If you go down to the woods today, you won’t meet laird

Published on Tuesday 29 November 2011 12:33

THE majority of privately owned forest in Scotland is in the hands of “absentees” and people who live outside the country, a new study shows.

The research has provoked concerns that many of the country’s woodlands are “owned by those who have never visited, and may even be unaware of what they own”.

According to Jon Hollingdale, chief executive of Community Woodlands Association (Scotland), this was likely to mean Scotland was not getting maximum benefits from its forests.

About two-thirds of Scotland’s forests and woodlands are privately owned, with the rest managed by Forestry Commission Scotland.

The research by the Forest Policy Group showed that, of this, about two-thirds was in the hands of “absentees”, 76 per cent of whom lived outside Scotland.

It also showed that the average size of an individual private forest holding in Scotland was 259 hectares, by far the largest of 20 European countries studied.

Mr Hollingdale described Scotland’s land ownership patterns as “unique in their concentration of so much in the hands of so few”.

And he added: “Do we really believe that the two issues – who owns the land, and the public benefits it delivers – are not in some way connected?

“As it seems likely that many of Scotland’s forests are owned by those who have never visited, and may even be unaware of what they own, it’s hardly surprising that our forests aren’t delivering all that they might.”

He added that while there were many “beautiful” and “well-managed” forests in the public and private sectors, he thought community ownership was best for delivering the “full gamut” of economic, environmental and social benefits.

“Too much of Scottish land ownership and acquisition is predicated on the tax breaks and subsidies that land ownership brings, and too much of our land is valued by its owners as a long-term repository of capital and a handy signifier of social power and status, than for its productive capacity,” he said.

Mr Hollingdale made his comments in a report published yesterday, The State of the UK’s Forests, Woods and Trees.

The report, compiled with input from 20 forest and wildlife groups, highlighted that there was little information held about the personal profile of woodland owners.

However, it said that, in the second half of last century, there was a substantial shift from traditional landed estate, which dominated ownership, to corporate “investment” owners.

The report went on: “Many European countries have a stronger tradition of community ownership than the UK. In France, there are 11,000 forest communes owning around 20 per cent of the total forest area, and much more wooded common land.”

Andrew Fairbairn, policy and communications manager at the Woodland Trust Scotland, said it was preferable if people had a close interest in the forest they owned.

However, he added: “It’s good to see a range of ownership types.”

Comments

There are 9 comments to this article

Order by:

• Newest first
• |
• Oldest first

Page 1 of 1

• 1
• Show all

9

Ron Greer

Wednesday, November 30, 2011 at 07:36 PM

8 Bunch of If you have ever noticed that I keep banging on about a 100% land rental value collection to replace taxes, then this is a main reason why. LRV cannot be escaped by nondoms, by transfer to a trust or relative etc, as land cannot be hidden or transferred to an offshore account. Scotland has the most intensive private land ownership pattern in the world, with 60% of the land owned by around 2000 people, so not too many to track down. Since land rent is not collected on bricks and mortar property, or other improvements and no taxes on labour or enterprise taking place on the land, then there is a double boost to the ecomomy through securing public revenue without penalising work and endeavour. There is no need to resort to expensive and totalitarian state expropriation. Once LRV is initiated, we'l soon see who needs land and who just wants it.

• Report Unsuitable

8

Bunch of malcontent whingers

Wednesday, November 30, 2011 at 06:32 PM

There must be some way of bringing absentee land owners to account if the their land is left untended, surely?

• Report Unsuitable

7

Ron Greer

Wednesday, November 30, 2011 at 09:04 AM

Yes Slioch the situation is a disgrace and what hope do we have when the Scottish National Party can't even embrace the concept of a Scottish national park being owned by the Scottish nation!? In decades of discussing the issue with senior members of the SNP( I was a member of the Scottish Land Commission set up by Alex Salmond) I have finally come to the conclusion that the SNP hierarchy is happier with entrenching the interests of land monopoly capitalists than in advancing the interests of the people of Scotland.

• Report Unsuitable

6

Bunch of malcontent whingers

Tuesday, November 29, 2011 at 09:00 PM

Pending Moderation

• Report Unsuitable

5

mbrmark

Tuesday, November 29, 2011 at 04:03 PM

There should be a public interest option whereby the tenant-residents of any land in Scotland should be able to buy and have first option to buy in the event of a sale. The right that crofters now have should be available to any in Scotland if they are tenants and use the land for agricultural purposes.

• Report Unsuitable

4

Ron Greer

Tuesday, November 29, 2011 at 02:38 PM

Logie88 I am a nordophile of many years and perhaps the owner you mention has brought some of the pyschology and actions that makes much of western Norway such a much more dynamic and less rundown landscape than in very similar geo-climatic areas of Scotland. Likewise the Danish landowner of Glenfeshie is doing some brave and visionary things and even taking some stick from that hopeless crew at SNH in the process. If Scotland had a similar land tenure structure to the Scandinavians maybe we'd produce more men of good deed and vision in the landscape too. We can rest assured of course that the chances of non residents owning tens of thousands of acres in Rogaland or Vest Agder are a lot less than they are of owning similar acreages of similar land in Scotland. Tis we who are at fault.

• Report Unsuitable

3

Logie88

Tuesday, November 29, 2011 at 02:21 PM

Where I live in rural Perthshire one of the estates is owned by a Norwegian businessman. It is immaculately kept by local workers and contractors who tell me that the landowner is an excellent employer who is on first name terms with those he employs and who takes a close interest in everything going on in the area. The other large estate in the area is owned by a traditional "laird" type family who live locally. Their estate is slowly falling into ruin with abandoned farmhouses, empty cottages, and fields becoming unusable because of broken drainage. It is far too simplistic to say "absentee landlord bad".

• Report Unsuitable

2

Slioch.

Tuesday, November 29, 2011 at 10:44 AM

#1 sjhill Who Cares? I do - though I wouldn't use the word "laird". If you can meet the person who owns the wood, or even if the owner has some knowledge of the wood, then you can discuss with them aspects of its management. Communities can make suggestions of how management could improve. Where large corporate bodies buy up large areas of woodland as a land bank for future development, then they have little or no knowledge of what they have bought and do nothing to improve it. For example, woodlands that I have known were bought by a large insurance company and have urgently required removal of planted exotic conifers that have little or no commercial value but are damaging to the ecology and amenity of the wood. But if, as is the case, the company has no interest in ecology or amenity and is merely sitting on the land in the hope that one day it might get planning permission for development in it, then the wood deteriorates and it is impossible for local people even to influence events. Three factors seem to characterise Scotland: 1. large areas of land purchased by absentee owners who know little and care nothing of its value. 2. a largely apathetic population that seems to accept that this is the natural order of things and does little to oppose it 3. successive governments, including the present, that do nothing to stop this disgraceful situation continuing.

• Report Unsuitable

1

sjhill

Tuesday, November 29, 2011 at 10:19 AM

If the land is maintained, and people can still take a wander through it most of the time, who cares if you can meet the laird or not?

• Report Unsuitable

Order by:

• Newest first
• |
• Oldest first

Page 1 of 1

• 1
• Show all

Logged in as:

Comment here. Start typing your comment here:

Post comment

Please adhere to our Community guidelines

Your view

Please sign in to be able to comment on this story.