“We need farmers”. Speaking in Glasgow on 2 Nov, alongside First Minister Nicola Sturgeon and young activists, the former Executive Secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, Christiana Figueres, emphasised the role of farmers in making a “step change in our relationship to the natural world”. Such a step change was “really crucial” over the next few years (at 1.15 hrs in the 43rd TB Macaulay Lecture “Outrage and optimism in the fact of the #Climate Crisis” see here).
This post considers what lessons can be learnt from Ms Figueres’ contribution to COP 26, alongside other views about land use in Scotland and elsewhere in the UK. Our national parks should be at the forefront in applying these lessons.
Ms Figueres called for much better stewardship of land, alongside clean energy and the end of fossil fuels, as the key requirements for resolving the climate crisis. Noting that within the last 100 years humans have destroyed at least half of our land based ecosystems and wiped out 68% of global wildlife populations, she warned of the consequences, including the impact on the critical ecosystems which are essential for protecting us. Ecosystems are becoming less efficient in capturing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere so that, for the first time in history, key areas are losing their function as carbon sinks and becoming carbon emitters.
Nobody at COP 26 has more experience, over the last 20 years, of negotiating climate change issues with scientists, policy makers and politicians than Ms Figueres. She stressed the need for activism: for all citizens to intensify the pressure on politicians; to resist powerful industries who are fighting for their own survival, but living in the past not the future; forcing financial markets to shift their support from brown to green economies and to demand annual accounting so that real, measurable progress is made towards net zero.
In Scotland we need to recognise that habitat loss and degradation is a massive part of our history, from our overgrazed and over burnt uplands to our intensively managed lowlands, with their excessive use of artificial fertilizers and pesticides. Polluted burns and rivers flow through these green and brown deserts, with little space for wildlife. No wonder that the co-chair of the First Minister’s Environment Council (see here), Professor Sir Ian Boyd, has previously called for half of the UK’s farmland to come out of intensive management to that habitats can be restored, as I highlighted in my last post (see here). That is a job for farmers to do, as the principle stewards of our land.
But today farmers are being removed from the land as financial predators stalk our hills. This is what I said in a letter published by the Herald newspaper on 25 Oct this year:
“The wrong trees are being planted in the wrong places by the wrong people.”
“Farmers, gamekeepers and stalkers are right to be very worried at the spreading blanket afforestation of our hills and its impact on their livelihoods (“How the rush to plant trees risks uprooting years of toil, Herald, October 19 see here). This is a modern day version of the Clearances, sadly being led by the Scottish Government. Our current forestry policy, with its perverse grant system, is not fit for purpose. No wonder financial institutions, pension managers, hedge funds operators and other asset strippers are grabbing as much land as possible in the Scottish uplands to plant trees with these forestry grants.
Of course planting trees is an important part of the battle to solve our climate and biodiversity challenges. But the wrong trees are being planted in the wrong places by the wrong people. All this is because Scottish ministers do not understand the flaws in our decrepit forestry grant system. They need to go to Norway and see how government grant systems can help farmers to plant trees, continue farming and support rural economies. Far better than allowing financial predators to grab our land, pocket the grants and remove people. Scottish ministers need to redirect the public money for planting away from the hills. Instead planting should be focussed on farmland, where a wider variety of trees can be planted, integrated into existing farm activities and capturing far more carbon than on a windswept hillside.
Financial incentives underpin most land use in Scotland. Decisions on what to plant where are made on an annual basis for many crops. This flexibility is of potentially great value in tackling current environmental problems – farmers and foresters will immediately respond to a change in grant regimes. For example, if we paid farmers to expand every field margin in every field, to grow wild flowers, hedgerows or trees, we would create a massive network of green corridors throughout our lowlands within a couple of years. And, with Scottish access rights applying to every field margin, the increased opportunities for public enjoyment and exercise would be immense.
In the uplands we need a different approach, led by the Royal Family. A walk through Glenfeshie estate in the Cairngorms, in the company of the Danish owner, Anders Povlsen and his family, will demonstrate what is needed. Amongst the naturally regenerating ancient pinewoods of Glenfeshie it will be obvious what has gone wrong on Balmoral estate.
The Queen is reported as being “irritated” at the slow progress in tackling climate change while Prince Charles bemoans the lack of “action on the ground”. So they need to ask why, for the last twenty years at least, Balmoral has repeatedly failed to follow expert scientific advice to severely reduce overall red deer numbers on their estate and their neighbours. Such a reduction would allow the regeneration of Balmoral’s forest and montane habitats. Regenerating natural habitats and planting trees is vital – but only in the right places.”
The First Minister sat alongside Christiana Figueres at the Macaulay lecture and, in her own contribution, emphasised the importance of pressure on politicians from young activists, including Greta Thunberg from Sweden and Vanessa Nakate from Uganda, both of whom started protest movements through solo actions outside their respective parliaments. They met the FM in Glasgow and challenged her to inject greater urgency into the battle to stop the atmospheric temperature rising above 1.5 degrees. Also speaking at the Macaulay lecture and bringing a wider perspective to the discussions were young climate activists Julieta Martinez, Lola Segers and Anuna de Wever.
