In his article, “Does Scotland Need the John Muir Trust” (see here), Victor Clements asks: “if the John Muir Trust didn’t exist, would we miss them?” His existential question is relevant for any environmental charity, and it is one that I welcome.
In recent months, there has been no shortage of commentary about the John Muir Trust. Some of that is understandable, in light of our commitment to restore native woodlands and our recent financial challenges, some of it biased, and some based on misunderstandings.
Leading change is no easy task, and we must all welcome close critique and improve where we can. We are listening and seek to improve, we aspire to being open about what needs to change and setting out how we will move forward. That is the spirit in which I write today.
Let me start with the most important truth, the John Muir Trust is the only charity in the UK dedicated solely to protecting Wild Places. Our focus is on natural processes and natural landscapes. Curiously there is no designation in the UK that places natural processes and natural landscape at the core, the Trust intends to change that. The UK’s land is full of diversity, and we believe there is a case for adding to this mosaic of areas protected for the intrinsic value for nature. This is a well-known and understood omission, and we intend to change that.
There has been confusion, sometimes intentional, about Wild Places and Wild Land. Wild Land is defined around the concept of remote, natural and rugged. These became a consideration in planning with the publication of NatureScot’s Wild Land Areas map in 2014, as contained in the National Planning Framework 3 (NPF3), which identified 42 Wild Land Areas. The Scottish Government rolled back on that commitment in 2023 with National Planning Framework 4 (NPF4). We are now seeing the creep of industrialisation into some of Scotland’s most renowned landscapes. This is a change driven by the massive profits made by multinationals with questionable benefit to the people who live there.
Wild Places by contrast place the focus on land held for future generations being protected from the vagaries of changing government policies and ownership. These are areas where natural processes and natural landscapes are given priority for their intrinsic value, and where Wild Place qualities can be measured and management action taken to improve them over time.
The changing fortunes of the Wild Land concept clearly demonstrates the fragility of nature when faced with economic drivers. Wild Places across the UK face the same challenges and are being lost through steady attrition.
For the Trust, a Wild Place has three essential components:
- The freedom of natural processes where nature is allowed to function, supported by management where the past actions of humans have detracted from the landscapes or natural processes.
- The promotion of natural landscapes, shaped by physical and ecological forces, not economic incentives and interests.
- An ownership structure that protects these values in perpetuity, as far as the law allows.
As a charity our sole purpose is to champion the value of these places and to work with public, private and third sector organisations as a team to protect them for future generations.
It is a curious anomaly in nature conservation that Wild Places fall through the cracks of existing protections. Our system of SSSIs, SACs and SPAs safeguard mosaics and features of interests, however, they do not recognise the intrinsic value of natural processes and natural landscapes.
That is the gap the John Muir Trust exists to close.
Driving change
Providing leadership requires a clear set of objectives and the determination to deliver, but it also requires humility, and the ability to listen to feedback and act upon it. No charity with real ambition gets everything right, and that includes us. We have faced challenges in our finances, in relationships, and in how our work has been perceived locally and nationally. Some criticism has reflected misunderstandings, while some has reflected concerns we needed to hear. That feedback has been heard and our priorities from 2025 are responding to that. We have already re-launched the John Muir Award and started to rebuild relationships with communities and partners. That hasn’t been about compromising on our ambition, it is more about recognising that we need to work harder to explain why we are making these choices. Next year this will continue in all aspects of the Trust’s work, including through a programme of land stewardship plans.
Our work is steered by a deeply committed Board of Trustees, strong public support, and a staff team whose passion for Wild Places is unwavering. Their dedication deserves clarity of purpose and confidence of direction from leadership, and I am striving to ensure they have both.
Turning the page
Our focus is not on defending the Trust as an institution for its own sake, it is on protecting Wild Places. Ultimately, our job will be done when there is a recognised network of Wild Places across the UK, accessible to all, protected in perpetuity, and resourced well enough that their core qualities are secure for generations to come.
To achieve this, we must work with others in the public, private, and third sectors. We welcome conversations with any landowner willing to take on the responsibilities that come with protecting natural processes: deer management, invasive species control, path upkeep, interpretation, and long-term stewardship for natural processes.
Private property rights are at the core of decisions taken on land management. The manmade landscapes of the UK have been shaped by public policy, economics and the exercising of private property rights by owners with a range of objectives, we respect that. We also acknowledge that land-owning environmental organisations own land for a multitude of different reasons. Land is held with trading arms to help generate revenue, it is used for the purposes of engagement, to protect key species and habitats, and to celebrate the freedom of nature and natural landscapes.
