New unit aims to build partnerships between communities and developers
The Natural Capital Community Partnerships (NCCP) project aims to establish fair and practical examples of projects where communities, developers and landowners work together to share in the benefits of natural capital investment.
The new unit will be led by Dr Sally Reynolds, who has significant experience working in community development and of 'walking the tightrope' between different interests in the land use sector.
'We want to promote understanding and cooperation between different parties', said Dr Reynolds. 'We want to encourage open conversation and early dialogue between communities, landowners and developers.'
Dr Reynolds highlighted that community engagement is crucial.
She added: 'Well-managed peatland or wetland restoration or woodland development projects can support both environmental restoration and community development and resilience. It can create local jobs, boost local economies and sustain livelihoods - maximising the benefits for communities.'
READ MORE:
New report highlights how crofting helps keep Eigg's cultural traditions alive
Call for delay to controversial sale of Skye castle and estate
New community-led homes development on Colonsay will be 'transformational'
There are already a number of successful, collaborative projects across Scotland, such as the community-owned Assynt Foundation in Sutherland, which has a major forest development project with Woodland Trust Scotland.
In Dumfries and Galloway, Foresight Sustainable Forestry Company has a partnership with Upper Urr Environmental Trust which has allowed them to develop the area for community use including the installation of a path network, benches and a range of community events.
Dr Reynolds said: 'This is a new and unique project doing a lot of work on-the-ground. It's a key ambition that Scotland's land should benefit more of Scotland's people. With good conversations at an early stage there is greater understanding and a much greater chance of agreements that suit everyone.'
'As far as possible, the community, landowners and developers should be able to form agreements that are meaningful and beneficial for all parties.'
The Natural Capital Community Partnerships will have a team of four staff and will work within Community Land Scotland and in partnership with the Scottish Land Commission. The Community Land Scotland team will work as part of a network of advisers across Scotland including the newly appointed Community Benefits from Nature Adviser employed by the Scottish Land Commission in partnership with the Cairngorms National Park Authority.
Emma Cooper, Head of Land Rights and Responsibilities at the Scottish Land Commission, said: 'This project is a really important step in making sure natural capital investment delivers for communities as well as for nature.
'We're pleased to be working alongside Community Land Scotland, including through our new Community Benefits from Nature Adviser, to support fair and practical approaches in communities across Scotland.
'Our land is a finite resource that needs to meet many different needs. By helping communities, landowners and developers work together from the outset, this initiative can turn potential tensions into lasting, shared benefits.'
The project is funded by Esmée Fairbairn Foundation, Foundation Scotland, Highlands and Islands Enterprise, South of Scotland Enterprise, Scottish Forestry and others.
Jane Morrison-Ross, Chief Executive of South of Scotland Enterprise (SOSE) said: 'As Scotland's Natural Capital Innovation Zone we continue to take a forward-thinking approach in the South of Scotland to creating a wellbeing economy based on our natural capital assets.
'Community Wealth Building is one of our key priorities, so we are delighted to be working with Community Land Scotland and partners in delivering this groundbreaking national project.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
05-08-2025
- The Independent
National living wage likely to rise to £12.71 next year, advisory body estimates
The national living wage could rise by as much as 65p an hour next year, an advisory body has estimated, as the terms of its annual review of wage rates were published. Ministers are determined to deliver 'a genuine living wage', according to the Low Pay Commission's (LPC) latest remit for increasing the so-called national living wage – the UK minimum wage for workers aged 21 and older. At the moment, the national living wage is £12.21 an hour. The LPC estimates that this will need to increase to £12.71 in 2026 to not fall below two-thirds of median earnings: the threshold which the Government expects it to stay above. But the LPC acknowledged the national living wage could rise to as much as £12.86 an hour, or as little as £12.55 an hour, depending on changing economic conditions. Founded in 1997, the advisory body provides recommendations to ministers each autumn regarding how it believes the minimum wage should be changed. The Government ultimately sets minimum wage rates for the following April after this advice. A letter from Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner and Business Secretary Jonathan Reynolds said the committee must take into account the cost of living as it reviews the national living wage. The two senior ministers insisted the Government was 'committed to ensuring that the minimum wage is a genuine living wage'. They added: 'We continue to recognise that our ambition should be backed by evidence, and that the minimum wage rate should be consistent with delivering inclusive growth for working people and businesses alike. 'We are therefore asking the LPC to recommend a national living wage rate that is at least two-thirds of UK median earnings for workers aged 21 and over, to apply from next April, which takes into account the cost of living, effects on employment and developments in the wider economy.' Elsewhere, the Government is pushing forward with plans to end 'discriminatory' age banding for the minimum wage, and has extended the LPC's remit to examine this. It said the LPC will consult with employers, trade unions and workers on narrowing the gap between the national living wage and the minimum wage rate for 18 to 20-year-olds, which is currently £10. There is also a minimum wage for those aged under 18, and apprentices, of £7.55. The LPC will report back in October with advice to the Government on how much the minimum wage should rise by in 2026. The Resolution Foundation, a think tank which works to improve living standards, suggested the Government was using 'ambitious language' on increasing the minimum wage, but in reality was adopting a cautious approach. Nye Cominetti, principal economist at the think tank, said: 'Despite the Government's ambitious language around 'delivering a genuine living wage', the new remit for the Low Pay Commission represents a steady-as-she-goes approach to the adult rate, after faster increases in the years preceding 2024. 'This caution is warranted given worrying labour market data, which is thanks in part to the Government's increase in employer national insurance contributions in April.'
