Research feedback seminar4th April 2013

Perth College UHI

THE SOCIOECONOMIC BENEFITS OF THE OWNERSHIP AND MANAGEMENT OF LAND BY ENVIRONMENTAL NON-GOVERNMENTAL

ORGANISATIONS (NGOs)

Photo: David Ross

PROJECT STEERING TEAM

John Muir Trust (JMT)National Trust for Scotland (NTS)RSPB Scotland (RSPB)Scottish Environment LINK (LINK)Scottish Wildlife Trust (SWT)Woodland Trust Scotland (WTS)

Additional information from Borders Forest Trust, Plantlife and Trees for Life

1 BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

AIM: to identify and understand the key socioeconomic benefits of landownership and management by environmental NGOs

Photo: http://archive.bigben.id.au/terragen/ben_nevis/

1 BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

OBJECTIVE A: To assess the extent of environmental NGO land ownership and management in Scotland;

OBJECTIVE B: To determine the natural heritage significance and landscape value of this land;

OBJECTIVE C: To determine key socioeconomic benefits, including employment, access and visitor numbers, volunteering and direct spend;

OBJECTIVE D: To assess the extent of community engagement, including educational engagement, partnership working with communities and others, and collaborative initiatives.

2 METHODOLOGY

OBJECTIVES A-C › Database of ownership information› GIS analysis

› Land coverage, conservation value, landscape value

› FTEs (organisational/site-related), visitor numbers, volunteers, direct spend

› Five ‘exemplar case studies’ - data on: cultural and heritage significance, status as a visitor attraction, management objectives, site-related employment and spend, volunteering, links with local communities and other partners

2 METHODOLOGYCASE STUDIESSite Owner Site type Management objectivesBen Nevis JMT Large-scale

(mountain/rural)Visitor management; wildness enhancement

Mar Lodge NTS Large-scale (mountain/rural)

Habitat restoration; integrated management; tourism and education

Abernethy RSPB Large-scale (mountain/rural )

Habitat restoration; interpretation

Livingston WTS Smaller scale (urban)

Visitor management; interpretation

Falls of Clyde

SWT Smaller scale (peri-urban)

Visitor management; interpretation; habitat management

2 METHODOLOGY

OBJECTIVE D: To analyse the extent to which the project NGOs carry out community engagement on their sites. › Direct engagement (local, educational etc.)› Partnership working with neighbouring

communities and others› Additional in-depth case studies (Great Trossachs

Forest and Cumbernauld Living Landscape)

3. Extent and conservation/landscape values of land owned and managed by NGOs

3.1. SPATIAL EXTENT OF LAND OWNED AND MANAGED BY NGO (GIS DATA)

NGONo. of sites

Total area (ha)

% of Scotland

Mean area (ha)

Min area (ha)

Max area (ha)

NTS 94 76,073 1.01 112 <0.01 29,299

RSPB 74 66,793 0.85 903 1.82 19,331

JMT 9 24,459 0.31 2,718 149.14 6,444

SWT 120 19,820 0.25 165 0.08 6,191

WTS 56 8,633 0.11 154 0.36 4,882

BFT 5 1,324 0.02 265 8.07 660

Plantlife 1 1,261 0.02 1,261 1,261.00 1,261

TFL 1 4,028 0.05 4,028 4,028.14 4,028

Totals 360 202,391 2.62% 562.2 (mean site size)

3.1. SPATIAL EXTENT OF LAND OWNED AND MANAGED BY NGOS (TABULATED DATA)

NGONo. of sites

Owned land (ha)

Land under agreement (ha)

Total area (ha)

% of all NGO land

NTS 128 77,206.34 3.40 77,209.74 37.14%

RSPB 74 53,389.00 17,725.00 71,114.00 34.21%

JMT 9 24,461.00 - 24,461.00 11.77%

SWT 121 12,125.14 7,698.37 19,823.51 9.54%

WTS 57 8,643.80 - 8,643.80 4.16%

BFT 5 1,324.00 - 1,324.00 0.64%

Plantlife 1 1,261.00 - 1,261.00 0.61%

TFL 1 4,028.00 - 4,028.00 1.94%

Totals 396 182,438.28 25,426.77 207,865.05 100%

Land owned or managed by environmental NGOs accounts for a relatively small proportion (2.6%) of Scotland, with a mean landholding size across all landholdings of 562 hectares

