1 10 39 https://glenkensarchive.scot/glenkens_archive/files/original/20/760/CCW.25.12_-_Ecological_Summary_Report.jpg 27507d208785bb798ad22358c91470dc https://glenkensarchive.scot/glenkens_archive/files/original/20/760/CCW.25.12_-_Ecological_Summary_Report.1.pdf 462823364a09e069f2c634ab561c94cc PDF Text Text pdftext_placeholder Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Community Action Plan Description An account of the resource Documents relating to the Glenkens and District Community Action Plan, initially drawn up by Glenkens & District Trust in 2020. Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Text Any textual data included in the document Ecological Summary Report Carsphairn Community Woodland December 2025 1Overview This report has been prepared by the volunteers at Carsphairn Community Woodland (CCW). It provides a summary of the ecological data gathered during the citizen science monitoring events in October and November 2025 followed by planned improvements and future recommendations. A habitat overview was conducted on the site to the North East of the Hide in October capturing the major tree species, size and location as well as surrounding plant diversity. A quadrat in the locations marked on the map below was also completed in both October and November to identify species in detail using apps such as iNaturalist in a 1 metre by 1 metre square. About the Site Carsphairn Community Woodland Ltd (CCW) purchased 120 acres of forestry in 2021 to provide local employment; greater access to the countryside for walking and picnics; and also to create a community hub for outdoor volunteering, activities and skills development. It employs a forester full time which helps to support an ongoing apprenticeship scheme with the aim of establishing a rural skills training centre to teach practical forestry qualifications, provide work experience opportunities, courses and workshops in other wood related activities. They hold monthly Volunteer Days at the woodland plus other events throughout the year. 2Habitats The existing habitats on site are mainly a variety of different woodland habitats classified according to the Phase 1 Habitat Survey methodology. As a former forestry plantation, the site is predominantly coniferous woodland (A1.2.2) with the dominant species being Sitka Spruce including some Larch and Birch intermixed. There are some areas of native and mixed broadleaf woodland (A1.1.2) mostly on steep slopes which are unfavourable to harvesting by machines. Felled areas are slowly being replanted with native broadleaf woodland to improve biodiversity. The location of the quadrat monitoring site for species ID is nestled among the broadleaf trees to the North East of the Hide where the dominant species are Hawthorn, Hazel and Bird Cherry. Kendoon Loch is a large body of standing open water (G1) which lies to the South of the site while the Water of Ken (G2) runs along the South Eastern boarder. Carsphairn community woodland (CCW) monitoring site nestled among the broadleaf trees Species Reported wildlife sightings during October and November include: •Birds: Chaffinch, Great Tit, Robin •Mammals: Red Squirrel •Featured finds this season: a range of mosses, fungi and some invertebrates including Neat Feather Moss, Common Tamarisk Moss, Tree Climacium Moss, a fungus which was challenging to identify but thought to be Milking Bonnet, Birch Polypore, Whited Legged Snaked Millipede and two speedy spiders too fast to identify 3Selection of photographs from October and November Summary of conditions and nature recordings from the citizen science monitoring events. 26th October30th November 5°C / windy / rainy4°C / still / sunny Full sun, shaded, dry, wetShaded / wetFull sun / dry SightingsNumber of observations3621 VolunteersNumber of people511 ConditionsExamples WeatherTemperature, wind, cloud, rain Conditions on ground 4Planned Improvements Replacement of the former coniferous plantation trees with broadleaf woodland continues as trees are harvested each year to gradually help improve the habitat for wildlife. Thanks to the Glenkens Nature Networks project, it has been suggested to add a view point to the Hide as a stationary monitoring location including a QR code for visitors to upload photos at any time. Adding a whiteboard, logbook or other methods of monitoring and reporting to the Hide are also being considered as an alternative to digital recording. View from the Hide as a potential stationary monitoring location Future Recommendations It is recommended to continue monitoring and recording at the woodland to track progress and changes over time as coniferous forest is gradually replaced by broadleaf woodland. Continuing the citizen science program could be a good way to do this while involving the community. It would be interesting to gather data in the newly felled areas such as along Saunders Wynd to establish a baseline and monitor improvements as the trees grow over time as well as compare to the more mature woodland at the existing monitoring sites or areas of coniferous woodland. Broadening the monitoring sites to include the loch or river would also provide some new and different sightings. During the transition from conifer to broadleaf many invertebrates and small mammals could be displaced by large felled areas, however providing food and shelter could improve the chances of survival. Food sources could include wild flowers, bird cherry and crab apple trees for pollinators or fruit and nut trees for squirrels and small mammals. Shelter could include bat boxes, nest boxes, deadwood piles for insects or rock piles for reptiles and is an excellent way to engage volunteers. 5PROJECT TITLE Carsphairn Community Woodland DRAWING TITLE Citizen Science Monitoring Sites DATE 10.2025 12.2025 VER. 1.0 2.0 NOTES Base Map Created Annotations AddedSURVEY INFORMATION 26TH OCTOBER 2025 HABITAT OVERVIEW PROJECT TITLE 30TH NOVEMBER 2025 A brighter day, sunny and dry but cold with temperatures approximately 4°C DRAWING TITLE Predominantly coniferous woodland (A1.2.2), dominant species Sitka Spruce, Larch and Birch The Hide location was recorded on what3words at: ///Streetcar.gilding.curry It also features a View Point for stationary monitoring. Details and a QR code will be added to the View Point to allow visitors to take photographs and upload any time OBSERVATIONS FROM HABITAT OVERVIEW ● ● North and West of the Hide includes an area of native and mixed broadleaf woodland (A1.1.2) West and South of the Hide has been recently felled and replanted with broadleaf woodland A large patch of Bracken (C1) was recorded to the North of the Hide Three of the largest trees nearest the Hide were identified and locations measured by citizen scientists as well as what3words data recorded: ● Bird Cherry, Trunk 85cm, Distance 12.4m, ///confronts.hoped.hamster ● Hawthorn, Trunk 35cm, Distance 10.2m, ///tools.truly.dialects ● Hawthorn with empty Bird Box, Trunk 94cm, Distance 9.4m, ///schooling.diary.reserve The location of the quadrat monitoring site for species ID is nestled among the broadleaf trees to the North East of the Hide where the dominant species are Hawthorn, Hazel and Bird Cherry Considering the season and the weather conditions, 36 observations were recorded on the day The weather was cloudy and rainy with wet ground conditions, temperatures approximately 5°C OBSERVATIONS FROM HABITAT OVERVIEW ● ● ● ● Fungi and Lichens: Birch Polypore Plants: Bird Cherry, Blackthorn, Bracken, Buttercup, Fern, Hawthorn Trees, Hazel Trees, Raspberry x10, Sapling Hazels x10, Wood Sage Birds: Chaffinch, Great Tit, Robin Mammals: Red Squirrel OBSERVATIONS FROM QUADRAT Location: //relished.hormones.sweeping ● ● ● Plants: Common Dog Violet, Common Tamarisk Moss, Dock, Eared Willow, European Wood Sorrel, Grasses, Great Stitchwort, Neat Feather Moss, Raspberry, Slater, Woodland Germander Invertebrates: Common Striped Woodlouse, Fly x3, Mosquito, Small Flecked Wing Fly, Spider #1, Spider #2, White Legged Snaked Millipede Signs and Tracks: Dead Leaves & Twigs, Hawthorn Berries x21, Hazel Nut Birds: Chaffinch, Great Tit, Robin Mammals: Red Squirrel OBSERVATIONS FROM QUADRAT Location: ///shameless.busy.shaped ● ● ● ● An area of natural regeneration was recorded as including 10x Hazel saplings and 10x Raspberry Carsphairn Community Woodland Fungi and Lichens: Fungus (Milking Bonnet?) Plants: Common Dog Violet, Common Tamarisk Moss, Deer Fern, Germander Speedwell, Great Stitchwort, Hairy Woodrush, Neat Feather Moss, Raspberry Stalks, Tree Climacium Moss Invertebrates: Common Striped Woodlouse, Spider #1, Spider #2, Tiny Worm Signs and Tracks: Birch Leaf Litter, Hawthorn Leaf Litter, Hazel Leaf Litter Citizen Science Monitoring Sites DATE 10.2025 12.2025 VER. 1.0 2.0 NOTES Base Map Created Annotations Added Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Carsphairn Community Woodland Ecological Summary Report Description An account of the resource The report has been prepared by the volunteers at Carsphairn Community Woodland (CCW). It provides a summary of the ecological data gathered during the citizen science monitoring events in October and November 2025 followed by planned improvements and future recommendations. Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context CAP_38 Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource GCAT Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Dalry Community Council Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Niki Inglis Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2026 CAP Theme 3 citizen science land use https://glenkensarchive.scot/glenkens_archive/files/original/20/759/Strand_2_-_Baseline_Monitoring_Report_24-02-26.jpg 4df9cb2c2e1a7d9e30b0b60c5a6be8f6 https://glenkensarchive.scot/glenkens_archive/files/original/20/759/Strand_2_-_Baseline_Monitoring_Report_24-02-26.1.pdf d9b607539e538b22d81f2f9da5ca6071 PDF Text Text pdftext_placeholder Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Community Action Plan Description An account of the resource Documents relating to the Glenkens and District Community Action Plan, initially drawn up by Glenkens & District Trust in 2020. Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Text Any textual data included in the document A Feasibility Study into the development of Nature Networks in the Glenkens Baseline Monitoring Niki Inglis January 2026 1Contents 0 Executive Summary............................................................................................................................3 1 Introduction.........................................................................................................................................5 2 Baseline Monitoring...........................................................................................................................6 2.1 Selection Criteria for Pilot Sites.........................................................................................10 2.2 Identifying Pilot Sites..........................................................................................................11 2.3 Finding Volunteers..............................................................................................................11 2.4 Training for Citizen Scientists.............................................................................................12 2.5 Monitoring Events...............................................................................................................15 2.6 Summary...............................................................................................................................23 3 Approach for Rollout........................................................................................................................24 3.1 Progress to Date and Ideas Gathered...............................................................................24 3.2 Building Citizen Science Capabilities.................................................................................24 3.3 Developing a Citizen Science Network.............................................................................26 4 Recommendations and Conclusion...............................................................................................32 A) Acknowledgements..........................................................................................................................33 B) About the Author.............................................................................................................................33 C) References.........................................................................................................................................34 D) Apps, Organisations and Monitoring Schemes............................................................................35 E) Glenkens Monitoring Toolkit...........................................................................................................37 F) Maps...................................................................................................................................................38 20 Executive Summary The purpose of Strand 2 was to explore the feasibility of creating a citizen science based Baseline Monitoring programme including training with the objectives of creating a robust base to seek further funding and providing an immediate sense of participation in nature monitoring. Three pilot sites were identified based on their location, variety, community network and availability including Dalry School, Carsphairn Community Woodland (CCW) and New Galloway Community Garden (NCG). During the project, a total of five events were completed including the training, a school visit and three monitoring events. The monitoring events tested two different methods of gathering data to enable comparison and help establish a baseline for monitoring activities. Below is a summary of the timing and indicators based on monitoring activity: Category DescriptionSize (m) People RolesHabitat Major tree locations, species Overview and sizes. Plant diversity, abundance and distribution20×202–3Recording x1 20 – 30 Measurements x1 Identification x1-213 Quadrat1×13–5Recording x1 30 – 45 Identification x3-416 Detailed species ID using apps, guides or shared knowledge Time Observ (min) ations As well as conducting the citizen science events allowing local pilot sites to capture monitoring data and start recording a baseline, other tangible outcomes achieved during the project included digital habitat maps of the pilot sites, an ecological summary report template and the Glenkens Monitoring Toolkit as a shared resource for future monitoring events. Other ideas included offline recording alternatives, casual monitoring options and helpful additions for expanding the toolkit. Building on the information gathered, the next step was to develop an approach for rollout. By analysing the process and activities from the Baseline Monitoring, it was possible to gain an understanding of the different capabilities involved and provide a guideline for building capabilities of citizen scientists from a 1st level citizen scientists at the start of their journey through to a level 3 after about 3 years which is fully invested and engaged in the citizen science program. With this in mind, it was possible to develop three different scenarios for establishing a citizen science network ranging from the less resource intensive distributed network with citizen scientists casually monitoring and recording when the time suits to dedicated monitoring events supported by experts and finally a coordinated approach, the most resource intensive requiring a part time coordinator and highly engaged group of citizen scientists. Whichever path is chosen, the importance of training to continue to build the capabilities of citizen scientists cannot be 3underestimated while developing appropriate monitoring metrics including both biodiversity state indicators as well as engagement indicators should be considered carefully. The scenarios could be applied individually, combined or scaled based on the number of events, activities or sites involved however it was recommended to align the continued development of the citizen science network with the aims and objectives of the project. Considering Strand 2 was predominantly focused on baseline monitoring through citizen science and that further funding may take time to gather, it was therefore recommended to start with the distributed network, raising awareness and engaging communities through casual monitoring as a less resource intensive and lower effort way to start with potentially wide reach across the region. Moving forward, monitoring events could be added to contribute regularly to data collection, monitoring and recording across the region as awareness builds and funding is secured. Eventually by building up the citizen science network and establishing a coordinated approach, it could contribute to the development of nature networks and inform local land use strategy by filling data gaps, investigating habitats and recording wildlife in the region. Mapping and tracking improvements could be supported by actual field data from any site including working with landowners and land managers on private sites, perhaps contributing to their biological reporting requirements and inspiring a sense of collaboration towards nature recovery. Roadmap for developing a citizen science network in the Glenkens 41 Introduction This project is the next chapter in the Glenkens Land Use Series starting with The Vision1 developed in 2023 and builds on work done across the area since it was added to the Glenkens and District Community Action Plan (CAP)2. The Vision1 is based on the ethos: “That everyone who takes value from our land returns value to it.” The aim of the project was to create a Feasibility Study into the development of Nature Networks in the Glenkens considering the following objectives: A) Create a robust base for which to seek further funding to develop Nature Networks B) Give communities an immediate sense of participation in nature monitoring Dalry Community Council (DCC) commissioned the project funded by Inspiring Scotland and supported by the Glenkens Community and Arts Trust (GCAT), the Land Use subcommittee and the Galloway and South Ayrshire Biosphere (GSAB). It was organised into three strands as set out in the brief below with this report predominantly covering Strand 2 on Baseline Monitoring. 1) Feasibility Study: Conduct a feasibility investigation into the development of Nature Networks along the Glenkens. This work will include opportunity mapping to identify suitable sites and interventions. It will also require identifying landowners that would be amenable to Nature Networks, and building a light-touch collaborative stakeholder network to support progress. It will include community owned spaces such as community centre outdoor areas, Council-owned spaces such as play areas, and local Churches 2) Baseline Monitoring: will include ecological baselining through biological recording. It will require facilitating community engagement to support this, including arranging training workshop/s to develop citizen science skills 3) Participation Monitoring: will incorporate creative methods of participatory monitoring to input into the final Feasibility Study. This will be done through the Glenkens Land Notes Festival in August 2025 The next sections detail the approach taken and data collected during the baseline monitoring (Section 2) before discussing potential opportunities for rollout (Section 3), recommendations and conclusion (section 4). 52 Baseline Monitoring The need to Make Space for Nature3 was summarised in the Lawson Principles as “more, bigger, better and joined” referring to the concept that there needs to be more space for nature, larger areas of better quality habitat for nature to thrive and connection between them such as nature networks, corridors or stepping stones which are the subject of this feasibility study overall. Strand 2 had overall responsibility for set up of a citizen science based Baseline Monitoring programme including citizen science training. Baseline monitoring refers to biological recording of flora and fauna to gain a better understanding of nature diversity in a particular area. This data is important to help indicate whether there are changes to an environment, identify threats such as loss of habitat or species and help protect or enhance biodiversity. It can also help to track changes over time such as checking habitat improvements or conservation activities have the desired effect. With increased threats due to climate change and land use, it is more important that ever to gather data to understand or even help predict these changes. Citizen science refers to members of the public helping to collect this data which has been shown to have many benefits such as enjoying an outdoor activity, learning about nature and contributing to science. The approach taken for baseline monitoring followed the process outlined below with details contained in the corresponding sections: 1. Plan and coordinate: organise the events starting with determining the pilot sites and arranging dates (Sections 2.1 – 2.2) then moving onto finding volunteers (Section 2.3) and ensuring they were trained as citizen scientists for the monitoring events (Section 2.4) 2. Execute and record: hosting the events on the day, helping citizen scientists to monitor and record data (Section 2.5) 3. Analyse and share: preparing results and sharing information in this report (Section 2.6) In preparation, research was conducted into baseline monitoring and citizen science programmes. Key points and findings have been noted below with detailed references in Appendix C. In November 2018, the Scottish Biodiversity Information Forum (SBIF) conducted A Review of the Biological Recording Infrastructure in Scotland4. They discovered that biodiversity data collection is challenging, often relying on under-resourced organisations and volunteers, whilst multiple apps, databases and organisations often cause confusion rather than simplifying the process. It was therefore important to make the training as simple and straightforward as possible for volunteers. It also indicated that solely relying on volunteers may be less viable and that bolstering volunteer engagement with crucial members of staff may be a more feasible approach. 6The UK Centre for Ecology and Hydrology (UKCEH)’s Pollinator Monitoring Guide5 provides an excellent overview for anyone interested in monitoring pollinators and using citizen science to collect data while engaging communities. It recommends collecting five different data points on pollinators which have been summarised in the table below including their importance to increase understanding, focus conservation efforts and inform nature recovery activities. Data pointDescriptionImportance PresenceWhat, where and whenChanging distribution, loss or movement of species AbundanceHow many or quantityIdentify common or rare species BehaviourFeeding and nestingDetermine dependence and preferences OutcomesPollination statusGood quality produce may indicate good populations HabitatPresence and conditionIncrease knowledge on pollinator environments The Dumfries & Galloway Local Biodiversity Action Plan (D&G LBAP) 6 describes two types of indicators from the Scottish Government’s Biodiversity Strategy summarised below: •Biodiversity state indicators: “measures of abundance or diversity of species groups, extent and quality of habitats, and abundance of key biological indicators as a measure of wider ecosystem health... For biodiversity state indicators to be of use the challenge is to have adequate data on abundance and distribution.” •Engagement indicators: “measures of understanding of, and engagement with, biodiversity on an individual (personal and professional) and an organisational level... For biodiversity engagement indicators, sufficient quantity and quality of data is required.” Both types of indicators were recorded during the baseline monitoring pilot to gauge level of involvement by volunteers in the local area as well as record key biodiversity data. Examples of biodiversity indicators considered include number of different species (diversity) as well as quantities (abundance) and locations (distribution) of species. In terms of engagement indicators, the number of visitors or participants (quantitative) were considered alongside their feedback (qualitative) and that of site coordinators on the monitoring events. Local Environmental Records Centres (LERC) gather, record and manage biological data on species and habitats in a particular area. This information can be provided to the public, local authorities, conservation organisations, companies and researchers to inform local actions, policy, legislation or feed into grants. The LERC for Dumfries & Galloway, Ayrshire and Arran is South West Scotland Environmental Information Centre (SWSEIC). They provided guidance on key species and habitats for which the Glenkens is important. 7Species: • Greenland White Fronted Geese • Willow Tit • Great Crested Newt • Musk Beetle Aromia Moschata • Large Heath Butterfly and/or Green Hairstreak • Globeflower • Grass of Parnasus • Spignel • Whorled Caraway Habitats: • Unimproved Grassland/species rich grassland • Wetlands • Bogs • Headwaters and fast flowing water ways Many of these habitats have been altered such as planting over grasslands or management by people on catchments, however all of these habitats remain very important to a wide range of species and it is critical to monitor their health moving forward. The Galloway and South Ayrshire Biosphere (GSAB) have also identified Hedgerows as a priority habitat due to their importance to wildlife for both food and shelter. DEFRA’s Hedgerow Survey Handbook7 provides an excellent guideline on monitoring the health and quality of hedgerows. Although not specifically tested during the pilot phase, elements of the procedure were used to capture data on hedges when present. It is worth exploring further due to the accessibility of hedges for monitoring in urban environments and could also provide an engaging activity for citizen scientists to get involved with re-establishing, maintaining or repairing them in their local community while monitoring the impacts those changes make to local wildlife. A review of survey methodology identified two key techniques: •The JNCC Phase 1 habitat survey methodology: first published by the Nature Conservancy Council in 1990 and later reprinted by JNCC in 2010. It was designed for developing maps on paper with a series of colour pencils to mark habitats. At the time, it was widely used across Britain and adopted as the standard technique until digital alternatives such as UKHab became available. In fact, many experienced ecologists still use it today, having learned it during their studies at university and applied it for many years since •UK Habitat (UKHab) Classification Working Group methodology: released in 2018 and experienced widespread adoption to the extent that it is now seen as the current go-to habitat mapping methodology in the UK. It provides a simpler, more modern method of 8classification with a greater variety of habitat types and the digital nature of this tool allows it to easily integrate with Geographic Information System (GIS) software widely used for mapping in industry today. Additionally, the introduction of Biodiversity Net Gain within the Environmental Act 2021 required practitioners to use DEFRA’s Biodiversity Metric for the assessment which is based on UKHab classification methodology, therefore requiring many ecologists to transition to save time and avoid duplication Although UKHab is most commonly used in industry for digital assessments and reporting, Phase 1 Habitat Classification was used in this report due to the ease of drawing maps by hand for citizen scientists, publicly available handbook without the need for accounts or logins improving the accessibility for citizen scientists as well as the general familiarity of those involved in the project. A review of recording options identified two of the most popular apps: •iNaturalist: app which can be downloaded to a mobile phone, easy to use in the field, has AI to help identify species from photographs. It uses some non-British databases for identification so caution should be taken to check the geography of the suggested species when making observations. Seek is a similar app, even easier to use for kids, and provides live species identification through video analysis before taking a photo and recording an image. iNaturalist allows both photos and videos to be uploaded, records can be managed online or in the app. It also enables a community of users to help identify species by commenting or agreeing with the observation thereby increasing the data quality from Casual to Needs ID through to Research Grade. Projects can be setup to include both small and large scale areas from a single forest to the regionwide project managed by SWSEIC •iRecord: developed by UKCEH is a similar app but supports only UK species reducing the risk of confusion with similar species worldwide and provides additional functionality for managing data. Although some may say it is less user friendly, it is best for collating data from multiple sources so projects can include all community agreed upon records from iNaturalist as well as other sources such as those submitted directly to iRecord and other apps including BirdTrack, Invasives Mapper, etc. Automatic checks are applied to records to validate and reduce errors. Experts can review to verify records and gather data for reports which contribute towards nature conservation, planning, research and eduction Both apps are used almost interchangeably. They, along with other sources are shared with the LERC SWSEIC which gather and record biological data for the region. Many other organisations and monitoring schemes exist (see Appendix D for other examples). 92.1 Selection Criteria for Pilot Sites With the above in mind, it was important to select criteria which would help identify suitable pilot sites. A variety of different land uses were considered including private land such as farms or commercial forestry as well as council and community owned spaces such as parks, gardens, woodlands, outdoor areas, play areas, local churches and other iconic landmarks. The area was loosely based on the Glenkens definition by Glenkens and District Trust (GDT) including the Community Council areas of Balmaghie, Balmaclellan, Carsphairn, Corsock & Kirkpatrick Durham, Crossmichael, St. Johns Town of Dalry, Dunscore, Glencairn, New Galloway & Kells and Parton. Given the duration of the project was just a few months, sites with active community networks and volunteer groups with an interest in nature and biodiversity, could help get the pilot sites up and running more quickly. The proposal was to start with engaging the community through existing networks. They may already meet regularly allowing monitoring to slot into preplanned schedules. Some may also have previous ecological data which could be included in comparison to monitoring data collected during the project. Most importantly, pilot sites would need to be willing and able to engage with the project within the given timespan including providing access for 1-2 monitoring events at each pilot site from October to November 2025 and sending at least one representative to attend the citizen science training in October. Most organisations and monitoring schemes operate between April and September but there are a few which extend the monitoring season from March through October. Although the project timing slightly missed the optimal window in terms of species monitoring and recording, the events would still contribute greatly towards the objective of providing volunteers with an opportunity to participate in nature monitoring as well as start raising awareness and building capability within the community. In summary, the selection criteria for pilot sites included the following: 1) Should be within the Glenkens (Location) 2) Include a variety of different land uses (Category) 3) Active community networks or volunteers groups a bonus (Network) 4) Availability to engage within the timespan (Dates) 102.2 Identifying Pilot Sites A number of potential pilot sites were considered from forests and agriculture to local public spaces. While wild areas were considered, many of them are inaccessible and risk disturbing the local flora and fauna with large groups of nature recorders. Urban areas were therefore much more accessible for the pilot phase. Considering more urban environments may seem like a strange choice at first, however even though the Glenkens is considered a rural area, the majority of the population still lives in the small towns and villages. The UKCEH Pollinator Monitoring Guide5 mentioned the importance of these environments and the “great benefits for people and pollinators in monitoring and taking positive action for pollinators in urban environments.” In the Dalry Local Place Plan (LPP)8, Andrew Bielinski, RSPB Scotland, commented that “the village of Dalry itself is an important place for wildlife in its own right” highlighting the importance of urban areas to wildlife. In the end, three locations were selected as pilot sites for the baseline monitoring: Pilot site nameLocationCategoryNetworkDates Dalry School (Primary and Secondary)DalrySchool and educationStudentsTraining 2nd October Visit 3rd October Carsphairn Community Woodland (CCW)CarsphairnCommunity woodlandVolunteers26th October 30th November Community gardenVolunteers23rd November New Galloway Community New Galloway Garden (NCG) Dalry School Garden was the test site for the citizen science training which took place on Thursday 2nd October as well as an opportunity to teach students about nature and wildlife during a visit on Friday 3rd October. Carsphairn Community Woodland (CCW) and New Galloway Community Garden (NCG) both volunteered for monitoring events in October / November, sending representatives from each site to the citizen science training. The next sections detail the sites, events and results. 2.3 Finding Volunteers A couple of methods were used to recruit volunteers. Carsphairn Community Woodland (CCW) reached out to their network of over 84 members and 80 supporters while New Galloway Community Garden (NCG) used a WhatsApp group with more than 27 members to distribute the event information. An introduction article describing the project and calling for volunteers to come forward was published in the October / November issue of the Glenkens Gazette9. The events were also added to the Glenkens Hub10 and details distributed more widely across the Glenkens through the community council email network. Volunteer numbers ranged from 5-14 people for each 11event, a good start for a new network in small communities, although more may be expected with finer weather and as awareness builds. 