Telegraph
02-08-2025
- Telegraph
The wealth tax isn't coming, but Labour has other daft plans to take your money
The Government is in trouble. Its inability to persuade backbenchers to accept even modest spending cuts means it badly needs to raise money to fill the gaps caused by its self-harming policies. Tax revenues have dipped below expectations due to poor economic growth, wealthy taxpayers are leaving the country and people are changing their spending and investment patterns. Its failure to make the savings it planned means it has to borrow more, but its year of governing has pushed the cost of borrowing up, too. Many on the left of the party saw an opportunity to pressure Rachel Reeves and have lobbied for a so-called 'wealth tax'. But now that Labour has more or less backed off the idea, what else do they have in store for us? A wealth tax was always a non-starter simply because it is so administratively complex it could not have been introduced before the next election. This would have meant yet more people leaving the UK, taking their wealth with them. Some property markets would see values fall, in turn damaging their potential to create tax revenues. The effect on the economy would be significant. No surprise then that Jonathan Reynolds, Business and Trade Secretary, has ruled out a wealth tax, describing it as 'daft' (which it obviously is) and saying that those demanding one should 'get serious' – meaning it will be left to Jeremy Corbyn's new party to campaign on. But taxation is not the departmental responsibility of Reynolds, so why then can't Reeves make a clear statement? Allowing the speculation to linger looks like a clear attempt to foster a deliberate and irresponsible distraction – that can only mean Labour Treasury ministers are working on other tax plans. To understand what Labour is likely to be planning it is best to examine proposals which have the support of CenTax, the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) and Labour-supporting tax enthusiast Dan Neidle, of Tax Policy Associates, who says 'it makes much more sense to tighten existing taxes, such as capital gains tax and inheritance tax'. It was these groups, led by CenTax, which were successful in persuading Labour to adopt its disastrous assault on non-doms and Reeves's extension of inheritance tax to family firms and farms. The far Left agenda surfacing from them now is focused on raising capital gains tax. But the capital gains tax rises that have already taken place have, as predicted in these pages by many authors, resulted in significant lost revenue. Capital gains tax receipts fell 18pc to £12.1bn in 2023-24 on the year before, even as the annual tax-free allowance was halved from £12,300 to £6,000. Capital gains tax receipts in 2024-25 dropped a further 10pc. If the high-tax zealots do persuade Labour to increase capital gains tax to income tax levels, we can expect a much sharper fall in these receipts. Currently, nobody thinks Labour will be re-elected, meaning everyone would just hold on to assets (equities, properties, etc) for the four or so years Labour remains in power, causing revenues to dry up. CenTax and the other high tax enthusiasts want to charge capital gains tax on all assets at death, but that would result in a tax rate on death of over 54pc. The high death tax rate is the main reason non-doms and entrepreneurs are fleeing Britain. To make it even more punitive would be a significant act of national self-harm. Another idea being mooted is an 'exit tax', an exceptionally foolish idea. Look at what's happening in Norway, where a new exit tax is destroying the country's tech sector – tech firms can no longer attract international talent and capital. London-based Stani Kulechov, of major tech firm Avara, says: 'Every Norwegian tech entrepreneur I know is leaving or has already left.' France once had an exit tax but the negative effect on investment caused it to more or less scrap the policy. The French version came with a 15-year rule – those who left France would be taxed on certain shares or profits unless they kept them for 15 years. In 2018, the French government relaxed this limit to two years, making the tax largely voluntary. The Labour Government must learn from its own experience and from other countries that raising taxes does not always mean higher tax revenues. Ironically it was Dan Neidle who recently said: 'If you tax savings and investment, you get less of it. Less from people in the UK, less from people who leave the UK and less from foreigners. The consequence is a drop in growth.' For once Neidle is right, but is he a stopped clock or has he gone through a Damascene conversion to the low tax cause? Whatever it is, Reeves should look to reduce capital gains tax, allowing people to cash in on unwanted assets and generate revenues she badly needs.