3.2 NATURAL HERITAGE VALUE OF NGO LAND AS INDICATED BY LEVEL OF DESIGNATION

Designation type

Designation area (ha)

Total area of NGO land in each designation type (ha)

% of total NGO land in each designation type

% of total designation area in NGO land

SSSI 1,014,482.07 96,042.47 47.45% 9.47%SPA 1,251,948.03 95,696.09 47.28% 7.64%

SAC 4,197,951.15 65,357.89 32.29% 1.56%LNR 10,216.61 1,232.74 0.61% 12.07%NNR 123,449.97 38,960.12 19.25% 31.56%NP 639,149.57 52,494.26 25.94% 8.21%RAMSAR 326,788.46 28,328.03 14.00% 8.67%WHS 868.98 868.98 0.43% 100.00%

Nearly 50% of NGO owned and managed land is designated as SSSI or SPA (or both), with over 30% designated as SAC and over 19% designated as NNR.

31% of all NNR land in Scotland is owned/managed by NGOs.

Image from: bobhamiltonphotography.com

3.2 NATURAL HERITAGE VALUE OF NGO LAND AS INDICATED BY LEVEL OF DESIGNATION

Number of designations

Area of NGO owned and managed land

(ha)

% of total NGO owned and

managed land0 81,744.92 40.391 15,881.84 7.852 41,595.34 20.553 21,269.99 10.514 19,643.17 9.715 21,744.98 10.746 510.76 0.25

Significant areas of NGO land are subject to multiple overlapping designations, with over 50% of all NGO owned and managed land subject to 2 or more overlapping designations and over 30% subject to 3 or more.

3.3 LANDSCAPE VALUE AS INDICATED BY NSAs

48% of NGO owned and managed land is also designated as National Scenic Area, with NGO land again accounting for a disproportional amount (9.6%) of the total area of NSA designated land.

3.3 LANDSCAPE VALUE OF NGO LAND AS INDICATED BY LEVEL OF WILDNESS

Nearly 40% of the land occurring within the top 10% wildest parts of Scotland is owned by NGOs

4 The socioeconomic benefits of NGO landownership and management

4.1 EMPLOYMENT

NGONumber of

sites

FTEs directly related to the

sites

Total FTEs (in the

organisation)

% FTEs related to land management

JMT 24 7.08 35.3 20.1%

NTS 128 152i 463 32.8%

RSPB 74 113.2 368 30.2%

SWT 121 26 100 26.0%

WTS 57 7 24 29.2%

Totals 389 305.28 990.3  

i The FTE figure for NTS is currently an estimate (figure to be confirmed).

CASE STUDY 1: ABERNETHY (RSPB)

› Direct on-site employment accounts for 12.2 FTEs› Osprey centre attracts 127,000 visitors per year›Visitor expenditure is estimated to support 69 FTEs locally› Indirect employment: contractors, local timber and venison dealers› Direct annual spend: £583,000 (2012)

4.2 FACILITATING PUBLIC ACCESS AND INTERPRETATION

› All NGOs provide public access and interpretive activities› Ranger services› Footpath management a major activity› Significant development of facilities› Wildlife watching infrastructure

CASE STUDY 2: LIVINGSTON WOODS (WTS)

› Focus on raising awareness of the woodlands and biodiversity› Developing a ‘safe’ environment› Direct annual spend: £20,000 (2012)› Upgrading paths a priority› Regular volunteers and joint community projects›‘Branching Out West Lothian’

CASE STUDY 3: FALLS OF CLYDE (SWT)

› Major visitor attraction (over 70,000 annual visitors)› Rangers regularly present on the reserve› Investment in path management› Visitor Centre in New Lanark› Peregrine Watch project› Regular volunteers

4.3 VISITORS TO NGO SITES

NGONumber of

sitesTotal estimated annual visits

(all sites)

JMT 24 236,450

NTS 128 1,390,260

RSPB 74 494,794

SWT 121 70,000

WTS 57 1,000,000

Totals 389 3,191,504

CASE STUDY 4: BEN NEVIS (JMT)

