The just transition journey is at a crossroads, but its next stage could lead to a fairer land settlement for Scotland, writes Satwat Rehman.

As Scotland approaches another election the language of just transition is everywhere, but its substance is increasingly in question. Despite years of strategies, consultations and commitments, too many people experience climate policy not as a route to greater security or fairness, but as something distant, uncertain, and imposed. Where living costs rise, housing remains unaffordable, work is insecure and public services are stretched to breaking point, promises of a “green future” ring hollow. A transition that does not improve people’s lives in the here and now will not command public consent.¹

A just transition was never meant to be technocratic. The term emerged from labour and social justice movements challenging the idea that environmental progress must come at the expense of the poorest and most disadvantaged. At its core is a simple political question: who pays, who benefits, and who decides? If the shift to net zero deepens inequality, concentrates wealth and power, or asks those with the least to shoulder the greatest risk, then it is not just and it will not last.²

In this political context, land comes sharply into focus. As Scotland increasingly looks to land to absorb carbon, restore nature and compensate for slow progress elsewhere in the economy, the pressure on rural areas and land-based workers intensifies.³ These demands are being placed on a system already shaped by highly concentrated ownership, insecure tenure and uneven access to power.⁴

To talk seriously about just transition, we therefore have to talk about land and about power. Land is not simply one sector among many. It is a site where economic change, social justice and democratic accountability intersect. If Scotland is to deliver a just transition worthy of the name, land cannot be treated as a technical fix or a secondary concern. It must be understood as a political terrain and contested as such.⁵

Land and the meaning of a just transition

Discussions of just transition in Scotland tend to focus on energy, industry and jobs. That starting point is understandable. Our industrial past looms large in our collective memory, and the damage done by unmanaged economic change remains visible in communities across the country. But if we are serious about justice — about who bears risk, who gains security and who has power — we must look just as closely at land.⁶

Land is where climate ambition translates into lived reality. Decisions about net zero reshape livelihoods, landscapes and local economies, in ways that reflect existing patterns of power and inequality. The scale of change expected of land use and agriculture over the coming decades is unprecedented. The sector is being asked at once to reduce its own emissions, and to remove carbon on behalf of the wider economy, while continuing to provide food, timber, biodiversity, housing and space for communities to thrive.⁸ These demands are unavoidable if Scotland is to meet its climate obligations. But they are being placed on a system already marked by inequality, insecurity and concentration of power.

A just transition demands that we confront this reality honestly. It requires us to ask not only what change is needed, but who carries the costs, who takes the risks, and who benefits from the transformation that follows — and whether those most affected have a meaningful say in shaping it. Where those questions are left unanswered, uncertainty fills the gap.⁹

Uncertainty is not neutral

The Just Transition Commission hears — and shares — concerns about the effects of uncertainty on land workers. Farmers, crofters, tenants and land managers are being asked to plan for significant change, often over long time horizons, without a clear sense of the destination.¹⁰ This lack of clarity is not simply inconvenient. It is a justice issue. Uncertainty falls unevenly across the sector. Those with scale, secure ownership and access to capital can absorb risk, diversify income and wait for clearer signals. Those operating on smaller margins, or with insecure tenure, cannot. For them, uncertainty translates into stress, delayed investment and fear of exclusion.¹¹

The Commission has consistently argued for a defined and credible “landing zone” for land use change. People deserve to know the direction of travel. They deserve honesty about trade-offs, what will change, and what support will be available. Without this, transition becomes something done to people, rather than with them.¹² Delaying difficult conversations also creates political risks. Where people feel ignored or blamed, trust erodes. Vacuums are filled by misinformation and resentment. As the Commission warned in its most recent annual report, the social licence for climate action is now under threat if delivery does not improve measurably.¹³