The Herald Scotland
01-08-2025
- The Herald Scotland
Experts call for more community ownership of Scotland's woodlands
The analysis by experts in forestry and land use highlights concern from across Scotland about the role of industrial forestry corporations and asset management organisations who increasingly dominate the ownership and management of Scotland's forests. The research concludes that more community ownership and management of woodlands, and more diverse ownership of forests across Scotland would increase community wealth and lead to greater environmental benefits, as well as producing more actively managed forests in Scotland. In three new discussion papers, forestry experts Willie McGhee and Jon Hollingdale analyse the effectiveness and impact of industrial forestry on local areas as well as for meeting national carbon and timber targets. READ MORE: Industrial forestry refers to predominantly single species, mostly unmanaged, Sitka Spruce forest, contrasting with more climatically resilient, sustainable, mixed species forestry. The papers recognise that, while mixed productive forestry has an important part to play in reaching Net Zero and delivering economic and social opportunities, basic assumptions about the economic, climatic and environmental benefits of industrial forestry can be questionable. The new papers were commissioned by Community Land Scotland (CLS), the lead body representing community landowners in Scotland. Dr Josh Doble, Director of Policy and Advocacy at CLS, said: 'These papers are designed to prompt discussion about industrial forestry and what an alternative forestry sector could look like in a Scotland which prioritises sustainable timber, community wealth building, climate and biodiversity.' Willie McGhee has long experience in the forestry and community woodland sector. He is a forest manager and owner, a Director of the Forest Policy Group and a Trustee with the Community Woodlands Association. Dr Josh Doble, Director of Policy and Advocacy at Community Land Scotland (Image: Nick Mailer) His carbon report states that 'questionable assumptions, and research gaps - particularly with respect to forest practice on peat soils — mean we may be overestimating the benefit of afforestation as a means of locking up carbon and offsetting carbon emissions.' This applies to both native woodlands and industrial forest. The impact of trees on peat, the relatively short lifespan of timber products, and questionable claims regarding product substitution are subjects of ongoing scientific debate. Such uncertainty raises questions about the Woodland Carbon Code, the UK Government mechanism for monetising forest carbon sequestration. Forestry's contribution to Scotland's [[Net Zero]] targets is a key justification for Scottish Government subsidy support for afforestation, which, in turn fuels large-scale acquisitions for investment forestry groups. The paper describes some practical ways in which Scottish forestry could more effectively capture and store carbon. These include changes to forestry management practice; reducing reliance on clear-felling, increasing the length of forest rotations, and a moratorium on planting peaty soils. 'We should be doing more intelligent and nuanced forest management to protect soils and soil carbon and to create diverse timber producing forests, both native and exotic conifer, managed on longer (harvest) rotations or as permanent forest', Willie McGhee said. Experts are calling for more community ownership of Scotland's woodlands. (Image: Landfor) Willie McGhee's timber paper looks at the issues of 'timber security' and Scottish forestry products. Much of which goes for biomass, pallets, fencing, sheds and other short lived timber products. Most high-quality timber for construction is imported due to industry perceptions of UK timber, and a trend towards fast growing species and short harvesting rotation cycles; these to maximise profits rather than maximising timber quality, social and environmental benefits, including climate mitigation impacts. Jon Hollingdale is an independent forestry and land use consultant and researcher. He has had a variety of roles in the forestry sector, including 15 years as the CEO of the Community Woodlands Association. His new research paper assesses the impact of investment forestry on the land market and forestry practice. As his paper outlines, the financial advantages of land ownership and the largely unregulated land market facilitate speculation and are long-term obstacles to community wealth building; recent price spikes and the limited supply of forest land add further barriers to the ambitions of communities. Dr Josh Doble said: 'Community Land Scotland members have raised concerns about the impact of industrial coniferous forestry in their local areas. We as an organisation are concerned about the role of industrial forestry corporations and asset management organisations in further consolidating the ownership and management of Scotland's forests. 'The research includes a call for a more integrated, locally focused, and active forest management. That resonates with the community wealth building approach which we have been arguing should underpin all land management in Scotland." He added: 'If Scotland wants to be timber secure, and produce high quality timber for construction, how our forests are managed needs to be reformed. A clear way of reforming them would be to change some of the ownership patterns, allowing more local ownership and ensuring forests are actively managed over longer timescales to grow quality timber."