2.4 Training for Citizen Scientists The citizen science training event was organised for Thursday 2 nd October at Dalry Town Hall with the help of pilot site coordinators to ensure that at least one representative from each site was able to attend. It was also open to members of the public to join and proved very popular with 14 people signing up. Others expressed interest but were not available to attend on the day. It started with a presentation from SWSEIC Support Office Malcolm Haddow covering different species and habitats in the Glenkens, what signs to look for and how to accurately record a wildlife sighting. For each record, it was important to capture: •Who: real name of the person who found it •What: name of the species or genus, life stage, signs, sex, abundance, etc •When: date of the sighting •Where: location such as grid reference, GPS or what3words This information was captured using apps such as iNaturalist, where the data is shared with the LERC SWSEIC. Many other organisation and schemes exist (see Appendix D for other examples). Malcolm Haddow (SWSEIC) delivering the citizen science training presentation 12It was interesting to learn that animal tracks, scat, pellets, feathers, hair and even roadkill are valuable signs to record and can contribute towards a better understanding of the health or condition of the natural environment. The talk was followed by a stroll out to the surrounding area to observe nature and practice recording on iNaturalist. After a short live demonstration of how to use the app, most participants picked it up quickly and started recording their own observations. Even though it was quite a wet, windy day in Autumn, participants managed to find examples of mushrooms, other fungi, flowers, plants and insects. Site representatives gathering for demonstration of nature recording on iNaturalist After a short break, the group ventured to Dalry School Garden for a mapping exercise guided by GSA Biosphere Nature Recovery Officer Antoine Lemaire. This involved identifying plants, measuring trees, hedges and water habitats. Malcolm also demonstrated how to set up moth light traps and pitfall traps to catch insects. The data was recorded on a paper map which was later translated to a digital format (image below) contributing to a more detailed understanding of the area. In future, this type of data can help to detect changes in climate or land use and inform decisions on planning, development or conservation. The next day, Friday 3rd October, the moth traps were collected from the garden for an event at Dalry School. The primary school students enjoyed drawing different habitats for animals before unveiling several moths and insects caught in the traps the night before. The secondary school presentation went into more detail on the species Glenkens is important for such as Willow Tit, Great Crested Newt, Musk Beetle (Aromia Moschata) and Large Heath Butterfly, before opening their moth trap. 13Mapping the Dalry School Garden starting with measuring tree sizes Site map with citizen science annotations from training event (see Appendix F1) 142.5 Monitoring Events In preparation for the monitoring events, a Glenkens Monitoring Toolkit (Appendix E) was created including weather writers, tape measures, paper, pens and pencils as well as “how-to” guides and self-serve resources as a basic quick start kit for monitoring which could be shared between sites across the region. A first aid kit is also advised in the event of any minor injuries. The Monitoring Toolkit could be further expanded with the addition of other guides and equipment over time, examples and estimated costs are provided in Appendix E. Given the toolkit was to be used in nature, it was important to consider the environmental impact of the selected items. Wherever possible, plastic was avoided as it does not decompose naturally, for example the no plastic pens are made with a metal ink chamber wrapped in paper to create the case rather than plastic. The paper can be composted or recycled and the metal is also recyclable. Although the weather writers are made of plastic to protect the paper and drawings inside them from rain, a good quality product made in Great Britain was sourced to increase durability thereby extending the lifespan of the product, reducing the manufacturing footprint and transport miles. A basic site map was also created for each site with the help of satellite imagery, OS and other mapping tools to include key information such as boundaries and fixed features. It was printed and placed in the weather writers along with helpful guides for attendees to mark locations and other observations during the monitoring events. The paper maps were later transferred to create the digital maps shown below (see Appendix F for full size images). Glenkens Monitoring Toolkit 15Carsphairn Community Woodland (CCW) Carsphairn Community Woodland Ltd (CCW) purchased 120 acres of forestry in 2021 to provide local employment; greater access to the countryside for walking and picnics; and also to create a community hub for outdoor volunteering, activities and skills development. It employs a forester full time which helps to support an ongoing apprenticeship scheme with the aim of establishing a rural skills training centre to teach practical forestry qualifications, provide work experience opportunities, courses and workshops in other wood related activities. They hold monthly Volunteer Days at the woodland plus other events throughout the year. Habitats A habitat overview was conducted on the site to the North East of the Hide in October capturing the major tree species, size and location as well as surrounding plant diversity. The existing habitats on site are mainly a variety of different woodland habitats classified according to the Phase 1 Habitat Survey methodology. As a former forestry plantation, the site is predominantly coniferous woodland (A1.2.2) with the dominant species being Sitka Spruce including some Larch and Birch intermixed. There are some areas of native and mixed broadleaf woodland (A1.1.2) mostly on steep slopes which are unfavourable to harvesting by machines. Felled areas are slowly being replanted with native broadleaf woodland to improve biodiversity. The location of the quadrat monitoring site for species ID is nestled among the broadleaf trees to the North East of the Hide where the dominant species are Hawthorn, Hazel and Bird Cherry. Kendoon Loch is a large body of standing open water (G1) which lies to the South of the site while the Water of Ken (G2) runs along the South Eastern boarder. Carsphairn community woodland (CCW) monitoring site nestled among the broadleaf trees 16Species A quadrat in the locations marked on the map below was also completed in both October and November to identify species in detail using iNaturalist in a 1 metre by 1 metre square. General observations of the area were also record including plant diversity, abundance and distribution. Reported wildlife sightings during October and November include: •Fungi and Lichens: Birch Polypore, Fungus (Milking Bonnet?) •Plants: Bird Cherry, Blackthorn, Bracken, Buttercup, Common Dog Violet, Common Tamarisk Moss, Deer Fern, Dock, Eared Willow, European Wood Sorrel, Fern, Germander Speedwell, Grasses, Great Stitchwort, Hairy Woodrush, Hawthorn Trees, Hazel Trees, Neat Feather Moss, Raspberry x10, Hazel Saplings x10, Tree Climacium Moss, Wood Sage, Woodland Germander •Invertebrates: Common Striped Woodlouse, Fly x3, Mosquito, Small Flecked Wing Fly, Spider #1, Spider #2, Tiny Worm, White Legged Snaked Millipede •Birds: Chaffinch, Great Tit, Robin •Mammals: Red Squirrel •Signs and Tracks: Birch Leaf Litter, Dead Leaves & Twigs, Hawthorn Berries x21, Hawthorn Leaf Litter, Hazel Leaf Litter, Hazel Nut 26th October30th November 5°C / cloudy / rainy4°C / still / sunny Shaded / wetFull sun / dry OctoberNovember Mushrooms, mycorrhizal fungi11 PlantsTrees, flowers, moss, grasses219 InvertebratesButterflies, moths, insects74 FishesSalmon, trout, plaice, sole, eelConditionsExamples WeatherTemperature, wind, cloud, rain Conditions on groundFull sun, shaded, dry, wet SpeciesExamples Single-celled SpeciesViruses, bacteria, protozoa Fungi and Lichens Reptiles & Amphibians Lizard, adder, newt, toad, frog BirdsRed kite, geese, owl, grouse33 MammalsBat, badger, deer, squirrel11 Invasive Non-NativeJapanese knotweedSigns and TracksFootprints, scat, fur, feathers33 SightingsNumber of observations3621 VolunteersNumber of people511 17Planned Improvements Replacement of the former coniferous plantation trees with broadleaf woodland continues as trees are harvested each year to gradually help improve the habitat for wildlife. Thanks to the Glenkens Nature Networks project, it has been suggested to add a Glenkens View Point11 to the Hide as a stationary monitoring location including a QR code for visitors to upload photos at any time. Adding a whiteboard, logbook or other methods of monitoring and reporting to the Hide are also being considered as an alternative to digital recording. View from the hide as a potential stationary monitoring location Future Recommendations It is recommended to continue monitoring and recording at the woodland to track progress and changes over time as coniferous forest is gradually replaced by broadleaf woodland. Continuing the citizen science program could be a good way to do this while involving the community. It would be interesting to gather data in the newly felled areas such as along Saunders Wynd to establish a baseline and monitor improvements as the trees grow over time as well as compare to the more mature woodland at the existing monitoring sites or areas of coniferous woodland. Broadening the monitoring sites to include the loch or river would also provide some new and different sightings. During the transition from conifer to broadleaf many invertebrates and small mammals could be displaced by large felled areas, however providing food and shelter could improve the chances of survival. Food sources could include wild flowers, bird cherry and crab apple trees for pollinators or fruit and nut trees for squirrels and small mammals. Shelter could include bat boxes, nest boxes, deadwood piles for insects or rock piles for reptiles and is an excellent way to engage volunteers. 18Site map with citizen science annotations from monitoring events (see Appendix F2) 19New Galloway Community Garden (NCG) New Galloway Community Garden (NCG) is situated in the centre of New Galloway as part of the community park just next to the children’s play area. Recently formed, the group of volunteers have transformed the space to include a shed, shelter and multiple raised beds for growing produce throughout the year. There is a skills sharing day on the first Saturday of every month. New Galloway Community Gardens (NCG) volunteers monitoring and recording Habitats A habitat overview was conducted on the site in November capturing the major habitats, plant diversity, tree species, size and location. The existing habitats have been classified according to the Phase 1 Habitat Survey methodology and are situated on Amenity Grassland (J1.2). An area of native and mixed broadleaf woodland (A1.1.2) has been planted to the East of the Garden. A Ditch (J2.6) stands between the newly planted woodland and the community garden which runs to the river South of the Garden. Although it is reported to be dry most of the year, it most likely captures water running down from the Hilltop in the East which is 4m above the majority of the park field in the North to stop it from flooding over the flat ground during heavy rain and storms. Thanks to the Glenkens Nature Networks project, it has been suggested to add a View Point11 to the Hilltop as a stationary monitoring location including a QR code for visitors to upload photos at any time. Scrub (A2) dominates the South with many plant species identified and a Hawthorn Tree as the focal point providing both food and shelter to local birds. The location of the quadrat monitoring site for species ID is located in this area where the dominant species at the time of monitoring was Rose Bay Willow Herb. The Garden is bordered by a Hedge (J2.2) to the West which is 20predominantly made up of Beech separating it from the play park. It has a gap part way down which is thought to be the location of a tap when the site was formerly a Bowling Green, although further investigation is required to confirm the presence and location. View from the hilltop as a potential stationary monitoring location Species A quadrat in the locations marked on the map below was also completed in November to identify species in detail using iNaturalist in a 1 metre by 1 metre square. General observations of the area including several different habitats were also record to capture plant diversity and distribution. Reported wildlife sightings during November include: •Fungi and Lichens: Alder Tongue Gall, Cartilage Lichen, Fairy Nose Lichen •Plants: Autumn Hawkbit, Bent Grass, Brambles, Broad Leaf Dock, Buttercup, Catchweed Bedstraw, Common Dog Violet, Common Figwort, Common Ivy, Couch Grass, Cottoneasters, Creeping Buttercup, Curled Dock, Dandelion, Dock, European Beech, European Black Elderberry, Feather Moss, Germander Speedwell, Goat Willow, Gout Weed, Grasses, Hawkbit, Hogweed, Large Bittercress, Large Mouse Tail Moss, Meadow Buttercup, Nettles, Ribwort Plantain, Rose Bay Willow Herb, Sorrel, Square Gooseneck Moss, St. John's Wort, Vetch, Wild Strawberry •Invertebrates: Earthworm, Ladybird x2 •Birds: Robin •Signs and Tracks: Evidence of Deer feeding on trees, Evidence of Rabbit feeding on lower branches or small shrubs, Hawthorn Berries, Leaf Mulch, Snail Shell 2123rd November ConditionsExamplesWeatherTemperature, wind, cloud, rainConditions on groundFull sun, shaded, dry, wetShaded / wet SpeciesExamplesNovember Single-celled SpeciesViruses, bacteria, protozoaFungi and LichensMushrooms, mycorrhizal fungi3 PlantsTrees, flowers, moss, grasses42 InvertebratesButterflies, moths, insects2 FishesSalmon, trout, plaice, sole, eelReptiles & AmphibiansLizard, adder, newt, toad, frogBirdsRed kite, geese, owl, grouseMammalsBat, badger, deer, squirrelInvasive Non-NativeJapanese knotweedSigns and TracksFootprints, scat, fur, feathers5 SightingsNumber of observations54 VolunteersNumber of people5 6°C / cloudy / rainy 2 Site map with citizen science annotations from monitoring event (see Appendix F3) 222.6 Summary There was much enthusiasm for the citizen science events, even though attendance was low due to the season, most of the site coordinators remarked that it was an interesting new way to engage volunteers and the participants really enjoyed learning more about monitoring and recording at the training as well as applying that knowledge in the field at the monitoring events. Key learnings included ensuring a suitable monitoring location was selected depending on the accessibility requirements of the group as well as leaving enough time for activities such as walking between locations and socialising for the volunteers to interact and get to know each other. Timing varied depending on the activity, site and community group. Seasonality may also effect the results with a higher potential to spot a greater number of species in a shorter duration in summer than winter. Two different methods were used to gather data at each site to enable comparison and help establish a general baseline for monitoring activities. Below is a summary of the timing and indicators based on monitoring activity: Category DescriptionSize (m) People RolesHabitat Major tree locations, species Overview and sizes. Plant diversity, abundance and distribution20×202–3Recording x1 20 – 30 Measurements x1 Identification x1-213 Quadrat1×13–5Recording x1 30 – 45 Identification x3-416 Detailed species ID using apps, guides or shared knowledge Time Observ (min) ations Gathering voices and insights from volunteers during transition periods also revealed some interesting new ideas which could be considered for future pilot projects. While tools such as iNaturalist and Seek were considered very useful for identifying and recording species, it was also suggested that it would be helpful to have offline alternatives such as whiteboards, logbooks or printed wildlife record forms where visitors could tick or mark the number of sightings of different species. These could still be translated to digital recordings and perhaps refreshed each month with key species to spot linking in with SWSEIC species of the month or national monitoring schemes such as the RSPB Big Garden Birdwatch. Although the events are a great way to meet people and provide data for long-term monitoring, it was also noted that self-serve or casual monitoring opportunities would allow a constant stream of interaction between site visitors passing by at different times throughout the month. Offline alternatives is one way, but adding information on stationary monitoring such as the Glenkens View Points11 could be another way to gather data regularly by having visitors upload photos of a designated view using a QR code. There was also discussion on how far citizen science can go towards ecological reporting so it was decided to create an ecological report for one of the pilot sites. CCW was selected for this trial as 23the pilot site with the most active volunteer group. The aim was to record some interesting data but also make it visual so sites would be proud to display it, share it with members, passers-by or new comers to give a great overview of the site activities, as well as updates of monitoring progress over time. It could be used as a template including key logos and make it easy for all sites to have this resource. In addition, it could be used to support grant applications by also including forward looking improvement plans and recommendations. 3 Approach for Rollout Building on the information gathered during the Baseline Monitoring (Section 2), the next step was to develop an approach for rollout. The following sections summarise the progress to date and ideas gather so far (Section 3.1) before providing suggestions to build citizen science capabilities (Section 3.2) and discussing how to develop a citizen science network (Section 3.3). 3.1 Progress to Date and Ideas Gathered As well as conducting the citizen science events allowing local pilot sites to capture monitoring data and start recording a baseline, other tangible outcomes achieved during the project included: •Digital habitat maps of the pilot sites developed by volunteers •Ecological summary report template, concise and highly visual for display at sites or for use in grant applications •Glenkens Monitoring Toolkit (Appendix E) including equipment and quick start guides available as a Glenkens shared resource for future monitoring events Other ideas gathered from discussions with volunteers and site coordinators included: •Offline recording alternatives such as whiteboards, logbooks or wildlife record forms •Self-serve or casual monitoring opportunities to allow a constant stream of interaction between site visitors throughout the month and between dedicated events •Helpful additions to the Glenkens Monitoring Toolkit could include guides such as WildID, hand lenses, small containers and other testing equipment (see Appendix E for details) 3.2 Building Citizen Science Capabilities By analysing the process and activities from the Baseline Monitoring (Section 2), it was possible to gain an understanding of the different capabilities involved and provide a guideline for building capabilities of citizen scientists. The intent is to provide a general guideline rather than an exact 24rule as some elements within a grouping may be easier to identify than others for example, it is fairly common to be able to tell the difference between conifers and broadleaf woodland or to recognise a frog but not know many other amphibians. Likewise with invertebrates, many moths and butterflies are more easily recognisable than beetles, spiders and pollinating insects such as flies which can be much more challenging to correctly identify. Species breakdown based on D&G LBAP6. Habitat classification based on Phase 1 Habitat Survey Method. It should also be recognised that many of the citizen science species identification skills will likely rely on help from suitable apps such as iNaturalist for identification, whereas an expect or ecologist many know many more species based on their knowledge and experience. While some validation could be done automatically, experts would also be required to verify data. Validation checks for accuracy and completeness, identifying errors such as the date being current rather that 1700’s or location is on land or at sea as intentioned. While verification checks for correctness for example by checking a species identification against a photograph or the count is not unusually high for the species, location, season and other factors. This may include sending samples for testing. 25The table indicates how the capabilities of citizen scientists can be built over time. The capabilities have been broken down into three levels. The 1st level indicates citizen scientists at the start of their journey, perhaps at their first event or with a few months experience, most likely less than a year. Level 2 builds on this by assuming there is some interest or hobby in which the volunteer is willing to invest more time, perhaps focusing in on a species of interest or just broadening their knowledge overall. They build experience over time and acquire more capabilities as time progresses, perhaps 1-2 years. After about 3 years of experience at level 3, they are fully invested and may even take on activities such as preparing reports, analysing and sharing results. In the table, this is represented by each level building on the previous level so it is assumed that a level 2 citizen scientist could also do level 1 citizen science activities plus the additional activities marked with an “x” in the level 2 column. Again, this is a general guideline on how the progression of gaining expertise could evolve over time, however it should be noted that each volunteer is different and may take varying times to build knowledge and experience. Some may also choose to remain casual citizen scientists regardless of the length of time engaged, recording occasionally or attending the occasional monitoring event here and there. Others may gain lots of experience but have no interest in documenting information. It’s important to cater to the interests of different volunteers as gathering data at the end of the day is the most critical aspect and engagement of any kind will help to further this objective. 3.3 Developing a Citizen Science Network There are several different options when considering developing a citizen science network. Whichever path is chosen, the importance of training to continue to build the capabilities of citizen scientists cannot be underestimated. This could include annual citizen science training or dedicated training relating to a specific site or topic in focus for any dedicated events. With this in mind, it was possible to develop different scenarios ranging from the less resource intensive distributed network to a coordinated approach. These scenarios are detailed below including descriptions, data management, resources and an estimate of expenses involved. They can be applied individually, combined or scaled based on the number of events, activities or sites involved. The following abbreviations have been used as short hand to refer to the following resources: Hub (Glenkens Hub management team), Vol (Volunteers), Gaz (Glenkens Gazette publishing team) and GCSN (Glenkens Community Spaces Network coordinator). 26Scenario 1: Distributed Network This scenario is the least resource intensive to establish with a casual approach to monitoring and recording, drawing on pre-existing collaborative groups within the Glenkens such as the Glenkens Gazette or the Glenkens Community Spaces Network (GCSN) to continue to increase awareness, provide engagement opportunities and build capability across the region. All expenses are one-off per site with occasional replacement for loss, damages or when stocks are low. To provide the resources identified to all three pilot sites would require a total budget of £114. Linking in with national monitoring schemes (Appendix D) such as the RSPB Big Garden Birdwatch is an excellent way to gain traction and gather momentum. Many schemes are widely publicised and there is the opportunity to leverage training, guides and activities to build capabilities among the citizen scientists. Engaging people at home is equally as important to record wildlife in gardens or even get involved in nature restoration by creating habitats and wild spaces such as bug hotels, ponds or mini wildflower meadows in their own gardens. Setting up an iNaturalist project for the Glenkens would allow all data recorded on the app to be collated and provide statistics such as number of observations, species and identifiers. Volunteers would be required to upload any recordings from offline monitoring sources. Rankings can be monitored and shared through articles, talks or events including the ideas listed below. 27Glenkens Gazette article series Articles with interesting findings from monitoring activities could be prepared for the Glenkens Gazette9 which is published every couple of months. They could include seasonal sighting suggestions and host competitions for the highest number of recordings, best photograph or other accolades which could be announced in the following article. These could be aligned with ecological survey calendars or more specifically to local recording requests by SWSEIC for particular species of interest or national monitoring schemes to help gather records with the most impact. Local communities or pilot sites could take turns to produce the articles so that each group only writes one article per year. Alternatively, from discussions with the Glenkens Gazette publishing team it sounded like this could be an activity they would be interested in pursuing with the help of willing volunteers to provide interesting data and results to share. Citizen science talks During the project, it was possible to partner with the Glenkens Community Spaces Network (GCSN) to look at ways to embed Citizen Science in communities, starting with a series of citizen science talks at Community Halls across the Glenkens in 2026. This could include monthly citizen science talks at different community spaces across the region to bring citizen science to the local community and help increase awareness of the importance of monitoring and reporting. The latest information and events program will be published on the Glenkens Hub10 when available. Scenario 2: Monitoring Events This scenario follows a similar approach to the project undertaken in this report by supporting additional local monitoring events. One-off expenses include the expansion of the monitoring kit with occasional replacement for loss, damages or when stocks are low (see Appendix E for more details). Citizen science training is presumed to be an annual event but could be conducted as often as required. Expenses are estimated at £220 per event including expert attendance so for example a six month program with events every month during the monitoring season, two of which include expert visits, would require a total budget of £520. In this case, an iNaturalist project could be setup by volunteers for each community or site to track records locally so that top recorders, highest number of observations or top species could easily be available for the local community to review or for volunteers to create ecological summary reports. Findings could be shared on Facebook pages, WhatsApp groups or feed into articles and talks. 28Scenario 3: Coordinated Approach This scenario is the most resource intensive requiring a part time coordinator and highly engaged group of citizen scientists with the potential to contribute to local strategy. Expenses are estimated at £520 per monitoring event assuming both site specific training and expert verification are required each time. Annual expenses include budget for the celebration event and the part time coordinator during the 6 month monitoring season to plan activities, make arrangements with volunteers, collate data and prepare reports. Annual celebration event As the SBIF report4 indicated that volunteers are often under-resourced and the value of biological recording data is high, it would be beneficial to include an annual celebration event to recognise voluntary contributions. This could be included as part of the Land Notes Festival (Strand 3) or be organised as a separate event. Pilot site representatives and enthusiastic volunteers could be invited to attend the event, perhaps even including prizes for the highest number of observations, the rarest species or other interesting monitoring award categories. It would also be a good opportunity for a sharing session, gathering ideas and feedback for the following year. 29Automated Monitoring Incorporating wildlife webcams or trail cams is often used as a way to monitor larger areas over longer periods without the need for constant human presence to monitor and record observations. These devices are placed in the field and can be set to record only when movement is detected, dramatically reducing the total recording time which is then checked at a later date. In future, automated monitoring equipment could be used to gather larger amounts of data more quickly. For example, there are devices available today which listen to bird song and identify the species using AI, similar to apps such as Merlin which use audio technology on your phone, however these dataloggers can be left in the field and linked to multiple devices to record and provide data over a larger area. Some also automatically interpret the data linking to the corresponding biodiversity indicators making it quicker and easier to understand environmental conditions and respond to changes. Users can also benefit from easy reporting capabilities which automatically convert the data into usable formats. Researchers at Durham University are currently conducting a study exploring the impact of different vegetation structure on microclimates and climate resilience 12. The hypothesis is that more complex vegetation structure is more resilient to change as it could provide a variety of protective microhabitats. This could increase the chance of survival for a range of different species during extreme weather events, such as storms or drought, which are becoming increasingly more common due to climate change. They are using drone footage, LiDAR data and models to create 3D vegetation and microclimate maps and hope to develop techniques for digital habitat mapping at 30scale. However, they are also conscious that many sites will not have access to such high tech solutions and the volume of habitat mapping needed requires that many different groups, communities and landowners work together so as an alternative they are exploring simpler testing techniques which make it cheaper and easier for anyone to contribute towards environmental recording whilst still providing robust, good quality data. Hopefully more information and results from the study will be published in the coming months. Rewilding Britain is also working on a Rewilding Monitoring Framework13 providing scientifically based guidance on standardised metrics which can be applied consistently. They are exploring ways to measure change both practically and cost-effectively. It may be worth reviewing to provide guidance on metrics as well as straightforward measurement techniques which could be employed by Citizen Scientists to gather consistent Baseline Monitoring data. So far the framework has been shared with members of the Rewilding Network and was due to be completed in 2025 but has not yet been published at the time of writing this report. Whichever approach is taken, developing appropriate monitoring metrics which are most suitable to the Glenkens should be considered carefully. They should include both biodiversity state indicators as well as engagement indicators to measure the impacts of environmental change and the success of the citizen science programme. Reports such as those indicated above would be a good reference point when they become available. 314 Recommendations and Conclusion In the previous section, scenarios were presented to build a citizen science network. They could be applied individually, combined or scaled based on the number of events, activities or sites involved however it is recommended to align the continued development of the citizen science network with the aims and objectives of the project. Considering the objectives of the project were to: A)Create a robust base for which to seek further funding to develop Nature Networks B)Give communities an immediate sense of participation in nature monitoring Objective A is addressed with the information and experience compiled in this report. Further funding may take time to gather and considering Strand 2 was predominantly focused on baseline monitoring through citizen science, it is therefore recommended to start with the distributed network, raising awareness and engaging communities through casual monitoring as a less resource intensive and lower effort way to start with potentially wide reach across the region. Moving forward, monitoring events could be added to contribute regularly to data collection, monitoring and recording across the region as awareness builds and funding is secured. Eventually by building up the citizen science network and establishing a coordinated approach, it could contribute to the development of nature networks and inform local land use strategy by filling data gaps, investigating habitats and recording wildlife in the region. Mapping and tracking improvements could be supported by actual field data from any site including working with landowners and land managers on private sites, perhaps contributing to their biological reporting requirements and inspiring a sense of collaboration towards nature recovery. Roadmap for developing a citizen science network in the Glenkens 32A. Acknowledgements Funding: Inspiring Scotland Supporters: Glenkens Community and Arts Trust (GCAT), the Land Use subcommittee and the Galloway and South Ayrshire Biosphere (GSAB) Steering group: Jenna Cains (DCC), Morag Paterson (DCC), Helen Keron (GCAT), Andrew McConnell (GCAT), Antoine Lemaire (GSAB), Stephen Connelly (Strand 1) Authors: Niki Inglis Maps and photographs: Alex Inglis Thank you also to the volunteers, trainers and many more who contributed to this project. B. About the Author RenMori was established by wife and husband team, Niki and Alex Inglis, who both qualified with bachelor degrees in Engineering. Niki is an engineering and sustainability consultant with over 20 years of project management and industry experience. Alex has extensive practical knowledge from more than 10 years experience as a design engineer, working across many disciplines, mostly in R&D in the aerospace and automotive industries but also from furniture design and woodworking. New to the area, they would like to use their skills and expertise locally to work actively within the Glenkens to benefit both people and nature in the local community. Niki is a GSAB Proud Supporter and both are trained local guides. They completed “9 Ways to Rewild” by Scotland The Big Picture learning from rewilding and nature restoration experts to boost their knowledge in preparation for expanding the business in this direction. RenMori was inspired by rewilding and regeneration both from their own land based project as well as the desire to utilise their industry knowledge and skills to provide consulting services or guidance to others with similar aspirations. The name RenMori comes from combining “Ren” representing regenerate, rewild and reimagine with “Mori” the Japanese word for forest. They are currently in the process of building an off grid eco home, of their own custom design. Rewilding the 6-acre site, started in 2023 by planting 125 native trees consisting of 12 different woodland varieties and 16 heritage orchard trees. This year, working with D&G Woodlands, over 200 trees will be planted to provide food sources and habitats for a variety of wildlife. As well as helping others with these types of nature recovery activities, they plan to expand the business to include activities that will attract people to the area, offering knowledge and learning about nature including what the Glenkens and the wider area has to offer. 33C. References 1. A Vision for Land Use in the Glenkens, June 2023, Date Published: 2023-08-02 • https://glenkens.scot/reports-resources-archive/a-vision-for-land-use-in-the-glenkens 2. Glenkens & District Community Action Plan Steering Group, Update Report, June 2023, Date Published: 2020-01-01 • https://glenkens.scot/reports-resources-archive/community-action-plan 3. Lawton, J.H., Brotherton, P.N.M., Brown, V.K., Elphick, C., Fitter, A.H., Forshaw, J., Haddow, R.W., Hilborne, S., Leafe, R.N., Mace, G.M., Southgate, M.P., Sutherland, W.J., Tew, T.E., Varley, J., & Wynne, G.R. (2010). Making Space for Nature: a review of England’s wildlife sites and ecological network. Report to Defra 4. Wilson, E., Edwards, L., Judge, J., Johnston, C., Stroud, R., McLeod, C. and Bamforth, L. (2018). A Review of the Biological Recording Infrastructure in Scotland by the Scottish Biodiversity Information Forum: Enabling Scotland to be a global leader for biodiversity. Scottish Biodiversity Information Forum Commissioned Report No. 1 5. Bane M.S. and Pocock M.J.O. (2023). Pollinator monitoring and citizen science: a practical guide for project initiators and participants. UK Centre for Ecology & Hydrology, Wallingford, UK. DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.8091250 6. Peter Norman, P.; Hawker, D., Coombey, N., McFarlan, C. (2009). Dumfries & Galloway Local Biodiversity Action Plan 7. Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA). Defra, London (2007). Hedgerow Survey Handbook: A standard procedure for local surveys in the UK 8. Nelson, B. (2024). St John’s Town of Dalry, Local Place Plan 2024-2034: A vision for development and land use within the settlement and wider Community Council area 9. Glenkens Gazette: https://glenkens.scot/gazette-home 10. Glenkens Hub: https://glenkens.scot/ 11. Glenkens View Points: https://glenkens.scot/projects/glenkens-view-points 12. Knepp Wildland Podcast Episode 25 – The Microclimate, Assistant Professor Rebecca Senior and PhD student Cameron Goodhead at Durham University, Date Published: 2023-10-09 • https://knepp.co.uk/2023/10/installing-data-loggers/ 13. Rewilding Britain, The Rewilding Monitoring Framework, Date Published: 2024-08-20 • https://www.rewildingbritain.org.uk/why-rewild/benefits-of-rewilding/rewilding- monitoring-framework 34D. Apps, Organisations and Monitoring Schemes Listed below are some of the more common apps, organisations and monitoring schemes to indicate the range of information available, however please note this list is not exhaustive and there are many more to explore. Organisation Name Category Type South West Scotland Environmental Information Centre (SWSEIC) (Dumfries & Galloway, Ayrshire and Arran)Local OrganisationScottish Ornithologists' Club – Stewartry Branch (SOC)Local OrganisationPlants Galloway Fisheries Trust (GFT)Local OrganisationRivers Botanical Society of Britain and Ireland (BSBI)National OrganisationPlants Fungal Records Database of Britain and Ireland (FRDBI)National OrganisationFungus The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB)National OrganisationBirds Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC)National OrganisationUK Centre for Ecology and Hydrology (UKCEH)National OrganisationBat Conservation TrustNational OrganisationBats British Trust for Ornithology (BTO)National OrganisationPlants Bees, Wasps and Ants Recording Society (BWARS)National OrganisationInsects Biological Recording in Scotland (BRISC)National OrganisationNational Plant Monitoring SchemeMonitoring SchemePlants RSPB Big Garden BirdwatchMonitoring SchemeBirds Wetlands Birds Survey (WeBS)Monitoring SchemeBirds Garden Moth SchemeMonitoring SchemeMoths National Water Vole Monitoring ProgrammeMonitoring SchemeWater Voles Scottish BadgersMonitoring SchemeBadgers Ancient Tree Inventory (Woodland Trust)Monitoring SchemeTrees The Riverfly PartnershipMonitoring SchemeRiverfly UK Butterfly Monitoring Scheme (UKBMS)Monitoring SchemeButterfly UK Pollinator Monitoring Scheme (UKPoMS)Monitoring SchemePollinators iNaturalist (use non-British databases)App iRecordApp SeekApp ObsIdentify (use non-British databases)App INNS MapperApp 35 InvasivesBirdTrackAppBirds BirdNetAudio AppBirds Merlin (use non-British databases)Audio AppBirds BatExplorerAudio AppBats UKHabMappingHabitat Land AppMappingHabitat QGIS and QFieldMappingHabitat Google EarthMappingHabitat OS grid referenceMappingLocation GPS coordinatesMappingLocation what3wordsMappingLocation Cucaera.co.ukMappingLocation 36E. Glenkens Monitoring Toolkit The table below includes a list of the current tools and resources available in the toolkit with some helpful additions which could be added over time, however please note this list is not exhaustive and there are many more options to explore. Tools and resources IncludedQuantityCost per item Weather writersa4£47 Tape measuresa4£4 Pensa6£5 Habitat name traila8£0.5 iNaturalist guidea8£0.5 Wildlife record form (SWSEIC)a10£0.5 Extra papera10£0.5 Waterwriter pen£4 Berol Verithin Coloured Pencils (Phase 1 Habitat Surveys)£0.4 Additional guides such as WildID£4 Handheld microscopes£15-20 Hand lenses£5-10 Binoculars (10x zoom, 25 degree field of view)£20-30 String and pegs for marking areas£9 Insect traps such as moth light traps£190 Nets for catching insects£15-25 Small containers for identification (pack of 10)£18 Soil sampling (reused jars or containers for soil type, bucket and spade for infiltration testing)N/A Water sampling (trays, bucket and net for kick sampling)£5-10 Hedgerow surveying equipment (1m folding ruler)£5 Recycled plastic storage box to protect equipment£25 37F1. Dalry School Garden Map F2. Carsphairn Community Woodland (CCW) Map F3. New Galloway Community Garden (NCG) MapPROJECT TITLE Dalry School Garden DRAWING TITLE Citizen Science Training Site DATE 10.2025 12.2025 VER. 1.0 2.0 NOTES Base Map Created Annotations AddedPROJECT TITLE Carsphairn Community Woodland DRAWING TITLE Citizen Science Monitoring Sites DATE 10.2025 12.2025 VER. 1.0 2.0 NOTES Base Map Created Annotations AddedSURVEY INFORMATION 26TH OCTOBER 2025 HABITAT OVERVIEW PROJECT TITLE 30TH NOVEMBER 2025 A brighter day, sunny and dry but cold with temperatures approximately 4°C DRAWING TITLE Predominantly coniferous woodland (A1.2.2), dominant species Sitka Spruce, Larch and Birch The Hide location was recorded on what3words at: ///Streetcar.gilding.curry It also features a View Point for stationary monitoring. Details and a QR code will be added to the View Point to allow visitors to take photographs and upload any time OBSERVATIONS FROM HABITAT OVERVIEW ● ● North and West of the Hide includes an area of native and mixed broadleaf woodland (A1.1.2) West and South of the Hide has been recently felled and replanted with broadleaf woodland A large patch of Bracken (C1) was recorded to the North of the Hide Three of the largest trees nearest the Hide were identified and locations measured by citizen scientists as well as what3words data recorded: ● Bird Cherry, Trunk 85cm, Distance 12.4m, ///confronts.hoped.hamster ● Hawthorn, Trunk 35cm, Distance 10.2m, ///tools.truly.dialects ● Hawthorn with empty Bird Box, Trunk 94cm, Distance 9.4m, ///schooling.diary.reserve The location of the quadrat monitoring site for species ID is nestled among the broadleaf trees to the North East of the Hide where the dominant species are Hawthorn, Hazel and Bird Cherry Considering the season and the weather conditions, 36 observations were recorded on the day The weather was cloudy and rainy with wet ground conditions, temperatures approximately 5°C OBSERVATIONS FROM HABITAT OVERVIEW ● ● ● ● Fungi and Lichens: Birch Polypore Plants: Bird Cherry, Blackthorn, Bracken, Buttercup, Fern, Hawthorn Trees, Hazel Trees, Raspberry x10, Sapling Hazels x10, Wood Sage Birds: Chaffinch, Great Tit, Robin Mammals: Red Squirrel OBSERVATIONS FROM QUADRAT Location: //relished.hormones.sweeping ● ● ● Plants: Common Dog Violet, Common Tamarisk Moss, Dock, Eared Willow, European Wood Sorrel, Grasses, Great Stitchwort, Neat Feather Moss, Raspberry, Slater, Woodland Germander Invertebrates: Common Striped Woodlouse, Fly x3, Mosquito, Small Flecked Wing Fly, Spider #1, Spider #2, White Legged Snaked Millipede Signs and Tracks: Dead Leaves & Twigs, Hawthorn Berries x21, Hazel Nut Birds: Chaffinch, Great Tit, Robin Mammals: Red Squirrel OBSERVATIONS FROM QUADRAT Location: ///shameless.busy.shaped ● ● ● ● An area of natural regeneration was recorded as including 10x Hazel saplings and 10x Raspberry Carsphairn Community Woodland Fungi and Lichens: Fungus (Milking Bonnet?) Plants: Common Dog Violet, Common Tamarisk Moss, Deer Fern, Germander Speedwell, Great Stitchwort, Hairy Woodrush, Neat Feather Moss, Raspberry Stalks, Tree Climacium Moss Invertebrates: Common Striped Woodlouse, Spider #1, Spider #2, Tiny Worm Signs and Tracks: Birch Leaf Litter, Hawthorn Leaf Litter, Hazel Leaf Litter Citizen Science Monitoring Sites DATE 10.2025 12.2025 VER. 1.0 2.0 NOTES Base Map Created Annotations AddedPROJECT TITLE New Galloway Community Garden DRAWING TITLE Citizen Science Monitoring Sites DATE 10.2025 12.2025 VER. 1.0 2.0 NOTES Base Map Created Annotations AddedSURVEY INFORMATION 23RD NOVEMBER 2025 HABITAT OVERVIEW Predominantly Amenity Grassland (J1.2) 23RD NOVEMBER 2025 OBSERVATIONS FROM QUADRAT Location: ///winning.stylists.many ● East of the Garden includes an areas of approximately 40 x 20m of recently planted native and mixed broadleaf woodland (A1.1.2) ● ● A Ditch (J2.6) stands between the newly planted woodland and the community garden which runs to the river South of the Garden. Dry most of the year, captures water from Hilltop Hilltop to the East of the Garden is approximately 4m above the majority of the park field. It features a View Point for stationary monitoring. Details and a QR code will be added to the View Point to allow visitors to take photographs and upload any time South of the Garden Scrub (A2) dominates with a Hawthorn Tree as the focal point. The location was measured by citizen scientists as well as what3words data recorded: ● Hawthorn, Trunk 1.3m, Distance 10.2m, ///hippy.graphics.bloodshot The location of the quadrat monitoring site for species ID is located in the areas where the dominant species at the time of monitoring was Rose Bay Willow Herb West of the Garden is bordered by a Hedge (J2.2) which is predominantly made up of Beech separating it from the play park. The gap is thought to be the location of a tap when the site was formerly a Bowling Green, although further investigation is required to confirm the presence and location Considering the season and the weather conditions, 54 observations were recorded on the day The weather was cloudy and rainy with wet ground conditions, temperatures approximately 6°C OBSERVATIONS FROM NATIVE BROADLEAF WOODLAND (A1.1.2) ● ● ● Fungi and Lichens: Alder Tongue Gall Plants: Bent Grass, Buttercup, Catchweed Bedstraw, Common Figwort, Germander Speedwell, Goat Willow, Ribwort Plantain, Sorrel, Vetch Signs and Tracks: Evidence of Deer feeding on trees, Evidence of Rabbit feeding on lower branches or small shrubs OBSERVATIONS FROM SCRUB (A2) ● ● ● Fungi and Lichens: Cartilage Lichen, Fairy Nose Lichen Plants: Broad Leaf Dock, Common Ivy, Feather Moss, Grasses, Large Mouse Tail Moss, Nettles, Plantain, Rose Bay Willow Herb Birds: Robin PROJECT TITLE Plants: Brambles, Catchweed Bedstraw, Dock, Feather Moss, Hogweed, Large Bittercress Invertebrates: Earthworn Signs and Tracks: Hawthorn Berries, Lead Mulch, Snail Shell OBSERVATIONS FROM DEFUNCT HEDGE (J2.2) ● ● Plants: Autumn Hawkbit, Common Dog Violet, Common Ivy, Cottoneasters (genus), Couch Grass, Creeping Buttercup, Curled Dock, Dandelion, European Beech, European Black Elderberry, Germander Speedwell, Gout Weed, Hawkbit, Meadow Buttercup, Ribwort, Plantain, Square Gooseneck Moss, St. John's Wort, Wild Strawberry Birds: Robin New Galloway Community Garden DRAWING TITLE Citizen Science Monitoring Sites DATE 10.2025 12.2025 VER. 1.0 2.0 NOTES Base Map Created Annotations Added Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Baseline monitoring of the development of Nature Networks in the Glenkens Description An account of the resource This project is the next chapter in the Glenkens Land Use Series starting with A Vision For Land Use in the Glenkens developed in 2023 and builds on work done across the area since it was added to the Glenkens and District Community Action Plan (CAP). Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context CAP_37 Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource GCAT Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Dalry Community Council Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Niki Inglis Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2026 CAP Theme 3 land use https://glenkensarchive.scot/glenkens_archive/files/original/20/757/Connelly_2026_NatureNetworksInTheGlenkens.jpg 2780c6af51d84f90788c5152bba06642 https://glenkensarchive.scot/glenkens_archive/files/original/20/757/connelly_2026_nature_networks_in_the_Glenkens_-_final_report.pdf af9079c0420b6c2fbe838045c6a8488b PDF Text Text pdftext_placeholder Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Community Action Plan Description An account of the resource Documents relating to the Glenkens and District Community Action Plan, initially drawn up by Glenkens & District Trust in 2020. Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Text Any textual data included in the document Establishing Nature Networks in the Glenkens Feasibility Study Dr Stephen Connelly February 2026Establishing Nature Networks in the Glenkens - Feasibility Study 2026 Contents Acronyms ................................................................................................................ ii Summary ............................................................................................................... iii 1 Introduction ...................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Genesis of the project and its relation to other work...................................... 3 1.2 Report structure and methodology .............................................................. 4 1.3 What this report is not ................................................................................ 5 1.4 A note on ‘community’ and ‘land manager’ ................................................... 6 2 Nature networks ............................................................................................... 8 2.1 Policy Context ............................................................................................ 8 2.2 Ecology ................................................................................................... 10 3 Creating Nature Networks in the Glenkens ........................................................ 13 3.1 Socio-Economic Context .......................................................................... 13 3.2 Organisational Context and Capacity......................................................... 17 3.3 Ecology ................................................................................................... 19 3.4 Mapping and Data .................................................................................... 29 4 Proposed Habitat Corridors: Priorities for Network Development ........................ 31 4.1 Broadleaved Woodland ............................................................................ 31 4.2 Hedgerows .............................................................................................. 38 4.3 Pollinators ............................................................................................... 39 5 Important Habitats for Restoration, with Lower Network Priority ......................... 41 5.1 Why Networks May Not Always Be a Priority ............................................... 41 5.2 Grassland ................................................................................................ 41 5.3 Wetlands and open water ......................................................................... 42 5.4 Land Managed for Nature Restoration ........................................................ 43 6 Monitoring ...................................................................................................... 46 6.1 Monitoring Nature Networks ..................................................................... 46 6.2 Citizen Science ........................................................................................ 47 6.3 Art, Fun, and Knowledge ........................................................................... 49 7 Supporting Network Development .................................................................... 51 7.1 Sta ........................................................................................................ 51 7.2 Resources ............................................................................................... 53 8 Conclusions ................................................................................................... 57 8.1 Introduction: Key Outcomes ..................................................................... 57 8.2 Habitats: Network Potential ...................................................................... 58 8.3 Key Lessons ............................................................................................. 61 8.4 A Glenkens Approach To Nature Networks ................................................. 62 8.5 Next Steps for Nature Networks ................................................................ 64 Appendices ........................................................................................................... 65 Appendix 1: Designated areas in the Glenkens ...................................................... 65 Appendix 2: Skills and attributes of a nature networks project team ....................... 67 Appendix 3: Overcoming cultural barriers ............................................................. 69 Sources ................................................................................................................. 70 Acknowledgements................................................................................................ 72 iEstablishing Nature Networks in the Glenkens - Feasibility Study 2026 Maps and Figures in the main text Map 1 The Glenkens: area covered in this report ...................................................................... 2 Map 2 Native woodland, showing the ‘proto-network’ of existing woods ................................. 22 Map 3 North Glenkens - indicative map of broadleaved woodland corridors ........................... 32 Map 4 Lochs Ken and Woodhall - indicative map of broadleaved woodland corridors ............. 34 Map 5 Water of Urr/Ken-Urr links - indicative map of broadleaved woodland corridors ............ 36 Map 6 Far North Glenkens - indicative map of broadleaved woodland corridors...................... 37 Map 7 The Pollinators Network in early 2026.......................................................................... 40 Map 8 Indicative locations of land already being managed for nature restoration .................... 44 Figure 1 Habitat mosaics and networks in grasslands ............................................................ 25 Figure 2 The Glenkens approach to nature networks .............................................................. 62 Cover images: Upper: Existing woodland corridor section in the North Glenkens (Photo: Connelly) Lower: Excerpt from NatureScot Natural Capital Tool “Woodland Opportunities” map (produced by the Natural Capital Tool; contains OS data © Crown copyright and database rights (2025) OS AC0000860537). Acronyms CEH DGW FLS GCAT GFT GSAB HABMOS INNS LBAP LPP NBN NGO NR NRF PAWS RLUF RSPB SF SLE SPA SSSI SWSEIC (UK) Centre for Ecology and Hydrology Dumfries & Galloway Woodlands Forestry and Land Scotland Glenkens Community & Arts Trust Galloway Fisheries Trust Galloway and South Ayrshire Biosphere Habitat Map of Scotland Invasive Non-Native Species (Dumfries & Galloway) Local Biodiversity Action Plan Local Place Plan National Biodiversity Network Non-Governmental Organisation Nature Restoration Nature Restoration Fund Plantations on Ancient Woodland Sites Regional Land Use Framework Royal Society for the Protection of Birds Scottish Forestry Scottish Land and Estates Special Protection Area (under the Birds Directive) Site of Special Scientific Interest South West Scotland Environmental Information Centre iiEstablishing Nature Networks in the Glenkens - Feasibility Study 2026 Summary This Feasibility Study lays the groundwork for a landscape-scale programme of interventions in the Glenkens aimed at linking existing areas of high ecological value through the creation of new habitats and the ecological enhancement of current land uses. Together, these interventions would form a set of diverse, connected nature networks, contributing to improved biodiversity, ecosystem resilience and climate adaptation. The programme is intended to sit within, and give practical expression to, the wider vision articulated by Glenkens communities for a diverse, productive and sustainable landscape. The study was commissioned by Dalry Community Council and funded by Inspiring Scotland’s Neighbourhood Ecosystem Fund. It was undertaken within a broader programme of community-led land-use work in the Glenkens, and responds directly to the Scottish Government’s ambition to establish a nation-wide system of nature networks. While NatureScot provides national guidance and local authorities are expected to lead delivery at strategic scale, this study recognises that translating high- level policy into practical, place-based action requires detailed local knowledge and sustained engagement. In this context, community involvement is not supplementary but essential. The Glenkens is a productive rural landscape, predominantly owned and managed by private landowners and tenants for food production and forestry. Ecological and social outcomes are often valued, but they are typically secondary to business viability. The area does not have extensive community or state land ownership, nor large philanthropic estates focused on rewilding. In response, this study explores a ‘third way’ for nature restoration: one that grows nature networks out of existing land uses by identifying shared agendas and practical solutions that align the priorities of land managers with those of local communities. Methodologically, the study adopted an organic and developmental approach, rather than applying a fixed or idealised model of nature network design. Evidence was drawn from interviews and informal discussions with seven environmental organisations, ecological and land-use analysis using multiple spatial datasets, and interviews with ten land managers alongside a representative body, the National Farmers Union Scotland (NFUS). The assessment identified priority habitat types where a network approach is both ecologically meaningful and practically achievable in the Glenkens context. These include broadleaved woodland, corridors within commercial forestry, wet woodland, hedgerows and pollinator habitats. Other habitats—particularly grasslands, wetlands and areas already undergoing forms of nature restoration—are recognised as iiiEstablishing Nature Networks in the Glenkens - Feasibility Study 2026 ecologically important, but were found to be less well suited to a network-based approach and are therefore not prioritised within this study. Monitoring, support and enabling structures are identified as critical to delivery. The study emphasises the importance of participatory monitoring and citizen science, alongside appropriate governance, sta ing, expertise and resourcing. Drawing these findings together, the study proposes a distinctive Glenkens approach to nature networks, which may be replicable in other predominantly privately owned rural landscapes in Scotland. This approach is shaped by a number of core local conditions: the need to achieve meaningful outcomes at sub-catchment scale in the absence of wider network connections; a complex pattern of private land ownership; a highly active and capable non-land-based community with a strong track record of policy engagement; the presence of well-networked environmental NGOs with complementary initiatives; and a legacy of weak communication and mistrust between stakeholder groups. Within this context, the recommended approach is dynamic, pragmatic and adaptive. It is guided by the Glenkens Land Use Vision, the Lawton Principles for ecological restoration, and the community-development principle of “starting where people are at”. At the same time, it is tempered by an explicit recognition of economic realities shaped by agricultural subsidy frameworks, funding uncertainty, and cultural barriers to engagement. Central to this approach is the use of a twin-track process that balances ecological ambition with socio-economic acceptability. ivEstablishing Nature Networks in the Glenkens - Feasibility Study 2026 1 Introduction This Feasibility Study lays the foundation for a landscape scale programme of interventions which will link existing patches of valuable habitats through creating new areas and improving the ecological status of current land use, to create diverse, linked ‘nature networks’ of habitats. It fits squarely within the Glenkens communities’ vision for living in a landscape which is an exemplar of sustainable land use practice in building resilience for climate, biodiversity & communities with a balanced mosaic of land use [which] enables soil and waterway regeneration, and significant biodiversity improvements support climate adaptation and sustainability 1. The Glenkens is a productive landscape, primarily owned and managed by private landowners and their tenants for food and timber. For many of these, ecological and social benefits are important, but secondary, considerations. The Glenkens does not have either large scale community or state land ownership 2, or large estates owned by philanthropists with an interest in rewilding. The approach proposed here is a ‘third way’ for nature restoration, which will grow nature networks out of existing land uses through developing and finding shared agendas and common solutions to the di ering priorities of landowners and managers and the rest of the Glenkens communities. As the Farming Advisory Service puts it, Land managers are not just part of this story – they are central to it. Restoration doesn’t mean a return to the past, but a managed transition to land use that balances productivity and resilience with the need for a dynamic, living landscape3. This is a feasibility study. For networks, and each component intervention, to be feasible, they must be all of:   practically do-able ecologically beneficial, and Glenkens Land Use Vision at https://glenkens.scot/reports-resources-archive/a-vision-for-land-use-in- the-glenkens 2 Forestry and Land Scotland manage about 10% of the approximately 60,000 hectares covered in this report. The largest community-owned land area is the 49 ha of Carsphairn Community Woodland. 1 https://www.fas.scot/article/nature-restoration-fund-2025-a-call-to-action-for-scotlands- land-managers/ 3 1Establishing Nature Networks in the Glenkens - Feasibility Study 2026  acceptable to the wider community and especially to land managers. They therefore need to enhance, or at the very least fit into, land-based business models without significant cost. The changes proposed are thus not radical in themselves – creating nature networks is unlikely to be about rewilding the Glenkens at a landscape scale. However, the cumulative, collective outcomes could be significant to landscape, ecosystem resilience, and potentially also to local economies and the engagement of the village communities with their rural surroundings. Map 1 The Glenkens: area covered in this report The boundary of the Glenkens adopted for this study is shown in Map 1. It comprises the upper parts of the Water of Ken valley above the outfall of Loch Ken, including the part or all of the community council areas of Balmaclellan, Balmaghie, Carsphairn, Crossmichael, Dalry, New Galloway and Parton. Because of community and funding links 2Establishing Nature Networks in the Glenkens - Feasibility Study 2026 with these communities, Corsock and the upper Urr Water valley are also included here. The Dee catchment has largely been excluded, because the issues around creating nature networks are very di erent in the uninhabited plantations of the Galloway Forest Park. The exception is the lowest section where the Black Water of Dee leaves the Park and flows through privately owned agricultural land and woodland to Loch Ken. The total area under consideration is around 600 square kilometres (60,000 hectares). 1.1 Genesis of the project and its relation to other work This study is part of a multi-year programme in the Glenkens. The first concrete output of this was the Glenkens Land Use Vision, adopted formally as part of the Glenkens Community Action Plan4 in 2023. Since then, realising the Vision has been taken forward on several mutually reinforcing fronts as resources became available. These included participatory monitoring and citizen science, the inaugural Land Notes Festival 5, a feasibility study into governance structures for progressing the Vision6, the development of Pollinator Networks7, the creation of an agroecological farm at Lochhill8 and an innovative partnership between the community-based Upper Urr Environment Trust and a forestry investor in the Upper Urr valley9. Developing nature networks would be a significant step forward towards achieving the Vision’s goals at a landscape scale. The current project has been commissioned by Dalry Community Council, and has three contributing strands: 1. opportunity mapping to identify ecologically valuable sites and interventions, and to explore the possibility of such interventions with land owners and managers (including tenant and owner-occupier farmers, estate owners and managers, private and public sector forest managers, community groups) 2. training in community engagement in ecological baselining through biological recording, adopting a citizen science approach. 3. participatory monitoring of landscape change, incorporating the ongoing outcomes of the August 2025 first Glenkens Land Notes Festival. The first two strands are funded through Inspiring Scotland’s Neighbourhood Ecosystem Fund, which is part-funded by NatureScot. The third strand was funded by NatureScot through the ‘Participatory Monitoring of Land Use Change’ pilot project, which the https://glenkens.scot/glenkens-community-action-plan https://gcat.scot/land-notes-glenkens-festival-of-land/ 6 S. Connelly (2024) Feasibility Study into a Glenkens Land Use Forum at https://glenkens.scot/reports- resources-archive/feasibility-study-into-glenkens-land-use-forum-march-2024 7 https://glenkens.scot/glenkens-news/glenkens-pollinators-project 8 https://www.lochhillagroecological.farm/ 9 The Glaisters Bridge Community Woodland - see https://www.uuet.co.uk/ 4 5 3Establishing Nature Networks in the Glenkens - Feasibility Study 2026 Glenkens participates in. The Festival also had support from Inspiring Scotland, Creative Scotland and the Heritage Lottery Fund. 1.2 Report structure and methodology The next section briefly sets out the policy and ecology background to nature networks, and raises some of the complexities and challenges posed by institutions and science, drawing out what it means to attempt to develop nature networks from the bottom up at a local scale. Section 3 brings this to the Glenkens, explaining the social and ecological context within which nature networks could be developed and sets out the data sources used in this study. Sections 4 and 5 discuss sets of habitats in turn: those for which a network approach appears to o er most (§4) and those where alternative approaches to nature restoration may be more e ective than using the networks concept (§5). Sections 6 and 7 cover what will be needed to deliver nature networks in order to monitor progress, and the potential contribution of communities to this (§6) and what support will be needed in terms of sta ing, governance and financial and organisational resources (§7). Section 8 summarises the key learning from the project, including how suitable each habitat type is for network development. It sets out a ‘Glenkens approach’ as a set of guiding principles and methods, and a few ‘next steps’ for 2026, in the absence of dedicated resources10. The methodology of the study was organic and developmental, rather than starting from a fixed blueprint for assessing the feasibility of networks. It was experimental, seeking to develop and test a twin-track approach that considered both what was ecologically desirable and what was socio-economically acceptable, rather than starting from one or other of these strands. In particular, the study aimed to avoid developing a very clearly defined scientific position on “what should be done on the ground for nature” and then presenting this to land managers. Past experience has suggested that this is not an e ective way to engage, and risks creating resistance. The project methodology was therefore rather unstructured and followed a process of trial, error, success, failure and reflective learning. In one location, this approach has led close to practical action during the lifetime of the project, with a detailed planting schedule drawn up to connect separate sections of the Water of Ken Woods SSSI in the autumn of 2026. Data gathering involved three overlapping stages, undertaken in the following sequence though with substantial overlaps and circling back between methods: 10 At the time of writing there was no guaranteed ongoing funding in place. 4Establishing Nature Networks in the Glenkens - Feasibility Study 2026 a. Interviews and informal discussions with seven environmental organisations to establish nature restoration priorities from a locally informed conservation perspective. These also explored what, if anything, these organisations were currently doing or planning in relation to habitat restoration or the development of nature networks. This stage was reinforced through familiarisation with the key documents guiding conservation activity in the region – the Dumfries & Galloway Local Biodiversity Action Plan (LBAP)11 and the Galloway and Southern Ayrshire Biosphere Natural Habitat Management Plan 201812 - and with the spatial distribution of key species as recorded in the NBN Atlas Scotland. b. Ecological and land-use analysis using a range of spatial datasets and maps (see §3.4 for detail). This formed part of the experimental methodology, as it was not clear at the outset which combination of maps and data sources would be most useful for developing a su icient level of detail to inform the next stage. In particular, this involved exploring how best to use NatureScot’s Natural Capital Tool13, which was still under development at the time of the study. c. Interviews with ten land managers and with a representative organisation (the National Farmers Union Scotland – NFUS). Land managers were selected partly due to the size of their land holding, and collectively those interviewed manage a very substantial proportion of the Glenkens. The interviews also aimed to capture perspectives from across di erent types of private land holding, as well as from the largest public-sector land manager in the area (Forestry and Land Scotland). The final set of interviewees was influenced by the findings of the previous two stages, targeting to an extent those who it seemed likely could make an identifiable contribution to network creation, and by practical issues about access, which was facilitated through a small number of trusted intermediaries. Interviewees have not been identified in the report, in order to allow for open and frank discussions. The final report synthesises all this material, drawing on the evidence gathered to come to reasoned judgements about network feasibility. 1.3 What this report is not This report focuses on nature networks as one important component of landscape-scale nature restoration in the Glenkens. The development of nature networks should, however, be planned alongside a wider range of initiatives. As discussed in §2.1, some species and habitats benefit strongly from corridor creation, while for others the https://www.dumfriesandgalloway.gov.uk/sites/default/files/2024- 08/Local_Biodiversity_Action_Plan.pdf 12 https://www.gsabiosphere.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/Galloway-and-Southern-Ayrshire- UNESCO-Biosphere-Natural-Heritage-Management-Plan-Sept-2018-1.pdf 13 https://www.nature.scot/doc/natural-capital-tool 11 5Establishing Nature Networks in the Glenkens - Feasibility Study 2026 protection, expansion or improvement of habitat patches may be of greater importance. In addition, there are community-led nature restoration initiatives already underway, as well as opportunities available to private landowners through the Forestry Grant Scheme (FGS) and agricultural subsidies. As far as possible, this report is confined to exploring the feasibility of nature networks. It is not intended to be a comprehensive nature restoration study, and its recommendations are designed to inform and support a broader Nature Restoration Strategy, Framework or programme, rather than to stand alone. Where relevant, links between nature network creation and other aspects of nature restoration - and more broadly the delivery of the Land Use Vision - are noted, but not explored in depth. The report also places less emphasis on community-led land management initiatives, largely for reasons of scale. The primary opportunities for establishing functional nature networks in the Glenkens lie on privately owned land, and to a lesser extent on state forestry land. The role of communities is therefore more likely to be focused on data gathering, monitoring and other forms of participation, rather than on direct delivery of networks at landscape scale. The analysis concentrates on the establishment of land-based habitats. Rivers and watercourses already form an extensive and functionally connected network and are habitats in their own right. While they do not require establishment, they do require protection and enhancement, and this work sits largely within the remit of organisations such as the Galloway Fisheries Trust (GFT) and the Loch Ken Trust. Nevertheless, nature network interventions elsewhere in the landscape need to take account of river systems, both because they o er opportunities for enhancement (for example through riparian planting), and because poorly designed planting or land-use change has the potential to cause harm to the waterways. Finally, the report does not explore the Galloway Forest Park or other areas of commercial plantation forestry in any detail. Discussions with Forestry and Land Scotland and private estate managers indicated that establishing networks through conifer plantations involves a di erent set of challenges, including long-term management plans and policy constraints, and requires sustained engagement, advocacy and advisory work to support change. 1.4 A note on ‘community’ and ‘land manager’ This study starts from the principle that land managers and land owners are members of the local communities: the oft-repeated distinctions between ‘community’ and ‘landowners’ or ‘farmers’ in particular are unhelpful. Yet they do reflect a reality of economic, cultural and attitudinal divisions which need to be recognised and accommodated – and hopefully addressed – in any realistic approach to creating nature networks. 6Establishing Nature Networks in the Glenkens - Feasibility Study 2026 There is a separate issue with terminology in a complex land tenure and management situation. ‘Land managers’ is used here to mean the farmers and foresters and estate managers who make decisions about how the land is used. Some of these also own the land they manage, as owner-occupier farmers or owners of multi-land-use estates. Some land managers are tenant farmers, while others are employed by estates either directly or as contractors. Finally, some land is owned by people who live in the Glenkens, some by individuals based elsewhere, some by commercial organisations with a significant local presence, and some by organisations with no local presence or real non-financial interest. Although the last of these stretch the definition, all are in some way part of the ‘Glenkens community’, with a stake in the use of the land. 7Establishing Nature Networks in the Glenkens - Feasibility Study 2026 2 Nature networks 2.1 Policy Context 2.1.1 Nature Networks Policy The origins of this project lie in the Scottish Government’s ambition to establish a nation- wide system of evolving, flexible and resilient nature networks14. These are intended to connect nature-rich areas, enable wildlife and natural processes to move and adapt to land-use and climate-change pressures, and support meaningful public engagement with nature. Nature networks are also expected to provide biodiversity-rich spaces that deliver local wellbeing benefits and reflect community priorities. NatureScot provides national guidance, while local authorities hold the lead delivery role. This reflects the need to plan networks at scales that can accommodate long- distance climate-driven species movement, and to integrate network development with local authority responsibilities for biodiversity (e.g. through Local Nature Reserves, Local Conservation Sites, Biodiversity Action Plans etc.) and wider land-use planning. The Dumfries & Galloway LBAP already emphasises the importance of “ecological networks” linking “fragmented and isolated habitats,” and views such linkages as more feasible than large-scale habitat creation. LBAP priorities for species and habitat conservation have informed this study, although the current plan (published in 2009) is due for renewal in 2026. Given national policy, it is highly likely that the revised LBAP will strengthen the role of nature networks, while maintaining the existing conservation priorities. Nature network development also fits within regional policies. The 2024 South of Scotland Regional Land Use Framework (RLUF)15 aims to halt biodiversity decline and “drive nature recovery”, prioritising improved management of high-value sites, including nature networks. The RLUF envisages “healthy, diverse, resilient ecosystems supported by resilient nature networks and regenerative agriculture” (p. 41) with delivery dependent on coordinated action from land managers, communities, agencies and other stakeholders. The RLUF also highlights the role of community-level planning - through Local Place Plans (LPPs) and Community Action Plans - in strengthening dialogue between stakeholders, increasing understanding of local natural assets and supporting informed community participation in land-use decisions. Key sources are the Scottish Biodiversity Strategy (https://www.gov.scot/publications/scottish- biodiversity-strategy-2045/documents) and NatureScot’s Nature Networks Framework (https://www.nature.scot/doc/nature-networks-framework). 