Some people will seek to argue that deer sporting estates, grouse moors, and Woodland Grant Schemes (WGS) are Wild Places. To them they may well be, they simply have a different definition. The problem comes when they use their definition to claim ownership of the intrinsic quality of Wild Places, hiding the fact that these areas are fast disappearing from the UK’s landscape – eaten up by the human desire to place profit above nature.
Victor intimates that others could manage Trust land and this is of course true – the question is for whom and to what purpose? If an estate wishes to champion sporting interests, that is its right – it does not make it a Wild Place. A grouse moor, a plantation forest, or a deer estate may each have its own value – they are not Wild Places as we define them. The debate becomes distorted when different definitions are blurred together to diminish the intrinsic value of true wildness.
Looking forward
The John Muir Trust exists to protect Wild Places, these places are finite, the UK has precious few, and we believe they are a valuable resource in the UK’s mosaic of land use. They speak to something deep in us – a recognition that nature has worth beyond profit, that landscapes shaped by wind, water, and time are as essential to our identity as any built heritage.
Driving change in land management has never been easy. If it were, it would have happened decades ago. We now have a moment of real opportunity: public support, ecological urgency, and a growing appetite for landscapes that puts natural processes first – with a legal and policy framework which is forcing all of us who manage land to think about why we do this and what our objectives are.
We are purposeful. We are learning, improving, and committed to rebuilding trust where needed. Most importantly, we remain absolutely dedicated to the idea that Wild Places deserve a place in the UK landscape and in UK policy.
This work is bigger than us. It always has been. We are proud of our role in it and determined to improve our impact every year.
The John Muir Trust will continue to protect Wild Places because their intrinsic value is at the heart of who we are and why we exist. We will continue to work closely with communities, welcome honest debate, especially from those willing to help secure a lasting future for Wild Places and live in harmony with them
I welcome discussion about the challenges of protecting Wild Places and would be happy to speak to any audience interested in helping us further this objective.
[Ed note: David Balharry is CEO of JMT and I welcome his response to Victor Clements post. I hope they will open up a wider debate not just about JMT but about the management of wild land and wild places.]
A cogent summary Mr Balharry; keep up the good work. R Wallace, Glasgow
In 2024 I was happy to work with leaders JMT to fight the SRN plan to tame (destroy) every Wild Land area in Scotland by installing 260 mobile phone masts. But like others, I was devastated when this happened:
Posted on JMT website 27 May 2024:
“UPDATE: Unfortunately, due to changes within the Trust, we are no longer able to continue monitoring mast applications and updating this webpage. We are grateful for all the support we received from members and supporters during the campaign.”
Explanation from lead contact at JMT:
“May 28th 2024 : Automatic reply: Mt list on JMT website
Hello, thank you for your email. Please note that I no longer work for the John Muir Trust so I won’t be able to reply.”
Foot soldiers in the campaign – like myself – were left high and dry with no explanation. We were ultimately able to regroup and halt the SRN invasion without JMT help. Interesting to read the CEO’s words above, but still see no explanation of the last year’s betrayal. Consequence is that I now do not trust JMT, under 2024 management, to lead the protection of Wild places in Scotland.
I agree. I personally submitted objections to a huge number of SRN applications. As someone who steers clear of Facebook, I had initially looked to the JMT website for updates. Suddenly, that information source vanished. I had to learn how to access your Facebook page under the radar, as well as trawl planning applications when time allowed. Objections to the vandalism of certain proposed pumped storage hydro developments has also fallen by the wayside with JMT. There were still enough concerned staff in place to object to Earba/Ardverikie; by the time Fearna/Quoich arrived on the scene, the JMT response was a woolly “we must focus our resources on wider policy issues, not waste them on objecting to specific schemes”. As someone who supported JMT in their opposition to Stronelairg and many other campaigns, the ongoing drift towards irrelevance is deeply dismaying. Failure to act is an act of failure.
I was not planning on commenting on this particular post, but we have a number of 200-250 metre wind turbine applications here to the south of Aberfeldy, and JMT are nowhere to be seen. Ten years ago they would have been all over these schemes, which will be clearly seen from Ben Lawers, Schiehallion and c 60% of Highland Perthshire. Their many departing employees have clearly taken all their experience and expertize with them. I suspect it is not just a case of not deploying resources to these issues, more a case of the effective resources to deal with them are no longer there. No-one wants to pay for people sitting around debating policy. They want people who can do things.