The FM co-chairs her Environment Council, alongside Ian Boyd (see above), the main purpose being to advise the government on international best practice in tacking the climate emergency and ecological decline. In Figueres and the members of this Council the FM has the best possible advisers on the land use changes which Scotland needs. In this she might also note the views of Professor Dieter Helm, an Oxford University economist and former chair of the UK Government’s Natural Capital Committee. He gave the previous Macaulay lecture in 2019 (see here) and had this to say:
“We have achieved virtually nothing in climate change after 30 years of trying….we cannot go on with the current economic and environmental policies….public money should pay for public goods. The corollary of that is that public money should not be paid for private goods. Almost the entirety of the Common Agricultural Policy pays public money for private benefit. £2 billion is paid to people for the ownership of land providing they farm. If you can think of a worse way to allocate public money I am very interested to learn from it! But the other side of this is the opportunity to do better is immense. We want things that don’t yield private benefit and private return – that’s what business does and what farmers do. We want things that would not otherwise be provided which are part of our natural environment and the systems that go with it……Think about green spaces…..I think no child should be no more than 500 metres from a green space. I think that is a citizen’s right.”
So one of the main tasks for the FM, post COP 26, must surely be a fundamental reform of the public subsidy system which supports Scottish farming and forestry. We need farmers, living in local communities, to do the tree planting, not financial predators only interested in asset management for far away oligarchs, tax avoiders and carbon off setters. Recognising that Scotland’s public subsidy system for farming and forestry is not fit for purpose is a vital first step for all our politicians. Changing that system will bring immediate benefits as land managers respond to new opportunities to help nature to capture carbon. Delivering a new pattern of land use for Scotland will be an inspiration to all nations who want to capture carbon through the restoration of nature. This is one way for Scotland to deliver a world class legacy from COP 26.
I have a problem with the so often uncritical response to the actions of Wildlands compared to the predatory actions of the new exploitative green lairds and the inappropriate behaviour of the so-called sporting estates. Anders Povlsen`s group has enormous powers over vast acreages of the Highlands. I am not so sure the employment of such power is as benevolent as it is so often portrayed. For example,in the Badenoch portfolio are degraded grazing lands with at one time land in “good heart”. I am sceptical that spreading pines is necessarily the best way to improve the carbon content of such soils nor of increasing the biodiversity of Feshie and Gaick. I see the pluses of pine forest revival but the best monitoring of how the experiment is progressing is a strengthened local democracy. More people living with and looking after and developing natural systems is required. Of course the narrow selfish regime of hunting and its associated damaging practices need to be tackled.My contention is that instead of an overemphasis on green tourism ,exclusive accommodation and on bijou bothies there could be social housing for a diversity of workers part of whose secure rental would depend on the stewardship of the land.It seems to me that there is too readily a congruence of interest of lairds of all stripe, some conservationists, tourist bodies,hill goers, the comfortably retired. They are too often happy with the Highlands being empty. On an overcrowded planet I think this is rather selfish and does not constitute a fair model for sustainability.
Thanks for your comments, Dick – perceptive as ever! I agree with the central thrust of your comments and share your underlying concern – that any amount of Scotland’s land can be traded on the world property markets, with no constraints on who buys how much. But I see no appetite amongst any of the politicians who have been in the Scottish Parliament since it was reconvened in 1999 to change this situation any time soon. The sort of constraints that apply in other European countries, from the Alps to Norway, still seem to be far away over the horizon as far as Scotland is concerned. So we have to deal with the situation as it is.
I have dealt with a wide arrange of lairds in Glen Feshie since 1973, from Lord Dulverton onwards. None of them came anywhere near to the achievements of Anders Povlsen in reducing deer numbers to levels which have allowed natural regeneration to flourish. The fundamental requirement now is for other private landowners to learn from that experience, starting with the Royal Family, who are in a better position, at Balmoral, to set an example for others to follow.
I do not have a full overview of Wildland’s activities across Scotland as a whole, but I note recent press coverage of their decision to part fund and deliver a new care home in the Tongue area for future public body management. That sounds like a positive initiative and it is not obvious that their activities are detrimental to local community interests anywhere else. By contrast we read (Herald, 2 Nov) that a new company Goldcrest Land and Forestry was established in January in Charlotte Square, Edinburgh, and is now marketing seven estates in Scotland, apparently worth at least £34 million, and describing the “insatiable appetite and rocketing prices suitable for tree planting”. That is what every crofter, farmer, gamekeeper and stalker, as well as anyone else who loves the outdoors, should be worried about. Successive governments, over decades, have completely failed to provide a sensible grant aid system for forestry. And so the door is kept wide open to the financial predators and their landowning mates. We need a completely new system of grant aid for forestry and agriculture which excludes these landed pirates and instead focuses on crofters and farmers as the stewards of the future, planting the right sort of trees, in the right places, and looking after them month after month along with their animals and crops.