15 https://www.southofscotlandrep.com/media/kpsbxf2b/rluf_v1_240919.pdf 14 8Establishing Nature Networks in the Glenkens - Feasibility Study 2026 2.1.2 Community-Level Planning While it is appropriate that local authorities lead at the strategic scale, nature network planning places additional demands on financially stressed organisations and also requires highly localised ecological and land-use knowledge to translate broad strategies into implementable interventions. This underscores the importance of community involvement. In the Glenkens, the response (embodied in this project) has been to propose network development at sub-catchment scale: large enough to allow meaningful landscape and network thinking, yet su iciently local to support detailed planning by communities and land managers. This aligns with the scale of the Land Use Vision and complements emerging LPPs16, most of which are broadly supportive of network development even though they pre-dated explicit spatial planning for nature networks, and do not consider cross-council coordination. Ideally, a Glenkens Nature Network Plan or Strategy would be developed in dialogue with local authority and regional strategic planning, along with detailed boundary work to link with neighbouring sub-catchments. In the current reality, however, the Glenkens approach is intended both to deliver tangible biodiversity and community benefits in its own right and to serve as a pilot of a replicable methodology. Any risks associated with proceeding independently are limited at this early feasibility stage; by the time large- scale implementation is possible, relevant local authority and other sub-catchment processes may be taking place. 2.1.3 Uncertain Futures At the time of writing – winter 2025-6 – there is a huge amount of uncertainty in key policy areas. Agricultural Subsidy Reform Because establishing nature networks in the Glenkens will involve changes to the management of privately owned farmland and woodland, proposals must be compatible with sustaining and enhancing profitable land-based businesses. Land-management decisions are heavily shaped by agricultural subsidy regimes - formerly EU Common Agricultural Policy payments and, post-Brexit, the Scottish Government’s support framework. This is in flux, and while we can be fairly certain that future payments will increasingly incentivise environmentally beneficial practices, two significant issues limit clear assessment of what is economically feasible for land managers at present. At time of writing, four Glenkens LPPs were publicly available: Balmaclellan (consultation draft), Carsphairn (adopted), Crossmichael (consultation draft), Dalry (adopted). 16 9Establishing Nature Networks in the Glenkens - Feasibility Study 2026   Tier 1 (basic payment) requirements, centred on Whole Farm Plans, are only now being implemented, placing new demands on farmers’ time and planning capacity, with expectations that the requirements will develop further over time. Tier 2 (enhanced) and Tier 3 (elective) payment structures, which will determine the financial viability of many nature-positive actions, will not be announced until 2026 at the earliest. Land managers are understandably reluctant to commit to actions that might either jeopardise future eligibility or incur costs that might have been subsidised if they had waited for the new regime to be in place. The advice and training support available under the future Tier 4 (complementary) is similarly unknown. There is also considerable uncertainty over how alternative, natural capital-based, payments may develop in the coming years. While the Woodland Carbon and Peatland Codes are relatively well established, the potential role of biodiversity net gain 17 is very unclear, though it may become of huge significance in funding nature restoration. Land Reform Additional uncertainty arises from the evolving land-reform agenda. The Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2025 requires owners of more than 1,000 contiguous hectares to produce a publicly available land-management plan and to engage with communities and tenants on its development. Further detail will be set out in secondary legislation and guidance, so at present, the principal e ect mirrors that of agricultural subsidy uncertainty: some landowners are cautious about committing to participation in nature network planning when communities with alternative ideas may have to be engaged with. Less tangibly, the reforms have increased concern about external scrutiny and future obligations. 2.2 Ecology Nature networks are proposed as a response to the ongoing depletion of biodiversity, much of which is linked to habitat loss and fragmentation driven by the intensification and expansion of commercial land uses, particularly agriculture and forestry. Nature restoration e orts are guided by the Lawton principles, summarised in Making Space for Nature18 as “more, bigger, better and joined up” (p. 78) i.e. the creation of larger, higher- While biodiversity net gain (BNG) is not required across all development in Scotland – in contrast to England – "significant biodiversity enhancements" are mandated by the National Planning Framework 4 (https://www.gov.scot/publications/national-planning-framework-4/) for major developments. Other, smaller-scale, applications of the Scottish biodiversity metric (https://www.nature.scot/doc/biodiversity- metric-scotlands-planning-system) may emerge. 18 J. Lawton (2010) Making Space for Nature: A review of England’s Wildlife Sites and Ecological Network (aka ‘The Lawton Report’) – report to DEFRA from a panel chaired by Sir John Lawton. Available from https://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ukgwa/20130402170324/http:/archive.defra.gov.uk/environm ent/biodiversity/documents/201009space-for-nature.pdf. 17 10Establishing Nature Networks in the Glenkens - Feasibility Study 2026 quality habitats that are well connected. This approach also reflects the need to build resilience to climate change by enabling species movement within the landscape. A nature network connects nature-rich sites, including restoration areas and other environmental projects, through a series of areas of suitable habitat, habitat corridors, and stepping-stones. The primary purpose of a nature network is ecological connectivity. 19 The ecological rationale behind such corridors lies in their ability to facilitate the movement of organisms. However, enhancing the quality of the remaining habitat is usually the first priority: connectivity is most e ective when there are high-quality sites with thriving wildlife populations to connect. Most species rely on a combination of key resources - food, water, nesting or shelter sites, protection from predators or disturbance, and opportunities to find mates. These resources are often distributed patchily across the landscape and may vary seasonally, making movement between habitats essential for survival. Connectivity therefore operates through multiple, dynamic spatial patterns and ecological processes, and at scales that vary depending on the species or system in question. Even within broad habitat types such as broadleaved woodland, plant and animal species have highly di erentiated requirements. These needs are met through a wide variety of microhabitats and niches, meaning that apparently uniform habitat categories often contain substantial internal variation. Species also di er markedly in their capacity to move within and between habitats, especially where movement requires crossing ‘hostile’ environments. For example, the Willow Tit - one of the UK’s most threatened small birds - is extremely reluctant to cross even short stretches of open ground, while closely related species readily fly tens of metres or more across agricultural land between woodland patches. Similarly, woody corridors appear to work better for ‘habitat generalist’ plant species than for forest-restricted ones 20. The point is that species benefit very di erently from networks. Connectivity for some can be achieved through ‘stepping stones’ of physically separate habitat patches – ecologists describe this as ‘functional connectivity’ - without physical ‘structural connectivity’, while for others structural connectivity is crucial. For others still, even that may not be su icient to enable movement. This level of ecological complexity poses significant challenges for planning nature networks. The very concept of a ‘network’ can appear to be undermined by the diversity of species-specific requirements. Moreover, existing habitats themselves are complex: a single small woodland may contain distinct areas characterised by di erent tree species, 19 20 https://www.nature.scot/doc/nature-networks-framework#Definition See J. Liira and T. Paal (2013). 11Establishing Nature Networks in the Glenkens - Feasibility Study 2026 vegetation structures and microhabitats. Habitat condition is also crucial: functional networks will depend on habitats of su icient quality. Yet condition is dynamic and spatially very varied, making it di icult to understand in enough detail to be useful, and undermining the usefulness of existing land use and habitat mapping. In addition to habitat complexity, knowledge gaps significantly constrain network design: while general ecological principles are well established, detailed ecological requirements are unknown for many species, and available datasets are often insu iciently fine-grained for confident, local-level network planning. 2.2.1 A Pragmatic Approach to Network Planning The combined e ects of ecological complexity and informational uncertainty strongly support a pragmatic, habitat-based approach to network development. This should be underpinned by the following principles:       Plan around broad habitat types, rather than individual species, except where priority species require targeted action and where their habitats also provide known wider ecological value. Start - where possible – with protected sites and those known to be of special value and look to connect these Promote habitat diversity at every practicable spatial scale. Connect fragments of similar habitat types wherever achievable. Maintain and create mosaics of habitat, maximising ecological variety. Avoid degrading or fragmenting one habitat network when establishing or enhancing another. Ideally, these principles would be implemented within a comprehensive, landscape- scale nature restoration programme aligned with all four Lawton principles. However, even in the absence of such a wider programme, developing nature networks on a standalone basis can deliver substantial benefits by enhancing connectivity among existing habitat patches. 12Establishing Nature Networks in the Glenkens - Feasibility Study 2026 3 Creating Nature Networks in the Glenkens 3.1 Socio-Economic Context 3.1.1 Land as Productive Resource Most of the land is in productive use, primarily for livestock rearing and coniferous plantations for commercial forestry. The former is very varied, changing roughly from north to south and high to low altitudes from extensively grazed sheep pasture on the highest, unimproved grassland, through mixes of sheep and beef cattle on land that has undergone varying degrees of ‘improvement’ through drainage and fertilisation21, to intensively managed, high-input silage production and grazing for dairy cows. Rural support payments are of overriding importance to Glenkens farming, and, to a lesser extent, to forestry, where they impact most on the viability of creating new woodlands. While local details are not available, across Scotland’s ‘less favoured areas’ no sheep farms made a profit without government support in 2023-24, and fewer than in one in five cattle farms (18%) and mixed cattle and sheep farms (17%) broke even without support22. This includes the more intensive dairy farms of the southern Glenkens, as well as the hill farms further north. The future details of the farm payments scheme are thus absolutely crucial to establishing nature networks, and the uncertainty noted above around this – and any alternative funding sources - is currently a major block on progress. While land-based employment remains the largest single sector and occupies by far the greatest land area, it now accounts for only one in six members of the workforce 23. Most of the population lives in the villages and is either in other occupations (56%) or retired (28%). The landscape supports many uses beyond direct production of food and timber, which combine amenity and leisure value with contributions to the local economy, and each of which has di erent implications for biodiversity management. These include game shooting on some of the estates; walking and horse riding for pleasure, particularly in some of the native woodlands and along the long distance Southern Upland Way; water sports (sailing etc.) on Loch Ken and fishing on the rivers and lochs; and general aesthetic enjoyment of the landscape, which draws significant numbers of tourists to the Glenkens. ‘Improvement’ is a di icult word. Historically its meaning is clear: land was ‘improved’ to make it more productive for farming or forestry. In the present context of biodiversity restoration as a goal alongside production, many past ‘improvements’ are seen as problematic. However, we are stuck with the word, so it is used as a category in this report, without either positive or negative connotations. 22 https://www.gov.scot/publications/scottish-farm-business-income-annual-estimates-2023-2024/ 23 Figures derived from Scotland’s Census 2022 (https://www.scotlandscensus.gov.uk); for a digest see S. Connelly (2025) at https://www.calameo.com/read/00168660073c4df03777c). 21 13Establishing Nature Networks in the Glenkens - Feasibility Study 2026 Nature restoration is thus deeply intertwined with both the landscape and the wider local economy, and is of concern not only to those who directly manage or work on the land, but also to those in the community who are not so directly connected to it for their livelihood. 3.1.2 Land Ownership and Tenure Land holding is very varied. Approximately 10% of the area studied is state owned and managed forest land. Most of the rest is comprised of traditional ‘mixed’ estates, combining farm and (increasingly) commercial forest land, in the hands of families (some of whom have owned the land for centuries) as well as international companies; farms worked by local farm families, some of whom have amassed considerable holdings (>1000 ha) through consolidation; tenant farms, some of which are worked along with their own land by owner occupiers; farmland owned by companies based outside the Glenkens; and private forestry estates owned by external businesses acting through forest management companies. There are also a significant number of smallholdings, few of which are actively farmed, with many becoming ‘wilder’ in various ways (see §5.4.1). The situation is thus very complex. Ownership and management of land are often in separate hands, which in particular may mean that tree planting or other long-term change involves di erent discussions (with owners) from farming practice changes such as animal stocking levels (with tenants). This impacts engagement in the emerging natural capital markets, with long term contracts for carbon sequestration and so on potentially excluding tenants from benefitting, even if they bear costs 24. As an outsider to the local farming or forestry communities it is far from easy to identify land ownership, or who has what management responsibility for any given area 25. Interests are also complex: each landowner and farmer will have di erent business models, including intricate balances of di erent economic enterprises within a single estate, and with varying long- term plans for their land. They also vary hugely in their attitudes to, and engagement with, environmental issues and actions, and in the cultural assumptions they bring (more or less tacitly) to land management. 3.1.3 The Non-Land Based Community The non-land based community is diverse, in background, age, qualifications and occupation. Canvassing public attitudes to nature restoration was outwith the scope of this study, but a characteristic of the Glenkens communities is the quantity of consultation and engagement in community-based planning which has taken place in the past few years. Coming from this there are public, formally adopted, statements of https://ahdb.org.uk/carbon-markets/what-are-farm-tenants-rights-when-it-comes-to-carbon-markets The Who Owns Scotland website (https://whoownsscotland.org.uk) is useful for ownership, but does not have complete coverage for the Glenkens, and is not entirely up to date with recent land sales. 24 25 14Establishing Nature Networks in the Glenkens - Feasibility Study 2026 support for a more diverse landscape and land-based economy, resistance to habitat losses through forestry, agricultural intensification and wind farm developments, and a desire for more control by the local communities over this development. These are put forward through the community councils’ Local Place Plans and the Land Use Vision, a component of the Community Action Plan adopted by for the Glenkens as a whole. There is also a great deal of environmental activity organised by local groups, alongside the projects noted in the Introduction. This has two implications for establishing nature networks. On the one hand there is likely to be widespread support from the non-land management sectors of the community (the majority, numerically) and potential resources to be drawn on in terms of volunteers and expertise. On the other hand, there is a risk of tension between this group and land managers, which may make positive engagement over nature networks with the latter more complicated, especially if the Land Reform Act provisions start to have real impact and communities exert their new right to engagement in management planning. 3.1.4 Cultural Constraints This tension is associated with a widely shared but intangible set of cultural constraints to engagement by landowners and managers in initiatives originating outside their community. They are presented here without any critical intent, but as an honest appraisal of significant – but not insurmountable – factors a ecting the feasibility of any nature network or restoration project26. There is a prevalent sense of being misunderstood and constantly subject to unfair criticism. Identity really matters: farming, shooting, and forestry are deeply rooted ways of life, not just economic activities, and land managers typically see themselves as good stewards of the land. An important aspect of this is the cultural expectation of productivity and a reluctance to use ‘good land’ for nature restoration. Linked to this is a sense of grievance that the public don’t appreciate the importance of food production, and so of farmers’ contribution to a fundamental social good. There may be generational di erences here, which in themselves can create tensions within the farming community. There is a closely connected tradition of autonomy and distrust of outsiders such as NGOs, government agencies, and even local, non-farming people (especially if they are perceived as setting themselves up as ‘experts’.) This is compounded by a fear of losing control, particularly when external funding comes with conditions, for example over increasing public access to land. These paragraphs are a summary, with the authors’ permission, of an unpublished paper by experienced Glenkens community development workers Morag Paterson and Helen Keron, for Dalry Community Council and GCAT (Landscape Scale Nature Restoration: Supporting Information from the Glenkens, August 2025). 26 15Establishing Nature Networks in the Glenkens - Feasibility Study 2026 The resulting tendency to resist external direction is reinforced by practical conflicts between land managers’ goals and those proposing nature restoration. Long-term restoration ambitions can clash with short-term economic cycles, tenancy constraints, and time pressures. There is often a physical scale mismatch: benefits for a landscape - such as habitat connectivity - may not suit an individual farm’s practical needs. Landowners may consequently be asked to change land use in ways that disrupt operations, creating frustration and irritation at the perceived (and often very real) ignorance of those without embodied knowledge and skills in farming within the local ecosystem. This is reinforced when technical communication feels disconnected from local knowledge, and when engagement happens late in the planning process. The overall impact is often wariness, scepticism and reluctance to engage. It is important to acknowledge that there is also a less well-evidenced, and less often discussed, set of attitudes among the non-farming public, which tends to stereotype farmers as conservative, responsible for environmental degradation, and unwilling to engage. This is often coupled with a very real lack of knowledge and understanding of how farming and other forms of land management operate, and a limited appreciation of the complexity of livestock and land management, particularly in marginal conditions. There is also a widespread belief that farmers are relatively well-o , despite their assertions to the contrary, and that they are supported by public funds and therefore should be more responsive to public and policy demands. Foresters share some of this sense of being misunderstood and vilified, and of having their contribution to the economy under-appreciated. Public attitudes tend to be even more negative towards forestry than farming; some farmers are also antagonistic, viewing commercial forestry as damaging to the environment and landscape, as well as to the traditional local farming economy. What is striking across sectors, however, is a broadly shared concern for the environment, alongside significant variation within groups. Levels of concern do not align neatly with distinctions between farmers, foresters, and the non-land-based public. Issues such as climate change cut across these sectors, with scepticism and commitment evident in all. There is certainly su icient common ground on which to build, although important nuances remain - for example, di ering views on the value of wildness27. It is therefore crucial to find ways to overcome assumptions and prejudices so that meaningful dialogue is possible and genuine di erences can be addressed28. This is evident both in the interviews carried out for this study, and in the academic research literature (see e.g. P. Howley et al. (2014)). 28 Appendix 3 reproduces the final sections of Paterson and Keron’s cultural barriers document, suggesting ways to overcome, or at least work e ectively within, these constraints. 27 16Establishing Nature Networks in the Glenkens - Feasibility Study 2026 3.2 Organisational Context and Capacity Although there is currently no overarching nature networks programme for the Glenkens, the feasibility of establishing such a programme is significantly strengthened by the presence of organisations already active in related areas. A range of public bodies, NGOs, and land-based organisations are delivering projects that align closely with nature network principles, while several others have expressed a clear interest in future involvement. All of the following could play valuable roles in supporting a nature networks project. NatureScot has shown sustained interest in supporting innovation and pilot work in the Glenkens and is actively engaged in the current programme through the team developing the Natural Capital Tool. Forestry and Land Scotland (FLS) is another potentially important partner, with statutory responsibilities for biodiversity and habitat management. Habitat corridors are already embedded in forest management planning at the block scale. While these corridors deliver significant benefits for habitat creation, block-level planning has limitations for developing networks that cross multiple blocks and extend into neighbouring private landholdings. Locally, FLS sta report that they are beginning to consider larger-scale nature networks but currently lack a formal strategy. Positively, this suggests openness to innovative approaches; however, the absence of a strategic framework constrains network development where changes would be required to long- term block management plans29. Several NGOs have well-established track records of practical delivery, technical advice, and partnership working in the region. Galloway and South Ayrshire Biosphere (GSAB) is strongly committed to nature network development and adopts an approach that closely mirrors the Glenkens’ emphasis on integrating ecological priorities with land management aspirations. Dumfries & Galloway Woodlands (DGW) is particularly active in nature network development and is enthusiastic about working in partnership with any Glenkens initiative. It is currently working in a collaborative project with RSPB, the National Trust for Scotland, and the Loch Ken Trust to develop a willow tit habitat corridor between Kenmure Holm and Threave Estate. As part of this work, discussions are underway to extend the habitat northwards beyond the Holm on the same landowner’s land to link into the Water of Ken Woods network (see §4.1.2). Blocks are typically a few thousand hectares, and block plans are renewed every 10 years. Forestry planning is, of course, over much longer timescales than this but in principle changes can be made at 10- yearly intervals. 29 17Establishing Nature Networks in the Glenkens - Feasibility Study 2026 From 2026, DGW will also be funded for development work towards a large-scale Nature Restoration Fund (NRF) project, described as taking a “more strategic approach to partner with landowners across the region to develop native woodland creation plans, with consideration of wildlife corridors and nature networks”30. This work could directly support woodland corridor development in the Glenkens, either as a lead organisation or in a supporting role to a dedicated Glenkens Nature Network or NRF-funded project. In addition, DGW administers the Dumfries & Galloway Tree Planting Grants, which support small-scale native woodland creation (up to £1,000 per applicant per year), below the threshold for Forestry Grant Scheme eligibility. The flexibility and speed of these grants are particularly valuable for engaging landowners, as support for planting, fencing, tree protection, and natural regeneration can be agreed as part of network discussions rather than requiring a subsequent funding application. The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) is directly involved in the Kenmure– Threave wet (willow) woodland corridor and provides an important advisory resource for bird conservation in the Glenkens. The Galloway Fisheries Trust has an active programme of riparian planting, driven by its focus on river habitat quality. It is working collaboratively with FLS to create a broadleaf corridor along the Polmaddy Burn and has recently completed a major restoration project on the Blackwater of Dee, replacing conifer regeneration with broadleaves along a 23 km stretch. While GFT has no current plans for wider Glenkens involvement, it would be a strong technical partner for any future initiative and provides specialist advice on ensuring that land-based habitat corridors support, rather than compromise, river systems. The Crichton Carbon Centre provides expertise in wetland and peatland habitats and in the hydrology of water networks. It is due to begin a major wetland restoration programme, “Cairn to Coast”, in late 2025, which may include components within the Glenkens and could align closely with nature network objectives. The South West Scotland Environmental Information Centre (SWSEIC) provides ecological advice, delivers training for ecological monitoring (including citizen science), and maintains the regional ecological record service, o ering valuable support for evidence-based network planning and monitoring. Three further organisations contribute from a land management perspective, rather than a primarily ecological focus. Propagate is working closely with the current project and is delivering a parallel Pollinators Network initiative on behalf of Dalry Community Council, supplying small numbers of fruit trees for planting across the Glenkens. Propagate’s peer-to-peer 30 https://dgwoodlands.org.uk/dumfries-galloways-wood-wide-network-project-gets-underway 18Establishing Nature Networks in the Glenkens - Feasibility Study 2026 Regenerative Farming Network already includes several members in the area who are likely to be sympathetic to the nature network concept. National Farmers Union Scotland is potentially an e ective route to reaching farmers who may not already be oriented toward habitat management. As the farmers’ own representative organisation31, NFUS has a level of legitimacy and trust that non-farming bodies often lack. This positions it well to help overcome cultural and institutional barriers to nature network engagement. Scottish Land & Estates (SLE) is another representative body, with a wider remit than NFUS, encompassing all rural business. Like NFUS it could be a valuable partner in reaching land managers, and potentially in coordinating some kind of action. Informal contact has elicited enthusiasm and o ers of support for developing nature networks. Overall this organisational landscape demonstrates that while a formal Glenkens Nature Network organisation or programme does not yet exist, the institutional conditions, partnerships, expertise, and delivery capacity required to establish one are already substantially in place. 3.3 Ecology This section introduces the principal habitats of the Glenkens to give the ecological context and justification for the networks proposed and discounted in §§4 and 5. It draws mainly on the 2018 GSAB Natural Heritage Management Plan, which in turn was informed by the 2009 D&G Local Biodiversity Action Plan. The material here is a very brief summary: please refer to these documents for details of habitats, species, proposed and recommended management practices and so on. The available Glenkens communities’ Local Place Plans have also been consulted. These contain a wealth of valuable factual detail, mainly duplicating material in the LBAP and the GSAB Management Plan. The communities express general support for biodiversity enhancement and management, and in Dalry for wetland management and riparian planting in particular, as well as for ‘biodiversity corridors’ of smallholdings along roads (e.g. the B7000), specifically managed for biodiversity and/or ecological restoration. 3.3.1 Geographical Overview The landscapes and habitats of the Ken and Urr valleys are broadly characterised by distinctive areas intimately linked with land use, in particular the transition from hill sheep and cattle rearing to intensive livestock farming on ‘improved’ land. These areas do not have hard boundaries - rather there are gradations between them, and intimate mixing of habitats and landscape components at every scale. The zones are also linked Not all farmers view NFUS in this way, or are positive towards it. However, su icient numbers do support it to give NFUS a potentially vital role in nature network creation. 31 19Establishing Nature Networks in the Glenkens - Feasibility Study 2026 by the rivers, and much of the network of broadleaved woodland which threads through the Glenkens is riparian or on the valley floors and sides. Land parcels – fields and woodlands – are often bounded by hedgerows or stone dykes, which may contribute to connectivity between larger habitat patches, or (conversely) create unhelpful hard boundaries between neighbouring habitats. The following brief description is intended to orient the reader, as the feasible networks are obviously closely related to major landscape types and the way other habitats weave through them. The highest land around the peripheries of the Glenkens is dominated by rough, unimproved (and semi-improved) grassland and associated heath and bog habitats. A greater area is an intermediate zone dominated by grassland of various types, in a complex mosaic with heathland, wetland and woodland habitats, and areas intermediate between all these types. Much of the grassland has been ‘improved’ to varying degrees: much has been drained, and some also sprayed and reseeded with improved grasses for grazing and/or silage. A limited area is ploughed and used for fodder crops, and more has been ploughed in the past (particularly in the Second World War). There are also large areas of commercial plantations, mainly of Sitka Spruce, but with blocks of other species (primarily but not entirely exotic conifers) and open spaces and plantings of native broadleaved trees along some watercourses. The river valleys of this zone support areas of woodland of varying types, including Ancient Semi-Natural Woodland and fragments of Atlantic Rainforest. The valley sides and floors are also farmed, with intensive production of silage and some fodder crops (e.g. maize and turnips) particularly in the flat floodplains. Further south and lower down this zone transitions to characteristic drumlin country. Some of this is covered in woodland (including commercial forestry), scrubland and traditional wood pasture, but further south this is increasingly replaced by improved grassland. Except where they have been most improved for farming by draining and the bulldozing of rocky areas, the drumlin areas have a characteristic fine-grained mix of habitats, associated with water and soil di erences: within a few tens of metres the ground can change from rock to thin, dry, fertile mineral soils to alluvial or peaty wet soils of varying fertility. Finally, towards the southern boundary of the Glenkens the land opens out and is dominated by rolling countryside with improved grassland, with very little commercial forestry or native woodland. 3.3.2 Designated Areas Protected areas are envisaged by the Scottish Government as the core of nature networks. In the Glenkens, 970 ha are designated as Sites of Special Scientific Interest 20Establishing Nature Networks in the Glenkens - Feasibility Study 2026 (SSSIs) of which 663 ha are also Special Protection Areas (SPAs) for birds and Ramsar wetland sites. The sites are: Woodland SSSIs: Water of Ken Woods, Hannaston Wood, Airds of Kells Wood Wetland and open water SSSIs: Kenmure Holms, River Dee (Parton to Crossmichael), Woodhall Loch, Grassland SSSIs: Cleugh Other Designations: Galloway and Southern Ayrshire UNESCO Biosphere; Galloway Forest (and Dark Sky) Park, Galloway Hills Regional Scenic Area. Details of the sites, including the reasons for their designation where relevant, are given in Appendix 1. 3.3.3 Priority habitats There are important habitats in the Glenkens in addition to those sites protected by the SSSIs. GSAB identifies 13 ‘high focus habitats’32, plus a further three in the Glenkens33 important for ‘high focus species’34. The LBAP has a much more extensive list of ‘priority species’ (LBAP p. 281). The details are set out in the GSAB’s Management Plan: here I provide a brief description of the habitats’ relevance to nature networks35, divided into broad woodland, wetland and grass/open land habitat types. Woodland Native (principally broadleaved) woodland o ers the most straightforward opportunities for establishing habitat corridors in the Glenkens. Although the existing woodland is to some extent fragmented, with many small, more-or-less isolated pockets, a proto- network is visible at landscape scale, largely following the river valleys. (See Map 2, which has deliberately been left with little place information to allow the pattern of woods to stand out.) This forms a very favourable starting point for nature network creation, providing a basic framework within which interventions can fill relatively small and well- defined gaps. The ‘high focus habitats’ are Blanket and Raised bog, Upland heathland, Purple moor grass and rush pasture, Montane heath and montane scrub, Native upland oak woodland, Native wet woodland, Acid grassland, Oligotrophic lochs. 33 The habitats important for high focus species are Moorland Fringe for Black Grouse, Woodlands for Red Squirrel, Fresh Water Habitats for Water Vole and Brown Trout. 34 The ‘high focus species’ are Black grouse, Golden eagle, Curlew, Golden plover, Red squirrel, Water vole, Brown trout, Juniper, Downy willow. 35 As suggested in the introduction, some of these habitats are ecologically important but less susceptible to management as part of networks. 