Land ownership and the distribution of power

Any serious discussion of just transition and land must confront the question of ownership, which shapes who can manage uncertainty and who is forced to absorb it. Scotland’s land ownership patterns remain among the most concentrated in Europe, shaping who has influence, who can access opportunities, and who captures value from public policy.¹⁴ As climate and nature policy increasingly relies on land-based solutions such as woodland creation, peatland restoration, and biodiversity enhancement, the importance of ownership becomes even more pronounced. New markets for carbon and biodiversity are emerging, often tied to long-term contracts, complex legal arrangements and access to specialist advice. These conditions favour those who already hold land, capital and power.¹⁵

Without strong public leadership, poorly governed or unconditional markets risk reproducing a new form of enclosure: land repurposed for public benefit, but governed and monetised privately. The Commission has been clear that a purely market-led approach to land use change is unlikely to be fair or socially cohesive, particularly given Scotland’s concentrated pattern of ownership.¹⁶ Markets are not neutral tools. They reinforce inequality or contribute to a fairer distribution of wealth depending on the rules, incentives and governance frameworks they operate in, including how public money is allocated.¹⁷

Agricultural support and fairness in practice

Evaluating reforms to public support for agriculture is one of the clearest ways to test whether just transition principles are being applied meaningfully. Public money should support public purposes, including emissions reduction, biodiversity restoration and resilient rural livelihoods. But it should also be distributed fairly.¹⁸

Historically, agricultural subsidies have been skewed towards larger claimants. Reforms can address this imbalance. Yet new conditions, however well-intentioned, can risk placing disproportionate burdens on smaller producers if they are not accompanied by adequate support.¹⁹ Complexity, compliance costs and reduced access to advisory services hit hardest for those with least capacity. As the Commission has cautioned, this risks accelerating consolidation and exit rather than supporting a diverse and resilient sector.²⁰ Advice, training and peer support are essential infrastructure, not optional extras. If government expects more from land managers, it must also invest in their ability to deliver.²¹

Place, participation and power

Land use change is inherently place-based, and the ways it is governed locally determines whether policy intent translates into fair outcomes. Scotland’s regions differ profoundly in their landscapes, economies and social structures. Since a one-size-fits-all approach will not work, Regional Land Use Partnerships have been proposed as a way of aligning national priorities with local knowledge.²² But if such partnerships are advisory bodies with limited influence, they risk becoming a veneer of participation over decisions shaped elsewhere. To contribute meaningfully to a just transition, they must have real authority, transparent governance and access to adequate resources.²³

The Commission’s place-based work highlights a persistent challenge: communities often lack capacity to engage on equal terms with developers and large landowners. Participation cannot be assumed or demanded without support. It must be enabled.²⁴ A just transition requires democratic negotiation of land use change. That means recognising conflict and trade-offs, not smoothing them over.²⁵

Communities, housing and rural resilience

Land use change affects far more than emissions and biodiversity, particularly at community level. It reshapes housing markets, employment opportunities and access to services. In many rural areas, housing shortages already undermine community sustainability and workforce retention.²⁶ Climate investment that increases land values without addressing housing supply risks hollowing out communities. The Commission has repeatedly emphasised that land use policy must be integrated with housing, transport and local economic development if communities are to benefit from the transition.²⁷

Community ownership and community wealth building approaches demonstrate what is possible when value is anchored locally. They offer models of development that align climate action with social justice, but only where they are supported with access to finance and long-term political commitment.²⁸

The danger of displacement and scapegoating

As Scotland faces pressure to meet its climate targets, there is a growing temptation to lean ever more heavily on land-based carbon removals to compensate for slower progress elsewhere. Land-based solutions are essential but limited. They carry significant uncertainty and competing demands.²⁹ Treating land as a balancing account for failure in other sectors places unfair pressure on rural communities and risks land managers becoming scapegoats for problems they did not create. A just transition requires balance across the economy.³⁰

Land, power and the choices ahead

Ultimately, the question of land and just transition is one of power. Who decides how land is used? Who benefits from the value it generates? And who has security, voice and dignity as change accelerates? The evidence gathered through the work of the Just Transition Commission is clear: a transition that relies on market forces alone, without strong public leadership and democratic accountability, will fail to deliver either justice or credibility.³¹

This does not mean rejecting private investment or innovation, but being honest about their limits. Climate stability, nature restoration and community wellbeing are collective goods. Securing them requires government to use all levers available to ensure that the benefits of transition are shared fairly and risks are not displaced onto those with least power.³² These levers includes regulation, conditionality, market-shaping and, where necessary, direct public and community ownership.

