Seòmar agus comataidhean

You made specific reference to the Land Commission having a definition—

Okay. Would you support amending the bill to ensure that that would happen in the case of aggregated corporate holdings?

Okay. Thanks.

Yes.

I understand the point about transparency. However, what value does that have for the neighbouring community, which might agree with what is set out in the land management plan? They might think, “That has been really helpful. We’ve had a really good consultation exercise, and we agree with what has been set out.” The plan gets published, and people say that it is really good, but what happens if the land gets sold two years later and the new owner just rips the plan up? That is what I am trying to understand. You could go through a consultation exercise, engage with the community and produce a plan, and then you could quite literally just ignore it.

Good morning. The good news is that I will stick with land management plans; the bad news is that I want to go back to basics. I put the same question to each of the witnesses. What is your understanding of the purpose of a land management plan?

You would be open to the idea of a longer-term plan rather than a five-year plan.

My understanding of trying to manage land is that it is done over a long period of time. By its very nature, it is much more efficient and effective to do it that way. For example, forestry plans are for 15 or 20 years, and so on. Long-term plans therefore make more sense.

However, if you commit to the idea of long-term plans, consistency of approach is needed over a long period of time, which means that, if land changes hands or the land use changes, which changes the plan, that undermines the purpose of doing it over a longer period of time.

I hear the concerns about the cost that might be associated with that, which is why I am wondering whether making the plan for a longer period of time, while ensuring that the obligations that are set out in that plan are carried forward by anyone who takes over the land while the plan is being implemented, would help to improve land management in the long term and reduce some of the regulatory burden that it might create.

You might not want obligations, but some people might.

I think that you are confused about what I am trying to get at. Perhaps it is the way in which I have phrased it to you. When I use the term “obligation”, you seem to be thinking about it from a legal perspective—that is, being legally liable to ensure that something is implemented. What I am trying to understand is whether you are clear about what a land management plan is, what it is there to achieve, how much value it has in the long term, whether there is a requirement for the plan to be taken forward and, if it is not taken forward, what the implications of that are. After all, the danger is that, if we do not get the four or five criteria correct, it becomes a futile process.