32 21Establishing Nature Networks in the Glenkens - Feasibility Study 2026 Riparian planting is of particular interest, given the existing distribution of woodland and the additional benefits it can bring to river habitats, such as temperature reduction through shadowing and bank erosion reduction. Practically, riparian fringes are often already fenced o from grazing land. Potential also exists for establishing specifically wet woodland networks, in part riparian but also incorporating existing – and potentially new – areas away from river or loch sides. Both general native broadleaved (oak, ash etc.) and specifically wet woodland species (willow, alder) may be feasible and desirable for rather di erent reasons at some sites, requiring careful species choice and management. (Note, however, that planning for wet woodland, and in particular for distinguishing between wet and other woodland, is hampered by the habitat maps, which do not have separate categories, making local knowledge and ground surveys essential.) Map 2 Native woodland, showing the ‘proto-network’ of existing woods 22Establishing Nature Networks in the Glenkens - Feasibility Study 2026 In general, broadleaved woodlands in the Glenkens contain a mix of native tree species and have a high biodiversity value, supporting a wide range of plants, fungi, invertebrates, mammals and birds, some of which are of national conservation importance. Native upland oak woodland and Native wet woodland are UK Biodiversity Action Plan priority habitats; the Dumfries & Galloway LBAP further identifies Native Ash36, Birch, Wood Pastures and Parklands, Traditional Orchards and Scrub Woods as priorities, while acknowledging that in practice many woods comprise several di erent types. The GSAB management objectives include    increase total area of native woodland in the Biosphere increase connectivity between existing native woods through suitable habitat creation and new planting creation and enhancement of woodland along riparian corridors, in areas of dense bracken and on steep slopes. (Planting in these areas may also meet wider catchment management objectives e.g. flood alleviation.) Two priority species also have woodland habitats which require particular management. Red squirrels: managing woodlands for red squirrels is a priority, particularly given that grey and red squirrels are both found in the Glenkens. This implies care over species choice, since red squirrels favour smaller seeded broadleaved species (e.g. birch, rowan, willow, alder and ash) in contrast to grey squirrels’ preference for larger seeds (e.g. sycamore, oak, beech, chestnut and hazel). Conifer plantations with suitable species mixes also provide better habitats for red squirrels than grey. GSAB objectives include:   maintain and enhance areas of woodland that can support red squirrel through good forest management new planting should strive to link existing woodland suitable for red squirrel. Willow tits: these are the UK’s most-threatened resident species, with a stronghold in the region. They require wet willow woodlands, with rotting wood, a dense shrub layer, and, ideally, open water to enhance insect populations. They will not cross more than a few metres of open ground, so physical corridor creation is important. Existing scattered and fragmented wet woodlands in the Glenkens should be connected, preferably with more willow habitat or (still valuably) with other woody habitat through which willow tits will pass. Traditional Field Boundaries and Margins This is a habitat category of potential importance for nature networks. Well-maintained hedgerows and stone walls (dykes) are useful habitats in their own right: some of the principal dominant species, Hawthorn, Blackthorn and Ivy, are especially valuable for 36 The current LBAP pre-dates the onset of ash die-back disease (Chalara). 23Establishing Nature Networks in the Glenkens - Feasibility Study 2026 invertebrates, including agricultural pollinators. Bramble – another very common species, on dykes as well as in hedgerows - is also important. Field boundaries also provide connectivity between other habitat patches (particularly woodland) across more intensively managed land. Hedgerow trees add further value, particularly for bird species. However, in many cases hedgerows have been overcut and overgrazed and are of little habitat value. Dykes provide habitats for many small mammals, which in turn are prey for raptors, with Barn Owls of particular conservation interest. The adjacent field margins, as well as the boundaries themselves, are home to agriculturally valuable insects which are also important food sources for birds and bats. They can also provide useful transit routes between wetter sites for great crested newts. GSAB’s management objectives are all highly relevant to establishing nature networks:     increase connectivity across farms by using field boundary features to link with other habitats e.g. planting a hedge to link two areas of woodland improve structure and diversity of hedgerows to create a range of habitats and food sources protect hedgerows, dykes and grass margins from stock to prevent browsing/damage improve diversity of grass margins to increase their value to pollinating insects. If more complex stock management is introduced to enhance grassland habitats (e.g. mob grazing), then maintenance and repair of dykes and hedgerows may be of importance in some places where (electric) fencing is impracticable or economically unviable (though see §7.2.4 for electronic ‘virtual fencing’ as a possible alternative). Wetlands and open water Away from the rivers and riverbanks themselves, wetlands of di erent kinds o er complex opportunities for network establishment at a range of scales. Open water, and patches of wet ground, are also important elements of other habitat types, particularly wet woodlands and grassland, and therefore need to be thought about when establishing those corridors (i.e. not all wetlands need to be part of specific wetland corridors.) Water flow and drainage conditions also need consideration, including both seasonal and secular changes. Wetlands comprise a range of di erent habitats supporting a correspondingly wide range of plants and animals. They also play important roles in flood risk management, water purification and carbon sequestration. In the Glenkens they include a number of LBAP habitats: Wet Woodland, Swamp, Fen, Marsh, and Reedbeds. The GSAB management plan identifies nutrient poor (oligotrophic) lochs such as Woodhall SSSI as a high focus habitat, but also acknowledges the importance of other freshwater habitats, including for supporting the high focus species Brown Trout and Water Vole. 24Establishing Nature Networks in the Glenkens - Feasibility Study 2026 At a large scale, there are peat networks which could be (re-)established, principally through forest-to-bog programmes i.e. converting existing commercial plantations on peat to their original, raised bog habitats, with gains in both biodiversity and carbon sequestration terms37. At a smaller scale, grassland areas are typically threaded by flows of water o and around higher land. This supports a network of di erent habitat types, depending on topology and soil: nutrient poor bogs on peat of di erent depths, richer fen habitats, and open water as both ponds and streams, which collectively create a habitat type of importance for insects and wading birds such as Curlew and Snipe. Management of these areas is primarily a matter of controlling grazing pressure – not always reducing stock levels, but managing animals appropriately to favour particular habitats and avoid damage in wet weather. Managing water flows is also important, which for habitat creation/restoration can often mean rewetting drained areas. The potential for both of these is closely interwoven with farming practices. A distinction (without hard boundaries on the ground) can be made between two kinds of area. Figure 1 shows this contrast between two typical sites. Figure 1 Habitat mosaics and networks in grasslands In the more intensively managed drumlin areas (Figure 1 left), the network is one of watery habitats around and between improved grassland (generally of lower biodiversity value) This report does not cover upland peatland restoration of blanket bogs per se. A holistic Glenkens nature restoration programme would need to look at this in association with grassland and other upland habitat types, but for present purposes the upland peat does not really constitute a network involving potentially mobile species. 37 25Establishing Nature Networks in the Glenkens - Feasibility Study 2026 on the characteristic rounded hills. In the rough grassland areas (Figure 1 right) the hydrology is somewhat similar, leading to a complex mix of habitats linked by water flows, but the less distinctive topology and the use of the whole area for extensive grazing makes it more useful to think in terms of generic grassland habitat management, discussed below. Grassland and Other Open Grazing Land Grazing land is an important component of the Glenkens landscape, and fundamental to its farming systems. Some types, and specific sites, are of high biodiversity value, as summarised below. However, in terms of establishing networks this is a challenging category:    The various habitat types are frequently intermingled in a dense and not obviously patterned way, resulting from the interactions of underlying topography, soils and hydrology, together with the history of land management – this creates di iculties for: o knowing what is most important in ecological terms in any given area, especially given that neither categorisation nor resolution of available maps is particularly helpful in this context o establishing workable management plans beyond very rough changes to livestock type (e.g. cattle rather than sheep) and stocking levels (typically reduction, but also mob grazing etc.) over fairly large areas, which will benefit some habitats but not necessarily all, all of the time. Because of grazing land’s importance to farm economies, management changes for biodiversity/habitat reasons must be integrated with little or no short-term cost in time, money or other resources. In the marginal areas in particular this is challenging since the stock are managed on a whole-farm basis, moved around according to season and weather in ways which mean that, for example, reducing stocking on a particular field has knock-on e ects across the farm. On the more intensively farmed land, the grassland is a financially important resource: losing it, or reducing its productive quality, has significant cost implications (partly because it would reduce the area eligible for subsidy, at least under the current payment system). Additionally, rewetting land can carry risks to livestock from disease and parasites. Farm practices often have long histories, and are unique to each farm, engrained in some cases at least in multi-generational memories, practices and legal agreements (e.g. over numbers of sheep on a tenanted farm). In the intensively farmed areas the whole thrust of farm management has been towards production and ‘improvement’ for decades – reversing this is asking farmers to change a mindset as well as their business model and practices. Proposals for change may therefore meet resistance which goes beyond the purely economic and practical, and is potentially harder to address. That said, farmers also tend to be very pragmatic, and where economically viable solutions can be found they may well adapt. The subsidy regime is of 26Establishing Nature Networks in the Glenkens - Feasibility Study 2026  paramount importance here, particularly to smaller scale, traditionally minded farmers. Grazing is an essential management tool for grassland habitats. Without some level of stocking, valued biodiversity will be eliminated by the more aggressive plant species. Consequently farm management and biodiversity management have to be integrated. This complexity is reinforced if corridors are designed across land management boundaries (whether of ownership or tenancy), where unconnected management systems and business plans come together with no past or present integration or obvious, existing mechanism to create it in future. In purely biodiversity terms, GSAB identifies several distinct high focus grassland habitats: Purple moor grass and rush pasture: this is important for a number of plant, invertebrate and bird species, though its extent and condition is unknown. It is one component of the Cleugh SSSI in the Glenkens. The ideal grazing management for maintaining the complex assemblage of species, as set out in the GSAB Management Plan (p. 22), exemplifies the complexity and site-specific nature of grassland management. Acid grassland: Upland acid grassland covers large areas of the higher land, though much has been converted to commercial forestry. It also varies in current biodiversity value, often being the result of overgrazing of other upland ground covers: in consequence the GSAB management objective is to increase the species-rich areas, probably in the context of (re)creating a matrix of grass and heathland. As such the potential for habitat expansion and/or network creation is limited. Lowland acid grassland is present in tiny, scattered pockets across many of the rough grazing areas in the Glenkens, and much the same argument applies. Neutral and Calcareous Grasslands: These extremely species-diverse habitats exist in tiny pockets in the Glenkens, requiring histories of little or no ‘improvement’, dry sites and (for calcareous sites) specific underlying geology. Although even at 10 m resolution only one patch of neutral grassland appears in the Glenkens habitat mapping (near Balmaclellan), the SSSI citation for the Cleugh refers to both types as elements in the very fine-grained matrix of habitats on the site, and it is possible that unmapped pockets exist elsewhere. Two further high focus habitats are found in the higher areas. Upland heathland, and montane heath/scrub are important UK Biodiversity Action Plan and LBAP listed habitats. Only very scattered scraps are present in the Glenkens, and none of these are obvious candidates for corridor development at this stage, though all would be important in any 27Establishing Nature Networks in the Glenkens - Feasibility Study 2026 holistic nature restoration programme. (Note that currently plans exist for expansion of montane scrub at the grassland-forest boundary on the eastern side of the Rhinns of Kells ridge, led by a private estate owner.) 3.3.4 Problematic Species Dumfries and Galloway is troubled by a number of Invasive Non-Native Species (INNS), and as with any land management, work to establish nature networks must take care not to facilitate the spread of these – a particular risk since the whole point of these networks is to encourage species dispersal. Dumfries and Galloway is troubled by a number of Invasive Non-Native Species (INNS), and as with any land management, work to establish nature networks must take care not to facilitate the spread of these – a particular risk since the whole point of these networks is to encourage species dispersal38. From a terrestrial network creation perspective, Grey Squirrels are a particular problem: increasing woodland connectivity risks encouraging the growth and spread of the population, and thus threatening the red squirrel population. This risk is worsened by the specific preferences of the two species, with oak woodland favouring grey squirrels. Management objectives thus include not planting large-seeded species such as oak, beech, chestnuts and hazel in areas where these species are currently scarce, and planting species which are favoured by red squirrels, including blackthorn, hawthorn, wild cherry and some conifers, including the non-native Douglas fir and Norway spruce. Although not categorised as an INNS due to its commercial importance, Sitka spruce can present challenges for the establishment of habitats which are ecologically richer than commercial plantations. The species readily self-seeds into open ground, and areas several hundred metres from plantations may be colonised by seedlings that are di icult to eradicate. This can hinder the development of habitat networks adjacent to commercial forestry land, as well as the restoration of bog habitats or establishing diverse woodland, scrub or grassland corridors within forested areas. Furthermore, Sitka spruce plantations provide relatively poor habitat for red squirrels compared with some other conifer species (for example, Norway spruce) but the establishment of more diverse commercial plantations can also be compromised by ongoing Sitka spruce regeneration. 3.3.5 Potential Conflicts A final ecological issue for nature network establishment is the potential for conflict between equally desirable habitats. (This is on top of the potential for conflict with non- Species of concern include American Skunk Cabbage, Curly Waterweed (Lagarosiphon), Grey Squirrel, Mink, New Zealand Pigmyweed (crassula), North American Signal Crayfish and Rhododendron. For more detail, see the Scottish Invasive Species Initiative (https://invasivespecies.scot/), as well as the GSAB Management Plan and the LBAP. 38 28Establishing Nature Networks in the Glenkens - Feasibility Study 2026 ecological land management objectives.) Sometimes choices will have to be made between objectives for habitat creation on the same piece of land, such as     creating oak woodland vs. red squirrel protection (and therefore choosing other species) mixed broadleaved woodland (typical of drier areas) vs. willow woodland creation in riparian planting protecting margins of oligotrophic lochs vs riparian planting tree planting vs. creation of wetlands. There are also specific issues for grassland bird habitats and adjacent woodlands. While the woodland edge is a valuable habitat for some bird species, woodland-based raptors can predate ground nesting birds in grassland, to the extent that many waders will not nest within a few hundred metres of a woodland. In other cases the issue will be specific to network creation, where a valuable habitat interrupts a potential structurally connected network - for instance where a high quality grassland patch lies between woodland patches. In such cases judgements will have to be made depending on context e.g. what the local priority is, whether functional but not structural connectivity is su icient, how much damage is likely to be caused by planting, and – ideally perhaps – whether a compromise can be reached through, for instance, planting spaced tree clusters rather than continuous woodland. 3.4 Mapping and Data This study drew on the following spatial ecological data sources:       NBN Atlas Scotland for locations of species sitings The UK Centre for Ecology & Hydrology’s (CEH) CEH Habitat map – for the most detailed (10 m resolution) land cover across all habitat types, including grassland Scotland’s Soils for peat For woodlands: HABMOS Native Woodland, Scottish Forestry (SF) Native Woodland (and the simplified version of the latter), and the Lost Rainforests map of Atlantic Rainforest fragments NatureScot’s Site Link for maps of designated sites, with links to site designation and management documents NatureScot’s new (2025) Natural Capital Tool (beta version) for habitat data and network opportunities. Landowner information was obtained in part from Who Owns Scotland. Satellite imagery was taken from Google Maps and Google Earth Pro. All of the above provide useful information, but all were found to have drawbacks and limitations. 29Establishing Nature Networks in the Glenkens - Feasibility Study 2026 For scoping woodland networks the most useful were HABMOS and the SF survey, with the Natural Capital Tool for identifying opportunities, particularly high priority gaps and the permeability of the surrounding matrix. Satellite imagery was always needed to determine more precise boundaries, the existence of small pockets of woodland (and sometimes individual trees) and to an extent the quality of the woodland. (The ‘canopy cover’ layer of the SF Native Woodland data was also useful for this.) All of these have limits, though, and field visits were essential for detailed scoping and planning planting, given the fine details of habitats and their intersection with land management. There is therefore an obvious challenge with resourcing wide-scale network development. For hedgerows and dykes no spatial data is freely available. The National Hedgerow Map is a commercial product which looks potentially extremely useful, albeit expensive (estimated at £8000+VAT for the study area). (The same company produces a National Tree Map which was not examined in detail, due to access constraints, but may compare favourably with the use of drones at scale.) In consequence Google Maps were the only data source used here, though the resolution in the Glenkens is too poor to be any more than indicative of the presence (rather than the size or quality) of hedgerows. For grassland the CEH map and Natural Capital Tool were the most useful, again supplemented with Google Maps and Google Earth imagery. The complexity and fine scale of the grassland habitats creates di iculties for all of these. While the satellite imagery is useful for distinguishing between improved and rough grazing, it is rather poor for distinguishing between grassland, heathland, mire, bog etc. given the resolution. The CEH map’s 10 m resolution is better for this, but its usefulness is seriously reduced by its single categorisation of ‘improved’ grassland, without distinguishing between slightly improved rough grazing and intensively farmed silage fields – all the sub-categories are within unimproved habitats. The Natural Capital Tool is more useful for this, but the underlying definitions and methodology needed more work at time of writing to make the categories more reliable. They are also insu iciently fine-grained to pick up the details of a complex matrix of di erent habits. Even field visits are limited, since to establish potential grassland corridor routes would involve detailed surveys across large areas. Expectations that local knowledge would resolve these problems were challenged in practice: while some land managers may know their land in ecological detail, one farmer reported that he did not, but that he relied on his livestock to determine what and where to graze. This does not, of course, mean that they graze in the most ecologically beneficial way. 30Establishing Nature Networks in the Glenkens - Feasibility Study 2026 4 Proposed Habitat Corridors: Priorities for Network Development In this section three networks are discussed: broadleaved woodlands, hedgerows and ‘pollinator pathways’ (i.e. plants and trees which support insects of particular value as pollinators). These have been selected for a mix of ecological and pragmatic reasons, as the most useful and feasible networks on which work could be started. Section 5 discusses habitats which are important for nature restoration, but where the creation of networks is not necessarily the most feasible or valuable approach. 4.1 Broadleaved Woodland Broadleaved woodland o ers the greatest potential for short- to long-term habitat corridor creation in the Glenkens. There is an existing framework of woodlands, a high level of community support (including from some land managers), funding and expertise available through D&G Woodlands (DGW) to take rapid practical action, and a general social interest in and acceptance of the value of woodlands and tree planting. Creating or enriching small areas of woodland may often be compatible with existing farming practices: fencing o problematic areas such as riverbanks may actually be beneficial for stock management, and any potential losses can be restricted to unproductive pockets of land. Because of the long-term nature of woodland creation, negotiations over planting will usually involve landowners as well as managers where these are di erent people. Tenant farmers in particular may not be able to agree to planting. This can be problematic where landowners are physically distant and/or not very engaged in the locality. 4.1.1 Approach to Identification The candidate networks were selected based on:    where relatively small interventions could potentially substantially increase existing connectivity, identified principally using the NatureScot Natural Capital Tool linking Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs) with existing tree elements where land managers or other organisations were particularly supportive or already active. 4.1.2 Candidate Networks/Locations Five potential candidate network areas are listed below, in descending order of their probable feasibility. All would need further exploration, both on the ground and with relevant land managers, in order to realise them. Each is shown with a rough, indicative position on maps on a base map of the Woodland Opportunities layer from NatureScot’s Natural Capital Tool. 31Establishing Nature Networks in the Glenkens - Feasibility Study 2026 1: North Glenkens Map 3 North Glenkens - indicative map of broadleaved woodland corridors Networks: 1a: Water of Ken Woods/Hannaston Wood SSSIs; 1b: Ardoch and Earlstoun Loch; 1c: Polharrow Glen 1a: Water of Ken Woods/Hannaston Wood SSSIs. The core of this network area is the linkages between the separate parts of the Water of Ken Woods / Hannaston Wood SSSIs. This involves four private estates (Garroch, Glenlee, Earlstoun, and land owned by the Maxwell family) and possibly Drax’s land around Glenlee Power Station.   Garple Burn to Glenlee is the longest stretch between SSSI components. Negotiations with one of the land owners mean that it is hoped that planting along two strands of the network will take place in autumn 2026. Glenlee to Old Glenlee: three potential corridors, all with small gaps, mainly on the Garroch Estate but including land belonging to Drax. Some of the corridors are of 32Establishing Nature Networks in the Glenkens - Feasibility Study 2026   mixed quality, categorised by Scottish Forestry as PAWS 39 and near-native woodland, though some of these areas have been fully replanted with broad leaved species in 2024-25. Hannaston and three western Water of Ken woods are already apparently well linked, although a ground survey is needed to confirm continuous woodland cover and its condition. The network could be significantly extended up the Garroch Glen with the filling of small gaps at Knocksheen and Knocksheen Glen, and further still (to above Drumbuie) with additional riparian planting. The Garple-Glenlee sites have been assessed on foot, but the remainder of the above would all require ground truthing, as the woodland is very diverse and its species make- up, age structure, quality and continuity cannot be definitively assessed from remote sensing data. 1b: Ardoch and Earlstoun Loch. An exciting possibility is linking the above northwards from the Garple Wood SSSI to the native woodlands (including fragments of Atlantic rainforest) along the Trolane Burn as far as Ardoch and Gordonston Woods. This is almost continuous woodland, but establishing the network will be complicated by multiple landholdings, including some smallholdings at Gordonston. From Ardoch, two possible corridors could be created, linking existing stepping stones of variable quality that are already linked in places by very thin riparian tree cover and possibly hedgerows. One leads north-west across Earlstoun Estate land at the end of Earlstoun Loch; the other south-west across Blawquhairn Farm (part of the Sinclair landholdings) to the woods at the south end of the loch. Both shores of the loch have a substantial amount of woodland, with the largest gaps containing some scattered scrub along the shore. There is potential for gap-filling here to link the ends of the corridors from Ardoch woods, and also to link southwards to 1a (requiring further riparian planting along the Water of Ken) and westwards to 1c in the Polharrow Glen. Any riparian planting from the power station to Dalry bridge would require careful community engagement, as this riverbank is a highly valued walk for local residents. Sensitive planting could enhance the setting, but also risks hiding the river from the path, and would probably be resisted. 1c: Polharrow Glen. Forrest Estate plans to create a broadleaved corridor from the headwaters of the Polharrow Burn to the estate boundary a few kilometres from the Water of Ken confluence. There are some important gaps between this boundary and the PAWS are Plantations on Ancient Woodland Sites, where tree cover has been continuous for centuries but the original, usually native broadleaved, woodland has been replaced by plantations, usually of non- native conifers. 39 33Establishing Nature Networks in the Glenkens - Feasibility Study 2026 corridors of 1b. Preliminary discussions with Knocknalling Estate suggest the north bank of the Polharrow could be more densely wooded as far as the wooded gorge which leads down to the confluence with the Water of Ken at Inverharrow. Further discussion would be needed with land managers for the link from Inverharrow south along the river and the upper shores of the loch. 2: Lochs Ken and Woodhall Map 4 Lochs Ken and Woodhall - indicative map of broadleaved woodland corridors A set of broadleaved woodlands, riparian planting, and wet woodlands come together around New Galloway and the Kenmure Holms SSSI, and are potentially connected southwards along the west side of Loch Ken through FLS’s Bennan Block to established 34Establishing Nature Networks in the Glenkens - Feasibility Study 2026 and new planting at Mossdale, along the Water of Dee to the Airds of Kells SSSI and the Loch Ken shore. A more tenuous but potentially feasible extension southwards along Woodhall Loch to around Laurieston could be connected back to Loch Ken via existing stepping-stone woods across the Dornell Estate and/or along the B795 (e ectively the southern edge of the Glenkens for the purposes of this study). The rationale for this includes:     existing fragments of high-quality broadleaved woodland, including the Airds of Kells SSSI, separated by relatively short distances, with river- and loch-side fringes o ering substantial potential for improvement and extension the northern-most section is on land owned by a sympathetic landowner, and capable of being networked with the Water of Ken Woods network described above organisational support for interventions, including plans by NTS, RSPB and D&G Woodlands for a willow tit habitat corridor (wet woodlands, etc.) from Kenmure Holms SSSI to Threave Castle, of which this would form the northern section, and FLS’s intention to convert much of the lower part of Bennan Block to broadleaves over the coming years although not explored with relevant FLS managers, the A712/Queen’s Way (Knocknairling Burn–Clatteringshaws Loch) and Pultarson Burn glens both contain discontinuous broadleaved woodland that could potentially be linked into the New Galloway woodlands, extending corridors westwards. Challenges include:   the current timescale for conversion of the Bennan Block extends over several decades, leaving at least one short stretch of conifer (Norway spruce) as a seed stand; however, recent emphasis on native networks may change this, and there may be su icient loch side space (owned by Drax) to bypass the spruce stand potential conflicts with other important habitats: o careful species and management choices would be required to develop native (oak, ash) woodland alongside wet (willow, alder) habitats for willow tits o some sections of the corridor are important wetland habitats that would need to be protected from impacts of woodland creation, including the Woodhall Loch SSSI and the loch and grassy shores of Loch Ken SSSI, with their important wintering goose populations. 35Establishing Nature Networks in the Glenkens - Feasibility Study 2026 3: Water of Urr Map 5 Water of Urr/Ken-Urr links - indicative map of broadleaved woodland corridors The banks of the Water of Urr have remarkably continuous riparian woodland from the A712 near Corsock to the A75 at Ramhill Bridge, a straight-line distance of approximately 10 km. While variable in width and density, this corridor would be worth exploring with the half-dozen or so landowners involved. D&G Woodlands are supportive of the idea, although they have not made approaches to the landowners. There are also a number of larger broadleaved woods in the valley that could be connected into a riparian-based network. Organisationally, the Upper Urr already has an active community group developing a woodland area that could form the basis for leading a mid-Urr network, as well as exploring the potential for linking their site further downstream. The principal opportunity in the mid part of the Water of Urr is riparian planting. The existing network is most easily visible on the CEH Land Cover Map (2024, 10 m 36Establishing Nature Networks in the Glenkens - Feasibility Study 2026 resolution). The very speculative concepts of Ken-Urr links are also visible as very incomplete chains of ‘stepping stone’ habitat patches. 4: Far North Glenkens Map 6 Far North Glenkens - indicative map of broadleaved woodland corridors A relatively small but continuous broadleaved network is developing around Dundeugh Hill and Kendoon Loch. This appears to be largely independent work of various landowners (including Carsphairn Community Woodland) undertaking extensive planting, but there are a few key gaps on FLS land. As at Loch Ken, FLS is in principle supportive, but has existing long-term management plans into which nature networks have yet to be fully integrated. Further up the Carsphairn Lane, fragments of woodland - much of it willow - exist on private land and may have potential for linking into the more continuous woodlands along the Water of Deugh and Kendoon Loch. 37Establishing Nature Networks in the Glenkens - Feasibility Study 2026 5: Ken–Urr links This is a highly speculative idea, intended to stimulate longer-term thinking. The preceding proposals are all constrained by watersheds, largely reflecting the geography of the Glenkens. However, two currently tenuous potential broadleaved woodland corridors can be identified which would link the Urr and Ken valleys. (See Map 5 above.)   From the Water of Urr at Corsock north-westwards to Knowetop Lochs (a Local Nature Reserve), and from there either (or both) north-west to link with the Garple Woods via Barscobe, or south-west along the Shirmers and Dullarg Burns to the woodlands on the eastern shores of Loch Ken. From Glenlair and Ardmannoch in the Urr valley through Barwhillanty Estate to the woodlands along the valley sides above Loch Ken between Parton and Parton Mill. This would be a complex, multi-landowner project requiring extensive new planting to connect existing stepping stones, but it would create a genuinely extensive, inter-valley network rather than linear habitat corridors. The second corridor is probably more immediately actionable, with much of the corridor falling within a single estate with a supportive owner. 4.2 Hedgerows Hedgerows have considerable potential for network establishment in some parts of the Glenkens. There are many kilometres of varying composition and ‘quality’ in terms of density, width, and species richness, which already provide important habitat and act as corridors between other habitat patches, particularly woodlands. Hedgerows are important for spring-flowering plants and shelter for pollinators, animals and birds. The development of a more consistent and extensive hedgerow network therefore overlaps with the pollinators network discussed in the following section, and can contribute important biodiversity elements at field level on farms. The importance of hedgerows is perhaps particularly great in the intensively managed farmland in the southern part of the Glenkens, where fields are in many cases likely poor in biodiversity terms. However, there is a mix of stone dykes and hedgerows as traditional boundaries, and many fields no longer have either. Any systematic approach to development should therefore also involve riparian trees and scrub: many of the small watercourses running through farmland retain some woody vegetation, which can be linked with field boundaries. (See Figure 1 (left image) for an example.) Hedgerows also o er significant opportunities for community involvement. Developing a substantial network would require extensive ground surveying, and there is a relatively simple, readily available, and well-tested hedgerow survey methodology that community 38Establishing Nature Networks in the Glenkens - Feasibility Study 2026 members could be trained to use 40. Given that hedgerows are a familiar and much- appreciated element of the landscape, it seems likely that local residents - both adults and young people - could be productively involved, potentially in hedge-laying as well as survey work. Establishing hedgerows will probably have little opportunity cost for land managers, and may o er benefits in terms of shelter and foraging opportunities for stock and habitat for pollinators. However, as linear features they can be relatively expensive to establish if fencing is required, and they require on going management. The feasibility of widespread hedgerow establishment is therefore likely to depend on the availability of funding through the new rural payments scheme. 4.2.1 Approach to Identification/Candidate Locations Detailed appraisal was not carried out for the current study, due to the lack of available data. A suggested methodology is as follows:    Use the National Hedgerow Map to identify two kinds of priority areas: o areas with significant but broken hedgerow networks that would benefit from increased connectivity o specific - potentially quite short - lengths of boundary with no or poor hedgerows that could connect woodland patches. Use the social networks developed through the citizen science strand of this project to contact interested community groups, and work with them to develop potential hedgerow survey areas. Approach relevant landowners based on the outcomes of these two stages. 4.3 Pollinators The concept of a specific pollinators network comprising (initially at least) domesticated fruit trees is included here both because of the importance of this ecosystem service to agriculture and the cultural importance of fruit trees, and because it has been the focus of a successful initiative in the Glenkens in 2025. Funded by a grant from Scottish Power Energy Networks to Dalry Community Council and delivered by Propagate, this initiative demonstrated enthusiasm among local residents and groups for fruit tree planting, and resulted in the planting of 130 trees across the Glenkens (see Map 3). 40 See https://hedgerowsurvey.ptes.org/hedge-surveys. 39Establishing Nature Networks in the Glenkens - Feasibility Study 2026 Map 7 The Pollinators Network in early 2026 These scattered plantings do not in themselves constitute a network, but they are only part of known recent fruit tree planting activity. There are also many existing fruit trees - and other important pollinator resources - already established in the Glenkens, particularly in gardens and hedgerows. The proposed next step would therefore be to map existing fruit trees across the Glenkens and, on that basis, determine an e ective way forward. As with hedgerows, and particularly because many fruit trees are located within settlements, they are readily identifiable during flowering and fruiting seasons. Given the existing involvement of a community-based organisation, such a survey could productively be carried out by local communities. 