David is absolutely correct to emphasise the fundamental problem underlying UK energy policy : “the massive profits made by multinationals with questionable benefit to the people who live there” . England expects Scotland to sacrifice our landscapes and wildlife to meet England’s excessive energy needs. Unfortunately this deference to our overlords south of the border is entirely our own fault. Responsibility for the industrialisation of Scotland’s Wild Land Areas by the unchecked proliferation of huge wind farms rests entirely on the shoulders of Nicola Sturgeon. She made last minute changes to NPF4 in 2023, as a result of UK energy company lobbying, just before her resignation as First Minister. Next year’s elections to the Scottish Parliament provide an opportunity to make radical but essential changes to Scottish energy policy to stop this assault on our world famous landscapes. Every politician elected next year needs to be committed to the immediate prohibition of all land based wind turbines greater than 50 metres to the vertical blade tip. The place for these monster turbines is offshore. On land we need to support local energy needs through small scale turbines on our farms and crofts. That should be the cornerstone of JMT policy and action.
Some 25 years have gone by since the first large-scale wind farm development took place south of Glasgow. Since then the hills to the south of the city all down the M74 corridor have become cloaked in countless more.
Recently one initial scheme underwent “modernisation”. Many old turbine towers were dismantled. In their place and on massive new foundations, approximately 2/3rds of the old number of towers were substituted by fewer “monster” turbine towers, with blades that revolve over twice as tall. These monsters do of course have a potential to create even more electricity than those old smaller towers did.
It is unclear how this change has been possible in view of the careful “landscape impact” assessments required. Images were prepared and carefully submitted to achieve consents against many protests by local people even by MOD long ago. Did anyone back then foresee that the small turbines would soon become obsolete, and far from reinstatement of the environmental damage now done, new monster towers and fresh roadways…more excavations , concrete and steel would be rolled out to replace them?
It was obvious from the outset that Every turbine tower ever constructed has a very finite lifespan. This expected ‘service life’ could never match..say..the 40 -50 year capability of a nuclear station such as Hunterstone was , Torness still is or even the 50 yearsuseful life of many of Scptl;ands former coal and gas fired stations. The period in service for a turbine tower will always be a “gnat’s whisker”( ! )in relation to the century of useful life now being achieved by hydro stations constructed before and after WW2.
For Scotland’s most precious and historic landscapes the ultimate environmental impact is hardly yet begun. So many planning consents now exist, the next stage for Scotland’s upland areas is ludicrously simple for developers. Bigger and more massive .. ever greater industrial exploitation …because none of this “decommissioning and improvement” will ‘disturb’ whatever visual aspect consideration was regulated by planning approvals already in place. The small scale “farm” already endured has served to industrialise that unqiue and valued ‘vista’
It appears those JMT stalwarts who worked so hard to resist these schemes 25-30 years ago for inappropriate places have moved on. As with so many organisations they have been eplaced by those “professional ” salary drawiing ‘executive types’ who have only ever known what is already there..but too many far too young to have noted the changes or recognise what has gradually been squandered for all time.
An old adage: ” sow the wind, reap the whirlwind? “
It’s a pity Balharry does not properly acknowledge several important points raised in Victor Clements’ article. His article thus fails to demonstrate the “humility” of which it boasts (!). I and many other long standing members and donors are very deeply unhappy about the massive and to our eyes damaging changes Mr Balharry has inflicted on what was an effective, respected and even loved institution. It is not clear what benefits if any will result. It seems he is of the modern fashion of middle managers who have been brainwashed into believing that change is unconditionally good. This is not the case, as was stated very clearly by Lord Haddon Cave in his important report on the loss of a Nimrod aircraft over Afghanistan about 20 years ago.
To be continued!
The purpose of a system is what it does. People like me and my mother who supported the Trust since its inception were not contributing our hard earned cash because of the stated “charitable purpose” but because of HOW the trust pursued its charitable purpose. The founders and early trustees and CEOs realised that the Trust could only do so much on its own and could achieve so much more, could leverage its money several times over, by working holistically with the communities on and near its properties and with the neighbouring landowners and land managers. This approach employed people who lived in or local to the properties, and ensured effective communication and for the most part effective engagement with local communities and neighbouring estates. It was a holistic approach that recognised that wild land is not land devoid of people, but land where people live in harmony with nature rather than seeking to dominate it. Rewilding must be done by and with, not to, the local communities otherwise it becomes another cycle in Scotland’s dismal history of clearances. This is the JMT that my mother and I were happy to support for 35 years. When she died I fully intended to make a substantial gift from my inheritance to the JMT in her memory. Pretty much the week she died – we had been distracted – I learned of the concerns about the current management of the trust and decided to hold off on the donation until I was happy that things were not as bad as they appeared. This was last autumn. Since then the more I learned about the Trust’s situation and direction of travel the less happy I have been. I am appalled that our recent donations have been spent on ill advised property purchases (holiday chalets are not wild land!), redundancy payments, lawyers’ fees and spin doctors’ salaries. These have nothing to do with the trust’s charitable purpose and have led to the loss of half its staff, and a huge fund of knowledge and goodwill. If this is the sum total of the change the CEO is so proud of, perhaps he should not continue to be the CEO.