assets being acquired has changed, from the initial surge in buyouts of crofting estates in the Highlands and Western Isles, to a growth in community woodland ownership in Argyll, and most recently to interest in nature restoration beyond the traditional Highlands and Islands region. This section will bring together the central themes emerging across literature and primary and secondary data analysed in this research, in order to address the research questions and summarise our conclusions. We will then make recommendations based on this data for future policy, practice and research regarding largescale community landownership.
The history of largescale community land is centred in the north-west of Scotland. Communities of the Highlands and Western Isles were the catalysts of the movement and have always been at the forefront of its expansion. A number of factors came together to create this situation, including: a history of land dispossession, negative experiences of current landowners, relatively low land values, crofting tenure and culture, and strong and cohesive local communities. Initial successes then led to institutional support and inspiration for ‘neighbours’, driving local movements. These aspects may not exist in the same combination elsewhere, leading to geographical disparities in largescale community land acquisitions. However, in recent years the types and locations of largescale land assets being acquired (or sought) by communities have changed, departing from the previous staple of crofting estates in the Highlands and Western Isles, to new types of land asset in other Local Authorities. It is unclear whether this trend will continue, but with ‘intent’ evidenced in ‘new’ areas, it is possible that largescale community landownership is starting to spread geographically while diversifying into new land uses and strategic aims.
The role of ‘inspiration’ was emphasised within this research. Drawing on reports of how difficult the acquisition process can be, as well as the multifaceted nature of ‘demand’, community organisations will think hard about the relative costs and benefits of embarking on this process, and indeed, owning the land asset in perpetuity. This decision will depend heavily on the capacity of the organisation and the wider community, likely requiring significant volunteer effort at a time when institutional support is felt to be declining. Ultimately, local people must make a pragmatic decision as to whether it is worth the effort, weighing up the potential future risks and benefits, opportunities and challenges. While it is impossible to know these in advance, understanding what other largescale community landowners have experienced and achieved can provide inspiration and reassurance for prospective communities to be able to better anticipate their own pathway to ownership.
Should an organisation be willing to embark on this process, they will then encounter two of the main barriers to largescale community land acquisition: the current owner and the asset cost. The ‘seller’ - whether public or private, willing or unwilling - retains almost universal control of the process, with very little chance of a community acquisition succeeding if the seller does not wish to sell. There appears to be a perception that cases of particularly negative or detrimental landownership have decreased due some historic cases having already resulted in a community buyout, and current owners improving their behaviour and practice to stem demand for one. In this sense, it is possible that as land management conditions in some communities have improved, and other priorities requiring community capacity have been prioritised, a ‘drop in demand’ for acquisition might be perceived.
The value/cost of land (the two are not necessarily comparable) is a significant factor in largescale community land acquisition. Although speculation around natural capital may have eased in recent years, land prices remain beyond the reach of many communities, and uncertainty persists regarding the future direction of land markets. The promised doubling of the Scottish Land Fund to £20m annually failed to materialise, with the budget being cut to below its previous £10m level. These factors combined make it increasingly difficult for communities to acquire largescale assets, with some reportedly abandoning plans at an early stage due to an acknowledgement of the slim chances of success. The stretching of support from case officers exacerbates these difficulties, with the SLF perceived to be playing less of a role in facilitating the process to ownership of largescale land assets. Alternative funding is difficult to source and the timescales required to raise capital are also constraining, especially as part of formal mechanisms such as Community Right to Buy.
The difficulty of navigating CRtB and other legislative mechanisms and support is a strong theme of this research. While such mechanisms, funding and support have been central to the facilitation and expansion of largescale community landownership, there continue to be challenges. Community Right to Buy is considered unwieldy and overly complicated, with little perceived chance of success . The Scottish Land Fund is the main funder of acquisitions but cannot support communities seeking to navigate the similarly difficult process of negotiating leases or other options short of ownership. While there appear to be numerous organisations providing support to groups, there are still reports of a lack of understanding of these processes by prospective largescale community landowners.
Finally, at the heart of this research was the concept of ‘demand’. At a practical level, this is not straightforward to gauge or even define. While there are examples of communities that have expressed explicit demand for their land, often over a long period of time, many others have responded to an opportunity presented, with just the right confluence of supporting factors: a willing seller of an economically viable asset, available funding and support, and the community capacity and cohesion required to be able to launch a bid and manage the land following its acquisition. Similarly, if it becomes clear that an acquisition is not possible, or indeed if the risk is not considered to justify the possible rewards, explicit ‘demand’ may well dwindle. In this sense, the nature and extent of demand changes considerably with circumstances and opportunity. Thus, demand is a particularly elusive concept and it is not possible to definitively conclude as to whether demand for largescale community land acquisition is falling across Scotland. However, conflating decreased hectarage with lowered community interest risks neglecting the wider conditions mediating and explicating such trends. What we can say is that there are numerous groups which have expressed a desire to acquire a largescale land asset and have been unable to do so due to persistent and growing challenges and barriers. In this sense, the appetite for largescale community land assets is still very much alive.