Public and community ownership of land and natural assets are not ideological ends in themselves, but practical tools for aligning long-term stewardship with the public interest. Alongside strengthened community wealth building and shared ownership models, they offer ways to lock in social value, protect future generations, and rebuild trust in the transition.³³

The changes now underway will reshape Scotland’s landscapes, economies and communities for decades to come, whether we choose to confront the power dynamics involved or not. We can allow existing inequalities to deepen under the banner of net zero, or take deliberate action to ensure that transition strengthens democracy, reduces inequality and puts people first. A just transition is not only about changing technologies or land use. It is about changing relationships of power. Land is where that challenge becomes unavoidable. And land is where a fairer settlement remains possible, if we choose it.

1. Just Transition Commission (2024) Conditions for Success: Annual Report.
2. International Trade Union Confederation (2018) Just Transition – Where Are We Now?
3. Scottish Government (2025) Supporting Scotland’s Transition: Land Use and Agriculture.
4. Just Transition Commission (2021) A National Mission for a Fairer, Greener Scotland.
5. Just Transition Commission (2024) Conditions for Success: Annual Report.
6. Just Transition Commission (2021) A National Mission for a Fairer, Greener Scotland.
7. Scottish Land Commission (2019) Land Rights and Responsibilities Statement.
8. Scottish Government (2025) Land Use and Agriculture – Consultation Document.
9. Just Transition Commission (2024) Conditions for Success.
10. Just Transition Commission (2023) Communicating Change: Land Use and Agriculture.
11. Just Transition Commission (2023) Communicating Change.
12. Just Transition Commission (2023) Communicating Change.
13. Just Transition Commission (2024) Conditions for Success.
14. Scottish Land Commission (2022) Who Owns Scotland?
15. Community Land Scotland (2022) Community Wealth Building and Net Zero.
16. Just Transition Commission (2025) A Just Transition for Dumfries and Galloway.
17. Mazzucato, M. (2021) Mission Economy.
18. Scottish Environment LINK (2023) Farm for Scotland’s Future.
19. Just Transition Commission (2025) Letter to Cabinet Secretary on Agricultural Support Reform.
20. Just Transition Commission (2025) Letter on Agricultural Support Reform.
21. Just Transition Commission (2023) Communicating Change.
22. Scottish Land Commission (2023) Regional Land Use Partnerships: Interim Report.
23. Scottish Land Commission (2023) Regional Land Use Partnerships.
24. Just Transition Commission (2025) People-and-Place Reports.
25. Just Transition Commission (2024) Conditions for Success.
26. Just Transition Commission (2025) A Just Transition for Dumfries and Galloway.
27. Just Transition Commission (2024) Conditions for Success.
28. Community Land Scotland (2022) Community Wealth Building and Net Zero.
29. IPCC (2023) AR6 Synthesis Report.
30. Just Transition Commission (2024) Conditions for Success.
31. Just Transition Commission (2024) Conditions for Success.
32. Just Transition Commission (2024) Investment and Conditionality Papers.
33. Community Land Scotland (2022) Community Ownership and the Just Transition.

This article reflects the personal views of the author. While informed by the work of the Just Transition Commission, it does not represent an agreed position of the Commission. A fully referenced version of this article is published online.

Satwat Rehman is chief executive of One Parent Families Scotland and Cochair of the Just Transition Commission.