40Establishing Nature Networks in the Glenkens - Feasibility Study 2026 5 Important Habitats for Restoration, with Lower Network Priority 5.1 Why Networks May Not Always Be a Priority This section discusses habitats that are important for nature restoration in the Glenkens, but where the creation of networks at a landscape scale is not necessarily the most valuable or immediately feasible approach. A holistic nature restoration programme would pursue habitat creation inspired by all four of the Lawton principles - more, bigger, better and joined up - with the combination and balance of these tailored to each habitat type within the local ecological and social context. In some cases, it may make more sense to focus on protecting and creating high-quality habitats than on linking them, for a number of reasons. 5.2 Grassland The core tool for managing grassland areas to improve habitats would be stock management. As discussed in §3.3, this is likely to face intertwined ecological, economic, practical, cultural and, in some cases, legal obstacles. Networking improved habitats adds a further layer of complexity, since even at a single-farm scale identifying possible linkages between important habitat patches may be di icult, and at any larger scale runs into practical and cultural problems associated with coordinating farm management across boundaries. However, grassland is so important in both habitat and social terms in the Glenkens that it must form part of any holistic nature restoration programme. What is suggested here is the identification of significant grassland areas, which could contribute to creating any or all of more, bigger and better habitats, and which might – if the details work out – also constitute networks. A pilot action could involve: a. Identifying an area containing a small number of landholdings with large, more or less continuous areas of semi-improved and unimproved grassland and heathland. b. Conducting detailed discussions with land managers about the nature of the land, in as much detail as possible, and where changes in stock management might be made. c. Undertaking ground surveys to identify any areas of particularly high biodiversity value. d. Bringing together (b) and (c) to propose pilot management changes. A candidate area for such a pilot is the land on either side of the B7000 from the High Bridge of Ken to Blawquhairn Farm, north of Dalry. This area contains substantial areas of the relevant grassland types and involves only four large-scale land managers, three of whom were involved in this study. (This does not imply that they would be immediately supportive of the pilot, but they would probably be receptive to discussing it in detail.) 41Establishing Nature Networks in the Glenkens - Feasibility Study 2026 The area also o ers the possibility of linking with the Cleugh SSSI and with several rewilding plots along the B7000. The new rural payments scheme will be of enormous importance to the possibility of significant changes in grassland management, and any sustained e ort in this area should await the publication of the scheme’s detailed proposals (planned for spring or summer 2026). 5.3 Wetlands and open water 5.3.1 Bog, Mire, Wetland, and Peat Within the Grassland Areas As described in §3.3.3, throughout much of the Glenkens wetlands, bogs, mires and small areas of open water are intricately mixed and blend into heath and grassland, whether these areas are principally used for rough grazing or for intensively farmed silage production. As with grassland, this landscape structure does not lead obviously to large scale network creation. For nature restoration it is therefore suggested that wet habitats are either incorporated into holistic planning of grazing land habitats and piloted as part of this approach (as outlined above), or treated as small-scale networks in and around the improved grassland, probably at the scale of single fields or small groups of neighbouring fields (i.e. the kind of scale shown in Figure 1, where the squares are 250 ha). Piloting in the improved grassland areas would follow the same approach as with extensive grazing, but ideally – at least initially – on a single landholding. It is anticipated that delivering significant interventions will be di icult, and both this and the small-scale nature of the habitat networks suggest that the additional issues associated with multiple land ownership should be avoided. 5.3.2 Larger Scale Peatland Significant areas of blanket bogs occur in the upland areas of the Glenkens. Much of this is in poor condition, and would be a priority for restoration within a holistic programme. Habitat networks are unlikely to be central to this, unless at a very large scale the conversion of commercial plantations to bog allowed the connection of the fragments of Class 1 and 2 peat soils. An exception exists in the Water of Dee valley between Silver Flowe SSSI and Clatteringshaws Loch, where a series of raised bogs still exist, surrounded by conifer plantations, and could be linked through forest-to-bog conversion. This is, however, outwith the area covered by this report. 42Establishing Nature Networks in the Glenkens - Feasibility Study 2026 5.4 Land Managed for Nature Restoration Throughout the Glenkens there are landowners already engaged in nature restoration in di erent ways. While these areas do not in themselves constitute a network in structural terms at a landscape scale, for some species these ‘wilder’ areas may act as a functionally connected set of stepping stones, particularly where several such landholdings lie close together. These areas are noted here for their potential role in any programme of network establishment, both because they may already constitute pockets of rich habitat, and because their managers are likely to be supportive of the concept and potentially able to act as advocates with other land managers. The three categories outlined below are useful for distinguishing di erent types of landholdings and approach to restoration, but they are not mutually exclusive. 5.4.1 Smallholder Ecological Restoration At several sites in the Glenkens clusters of smallholdings were created between 1994 and 2004, under local ‘smallholding policies’ in Carsphairn and Dalry. Elsewhere, individual smallholdings have been created through independent land sales. Anecdotally, it seems that many of these are now owned by people deliberately restoring them to a more natural state (in some cases, but not all, self-describing as ‘rewilding’41.) The Dalry LPP contains a community aspiration to create additional smallholdings of this type in order to help build ‘biodiversity corridors’ along roads. Typically, these plots are reverting from grazing land to scrub and woodland, in some cases augmented with tree planting (including under the Pollinators Network project) and creation of ponds and watercourses, but in others allowing natural processes to take their course. As a result, and depending on the condition they started from, they can develop into very rich habitats, although this comes at the risk of losing some specialist grassland species. In some locations these plots lie close enough together that their management could be coordinated and/or they could be physically linked through negotiation with intervening landholders. Key areas, which have not been investigated in detail for this report, are along the B7000 near the Cleugh SSSI (where two landowners have started this process) (“A” on Map 4), the B729 between Carsphairn and the Marscalloch Hill forest (“B”), the A712 east of Balmaclellan (“C”), and in Gordonston Woods northeast of Dalry (“D”). See Map 4. This is a term I have otherwise deliberately avoided in this report, as it is ambiguous and controversial, and therefore unhelpful. 41 43Establishing Nature Networks in the Glenkens - Feasibility Study 2026 5.4.2 Reduced Intensity Agriculture Some land is being farmed in ways which favour nature restoration, whilst seeking (in some cases) to maintain productivity. These holdings are typically larger than the smallholders described above, and so potentially o er greater gains, though they more widely scattered geographically. In some cases, de-intensification is deliberate and includes farm management and other interventions (such as planting native crab apple trees) aimed at enriching habitats and maintaining a diverse mosaic. In other cases, biodiversity gains seem to be a result of (benign) neglect. The largest such area is probably the very diverse mix of grassland, woodland and scrub which lies east of Loch Ken, between the A712 and Parton - particularly from around Craig Farm Road south to Arvie Burn. Map 8 Indicative locations of land already being managed for nature restoration 44Establishing Nature Networks in the Glenkens - Feasibility Study 2026 5.4.3 Other Nature-Friendly Farming Initiatives Even where overall farming intensity has not been deliberately reduced, many Glenkens farmers have undertaken a range of nature-friendly measures, much of it supported through current and previous agricultural subsidy schemes. There is significant potential for this work to expand under the revised rural payments scheme, and to be enhanced through supporting collaboration and interventions at scale. For these initiatives to contribute e ectively to nature networks, mechanisms will be required to map and coordinate activity. The Regenerative Farming Network provides a potential vehicle for this among farmers who identify with that approach. For others, particularly those who regard themselves as more ‘traditional’, NFUS is likely to be the most appropriate organisation to play a leading coordinating role. For the estates, Scottish Land and Estates may o er a similar role. 45Establishing Nature Networks in the Glenkens - Feasibility Study 2026 6 Monitoring 6.1 Monitoring Nature Networks Monitoring the changes brought about by establishing nature networks is important in order to:    increase understanding of how biodiversity responds to this kind of intervention justify expenditure, both for accountability (“was this money well spent?”) and in proposals for future work enthuse the public and other stakeholders to become involved in further network development. Monitoring activity and immediate outputs is relatively straightforward: any implementation project could track lengths of network created, numbers of habitat patches connected, areas of habitat improved, and so on, along with socio-economic data such as numbers of landholders involved and members of the community engaged in citizen science initiatives. Details of the data to be collected would need to be developed for each project, although some standardisation across di erent habitats and projects would be advantageous in building an overall picture of e ectiveness. Evaluating impacts on biodiversity is a far more complicated and challenging issue. A small number of species to monitor would need to be selected, which were either:    targets for conservation in their own right, such as red squirrels and other GSAB and LBAP priority species, or indicator species associated with the target habitats and which would be expected to benefit from network creation, and collectively indicated species richness. The second category is deliberately narrowly defined: this would be a smaller set of indicators than would be required for a full nature restoration programme. (For instance, it would not include the important but relatively immobile mosses and liverworts characteristic of native oak woodlands.) Although this is conceptually straightforward, putting it into practice will be challenging. As the Nature Network Framework points out42, there are significant problems with the availability and accuracy of data on the occurrence of many species. This is compounded by the very limited information available on what habitat configuration constitutes functional connectivity for many species. 42 https://www.nature.scot/doc/nature-networks-framework Delivery Principles: Theme 4. 46Establishing Nature Networks in the Glenkens - Feasibility Study 2026 In practice, it will be important to make significant e orts to collect baseline data from the outset of any intervention and to monitor changes in indicators over time. This will always be resource-intensive, particularly where networks are being developed piecemeal through actions by individual landowners43. On a case-by-case basis, a monitoring plan will need to be developed that delivers at least a minimum level of information that is “good enough to be useful”, while remaining feasible without excessive investment in monitoring equipment or specialist sta time. Nothing more detailed can be prescribed at this stage, except that monitoring should be considered from the outset of any project and, where possible, some degree of standardisation in data collection and recording should be introduced. Ideally, records would be submitted through iNaturalist, but individual projects will need to decide which species to record, which system will work best for those involved, how the data will be analysed, and by whom. 6.2 Citizen Science Given the aim of nature networks to bring people closer to nature, and the sheer scale of monitoring required to evaluate their impacts, citizen science o ers considerable potential. Details of the citizen science strand of this project, carried out by Niki Inglis, are available in a separate report44. The following paragraphs present a brief summary, edited from that report’s Executive Summary. Three pilot sites were identified based on their location, variety, community networks and availability: Dalry School, Carsphairn Community Woodland (CCW) and New Galloway Community Garden (NCG). During the project, a total of five events were completed, including training, a school visit and three monitoring events. The monitoring events tested two di erent methods of gathering data to enable comparison and help establish a baseline for monitoring activities: Habitat overview for major tree locations, species and sizes, and plant diversity, abundance and distribution; Quadrat sampling for detailed species identification using apps, guides or shared knowledge. Tangible project outcomes included digital habitat maps of the pilot sites, an ecological summary report template, and the Glenkens Monitoring Toolkit as a shared resource for future monitoring events. It was possible to gain an understanding of the di erent capabilities involved and to provide guidance for building the capabilities of citizen scientists, from Level 1 In some cases it may be possible, and extremely valuable, to link with larger scale work being coordinated by GSAB and SWSEIC. 44 N. Inglis (2026) at https://glenkens.scot/reports-resources-archive/baseline-monitoring-of-the- development-of-nature-networks-in-the-glenkens. 43 47Establishing Nature Networks in the Glenkens - Feasibility Study 2026 citizen scientists at the start of their journey through to Level 3 after approximately three years, representing fully invested and engaged participants in the citizen science programme. With this in mind, three di erent scenarios for establishing a citizen science network were developed: Scenario 1: Distributed network: Engaging the community in self-serve biological monitoring and recording on a casual basis, creating a distributed network of citizen scientists across the region. Records would be completed as and when recorders are available, with local activities helping to share information in an engaging way. This could also include engaging citizen scientists in monitoring at home, in their own gardens. (£38 per site) Scenario 2: Monitoring events: Supporting sites or communities across the region to host monitoring events and build experience. The monitoring toolkit could be expanded to increase capabilities, and experts could mentor groups by attending events and sharing their knowledge and experience. (£600 start-up; £220 per event; £300 per year training) Scenario 3: Coordinated approach: Developing a dedicated core team to contribute to regional land-use and nature-recovery strategy by gathering data to inform decisions and track progress. 6–8 members of the core team could be deployed for monitoring at any site, including private sites such as farms or forest plantations. (£11, 800 per year) Whichever path is chosen, the importance of training to continue building citizen science capability cannot be understated. Developing appropriate monitoring metrics—including both biodiversity state indicators and engagement indicators— should also be carefully considered (see above §6.1). Considering that this project strand was predominantly focused on baseline monitoring through citizen science, and that further funding may take time to secure, it is recommended to begin with the distributed network. This would raise awareness and engage communities through casual monitoring as a lower-e ort, less resource-intensive starting point with potentially wide reach across the region. Moving forward, monitoring events could be added to contribute more regularly to data collection, monitoring and recording as awareness grows and funding is secured. In the longer term, by building up the citizen science network and establishing a coordinated approach, this work could contribute to the development of nature networks and inform local land-use strategy by filling data gaps, investigating habitats and recording wildlife across the region. Mapping and tracking improvements could be supported by field data from a wide range of sites, 48Establishing Nature Networks in the Glenkens - Feasibility Study 2026 including private land, potentially contributing to land managers’ biological reporting requirements and fostering collaboration towards nature recovery. These training sessions and others carried out to date in the Glenkens have mainly involved groups or individuals from the community with an existing interest in data recording. This is likely to work well in some settings, where habitats are directly observable on, or easily accessible from, public land (such as roadside hedgerows and woodlands with a tradition of public access and established path networks, for example parts of Glenlee Woods). However, it is possible - indeed likely, given comments from some land managers about concerns over increased public access - that obtaining frequent, large-scale access to private land for people outside the farming community as envisaged by the third scenario above, may be challenging. Addressing this is an important next step. Three approaches are worth testing:    negotiating access for community groups or a cadre of trained citizen scientists, which may work with some land managers, but probably not all training land managers to carry out their own monitoring, potentially building on requirements linked to agricultural subsidy schemes - some element of this is likely to be essential and would need to be developed carefully to minimise the additional work burden piloting estate-based citizen science initiatives, where monitoring is o ered as part of wider visitor, educational or diversification activities. This final approach emerged from a landowner engaged late in the project who was keen to establish baseline data and monitor change, and whose estate already provides accommodation and courses for visitors. While not universally applicable, this model has potential as a pilot and could, if successful, be promoted peer-to-peer among land managers. 6.3 Art, Fun, and Knowledge The third strand of the overall project is the involvement of members of the community in participatory monitoring. Where this involves habitat or species monitoring, it clearly overlaps with the citizen science discussed above. Participatory monitoring of land use change is a rather di erent element, however, and was one of the intended themes of the 2025 Land Notes Festival and actions following on from it. The most obvious example of this is Glenkens View Points, an open-ended fixed-point photography project recording land use change visible from a number of locations in the Glenkens. This uses as a baseline Donald Watson’s detailed paintings made from the same viewpoints from the 1950s until the 1970s. The Festival was successful in bringing people together to engage with issues of land, land use and change in creative and enjoyable ways. Importantly, these were collective 49Establishing Nature Networks in the Glenkens - Feasibility Study 2026 experiences and can be used as a foundation on which to build more focused actions going forward. From a nature networks perspective, the most useful of these would be:    extending the View Points QR code methodology to locations where visibly networked habitats are planned or anticipated; this could be built into projects as each is established placing a more explicit focus within the Festivals on observing and (where relevant) celebrating change, and on celebrating amateur record-keeping actively attempting to create a network of amateur record-keepers in the Glenkens. This last point was a hoped-for outcome of the Festival that did not materialise in practice. Progress on this could build on the citizen science training of Strand 2, but would also require additional e ort to reach people who are already keeping records but lack the interest, rationale or confidence to share them. Clearly a major issue will be to ensure that shared data is usable and used – SWSEIC will likely have a central role in this. 50Establishing Nature Networks in the Glenkens - Feasibility Study 2026 7 Supporting Network Development 7.1 Sta A clear outcome from this study is that establishing nature networks will be labour- intensive and slow. On the technical and ecological side, this involves detailed work with maps and records and, in virtually all settings, will require ground survey (though see the comments on drones below). On the social side, working with land managers takes time to establish contact, often involving trusted intermediaries, and progressing to actual habitat interventions is likely to require at least two meetings per land manager and possibly one or more site visits. Establishing common goals and vision is often time- consuming, and there may be a need for legal requirements, agreements etc., especially at scale and across landscape. Within the timescale of this project, it was impossible to do more than test land managers’ responsiveness. Of nine individuals not previously known to me, but who were mostly approached through mutual acquaintances, responses lay on a spectrum from:     enthusiastic at first contact growing enthusiasm after some discussion engaged but sceptical interest initial interest followed by no further contact despite follow-ups to  no response despite repeated contact attempts. Other approaches are clearly needed, of which some form of peer-to-peer engagement or collective engagement brokered by a land-based organisation seems most likely to be successful. This will be crucial. Nature restoration could be carried out at scale in the Glenkens by working only with enthusiastic landowners, but the creation of networks requires buy-in from people controlling specific, adjacent parcels of land, not all of whom may be interested. The enthusiasm and support of the NFUS and SLE therefore need to be cultivated and sustained, and other land managers’ groups and networks need to be sought out and engaged with. A wide set of skills, understanding and experience is required within a project, spanning:    technical knowledge and experience of land management, ecology, habitat restoration and mapping understanding of rural communities and economies citizen science 51Establishing Nature Networks in the Glenkens - Feasibility Study 2026  the ability to work constructively and creatively with land managers (farmers at di erent scales and with di erent tenures, estate owners and managers, and state- employed forest managers), as well as with non-land-based community groups and individuals. These qualities could be distributed across several people, not necessarily all paid sta , depending on resources and the nature of any project. (See Appendix 2 for a detailed person specification for the ‘ideal worker’, which could form the basis for recruitment of an individual person or team). However, at its core, any project to proactively establish nature networks will require one or more individuals who have at least a working understanding across all these areas, and who can operate empathetically and flexibly as brokers and negotiators. Di erent delivery structures are possible. The following are illustrative examples – with very approximate costings - rather than an exhaustive list:     a small project team of two or three people (for example, a network negotiator, an ecologist/habitat restoration specialist, and a citizen science/community organiser), self-managing but operating for administrative purposes under the aegis of an organisation such as GCAT (c. £100000 per annum) a single individual combining most of the required skills, complemented by commissioned specialist input (e.g. ecology and mapping, or citizen science training and management), working as a contractor or directly employed by GCAT or Dumfries and Galloway Council (c. £50,000 per annum) a nature networks project o icer based within an existing environmental organisation such as DGW or GFT (c. £41,000 per annum) no funded sta , with the content of this report informing ongoing work by relevant organisations, aspirational maps publicised, and the nature networks concept promoted by members of the Community Action Plan Steering Group and others within land management communities to encourage individual land manager activity (zero cost). 7.1.1 Governance During interviews, the question was raised as to whether a new, standalone organisation is needed to lead land use programmes in the Glenkens, including nature networks and restoration, or whether the existing Land Use sub-Committee of the Community Action Plan Steering Group is su icient. Two broad options are outlined below, without judgement as to which is preferable; both have merits and disadvantages. Option 1 No new organisation: A paid worker or project team would be steered by the Land Use sub-Committee, or by a smaller group drawn from it. This would be e icient, avoid start-up costs, and carry credibility with funders and partner organisations, given that GCAT and the Community Action Plan are widely recognised and respected. This 52Establishing Nature Networks in the Glenkens - Feasibility Study 2026 approach would likely be e ective for delivering specific networks or restoration projects. Its disadvantage is that it would probably remain project-focused, and less e ective at supporting the broader development of the Land Use Vision (such as the Festival, accessing other funding streams, and building links with external organisations), which would remain the responsibility of the Sub-Committee. Option 2 A standalone Land Use Trust or similar: This would involve a small team of volunteer trustees committed to delivering the Land Use Vision, within which management of a specific restoration or nature networks project would form one strand. The advantages would include greater focus and visibility, compared with land use being one function of a wider Community Action Plan structure, and the flexibility that independence can o er. The challenges would include recruiting volunteer trustees with the necessary skills and capacity, potential disconnection from the community infrastructure provided by the Community Action Plan, and the need to establish credibility as a new organisation. These two approaches could potentially be combined if the Land Use sub-Committee were to become more proactive and adopt some of the characteristics of a more independent organisation. Whether this needs to be considered at present depends in part on the outcome of the current (winter 2025/26) application to the Nature Restoration Fund. If successful, the existing structures would need to remain in place for the duration of that project and probably through to the end of any NatureScot-funded delivery phase. At that point, it might be appropriate to consider establishing a standalone organisation to continue developing and delivering a Glenkens Nature Restoration Strategy. 7.2 Resources 7.2.1 Non-Sta Costs Establishing nature networks is resource intensive. Sta costs will almost inevitably be a major component of any large scale programme, but physical implementation is also very expensive. While it is impossible to provide total costs at this stage, given the open- ended nature of network creation, but some indicative figures are given below, arising from actions tested or discussed during this project.    Tree planting carried out directly as a result of this project: low-density planting of approximately one linear kilometre, totalling around 1.77 ha (not all of which required fencing), at a cost of approximately £6,000 Fencing on farmland: approximately £10,000 per kilometre Virtual fencing collars: approximately £30,000 upfront cost for collars for 100 cattle, with ongoing costs of around £3,000 per year. 53Establishing Nature Networks in the Glenkens - Feasibility Study 2026 To give a sense of scale, the Cairngorms Connect45 partnership has invested approximately £9 million to date in an area of a size comparable to the Glenkens, and is currently the largest nature restoration programme in Scotland. The 20-year Upper Duddon Landscape Recovery Scheme46 in England, covering a much smaller area than the Glenkens (approximately 5%), is receiving an unspecified but substantial proportion of £55 million announced by the UK government in July 2025. 7.2.2 Sources of Funding Unlike many large-scale restoration programmes, the Glenkens is characterised by highly fragmented and largely private land ownership. This suggests the potential need for a di erent funding model, combining    core project sta ing the bulk of implementation funds provided by agricultural and forestry subsidies; and additional funding for other elements, such as monitoring, citizen science, training and potentially for enabling measures such as support for planting or piloting innovative grazing approaches. Sources would probably include:    NatureScot funding in the first instance to support core capacity contributions from corporate actors (for example utilities operating in or near the Glenkens); and emerging funding mechanisms such as carbon finance (Woodland Carbon Code and Peatland Code), Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG), and Natural Capital Investment (NCI). While all of these are high on current policy agendas, delivery mechanisms remain unclear in most cases, with the partial exception of the Woodland Carbon Code. However, at least some of this uncertainty is likely to be resolved during 2026, potentially allowing planning for larger-scale projects aligned with the rural payments scheme. 7.2.3 Expertise The Glenkens already benefits from a substantial pool of expertise, including:   established environmental and land-based organisations individuals contributing as volunteers or freelance specialists. For nature networks, however, a significant gap exists in practical, field-level advisory support for farmers and land managers. Some provision exists through the Farm Advisory 45 46 https://cairngormsconnect.org.uk/ https://storymaps.arcgis.com/stories/f0bd04c230a6453c87605110cfcb0f1d 54Establishing Nature Networks in the Glenkens - Feasibility Study 2026 Service47 (much of it online) and commercial consultants, but this is insu icient for the level of detail and local specificity required. While some support could be delivered through a project-based, network-by-network approach - essentially scaling up the model used in this study - this would be extremely time-intensive. What is more urgently needed is accessible, practical guidance on how to use the rural payments scheme to its full potential in support of nature restoration and network creation. This is not solely a nature networks or Glenkens issue, but one likely to be felt acutely across Scotland in the coming years. Tier 4 of the new rural payments scheme may address this need, but details are not yet available, and funding constraints make it uncertain whether provision will be adequate or su iciently locally specific to guide nature network creation at a sub-catchment scale. There may therefore - very speculatively - be space within this emerging advisory landscape for a locally based social enterprise, rooted in the Glenkens and sta ed by people with deep knowledge of local land, habitats and communities. 7.2.4 Technological Developments Driven by the increasing policy importance of nature restoration, its anticipated role in rural subsidy regimes, and rapid technological innovation, a growing range of technologies may support the development of nature networks. While exploring this lay outside the formal remit of the project, two technologies were repeatedly identified as having potential to significantly reduce the resource demands of detailed habitat survey and management. Drone photography: Sitting between satellite imagery and ground survey in terms of both resolution and cost, drone photography is likely to be particularly valuable once candidate network sections have been identified. It could allow su iciently detailed survey to inform intervention planning, especially for woodlands and hedgerows. Grasslands may be more challenging to assess using this approach, but drone imagery should nonetheless allow more fine-grained and accurate mapping of land cover types than is currently possible without extensive ground survey. Species-level identification will remain di icult or impossible in most cases – this is the contrast with woodlands, where tree species are often distinguishable from low altitude aerial photography. Virtual fencing: Virtual fencing - using satellite-controlled collars on livestock to control grazing - has significant potential. Although still a developing technology, systems are now commercially available. Costs are currently high, but may fall over time, and might 47 https://www.fas.scot/ 55Establishing Nature Networks in the Glenkens - Feasibility Study 2026 become eligible for subsidy if deployed as part of environmentally beneficial land management. The key advantage of virtual fencing is flexibility. Physical fencing is often prohibitively expensive and too inflexible for fine-grained, dynamic grazing control across varied rough grassland or complex landscapes such as drumlin fields with wet depressions. Virtual fencing could allow valuable areas to be excluded from grazing on a permanent or temporary (including seasonal) basis, making it a potentially transformative tool for habitat management within nature networks. However, virtual fencing has also been challenged on animal welfare grounds, and its potential use needs to be explored carefully. 56Establishing Nature Networks in the Glenkens - Feasibility Study 2026 8 Conclusions 8.1 Introduction: Key Outcomes The purpose of this study was to explore whether it is feasible to establish nature networks in the Glenkens: specifically, whether the Scottish Government’s policy initiative can be implemented at a sub-catchment scale within the context of the community’s existing Land Use Vision. This final section summarises the key outcomes, considers how di erent habitat types might fit within a nature network approach, and reflects on lessons learned about methods. It concludes with a proposed ‘Glenkens Approach to Nature Networks’ and identifies next steps.        For some habitat types, most notably broadleaved woodland, the establishment of nature networks is clearly feasible. o Practical challenges include limitations in ecological data and the complexity of engaging with land managers, as well as deeper, less tractable issues arising from the close relationship between habitats, the local economy and local cultures. For other habitat types, particularly grassland, wetlands and areas where restoration is already underway, a nature network approach is likely to be less e ective. o Greater gains would probably be achieved through nature restoration based on Lawton’s principles of “more, bigger and better”, rather than on connectivity. Data are fundamental to establishing baselines, selecting and reasoning for specific sites and monitoring progress post intervention, but are often inadequate or resource- intensive to collect with no designated funding stream. o Community involvement in data gathering o ers significant potential and can be developed using the staged approach set out in [Name of Strand 2 report], although integration with networks on private land remains an outstanding issue. The rural payments scheme will probably be critical to supporting nature network development. o Ongoing uncertainty about its detailed operation is likely to limit widespread land manager engagement until at least mid-2026. Looking ahead, establishing nature networks will require appropriate resourcing, primarily in sta time, and ideally within a wider, holistic nature restoration programme. Technological innovation – in particular drones and ‘virtual fencing’ – may be very valuable in reducing network establishment and management costs. Whatever the delivery model, any programme will need to be flexible, opportunistic and pragmatic, while remaining firmly guided by the Land Use Vision, the Lawton Principles, and the community development principle of “starting where people are at”. 