On Crofting, Landlordism, Rewilding and Depopulation

This is my home, not just where I live, but my “home” and part of my community. There are eight croft houses and an equivalent number of new houses set in a patchwork of fields, pasture woodland and blocks of trees. Soon to be surrounded if not overcome, by new forestry. It sits on land that was originally ceded to the Grants by James IV back in 1509 and remained in their ownership for nearly 450 years. During that time lairds such as the “Good” Sir James Grant did much to improve the conditions for tenants delineating holdings, constructing steadings and undertaking tree planting (in the late eighteenth century), where oak, birch, ash and hazel plantations were managed for the tanning industry, charcoal production and hardwood for implements.  There was also a grove of Roble Beech planted, thought at that time to be the new wonder wood. Very forward thinking.

There were no mass evictions or clearances in favour of sheep in the “Glen”, but “removals” continued until the Crofting Act of 1886.  In 1945 the estate was divided up and sold in lots (houses, crofts and farms) allowing tenants to purchase at a reasonable price. This has meant that some families are able to trace their history back in the locality through many generations, giving a strong sense of place, and although the community in the Glen is dispersed, it is still quite close-knit. 

However, things change and there are now at least three rewilding/natural capital projects close by. With respect to one of these, the community soon learnt that it is never a good sign of things to come, if a prospective major player in the life of the area chooses to communicate repeatedly with the community purely via the self-promoting newspaper articles. It is now viewed as a rich man’s folly, appearing to have little regard to local opinions or concerns, let alone heritage of the land or its place in history. The people who lived there, worked and won the land, raised families and died there, these families, even if they’ve left the Glen, still have a strong emotional connection and sense of place.  

Locals, whose families and extended families had previously cropped the land, well within living memory, are incensed that so much is being discarded/ ignored/ dismissed. To some it is deeply upsetting, and many consider rewilding and associated “green lairds” as a continuation of colonialism and liken it to the “Clearances”. People feel insulted, patronised, that they are being treated with condescension by “another rich man from down south”, which in fairness could be anywhere south of Perth, promising largess to “the locals” who are unable to either recognize or seize the opportunity for themselves.   

Rewilding, Carbon Credits and Nature-based Solutions have become clickbait to grab the public’s imagination with an idyllic, sunlit, sylvan landscape teeming with wildflowers and butterflies, offering boundless opportunities for the reintroduction of long-lost species. 

Promises of economic benefits through “green jobs” have been greeted with scepticism, particularly as these don’t include game keeping or agriculture. As without these jobs, estates in general, aren’t known for their vast income stream. Locally the combination of second (ultimately retirement) homes, holiday cottages and low paid seasonal work servicing tourism, has generated a lack of affordable homes and young people have to move to find housing even if they have employment. On the whole, people in the surrounding area are financially poor and cannot afford the rising house prices, that are further inflated by “incomers” paying well over the asking price, that can be £100,000’s over, let alone find and afford a property to rent  and any aspiration to acquire a few acres (less than 10) is bordering on the delusional. 

One rewilding project is putting forward plans to build high-end houses, under the guise of subsidising low-cost housing for estate workers but in reality to generate the required income stream to service the promised financial return for their investors. 

There is no plan to restore any crofts and so bring people back to work the land in a sustainable or “nature friendly” way. The land, that was fought so hard for with consumption dykes and stone piles on field edges acting as salutary reminders of the shallow soil and the grinding work, will be allowed to regress to an idea, a vague concept of what the new owner conceives, or how like-minded associates consider, the countryside might have been like thousands of years ago complete with an acceptable flora and fauna and, somehow, appropriate climate.  

An apparent benefit of “rewilding” will be “re-population of the Highlands” however this requires affordable housing.  It is true that many “incomers” don’t want to see any increase in housing, other than for those “nice people like us” with a substantial income. But they want a safe countryside, wild, but not too wild, deodorised and sanitised, with a couple of bucolic peasants toiling for an honest living in the distance, so long as they live somewhere else. People who require affordable housing have to move to large urban areas and commute back to their village for work. 

Local people are not happy. They feel that there is a degree of arrogance, many people are concerned at the level of “landlordism” or that this is another “green laird”.  There is doubt that there is an actual goal, although the plan is to “build back better”, whatever that means. 

But, in order to generate the required income to cover running costs and acquire more land, unusual methods of finance acquisition and alternative ideas of shareholding have been proposed. These have invoked comments on social media such as “that’s not land reform you’ve written about, it’s financial levying via taxation, changes nothing of ownership and tenure dynamics, and rather bolsters economic apartheid under a ruse of fairness” and “there is too much emphasis on finance and business behind the scenes for me which I think is disingenuous to what they state publicly”.  

Another pipe dream is “eco-tourism”. But given that the aim is to capture carbon on a grand scale and reduce carbon emissions, this is surely at odds with encouraging tourists to drive/fly to the area to pay to have a look at a relatively ordinary piece of hillside.  It doesn’t matter how many trees are planted or bogs restored, those continual emissions should be avoided rather than magically offset on some global spreadsheet. 

Within several projects, some croft houses have been restored as holiday lets for people to dream of the good life they would so like, as long as it wasn’t too hard, didn’t rain/snow too much, no midge, not too far from a coffee shop/takeaway and Tesco’s delivered, an idealism far removed from the realities of a crofting life. Others have been allowed to become ruins, a sad, stark reminder of previous lives and thriving communities. 