Meanwhile, if Anders Povlsen want to double his landholding in Scotland that’s fine by me, especially if he starts on Cairn Gorm and removes Highlands and Islands Enterprise. Wildland would be ideal owners to rescue us all from the morass of HIE’s ownership of that mountain’s upper slopes and their economic and environmental incompetence. Dave
“My contention is that instead of an overemphasis on green tourism ,exclusive accommodation”
There is nothing exclusive about the bothy in Glen Feshie which was expensively renovated at Wildland’s expense. I’m told that the extension which was built to allow a staircase to the upper floor was built with stone from the same quarry the bothy was originally built from. THe bothy has accomodated as many as 42 people in one night. I’ve visted twice this summmer and there were a dozen or so users both visits as well as day visitors.
I don’t see what more the estate could do. The only flaw is the nearest bridge over the river Feshie was not replaced. THe estate were refused planning permission.
As for spreading pines not being for the best? My understanding is that in much of the glen the regeneration is natural. Remove excessive deer numbers and nature does it herself. I can remember Glen Feshie in the early 1970s when it was a desert. It is almost unelievable how the glen has been transformed in a few short years.
The Ruigh Aiteachain refurbishment is indeed very fine and was terrifically generous. The holiday properties on Wildlands Badenoch estates, particularly at Killiehuntly in Tromie are very beautifully done. I’m sure the planned for “bothies” in that area will be first class. But first class comes at a price.
I’m concerned at the increasing prevalence of stunning, exclusive,natural retreats. “Exclusive”is perhaps the key word.
When was the last time nicola murrell went for a walk up a mountain? Or went fishing? Or birdwatching?
She’s never set food outside of urban Scotland, and has no care or concern or understanding of any aspect of conservation or what needs to change.
Sadly none of her cabinet have any ideas either. Apart from swinney enjoying a free drink with some eagle killers in Perthshire.
Waiting for her to do anything is going to be pointless.
‘no care or concern’: wrong. For example: https://www.gov.scot/news/funding-to-restore-scotlands-iconic-peatlands/
and https://www.gov.scot/news/funding-to-restore-nature-and-tackle-biodiversity-loss/
and https://www.gov.scot/publications/deer-working-group-recommendations-scottish-government-response/documents/
and https://www.gov.scot/publications/scottish-government-response-grouse-moor-management-group-recommendations/documents/
more needs done, of course, as the First Minister herself acknowledges. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wyiSpHbfyTU
however, what is needed is encouragement to do more, not disinformation.
This deserves a response in a separate post, which I will provide in due course, but meantime a quick response. There has been a lamentable lack of action now in all these areas for many years – in the case of deer it is over 30 years – which has been the responsibility of all governments during the period but most aspects of the problems you cite (destruction of peatlands, biodiversity loss, deer numbers and intensification of grouse moor management have become worse over the last 30 years. In terms of disinformation you have provided links to the Nicola Sturgeon response to these issues – which in my view these contain large amounts of “bla bla bla” – rather than the scientific reports which show what actually has been going on. Moreover, despite accepting many of the recommendations of the deer and grouse moor reports, so far there has been no action, just promises. And this despite the SG’s declaration of a “Climate Emergency”. But I will cite the actually evidence in the post and readers can then decide whether this or preceding governments really have shown anything that merits the term “care or concern”.
Nick, yes, good to hear the discourse being developed, rather than ad feminem diatribe.
And yes, I agree about the footdragging…
However, there;s a new team at environment, so an opportunity for significant progress. The task is to press them to take the required action: perhaps give us links to relevant consultations?
In any case, looking forward to your post on this.
https://www.gov.scot/publications/agricultural-transition-scotland-first-steps-towards-national-policy-consultation-paper/
Anyone with and interest in what happens post 2024 to support for agriculture in Scotland should respond to this. It’s been a long time coming but things seem to be moving a bit now. There is a lot of focus on carbon. I would argue to the detriment of biodiversity. A carbon market is opening up that seems to be akin to the wild west with any number of organisations willing to provide you with some sort of calculation of how much land your carbon holds and what this might mean for you in the new market. The plans in England are much more advanced with the Environmental Land Management Scheme being trialled and new funding for farmers in National Parks already in place with the first deadline for applications in January next year. This focuses very much on nature. While we need to keep as much carbon in the ground as possible I suspect the answer that many carbon calculators will come up with is- plant conifers not -not that good for nature. Nature will be crucial to how we adapt our landscape to enable it to retain soils and carbon rather than them being washed out into lakes and rivers as a result of ever more extreme weather events. Carbon storage and biodiversity have to be considered in the round. The question is whether this consultation will reflect that.