57Establishing Nature Networks in the Glenkens - Feasibility Study 2026 8.2 Habitats: Network Potential Suitability for nature network approachStatus of network developmentProposed actions Broadleaved woodlandVery suitable. Riparian and other woodlands form an existing ‘proto- network’, with gaps which can be filled. Tree planting is uncontroversial and relatively easy to incorporate in business models.Potential networks scoped in detail; first network intervention will probably be planted in late 2026; further interventions under discussion with landowners.Commercial forestryPotentially very high: FLS and forestry policy in general are in principle supportive.Wet woodlandVery suitable. Care necessary to integrate with other riparian planting/habitats.HedgerowsVery suitable. Hedgerows are naturally linear features, and lend themselves to creating corridors between otherIndividual blocks often have significant networks – planning currently does not join between blocks or forest owners. Long term forest planning challenges rapid reorientation towards networks. More fragmented than dry broadleaved woodland. Potential networks scoped to an extent, potential interventions under discussion with landowners and other interested organisations. Existing hedgerows are generally in poor condition, but their extent andFinalise North Glenkens: Garple Burn to Glenlee planting Support work of D&G Woodlands on: - Blawquhairn Farm - Urr riparian planting and Urr-Ken link (Barwhillanty Estate) Sustained engagement Medium with FLS planners and private estate forest managers 58 Priority for nature network development High Support RSPB/NTS/DGW proposed Kenmure- Threave wet woodland/Willow Tit corridor, and links to North Glenkens corridors.Medium Access National Hedgerows Map, andMediumEstablishing Nature Networks in the Glenkens - Feasibility Study 2026 Pollinators Grassland+ (extensively farmed): mosaic of unimproved and semi- improved grassland, patches of heath, bog, mire and intermediate habitat types typical of northern Glenkens. Grassland+ (intensively farmed): matrix of high value fields, in some cases with network of wet habitats (mainly drained to some extent), particularly between Suitability for nature network approachStatus of network developmentProposed actionshabitats, especially woodland patches. Could be very useful in intensively farmed areas, and o er scope for community engagement in survey. Very suitable. Much like hedgerows but potentially more extensive, in particular extending networks in settlement areas. Very suitable for community involvement, with a tested approach, a delivery organisation and demonstrated enthusiasm for participation.ecological condition is not known.explore possibility of drone survey.2025 planting of fruit trees at over 40 locations (not strategically planned as a network), under the parallel Glenkens Pollinators Project. Potential for extensive further planting, currently unmapped. Issues explored in depth with land managers and through mapping.Map existing pollinators and plan strategic approach to network creation.High Approach through holistic NR programme if possible.Low Approach with sympathetic land managers.Low Not very suitable: priority habitat for biodiversity but complexity of structure and stock management makes relevant interventions challenging and not very relevant. It may be useful at some sites to think about water networks (linking fen/bog/mire) within the grasslands, but in general the mosaic should probably be treated holistically. Potentially suitable for small (land Issues explored with land parcel) scale wetland network managers. development, but challenging given the high farm value of this land. 59 Priority for nature network developmentEstablishing Nature Networks in the Glenkens - Feasibility Study 2026 drumlins in mid- and south Glenkens. Wetlands 1: as part of the grassland+ categories Wetlands 2: riparian wetlands Wetlands 3: larger scale peat land Nature restoration land 1: smallholder rewilding Nature restoration land 2: de-intensifying agriculture Nature restoration land 3: other ‘nature friendly farming’ activities Suitability for nature network approachStatus of network developmentProposed actionsPriority for nature network development See above: these are important habitats but di icult to address through nature networks. Not very suitable. These are important for biodiversity, but di icult to create new areas, especially linear features, at scale. Require protection and enhancement. Medium. Large upland peat areas are better addressed as areas for restoration rather than as networks. Some configurations exist which could be restored as networks. Medium. Locations make this unsuitable for a network approach, except where a number of neighbouring sites could be linked. Low. Potentially very important for biodiversity-rich habitats in the Glenkens, but not very relevant to a network approach. Unknown.See aboveSee aboveLow NoneApproach through holistic NR programme if possible.Low NoneApproach through holistic NR or peatland restoration programme if possible.Low Network developing along B7000 E of the Cleugh SSSI. Elsewhere not networked. NoneExplore ways of reaching Medium smallholders, and assess interest in working collectively. Approach through Low holistic NR programme if possible. Unknown.Identification and mapping of what has been done by individual land managers. 60 Low.Establishing Nature Networks in the Glenkens - Feasibility Study 2026 8.3 Key Lessons a) Method     The twin track approach – using maps to suggest networks, in parallel with exploring land managers’ current and planned actions - works, but in practice was more map- and ecology-led than expected. Maps were important to initiate and then sustain interest: the key to making this work and defuse resistance is tact and respect in the conversation, rather than avoiding early discussion of what might be ecologically beneficial. It sometimes makes sense to discuss networks in isolation from other issues, but sometimes not. In general, grassland restoration was best handled as part of wider discussions about land management and habitat improvement. This is context dependent, though: sometimes framing a discussion specifically around networks is productive, as it forms a ‘hook’ to engage people with, even if the aim is to subsequently broaden the topic out. Ground surveys are important, and should be done collaboratively with landowners if possible, so that details of planting/management and habitats can be covered together. This will remain true even if drone photography allows for improved knowledge without a site visit. Engagement with land managers is slow: even successful engagement can take many phone calls and emails. b) Engaging the Land Management Community The approach taken was informed by the appreciation of cultural constraints outlined in §3.1.4 and the ways of working through these outlined in Appendix 3. The importance of these constraints was confirmed and reinforced during the project, though the variation in attitudes between the participating land managers was very noticeable, and unpredictable. Much seems to come down to personal qualities and interests. In particular , the project reinforces the value of land managers being recruited as trusted intermediaries and ‘champions’ within their own circles, and points to the (as yet untested) potential for peer-to-peer communication of ideas and practices. It also suggests an important role for organisations such as NFUS and SLE in organising meetings (and potentially programmes) which are unthreatening, pose low emotional and reputational risk, and positively validate managers’ ideas and creativity. c) Policy The study demonstrated that nature networks can be translated to a sub-catchment scale, and that it makes sense for the Glenkens organisations to pursue the idea further, 61Establishing Nature Networks in the Glenkens - Feasibility Study 2026 despite the enduring issue of the lack of connectivity and strategic positioning with networks at larger scales. Nature networks are not a panacea, and where possible nature network initiatives should be set within programmes driven by wider nature restoration policy. This may not always be possible, and opportunities for standalone network projects should not be passed up – a pragmatic and opportunistic approach to funding is needed, within a set of guiding principles. The current (early 2026) uncertainty around rural subsidies and land reform certainly makes engaging with (some) land managers more di icult. It also o ers an opportunity to shape responses to these policy fields as they evolve. The key will be to time engagement – such as farmer workshops – to catch land managers as they are working out what new policies will mean in practice. 8.4 A Glenkens Approach To Nature Networks The Lawton Principles for habitats: more, bigger, better, joined up Unpredictable resources Glenkens Land Use Vision A dynamic, organic, and pragmatic Glenkens approach to nature network Community development principle: start where people are at Scepticism and other forms of resistance Figure 2 The Glenkens approach to nature networks A Glenkens approach to nature networks, potentially replicable in other privately-owned landscapes of Scotland, works within a core set of local conditions: • • • The need to develop something worthwhile at sub-catchment level, without wider connections Largely privately-owned land, with a diversity of landowners and managers A very active non-land-based community with vision, expertise and a track record of local policy making 62Establishing Nature Networks in the Glenkens - Feasibility Study 2026 • • The presence of active and well-networked environmental NGOs with initiatives complementary to and overlapping with establishing nature networks A history of often poor communications between di erent stakeholder groups and individuals. The approach should be: dynamic, organic, and pragmatic guided by the Land Use Vision (for the Glenkens perspective), the Lawton Principles (for the ecology) and the community development principle of ‘start where people are at’ tempered by an appreciation of economic realities structured by the agricultural subsidy framework and other funding vehicles and the environment of scepticism and other cultural barriers to engagement. It will set nature networks in the context of other biodiversity and habitat initiatives, in particular the development of a long-term Glenkens Nature Restoration Strategy. 8.4.1 Steps for Engagement: An Illustration This reflects what was tested by this study. It is a replicable approach for working with single land managers: other approaches might include farmer-led group meetings to discuss grassland management, citizen science groups carrying out hedgerow surveys, etc. 1. Identify possible network segments using existing data and maps: in sequence the Naturel Capital Tool, then HABMOS and the CEH habitat map for more detail, the NBN Atlas for specific sites, and satellite imagery for the most detailed assessment. 2. Transfer these ideas to 1:25000 Ordnance Survey maps as focus for discussions 3. Familiarise with the land, if possible, through walking over it 4. Identify land owners and managers through the local community and Who Owns Scotland 5. Approach land manager(s), probably through trusted intermediaries rather than cold calling 6. Initial meeting to discuss the nature networks concept and gauge interest – this may or may not involve specific site discussions: this will be a matter of judgment in the meeting 7. Perhaps a second meeting to discuss possible interventions 63Establishing Nature Networks in the Glenkens - Feasibility Study 2026 8. Ground survey/walk to identify sites in detail – planting, regeneration, management, redlines, and management requirements 9. Work up a costed proposal. Who does this will depend on the intervention and the funder (e.g. if externally funded or applied for through subsidies) 10. Work out an e ective and acceptable monitoring system with land manager. 8.5 Next Steps for Nature Networks Given current uncertainty over funding and policy, and the lack of funding for immediate project work, this conclusion section gives only a very broad outline of areas in which work to establish nature networks could be taken forward in the first half of 2026:     Incremental network development: o disseminate an ‘aspirational map’ of habitat (and in particular woodland) networks, to inform land managers’ independent decision making o support DGW’s planning and funding of planting which contributes to network development, however piecemeal Citizen science development: o participatory monitoring/citizen science training and community building, through the Second Land Notes Festival (and any other opportunities if funding can be sourced) o pursue the issue of acceptable ways to monitor biodiversity in private land through conversations with land managers and their organisations, and with community groups. Develop and sustain links with land managers’ organisations: National Farmers Union, Scotland; Scottish Land and Estates; the Regenerative Farmers Network. Initiate discussions with Forestry and Land Scotland about developing a mechanism and approach for incorporating nature networks in their forest plans. 64Establishing Nature Networks in the Glenkens - Feasibility Study 2026 Appendices Appendix 1: Designated areas in the Glenkens Woodland SSSIs Water of Ken Woods (Upland oak woodland, Lichen48) (70.3 ha) is a collection of five separate woodlands, with gaps between them of between 60 m and 2680 m. It is predominantly broadleaved, dominated by oak with smaller areas of other species. Hannaston Wood (Upland oak woodland, Lichen, Lowland neutral grassland) (25.7 ha) is contiguous with one of the Water of Ken Woods, separated only by a minor road (narrow enough for the canopy to be closed above it in places.) It is very similar, dominated by oak with other native broadleaves, and with Ancient Semi-Natural Woodland indicator species of ground flora and lichens, but there are also non-native tree species. The site also includes a small area of herb-rich neutral grassland. Airds of Kells Wood (Upland oak woodland, Upland mixed ash woodland) (28.9 ha) is the largest remaining block of oak woodland in the Ken-Dee valley, with mixed ash woodland on deeper soils closer to the Loch. Wetland and open water SSSIs Kenmure Holms (Fen meadow, Beetles, Dragonfly assemblage) (153.1 ha) is also a Ramsar site and SPA for its bird populations. There is a mix of habitats, including reed beds, sedge swamp, alder and willow carr, with patches of open water. River Dee (Parton to Crossmichael) (Lowland acid grassland, Open water transition fen, geese and swans, Dragonfly assemblage) (509.7 ha) is also a Ramsar site and SPA. It is complex and diverse, with large areas of open water, fen, swamp and lowland acid grassland of varying levels of wetness. The site also includes areas of willow and alder carr, broadleaved woodland and willow and thorn scrub. Woodhall Loch (Oligotrophic loch, Fen meadow, Open water transition fen, Beetles, Caddisfly) (127.3 ha) is an oligotrophic (low fertility) loch with a wide range of habitats including species-rich, base-poor fen along with base-rich fen, open water and floating and emergent vegetation. There is also willow and birch carr and wet alder-birch woodland. Although not a notified feature, priority bird species are also found, including curlew and willow tit. For each SSSI the ‘notified natural features’ which led to the designation are listed, along with the site’s area. 48 65Establishing Nature Networks in the Glenkens - Feasibility Study 2026 Grassland SSSIs Cleugh (Lowland neutral grassland) (54.8 ha) is the best example of unimproved grassland in Dumfries and Galloway, with a wide range of grassland plant communities varying from dry base-rich knolls to wet acidic flushes. The Cleugh is a good example of the characteristic micro-scale variation in habitats. Other Designations The entire area is within the Galloway and Southern Ayrshire UNESCO Biosphere, with most of the farmed and settled areas in the Biosphere’s transition zone. The more highly- protected bu er zone starts to the west of the Ken valley, and is coincident with the boundary of Forestry and Land Scotland’s Galloway Forest Park (also a Dark Sky Park). The western part of the Glenkens, including most of the Ken valley from a few kilometres east of the main river and lochs, also lies in the Galloway Hills Regional Scenic Area. 66Establishing Nature Networks in the Glenkens - Feasibility Study 2026 Appendix 2: Skills and attributes of a nature networks project team This has been presented in the form of a detailed person specification for an ‘ideal worker’, but the range of characteristics needed is unlikely to be found in a single individual. Depending on resources available, the attributes could be divided in di erent ways across a mix of paid and voluntary sta . Nature Networks Development O icer (Glenkens) Purpose of the Role To support the establishment of nature networks across the Glenkens by working with land managers, communities and partner organisations, to identify, design and enable ecologically e ective, locally appropriate and practically deliverable interventions within a predominantly privately managed rural landscape. Essential Knowledge and Experience Technical and Professional Experience     Demonstrable experience in land use, ecology, nature restoration, conservation, forestry, agriculture or landscape management, or a closely related field. Practical understanding of habitat restoration and management, particularly in productive rural landscapes (e.g. farming, forestry, mixed land use). Experience of working with spatial data and mapping tools (e.g. GIS, habitat maps, aerial imagery) to inform planning and decision-making. Familiarity with Scottish biodiversity, land-use and nature-recovery policy, including nature networks, biodiversity action planning, and relevant funding or incentive schemes. Partnership and Engagement    Proven experience of working constructively with land managers, including farmers, estate sta , foresters or landowners, and an ability to understand commercial and operational constraints. Experience of community engagement, participatory processes or collaborative planning in rural or environmental contexts. Ability to work e ectively across organisational boundaries, building trust with a wide range of stakeholders, including communities, NGOs, public bodies and agencies. Skills and Competencies Delivery and Facilitation  Strong facilitation and negotiation skills, with the ability to identify shared interests and broker practical solutions between di ering priorities. 67Establishing Nature Networks in the Glenkens - Feasibility Study 2026  Capacity to translate policy and ecological concepts into practical, on-the-ground actions that are acceptable to land managers and communities. Analytical and Strategic Thinking   Ability to think at landscape and network scales, while retaining attention to local detail and feasibility. Sound judgement in situations of ecological and policy uncertainty, with a pragmatic, adaptive approach to problem-solving. Communication    Clear written communication skills, with the ability to produce concise, policy- appropriate documents for varied audiences. Confident verbal communication skills, including presenting ideas, facilitating discussions, and engaging with both technical and non-technical audiences. Experience of contributing to, or producing, reports, feasibility studies, funding bids or strategic plans. Personal Attributes       A collaborative and respectful working style, recognising the knowledge, experience and concerns of land managers and local communities. Credibility and empathy when working in agricultural and land-based settings. Comfortable operating as a boundary-spanner between ecology, policy, land management and community interests. Willingness to work in a developmental and iterative way, accepting that approaches may need to evolve as learning emerges. Organised and self-motivated, with the ability to manage multiple strands of work, maintain momentum, and work independently with limited supervision. Willingness to live in the Glenkens. Desirable Criteria      Experience of Nature Network, ecological network or connectivity projects, particularly in lowland or farmed landscapes. Knowledge of citizen science, participatory monitoring or community-led data collection. Familiarity with Scottish rural funding mechanisms (e.g. agri-environment schemes, forestry grants, nature-recovery funds). Experience working in, or strong familiarity with, south-west Scotland or comparable rural contexts. Knowledge of the Glenkens. 68Establishing Nature Networks in the Glenkens - Feasibility Study 2026 Appendix 3: Overcoming cultural barriers This is the final section of M Paterson and H Keron (2025) Landscape Scale Nature Restoration: Supporting Information from the Glenkens, Dalry Community Council and GCAT. Reproduced with permission of the authors. Overcoming cultural barriers requires multiple points of contact and, often, years of slow groundwork. Quick fixes or one-o interventions rarely succeed. Some approaches that can help include: • • • • • Focusing on relationships before projects, with trust built over time. Moving beyond traditional engagement techniques like town-hall meetings, which can feel performative or confrontational. One-to-one conversations, or side-by- side walking and talking on the land, often work better. Encouraging peer-to-peer outreach rather than relying on people perceived as “outsiders” to a group. The challenge is often finding the first trusted person willing to step forward. Practicing question-led dialogue, where the emphasis is on exploring possibilities rather than declaring right and wrong. Investing in the inner skills of dialogue - listening deeply, recognising emotions and identities at stake, and finding shared values that can anchor collaboration. What could help    Policy and subsidy support: Well-designed agri-environment schemes, collective funding models, or “payment for public goods” approaches could reward farmers for making changes that benefit the wider network, not just their own parcel. Collaborative mechanisms: Facilitating farmer clusters, catchment-based groups or landscape partnerships can help align actions across holdings so that no one farm carries a disproportionate cost. Flexibility in design: Rather than rigid prescriptions, allowing farmers to negotiate where and how interventions happen can keep restoration ecologically e ective and practically workable. 69Establishing Nature Networks in the Glenkens - Feasibility Study 2026 Sources Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board (AHDB) (2023) What are farm tenants’ rights when it comes to carbon markets? https://ahdb.org.uk/carbon-markets/what-are-farm- tenants-rights-when-it-comes-to-carbon-markets. Connelly, S. (2024) Feasibility study into a Glenkens Land Use Forum. Glenkens: Dalry Community Council & GCAT. https://glenkens.scot/reports-resources-archive/feasibility- study-into-glenkens-land-use-forum-march-2024. Connelly, S. (2025) ‘What does the Scottish Census tell us about the Glenkens?’, Glenkens Gazette, No. 148, p. 21. https://www.calameo.com/read/00168660073c4df03777c. GCAT (2025) Land Notes: Glenkens Festival of Land. https://gcat.scot/land-notes-glenkens- festival-of-land/. DG Woodlands (2025) Dumfries & Galloway’s Wood Wide Network project gets underway. https://dgwoodlands.org.uk/dumfries-galloways-wood-wide-network-project-gets- underway. Dumfries and Galloway Council (2009) Local Biodiversity Action Plan. https://www.dumfriesandgalloway.gov.uk/sites/default/files/2024- 08/Local_Biodiversity_Action_Plan.pdf. Farm Advisory Service (FAS) (2025) Nature Restoration Fund 2025: A call to action for Scotland’s land managers. https://www.fas.scot/article/nature-restoration-fund-2025-a-call-to-action- for-scotlands-land-managers/. Galloway and Southern Ayrshire UNESCO Biosphere Partnership (2018) Natural Heritage Management Plan. https://www.gsabiosphere.org.uk/wp- content/uploads/2022/05/Galloway-and-Southern-Ayrshire-UNESCO-Biosphere-Natural- Heritage-Management-Plan-Sept-2018-1.pdf. Glenkens Community Action Plan Steering Group (2023) A vision for land use in the Glenkens. https://glenkens.scot/reports-resources-archive/a-vision-for-land-use-in-the-glenkens. Glenkens & District Trust (2021) Glenkens Community Action Plan. https://glenkens.scot/glenkens-community-action-plan. Inglis, N. (2026) Baseline Monitoring of the development of Nature Networks in the Glenkens. Dalry: Dalry Community Council. https://glenkens.scot/reports-resources-archive/baseline- monitoring-of-the-development-of-nature-networks-in-the-glenkens Propagate (2025) Glenkens Pollinators Project. https://glenkens.scot/glenkens-news/glenkens- pollinators-project. People’s Trust for Endangered Species (n.d.) Hedge surveys. https://hedgerowsurvey.ptes.org/hedge-surveys. Lawton, J. (2010) Making Space for Nature: A review of England’s wildlife sites and ecological network. Report to DEFRA. London: DEFRA. https://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ukgwa/20130402170324/http:/archive.defra.gov .uk/environment/biodiversity/documents/201009space-for-nature.pdf. National Records of Scotland (2022) Scotland’s Census 2022. https://www.scotlandscensus.gov.uk. NatureScot (2025) A Biodiversity Metric for Scotland’s planning system. https://www.nature.scot/doc/biodiversity-metric-scotlands-planning-system. NatureScot (2025) Natural Capital Tool. https://www.nature.scot/doc/natural-capital-tool. NatureScot (2025) Nature Networks Framework. https://www.nature.scot/doc/nature- networks-framework. 70Establishing Nature Networks in the Glenkens - Feasibility Study 2026 Paterson, M. and Keron, H. (2025) Landscape scale nature restoration: supporting information from the Glenkens. Unpublished report prepared for Dalry Community Council and Glenkens Community Action Trust, August 2025. Scottish Government (2023) National Planning Framework 4. https://www.gov.scot/publications/national-planning-framework-4/. Scottish Government (2024) Scottish farm business income: annual estimates 2023–2024. https://www.gov.scot/publications/scottish-farm-business-income-annual-estimates- 2023-2024/. Scottish Government (2024) Scottish Biodiversity Strategy to 2045. https://www.gov.scot/publications/scottish-biodiversity-strategy-2045/documents. South of Scotland Regional Economic Partnership (2019) Regional Land Use Framework. https://www.southofscotlandrep.com/media/kpsbxf2b/rluf_v1_240919.pdf. Upper Duddon Landscape Recovery Project (2025) Story map. https://storymaps.arcgis.com/stories/f0bd04c230a6453c87605110cfcb0f1d. Academic papers Dolman, P.M. et al. (2007) ‘Woodland birds in patchy landscapes: the evidence base for strategic networks’, Ibis, 149, pp. 146-160. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1474-919X.2007.00748.x Gil-Tena, A. et al. (2014) ‘Woodland bird response to landscape connectivity in an agriculture- dominated landscape: a functional community approach’, Community Ecology, 15(2), pp. 256-268. https://akjournals.com/view/journals/168/15/2/article-p256.xml Howley, P. et al. (2014) ‘Contrasting the attitudes of farmers and the general public regarding the multifunctional role of the agricultural sector’, Land Use Policy, 38, pp. 248–256. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0264837713002561 Liira, J. and Paal, T. (2013) ‘Do forest-dwelling plant species disperse along landscape corridors?’, Plant Ecology, 214(3), pp. 455–470. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11258-013-0182-1 Öckinger, E. and Smith, H.G. (2008) ‘Do corridors promote dispersal in grassland butterflies and other insects?’, Landscape Ecology, 23(1), pp. 27-40. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10980-007-9167-6 Thiele, J. et al. (2018) ‘Connectivity or area: what drives plant species richness in habitat corridors?’, Landscape Ecology, 33(2), pp. 173-181. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10980-017-0606-8 71Establishing Nature Networks in the Glenkens - Feasibility Study 2026 Acknowledgements I very much appreciate the contribution of the interviewees and other participants in the project, who gave very generously of their time and insights. I also very gratefully acknowledge the support and encouragement of the project steering group: Jenna Cains and Morag Paterson of Dalry Community Council, Helen Keron and Andrew McConnell of the Glenkens Community & Arts Trust, and Antoine Lemaire of GSAB. Niki Inglis and Kerry Morrison, the contractors for Strands 2 and 3 of the project, were brilliant colleagues. Anna Gri in and Antoine Lemaire at GSAB provided extremely useful critical insights. The NatureScot team developing the Natural Capital Tool were very helpful, and I hope that my questions and feedback have contributed to making the tool even more useful. Thanks to them for permission to use their maps in this report. 72 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Establishing Nature Networks in the Glenkens Description An account of the resource This Feasibility Study lays the groundwork for a landscape-scale programme of interventions in the Glenkens aimed at linking existing areas of high ecological value through the creation of new habitats and the ecological enhancement of current land uses. Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context CAP_36 Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource GCAT Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Dalry Community Council Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Dr Stephen Connelly Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2026 CAP Theme 3 land use https://glenkensarchive.scot/glenkens_archive/files/original/20/716/20260202_GH_Year3_Report.jpg 1b162f3126ef445e3290e0321eb2ed84 https://glenkensarchive.scot/glenkens_archive/files/original/20/716/20260202_GH_Year3Report.pdf beb8b756500c1249bdd17d35eda67b97 PDF Text Text pdftext_placeholder Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Community Action Plan Description An account of the resource Documents relating to the Glenkens and District Community Action Plan, initially drawn up by Glenkens & District Trust in 2020. Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Glenkens Hub 2025 Report Description An account of the resource The Glenkens Hub has now completed three years of delivery to end 2025, funded by the Glenkens & District Community Fund through the Glenkens and District Trust and Foundation Scotland, and the Galloway Glens Landscape Partnership Scheme. The report contains details of key usage data and community engagement. Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context CAP_35 Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource GCAT Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Glenkens & District Trust Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available CAP Steering Group Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2026 CAP Theme 1 communication https://glenkensarchive.scot/glenkens_archive/files/original/20/687/20260202_CAP_AnnualReport_2025.jpg fa169f19c584abc735d44a3aebfcf62b https://glenkensarchive.scot/glenkens_archive/files/original/20/687/20260202_CAP_AnnualReport_2025.1.pdf 65aa851f66b45aaa316e7b06afeeaf46 PDF Text Text pdftext_placeholder Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Community Action Plan Description An account of the resource Documents relating to the Glenkens and District Community Action Plan, initially drawn up by Glenkens & District Trust in 2020. Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Text Any textual data included in the document Glenkens & District Community Action Plan Steering Group Annual Report 2025 Glenkens & District Community Action Plan Goal: The Glenkens & district will be a connected, resilient and carbon neutral place where people will want to live, to work, to bring up their families and to grow old. It will be somewhere that other places in Scotland look to for inspiration. 1. Executive Summary 2025 has been another year of effective delivery of the Glenkens & District Community Action Plan priorities. Frontline delivery projects have been consolidated and evolved to deliver excellent outcomes for Glenkens residents, despite the extremely challenging external context of restricted funding landscape and limited available public sector support. In addition, the CAP Steering Group has been strongly advocating for the rural voice to be heard at regional and national levels – working to alleviate some of the challenges our communities face at a systemic, upstream level, rather than just intervening to mitigate the symptoms. Rural communities are at the heart of the long-term economic and wellbeing prosperity of Dumfries and Galloway and the whole of Scotland, not least through their contributions to food production, timber production and energy generation. This needs to be recognised and valued by urban decision makers, not just seen as inefficient cost bases from which resources can be extracted. This advocacy is extremely challenging work, requiring the ongoing support of huge amounts of volunteer time and in the face of a significant power imbalance between hyper-local community development organisations and national and regional agencies. There is recognition at the highest policy level that retaining an active and diverse population in our rural areas is important to the long-term prosperity of Scotland but the challenge for us all is how we achieve this in the long term when faced with the short-term challenges and drivers of decisions. However, we have continued to make good partnerships and build relationships towards achieving common outcomes, and this report evidences the concrete gains that can be made towards supporting sustainable rural communities for all our benefit, by mitigating rural disadvantage and averting rural depopulation through Community Wealth Building principles and long-term holistic strategies. 2. Background The Glenkens and District Community Action Plan was published in 2020 after extensive community consultation. It was designed to enable any funds coming in the area to be spent strategically and to best effect and to encourage the communities of the Glenkens to work together where possible. It was then crucial that the priorities expressed by the Glenkens communities in the Plan should be moved forward and so the Community Action Plan Steering Group was formed in 2021. Their remit is to own the CAP on behalf of the community, to keep it relevant and to check in on delivery. They are supported operationally by the Glenkens Community and Arts Trust – specifically in 2025, the GCAT Chief Executive, Helen Keron, and going forward Andrew McConnell. In 2021, the Glenkens and District Trust, our local wind farm community benefit funder, aligned its funding strategy heavily with this Community Action Plan and others across its area of benefit. Our Community Action Plan Goal is supported by four themes: 1. 2. 3. 4. A Connected Community An Asset Rich Community An Economically Flourishing Community A Carbon Neutral Community and has a 2023 Addendum: • A Vision for Land Use in the Glenkens. Since 2021, the communities of the Glenkens have increasingly worked in partnership to achieve the Community Action Plan priorities across these themes. We stand ready as a high-capacity, committed community partner for anyone wanting to trial solutions to national priorities on the ground in a remote-rural community. 2 3. Community Action Plan refresh The Glenkens Community Action Plan is now 5 years old and while it continues to serve as a useful articulation of community priorities, the external context within which it operates has changed significantly. The 2021 CAP made no reference to educational or medical and health care provision or land use changes, simply because they were not under threat at that time. The new post-Covid world also presents new societal challenges that we need to reflect and respond to. The CAP Steering Group has therefore embarked on a CAP refresh process, with the aim of publishing an updated CAP in Summer 2026. We know that our communities are already over-consulted, and so the process has been designed to do the work of gathering in existing data – in particular, Local Place Plans – and national best practice behind the scenes. From this, a first-draft Community Action Plan will be created for the communities to critique. Their feedback can then be incorporated to create a final-draft version for final community review. This is a more respectful use of their time, and, we hope, will result in another excellent document with input from a wide range of Glenkens residents and stakeholders that will guide our community development ambitions to 2030 and beyond. Also as part of this refresh process, the Glenkens and District Trust will be embarking on an evaluation and celebration of the impact of more than £1.5 million of wind farm community benefit funds invested locally in pursuit of CAP delivery to date. You can find out more about the CAP Refresh process as it evolves and delivers on the dedicated Glenkens Hub webpage, https://glenkens.scot/glenkens-community-action-plan. 3 4. 2025 Delivery 4.1. Internal Context After an extremely challenging year for GCAT in 2024, where funding constraints and uncertainty hindered their ability to deliver CAP projects as much as they would have liked, 2025 has been a much more positive story. The CatStrand Arts programme received a number of multi-year funding awards that have guaranteed this delivery and also contributes materially to GCAT core costs – building, energy costs and insurance, the Chief Executive and the Business Support salaries. These last two in particular are core to CAP delivery on our behalf. We are therefore pleased to see the ongoing designation by the Glenkens and District Trust of GCAT as a ‘key anchor organisation’ in the Glenkens. This is because not only do they provide significant impact within the community, but they also leverage in significant other funds and provide support to other groups in the area in furtherance of the Community Action Plan. This decision means an annual contribution of £50,000 to GCAT, subject to availability of funds and satisfactory continuing delivery, which is making a material difference to GCAT’s ability to continue to support CAP delivery. At a Strategy Day in June 2025, the Board of GCAT re-confirmed their commitment to CAP Delivery as a core strategic mission of the organisation, as well as delivery of the CatStrand Artistic Vision. We look forward to continuing our very effective delivery model with both GCAT and the Glenkens and District Trust. 