There is a long history of Scotland being used as a playground for the monied and entitled to extract profits from its natural resources (timber, coal, petrochemicals), its people or simply its beauty. There is the potential to generate, renewable energy, in the 1940’s it was the “Hydro” (see the Cooper Committee), now it is multi-nationals such as the Norwegian Government’s energy giant Statkraft cultivating wind farms, and most recently monied peoples buying estates to enhance their investment portfolios with this season’s must-have fashion accessory, namely an estate to sequester carbon or improve biodiversity (as noted in the Tatler). This sudden interest in Scotland is not about altruism, profit must be involved. 

However, in rural areas, these ideas of, Carbon Credits and Nature-based Solutions are viewed controversially. Scepticism of the concept is rife and a range of questions asked:

• What is involved?
• How will we be affected?
• How will it be achieved?
• Who will profit ? –
• Will they pay tax or corporation tax? 
• Is it another scam? The reports in the media (if correct) about the company Verra certainly seem like it.

Will there be compensation for the loss of common grazings, sometimes unregistered, or is this more of “Scotland being bought up by absentee kleptocrats” ? 

The reality is that these “carbon credits” will simply become another Stock Market commodity. 

So, are Nature-based Solutions simply “about turning nature conservation into a capitalist enterprise with profit as the bottom line” or reducing biodiversity to an algorithm and assigning a monetary value as if it was a tradeable commodity? Surely nature should be protected for its intrinsic value rather than as a source of capital?  Little wonder then that an increasing portion of the population are now penetrating the smoke and mirrors of carbon credits and Nature-based Solutions to identify their guise as a financial gain, for “environmentally woke” entrepreneurs especially where promises of an “X% return” are dangled as reward. 

A land agent at a well-known company relates that carbon credits are “a tricky subject and something people are scared to grab hold of! In my experience with both woodland and peatland restoration carbon projects, landowners are entering into the schemes and going through the process but then holding onto the credits. The advice they are being given is to hold on to them as the market is only going to rise with the net zero targets. Therefore, there are very little units being traded.”

However, in contrast the agent also said ; “I have been involved in a large peatland carbon scheme on Lewis where the landowner was entering into the scheme in collaboration with the many common grazing committees. The plan was to split any profit from the scheme 50:50. In my experience this is unique!” 

Surely this is the way forward, everyone can gain, everyone has an input and there is a common goal. 

Another area of land, not part of a rewilding project, potentially still be a part of an area of unregistered common grazing has been sold off in five-acre plots that the new owners have a virtual free-hand to develop. This expanse of what was once species rich pasture woodland dominated by birch and wetland, has only been lightly grazed since the 1960’s by deer, sheep and cattle. Some of these veteran birch have been felled and replaced with rows of whips in plastic tubes for carbon credits. “Green washing, but I’m getting paid by a charity promoting carbon sequestration through tree planting” a plot owner cheerily said. 

A further block of the common grazings along with three crofts, purchased by an estate simply to permit timber extraction and managed by a prominent Scottish land agent is to be planted/ replanted with trees to enhance biodiversity, but in reality to garner carbon sequestration credits and Nature-based Solutions. The community is currently fighting the loss of these grazings and solicitors are involved. The crofts will be lost under tree planting and there are no plans for the three houses. Does everything have to be destroyed for financial gain?
Would the community want to manage the land instead?

The majority would like to see the land returned to some form of crofting, i.e. that houses could be bought and families return to the land which would be held under a covenant to be maintained as croft land either registered or not, with common grazings and their use resurrected. It should be pointed out that crofting has the potential to be the low carbon model of living that we need a lot more of, combining production of fuel, food and energy with economic activity.

That however is just one side of the coin and it should be compared with what can be achieved with respect to providing a real benefit to both the environment and the community. Not many miles to the south is an alternative approach – a project whose vision is “of a revitalised wild forest in the Highlands of Scotland, providing space for wildlife to flourish and communities to thrive.” This enterprise comprises a large estate with a tree nursery, and a new education centre that includes a Gaelic resource centre and employs over 30 staff with a similar number of volunteers.

250,000 trees have been planted and using the Woodland Carbon Code it has been calculated that these will potentially sequester 50,000 tons of carbon. Approximately half of the derived credits are passed to the local community. Two tranches of derived funding have already been passed to the community with no criteria as to how the money is spent or when, other than it has to be for community benefit. Naturally this project and those involved are held in high esteem by most in the area.

The key point, from the very start, was that they were clear and open with their intentions and go out of their way to engage with people directly, continually disseminate ideas and outcomes and don’t communicate repeatedly via the news media or attempt to empire build by buying vast areas of land or pricing locals out of houses. They have a record of achievement in habitat restoration, they are inclusive of people, and sensitive to cultural heritage, language and customs. They’ve kept things simple and local and it seems to work.

Yet think of the Cooper Committee on Hydro development in 1942/43 where they say in their report:

Is this happening now? Are we seeing the “green lairds” and the “rewilding aficionados ” heavy handedly trying to convert the Highlands into a national park and sterilise it in perpetuity?  Is it right that people with access to large sums of money are able to buy up vast areas and their response to any criticism is “It’s our land and we will do as we want with it”? Communities are being priced out of any hope of land acquisition purely for vanity projects and the latest fashion accessory (Tatler). And carbon credits and the monetization of nature, will they just be another financial Bubble? 

Can we dare to hope that land reform could provide opportunity in the Highlands for initiative, independence and industry? For the sake of just my community alone I hope so.