› 160,000 visitors a year› 300-450,000 visitors in wider area› Visitor management and path restoration a priority› Wildland Ranger and Conservation Officer monitor the site’s ecology› 3-6 conservation work parties per year (30-95 volunteer days)

4.4 VOLUNTEERING

NGONumber of

sitesNumber of volunteers directly

associated with sites

JMT 24 150NTS 128 2,950RSPB 74 496SWT 121 400WTS 57 150BFT 5 70TFL 1 427Totals 389 5,482

CASE STUDY 5: MAR LODGE (NTS)

› Over 4,000 hours of volunteer activity on the estate last year› Range of individuals, organised groups, long-term placements and conservation camps. › Visitor management plan and upland path management› Supported by a very active ranger service

4.5 DIRECT SPEND ON SITES

NGOTotal

hectares

Direct spend related to

sites 2011/2012

(£)i

Total expenditure

(across organisation)

2011/2012 (£)

Percentage of expenditure

allocated to land management

Direct spend per

hectare (£)

JMT 24,461.00 821,142 1,595,937 51.5% 33.57

NTS 77,209.74 28,530,000 42,116,000 67.7% 369.51

RSPB 71,114.00 5,151,000 12,590,000 40.9% 72.43

SWT 19,823.51 1,840,656 5,201,355 35.4% 92.85

WTS 8,643.80 1,046,500 1,181,500 88.6% 84.05

BFT 1,324.00 567,925 680,117 83.5% 428.9

TFL 4,028.00 160,000 560,000 28.6% 39.72

Totals 206,605.32 £37,637,223 £63,364,909 Mean: 59.3%

5 COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT AND COLLABORATIVE WORKING

5.1 COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT AND LOCAL WORKING GROUPS

› Rangers and community engagement officers› Volunteer-run local groups (member based)›NTS regional groups (engagement remit)›Widespread public events

5.2 ENGAGEMENT THROUGH EDUCATION

› Extensive range of activities›Educational programmes (online and on sites/in visitor centres – e.g. Living Classrooms)›Educational materials linked to Curriculum for Excellence› Structured activities and awards for children/young adults:

› RSPB and SWT kids’ groups› John Muir Award

5.3 PARTNERSHIP WORKING WITH COMMUNITIES

› Partnerships with community landholdings› Direct financial support for buyouts and ranger services (JMT,SWT)› Land management advice for community landowners› Formal Community Partnership Programme (NTS)› Advice to private landowners (JMT-Corrour)› Advice to farmers and biodiversity-friendly farming projects (RSPB)

CASE STUDY 6: CUMBERNAULD LIVING LANDSCAPE (SWT)

› SWT, Local Authorities and FCS› ‘Sustainable place-making approach’› Improving urban greenspace and developing an integrated green network›Extensive volunteer input and large number of local community groups working directly with SWT and various agencies

5.4 COLLABORATIVE WORKING FOR LARGE-SCALE ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION AND GREEN NETWORKS

› Multi-stakeholder collaborative initiatives (Living Landscapes, Futurescapes and TGTF)› Landscape restoration and habitat connectivity› Engagement with local communities and volunteers

CASE STUDY 7: GREAT TROSSACHS FOREST (RSPB & WTS)› Partnership with FCS› Linking Loch Katrine, Glen Finglas (WTS) and Inversnaid (RSPB)› Planting new native woodland› ‘Living laboratory’ and long-term monitoring site›Strategy to increase visitors› Work with LLTNP and local communities

6 CONCLUSIONS› Considerable wide ranging benefits associated with NGO ownership and

management of land› Some of the finest land in Scotland (scenic, cultural and natural heritage)› Indirect economic impacts not assessed – case studies indicate they are

considerable – scope for further work› Access a key objective – links to Land Reform› Community engagement widespread – more on educational elements.› Greater focus on participative engagement emerging (including through

volunteering, regional groups etc.)› Minority form of landownership – but clear emphasis on partnership working

and acting as exemplar sites.› Importance of NGO ownership/management potentially increasing in a time of

rural change› Potential for further work on reviewing impacts/benefits from wider

perspectives