4 4.2. Comings and Goings Our Chair, John Paterson, stepped down in September 2025 for health reasons. John served the CAP Steering Group very well, bringing huge enthusiasm as well as his expertise in rural communities and the forestry industry. He is much missed and we wish him all the very best for the coming years. He has been ably replaced by Robert McTurk, a local landowner and tenant farmer. Robert also brings huge expertise to the Steering Group, as well as a deep knowledge of the Glenkens that is very much valued. Barney Fryer stepped down from the CAP Steering Group in March 2025 when his role at the Loch Ken Trust ended. Barney always had an eye to the big picture, and ensured that our local contribution and strategies tied in with global goals and aspirations. We wish him all the very best in his new phase of life! Richard Middleton stepped down in September 2025 to focus on his other community and agricultural commitments. Richard brought an extraordinary range of skills and experience, from education to regenerative agriculture, and his calm experience will also be much missed. Morag Paterson joined the Steering Group in May 2025 as the third GDT-nominated Trustee. She brings significant experience in land use, diverse forestry and biodiversity, as well as cultural inputs from her day job as an artist. Helen Keron, Chief Exec of GCAT, stepped down in November 2025 when she resigned from GCAT. Helen has played a critical role over the last four years in developing and supporting the CAP SG and other community groups. She has also been a powerful advocate for the Glenkens and for rural areas in general at both a local and national level for the Glenkens and rural communities in the Glenkens. Andrew McConnell has taken over the role and is looking forward to continuing to support CAP delivery through GCAT as it evolves and grows. 4.3. Emerging Priorities Building on the track record of CAP delivery from 2022-2024, but being cognisant of an everchanging external context, the emerging themes of 2025 have been: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Rural depopulation Local Place Planning Land Use change Education and Learning Community Wealth Building All of these themes underpin the successful delivery of the Glenkens and District Community Action Plan Goal, and so the CAP Steering Group and GCAT and have been working on these priorities throughout the year, as well as those ongoing projects that are directly delivering CAP priorities. 5 4.4. Rural depopulation Rural depopulation is a pressing concern for both the Scottish Government and Dumfries and Galloway Council. Active and thriving rural communities are key to the long-term prosperity and wellbeing of Dumfries and Galloway and Scotland in many ways, from food and energy production to environmental stewardship. Nobody wants to see ghost villages due to urban centralisation. As a remote-rural community, we are already able to demonstrate the inevitable and unwelcome end-points of some regional and national policies with respect to rural depopulation. We are therefore looking forward to seeing the publication of the University of the West of Scotland and CoDeL report into Rural Depopulation that Dumfries and Galloway Council commissioned in 2025. The Glenkens is a case study in this report. The report was funded by the Scottish Government in order to inform the development of future policy interventions for DGC. It is hoped that this will result in fewer urban-centric policies like those detailed below, and in more effective ‘metrics of success’ for rural areas that consider the social contract between urban and rural. This contract has been in place for decades, respecting the vital role of rural communities in servicing urban communities with food, power and timber by acknowledging that our children are more expensive to educate and our public transport more expensive to operate. The contract is creaking now under current funding models that push local authorities to view rural communities as nothing more than expensive, inefficient cost bases. This cannot go on if our region is to thrive. Examples Policy decisions Outcomes for rural areas Consolidation of regional services to save money, coupled with poor public transport. Lack of housing due to second homes, lack of affordable house building and the recent contraction of the private rental market due to EPC conditions. Consolidation of the school estate for financial and educational reasons, coupled with poor public transport. Lack of childcare due to market forces or insufficient statutory provision. A view of the area as simply somewhere to holiday. Lack of Community Wealth Building principles embedded in development permissions. Older people move out of the area to be closer to centralised services. Working-age people move out of the area. National planting targets School age families move out of the area to be closer to the schools. Pre-school age families move out of the area in order for both parents to be able to work. The hollowing out of thriving and sustainable communities. Developments appear purely extractive to local communities and so are resented. Developers struggle to find a local workforce if their host communities have no schools, transport or houses. 52% afforestation of Carsphairn parish, with more commercial planting planned across the whole area. 6 The Glenkens is bucking the D&G trend for depopulation, due in part to the huge volunteer efforts to build a thriving community over many decades. However, it is an ageing population and one that is increasingly reliant on fatigued volunteers and a more challenging funding environment. All of our CAP work in 2025 has been viewed by the CAP Steering Group through a depopulation lens, but we need to find a way to work strategically with the regional and national agencies to achieve change – many of the issues above are out of our hands. 4.5. Local Place Planning We see statutory LPPs as a great opportunity for the Glenkens, due to the status being placed on them by the Local Authorities and Scottish Government. However, we need them to work for us and our pre-existing work on the Community Action Plan. We have therefore used GCAT and the Glenkens Community Spaces Network to coordinate a Glenkens response to this. Within the Glenkens, Dalry, Carsphairn, New Galloway & Kells, Balmaclellan and Crossmichael have all had their Local Place Plans registered with Dumfries and Galloway Council. At the end of 2025, Balmaclellan and Crossmichael had completed their final consultation and awaited registration with D&GC, New Galloway and Kells undertook the final consultation in early 2026. All reflect and amplify our CAP ambitions. We will use these Local Place Plans as a significant input into our 2026 CAP refresh, as above. 7 4.6. Land Use change More innovative work was carried out on Land Use, led by the Land Use sub-committee of the CAP Steering Group, and much of this in a very productive partnership with Dalry Community Council. NatureScot tells us that we are one of very few communities driving such strategic, balanced responses to land use change across the country. Highlights included: • Land Notes was the first Glenkens Land Use Festival, delivered in August 2025 through CatStrand Arts and Cultural Glenkens, as well as Dalry CC and the Land Use sub-committee. It used GCAT’s unique combination of arts and community development to amplify community issues through the arts and was a truly amazing weekend. • GCAT created a standalone edition of the Glenkens Gazette: ‘Life and Land in the Glenkens’ in March 25, which sets out our community issues and responses in a new and engaging manner. • Supporting Dalry CC in creating a landscape-scale Nature Networks feasibility study in late 2025, which will inform possible new areas for planting to create joined-up habitats for our important wildlife. Thanks very much to all the land owners and managers who have joined in this project, as well as the Pollinators project – it has shown a lot of potential. On the back of all this work, GCAT has submitted as application to the Nature Restoration Fund to create a Glenkens Nature Restoration Strategy in 2026. If successful, this will be an important next step in putting the Glenkens Land Use Vision into action. Through 2025, the Glenkens and rural communities more widely were represented on the South of Scotland Regional Land Use Partnership by GCAT Chief Executive Helen Keron, ensuring that the voice of rural communities is heard in these important discussions. The Glenkens is a case study in the SoS Regional Land Use Framework and in the 2025 Just Transition Committee report into A Just Transition for Dumfries and Galloway. Many thanks as ever to all the volunteers on the Land Use sub-committee who put a huge amount of time, expertise and enthusiasm into moving this important topic forward. 8 4.7. Education and Learning The Education and Learning sub-committee has been working through 2025 on three fronts: • Policy and Processes: Monitoring and responding to Dumfries and Galloway Council’s internal policies as they affect Glenkens schools e.g. the mothballing policy, the Schools Estate policy, the 2026/27 Budget. • Under 16 education: Working with the Dalry Parent Council to see if there is any route to maintaining a secure secondary school provision in the area, as well as supporting our remaining primary schools. Carsphairn Primary School was officially closed this year, and Dalry Secondary School was put out to consultation for closure in late 2025. This only highlights the criticality of our remaining schools and early years support to making the Glenkens an attractive place for working-age families to move to. • Post-16 education: Based on wide community input, this has centred around the possible creation of a 16+ Education and Learning Hub for the Glenkens, possibly funded by the community benefits that will accrue from the Kendoon-Tongland transmission line renewal – if that is a community priority. This will be a key aim of the CAP refresh process, to understand where the communities would like this capital funding used. We want to explore what a modern and sustainable educational provision in the Glenkens could look like. We have a decades-long pipeline of land-based industries coming into the area – how can we use that to ensure that our young people have access to high-quality jobs, housing and opportunities so that our communities thrive? The variety of jobs and opportunities available in both the short and long term was demonstrated at the Skills Fair held in Dalry in September. Building on the important report into Rural Education commissioned by the Glenkens and District Trust last year, the E&L sub-committee published a report ‘Education and Learning in the Glenkens’ in June 2025. In this, we call on the Council and other partners to value our rural communities, acknowledge the importance of our schools to our sustainability, and therefore work with us to find new and creative partnership models for supporting our young people and our communities. 9 4.8. Net Zero action The Energy Efficiency in Glenkens Community Buildings report published in 2023 has catalysed action in 2025 by at least 2 community groups: • • GCAT’s venue the CatStrand has been decarbonised entirely by replacing its oil boiler with Air Source Heat Pumps, powered by solar panels and batteries and a renewables-only electricity contract. The Glenkens Community Centre in Dalry has had major structural works to enhance its energy efficiency and ongoing sustainability, supported by funding from Scottish Power Energy Networks Transmission Net Zero Fund and also South of Scotland Enterprise. This collection of projects shows the power of working together to create (in this case) a Feasibility Study and evidence base that then catalyses and empowers individual organisations to make the changes that they want to see. 4.9. Community Wealth Building The Glenkens interprets CWB in its widest sense and sees it as critical to achieving Theme 3 of the CAP, An Economically Flourishing Community. CWB principles are also woven into the Glenkens Land Use Vision. For us, Community Wealth Building is not just about community benefits (money) – rather, it is about working in partnership with those organisations who create wealth from or within the Glenkens to ensure that some of that generated wealth supports the communities hosting the organisations. It could include partnership work on housing, skills and training, jobs, access roads, recreation or de-risking local social enterprises. The Glenkens is in receipt of welcome but relatively modest amounts of wind farm community benefit funds. (c.£300k pa over 10 Community Councils). However, this could rise substantially over the coming decade, and so we have organised ourselves robustly and (we believe) uniquely. The Glenkens is seen as leading the way in cross-community cooperation, leading to strategic and effective use of community benefit funds to achieve community priorities. See Section 6 below for our structures. We have responded to many consultations on the subject over 2025, often jointly with GDT, always advocating for keeping decision-making about community benefits at the heart of the host communities. These included the ScotGov consultation on Good Practice Principles for onshore wind and the DESNZ consultation on possible mandating of community benefits, the Ofgem consultation on the transmission owners price control. 10 4.10. Ongoing projects – 2025 update. 4.10.1. Glenkens Community Spaces Network. The GCSN Facilitator, Becca Nelson, continues to support the volunteer committees of the Glenkens public buildings with their excellent work for the Glenkens Town and Village Halls. She has established herself as a trusted supporter of the committees and therefore as a single point of contact for organisations looking to work with them. In this way she has been able to add significant unforeseen value over the year, not least through her extensive work this year on a coordinated Glenkens-wide approach to Local Place Plans. GCAT has also been able to amplify her support through funding for an additional day a week from the National Lottery ‘Awards for All’ fund to support the quieter Town and Village Halls in activity programming. Looking forward, the Glenkens and District Community Fund has decided to use some of the Windy Rig community benefit funding it receives from CREFL to support the Network on an ongoing basis, which is a testament to the degree to which it has brought our communities together. 4.10.2. Glenkens Hub The Glenkens Hub has grown again over 2025, cementing its use as a central community resource. Specific pages have been added for the CAP Refresh process and archive. It hosted pages for Glenkens Food Month 2025, the Glenkens Land Notes Festival and the Galloway Glens Legacy Fund when it re-opened in September 2025. In addition, Gail Challis has completed a significant piece of work in creating the Glenkens Archive, which is hosted on specialist software that provides an excellent search mechanism. Reports and Resources are being transferred to the new Archive, but if you would like a secure home for any Glenkens history, do get in touch with Gail. Another useful piece of work, aligned with our focus on Rural Depopulation, was the creation of Our Glenkens. This is a library and SM channels hosting short videos about some of the amazing young people who live and work in the Glenkens. Inspired by the very successful Uist Beo model, it seeks to change the narrative of rural living as a second-class option by shining a spotlight on the many amazing reasons to live here. In 2026, @OurGlenkens will be expanding to include videos on people living sustainably in the Glenkens. The Glenkens and District Community Fund will use some of the Windy Rig community benefit funding it receives via CREFL to support the Glenkens Hub on an ongoing basis, which is recognition of the extent to which it now underpins and supports all our communities. 11 4.10.3. PYT Community Housing The Pamela Young Trust has progressed its plans for 3 properties in the centre of Balmaclellan and has now completed Riba-stage 3, following receipt of Planning Permission. These homes will be made available at affordable rents and the intention is to build two 2 bedroom cottage flats and one 3 bedroom house. Tender prices are being sought and funding assembled. Should this prove successful then the current timeline provides for work starting on site in October 2026. Their plans to take the Glenlee houses back into community ownership from SPEN have stalled due to the lack of decision on the Kendoon-Tongland overhead transmission line but remains a possibility. 4.10.4. Galloway Food Hub The Galloway Food Hub has had a very successful 2025, with a list of 33 local producers and increasing its customer numbers. After seed funding from the Glenkens and District Community Fund in 2021 and 2022, they have since secured funding from outwith the Glenkens to grow their delivery area and update their marketing reach. They rely heavily on volunteers and committed staff to fuel the growth, but the rewards are very tangible. Looking forward, they hope to increase deliveries to weekly from fortnightly, inspire more local vegetable growers and secure a delivery vehicle to reduce the reliance on volunteers’ cars. 4.10.5. Glenkens Youth Group The Glenkens Youth Group had a great 2025, providing a safe and undirected space for young people (P7 – S3) to hang out in. The Monday evening sessions are very youth-led, and this year there were themes of cooking, crafts and music. They sourced external funding for a programme of summer activities, including a trip to the Titanic, water sports and archery, and joined CatStrand Young Creatives in a trip to the Edinburgh Fringe – giving Glenkens young people opportunities some of them have never had. Looking forward to 2026, the group will continue to be very youthled and will look to strengthen its links with the Council Youth Service still further. It is funded by the Glenkens and District Community Fund to August 2027 because of the importance of offering our young people meaningful opportunities as per the Community Action Plan. 4.10.6. Loch Ken Ranger Service It has been a great year for the Loch Ken Trust Ranger Service, with increased ranger patrol coverage from our rangers and volunteers. Loch Ken Trust have become further embedded in their communities, thanks to funding from a variety of sources, including continued support from Glenkens and District Trust Community Fund and Drax plc. In 2025 Loch Ken Trust have expanded on all areas, including their Ranger Education programme, Youth Water Safety Awareness and community engagement events, focussing on how to enjoy accessing the outdoors safely and responsible. A particular key area of focus has been their resilience work, which this year has included supporting our communities with resilience planning, a test event, and, in partnership with Scottish Ambulance Service, the formation of a community cardiac responders’ group. The Loch Ken Trust’s core work remains regularly patrolling Loch Ken and working together with their communities to look after and protect this special place. 12 5. Governance We have organised ourselves via a robust structure with clear accountability and sound governance principles that allow us turn aspiration into action that makes a real difference on the ground. We believe this structure to be unique across Scotland, and we have found over the last 4 years that it has provided us with a solid base from which to ensure delivery, maintain accountability and keep priorities relevant. It has survived changes in personnel and external context that means it is institutionally robust to the long-term nature of wind farm funding. Organisational Roles: • • • Glenkens & District Trust: • Build the available funding pot through effective liaison with wind farm (and other) developers. • Administer the funds effectively and transparently. • Membership drawn from Community Councils providing a local democratic basis. • Governing Documents and Meeting Reports here: Governance Info & Resources | Glenkens & District (glenkenstrust.org.uk) Community Action Plan Steering Group: • Own the Community Action Plan. • Keep it relevant and prioritise delivery according to resource constraints. • Membership from across the Glenkens. • Terms of Reference here: Glenkens Hub - Community Action Plan Steering Group • Meeting Reports published after each Steering Group meeting: Glenkens Hub Community Action Plan Steering Group. Glenkens Community and Arts Trust. • Anchor organisation, leading on delivery of the CAP, through a concentric model of delivery / support / partnerships. • Strategy, Annual Accounts and Newsletters here: GCAT - GCAT 13 6. 2026 Priorities At their November 2025 meeting, the CAP Steering Group set out the following priority areas for CAP delivery in 2026. • • • • Continue advocacy for underlying themes, as per Section 3.2. Continue support of ongoing delivery projects, as per Section 3.3. Refresh the Community Action Plan, using the LPPs as key inputs. Support Andrew McConnell as he takes over the role of GCAT Chief Exec. However, it is important to note that the current speed of progress and even some of the existing gains are at risk if regional and national agencies cannot see the value of rural communities and of working with hyper-local development trusts or similar to achieve their shared outcomes. 7. Looking Forward - Challenges • • • • • • GDT’s funds are limited due to current fund structure and delays in further wind farm construction due to lack of grid capacity. Kendoon-Tongland decision – both with respect to new wind farm timelines, transmission line community benefits and the Glenlee houses renovations. Potential centralisation of community benefit funds regionally and nationally. Constrained resources and volunteer fatigue leading to lack of capacity to advocate on themes at national and regional levels. Continuation funding for existing projects across the Glenkens. Lack of regional partnerships towards ambitions of Themes 3 and 4. 8. Looking Forward - Opportunities • • • • High level of national and regional interest in our work on land use and education and skills in particular. Glenkens LPPs are an example of best practice regionally and have demonstrated the benefits of working together cross-Community Council. More work with Developers could result in Community Wealth Building pilot projects. An increasingly engaged and empowered community available to partner with regional and national organisations on creative pilot projects. 9. Conclusion Although excellent things have already been achieved by working together, there are clear challenges to the Glenkens communities continuing to progress towards their ambitions. The CAP Steering Group is very focussed in supporting our local groups to build on what has been delivered and to create a positive and constructive Glenkens community that works together to achieve real results. 14 The funding context for all community groups is getting more difficult as the national funding landscape contracts and demands get higher. There is a need for national funders to understand and value the needs and demands of rural areas better in their decision making - for example the low population density, the difficulty in finding trained people to do work and the challenges of having a regular flow of work. There is one easy solution for the public sector conundrum of ‘how to do more with less’ – create fund structures that allocate funds in a timely manner, with a sensible timeframe for project completion and with multi-year provision. This will allow third sector organisations across the region and country to deliver significantly increased outcomes for the same amount of financial outlay. A less easy, but necessary solution, is for public sector reform that puts delivery of joint priorities at the heart of the process and is open to new models that best achieve that. Use the power of your communities and you might be surprised at the outcomes! While there is a pipeline of wind farm developments in the Glenkens & district which is likely to result in additional community benefit payments being made locally, the timescale of these is extending and there will not be a material change in the level of local funding available in the short term (3-5 years). The importance of a sufficiently-resourced anchor organisation to our delivery model cannot be understated. Without the organisational structure of GCAT, the support of its Board and, in particular, the Chief Executive role within it, the pace of delivery would have been much slower and many of the benefits of cooperation and coordination lost. Having access to that paid resource and expertise has been crucial to the ability of the CAP Steering Group to carry out its role over the last 4 years. In addition, there is a fantastic cohort of willing and able volunteers who have already achieved much for the Glenkens & district. But if more ambitious projects are to be achieved, more paid and expert assistance is needed to support these volunteers. If more volunteers are to come forward to support community groups, there needs to be a recognition that the majority of volunteers will not have unlimited time and cannot be expected to take on tasks at a level of responsibility and accountability that should reasonably be paid roles. The more ambitious projects in Themes 3 and 4 will need good partnership working with South of Scotland Enterprise, Dumfries and Galloway Council and other regional bodies. Their support is actively being sought. There is much focus on community empowerment and Glenkens groups are ready and willing to take up this challenge - but we do need strategic partnerships to allow them to deliver effective outcomes. We look forward to a challenging but rewarding 2026 and thank you to all the many people who have worked so hard this year to make the Glenkens what it is. Glenkens and District Community Action Plan Steering Group. December 2025 15 Appendix 1: 2021 – 2025 Delivery Highlights. Note that this list is of projects directly catalysed by the Community Action Plan. Many other excellent projects are also being delivered around the Glenkens in alignment with CAP priorities. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • In 2021, Propagate created the Glenkens Food Hub, now the Galloway Food Hub. They connect local food and drink producers to local people through an online shop and volunteer-led deliveries – supporting the local economy and shortening supply chains. In 2022, GCAT formed the Glenkens Community Spaces Network, in direct response to CAP priorities. This network supports and amplifies the efforts of our many volunteer Town and Village Hall committees. In 2022, GCAT obtained CLLD funding to commission a report into the Energy Efficiency of 11 Glenkens public buildings and 2 domestic archetypes. This catalysed Net Zero upgrades in 3 public buildings in 2023 and 2024. In 2022, Local Initiatives in New Galloway (LING) started the Glenkens Youth Group as an unstructured place for P7-S3s to hang out in. In 2023, GCAT took this over and it remains very well received by the young people who attend regularly. In 2021, the Loch Ken Trust started its Ranger service, one of the first community ranger services in the country. The Pamela Young Trust has been working since 2024 to move forward plans for community housing in Balmaclellan and Glenlee, sourcing external funding for feasibility studies. In early 2023, GCAT created the Glenkens Hub as a sister website to their very popular Glenkens Gazette. It is now an invaluable repository of community information as well as bringing the communities together through advertising events, news and jobs. Also in 2023, D&G Citizens’ Advice Service (DAGCAS) started an outreach clinic in the Glenkens, funded by the Glenkens and District Community Fund to bring their regional services directly to the people of the Glenkens. The Scottish Childminders Association has been working through 2023 and 2024 to offer a package of support to people wishing to become childminders in the Glenkens area. In July 2023, the Glenkens Land Use Vision was adopted as an Addendum to the CAP after a large amount of community engagement. Commenced participation in 2023 in NatureScot’s ‘Community Engagement in Landscape Change’ project, one of only five project areas in Scotland. In March 2024, commissioned further reports on the ‘Feasibility of Land Use Forum’ and ‘Participatory Monitoring of Landscape Change’. In August 2024, hosted Just Transition Commission visit documenting land use change in D&G. November 2024 – published report on the review of rural education. March 2025 saw the creation of a snapshot prospectus of ‘Life and Land in the Glenkens’. June 2025 – Report on Education and Learning in the Glenkens In August 2025 we used the report on Participatory Monitoring to create a Land Use Festival, weaving arts and community. Dalry CC and CatStrand Arts partnership. In August 2025, Propagate secured funding for Pollinator Pathways action. Delivered the Glenkens Skills and Jobs Fair in September 2025 November 2025: Submitted Nature Restoration Fund application to Nature Scot. November 2025 – provided a response to the D&GC Budget Consultation 16 Appendix 2: CAP SG Governance Membership The CAP Steering Group was formed in December 2021 with 9 volunteer members after an open call for membership. Barney Fryer left the Group in March 2025, and Richard Middleton in October 2025. Morag Paterson joined in May 2025. John Paterson Chaired the Steering Group through 2024 but stepped down in September 2025, to be replaced by Robert McTurk. Therefore at December 2024, the Steering Group membership is: • • • • • • • • Robert McTurk, Dalry - Chair Fiona Smith, Balmaclellan (GDT) Caroline Reeves, Crossmichael Joe Seed, Corsock Tom Marshall, Parton (GDT) Sarah Ade, Carsphairn. Jennifer Harvie, Dalry. Morag Paterson, Dalry (GDT) In 2026, we will be calling for an additional member to bring the group back up to 9 people. Governance 1. For all governance info, including member bios, Terms of Reference, Annual Reports and previous Meeting Reports, see Glenkens Hub - Community Action Plan (CAP) Steering Group. 2. From the CAP SG Terms of Reference: Purpose The purpose of the Community Action Plan Steering Group (CAP SG) is to be the custodian of the Glenkens and District Community Action Plan (the CAP). It will maintain the CAP and agree any updates. The CAP SG will also promote, support and assure delivery of the CAP. Membership / Structure The CAP Steering Group will have no legal structure, and in the first instance will not have a constitution beyond these Terms of Reference. This is because it holds no funds, has no monetary decision-making powers and its purposes as described above can be achieved effectively by a nonincorporated non-constituted group working closely with GDT and the GCAT Executive Manager. 17 There will normally be a maximum of 9 people on the CAP Steering Group. Up to 3 will be GDT Trustees, up to 6 will be active members of the community and no more than a third will be GDT Trustees. Relationship with the Glenkens and District Trust The CAP SG helps GDT be better connected with the Glenkens and wider district communities in order to inform their funding strategy. Relationship with the Glenkens Community and Arts Trust The CAP SG will have two relationships with GCAT: • GCAT as a delivery organisation, which will be managed by the same processes as are applied to all such organisations contributing to CAP delivery. • GCAT’s mandate to lead on delivery of the Community Action Plan, led by the GCAT Chief Executive. Care should be taken to always distinguish between these two roles. 18 Appendix 3: Supporters Thank you to the many Funders and Partners who have supported delivery of the Glenkens & district Community Action Plan so far: • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • The Glenkens and District Community Fund, administered by Foundation Scotland. The Glenkens and District Trust The Glenkens Community and Arts Trust CARES Carsphairn Renewable Energy Fund Limited. CoDeL Community Enterprise’s ‘Accelerate’ programme. Creative Scotland Drax Dumfries and Galloway Council The Energy Savings Trust, through Plugged In Communities The Galloway and Southern Ayrshire UNESCO Biosphere The Glenkens Community Shop Glenkens Community Councils The Holywood Trust The National Lottery Heritage Fund. NatureScot The Princes Trust The Rural Housing Fund The Scottish Government’s ‘Community Led Local Development’ fund (CLLD). The Scottish Government’s ‘Community Mental Health and Wellbeing’ fund. The Scottish Government through Scottish Rural Action. South of Scotland Enterprise Sustrans The UK Government’s ‘Community Led Vision’ fund The UK Government’s ‘Levelling up’ fund Local trusts and individuals – thank you all! 19  Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Glenkens & District Community Action Plan Steering Group Annual Report 2025 Description An account of the resource 2025 has been another year of effective delivery of the Glenkens & District Community Action Plan priorities. Frontline delivery projects have been consolidated and evolved to deliver excellent outcomes for Glenkens residents, despite the extremely challenging external context of restricted funding landscape and limited available public sector support. Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context CAP_34 Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource GCAT Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Glenkens & District Trust Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available CAP Steering Group Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2026 CAP https://glenkensarchive.scot/glenkens_archive/files/original/20/637/251121_CAP_SG_Response_to_DGC_Budget_consultation_cover.jpg 1c4dcf3525aca7ee047b0ed9e72b04ab https://glenkensarchive.scot/glenkens_archive/files/original/20/637/251121_CAP_SG_Response_to_DGC_Budget_consultation.pdf c9b3d2988f5b6718661d01462f4d6b98 PDF Text Text pdftext_placeholder Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Community Action Plan Description An account of the resource Documents relating to the Glenkens and District Community Action Plan, initially drawn up by Glenkens & District Trust in 2020. Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Text Any textual data included in the document Response to October 2025 Budget Proposals from Dumfries and Galloway Council From the Glenkens Community Action Plan Steering Group With a particular focus on the impacts of the cuts on the educational provision for the Glenkens through a rural depopulation lens. 1. Introduction The 2026/27 DGC budget proposal consultation is of deep concern to the Glenkens Community Actions Plan Steering Group. The consultation indicates that DGC is considering cuts which will have a disproportionate impact on rural communities across the region, through cuts to education and through cuts to lifeline services which directly support our young people, communities and vulnerable people. This is entirely contradictory to the stated positions and policy of the Council and the Scottish Government to mitigate rural depopulation and to have vibrant and active communities. The real longer-term impact has not been sufficiently considered, and greater savings which would have lesser impact seem not to have been taken into account. Active and thriving rural communities are key to the long term prosperity and wellbeing of Dumfries and Galloway in many ways, from food and energy production to environmental stewardship. Nobody wants to see ghost villages due to urban centralisation. We set out below the policy context that national and local governments have previously committed to; set out the local issues and impacts; and offer proposals for the Council to meaningfully engage with rural communities to find joint solutions to these joint issues. 2. Context 1.1. Scottish Government: The Scottish Government has made clear policy statements over many years about the importance of rural education and the interweaving of school provision and the sustainability of rural communities: Commission for the Delivery of Rural Education, 2011: “Rural schools should be seen as community assets.” Scottish Government and COSLA, 2013: “Local authorities [] should consider rural education holistically for their area, actively seeking solutions to enhance the viability of rural communities.” Addressing Depopulation Action Plan, 2024: Establishes depopulation as a priority area of focus for the Scottish Government. “These protections are intended to ensure that local authorities think very carefully before closing a rural school and consult extensively with the local community about their proposal.” 1.2. Regional context: Dumfries and Galloway is now all classed as rural apart from Dumfries town. Rural communities constitute over 95% of the land mass to the area. Dumfries and Galloway Council has a clear policy focus on Place and Commmunity Planning, which is supported by the South of Scotland Regional Economic Strategy (RES) and, recently, by addtional ScotGov funding to understand the causes of depopulation: D&G Council Local Outcomes Improvement Plan 2023-2033, Prioity 3: Where We Live. Community Planning Partners will focus on place; listen to our local communities; improve connectivity; and help tackle key local issues South of Scotland Regional Economic Strategy 2023 Vision: Our approach to developing our economy will be motivated by thinking and doing differently, to ensure the best outcomes are achieved for the South of Scotland. Regional Economic Strategy Priority Theme 4: Revitalising Towns and Rural Communities 2024: Dumfries and Galloway Council received £30,000 of ScotGov funding to research the causes of local population decline, to inform the development of future policy interventions. Migration Minister Emma Roddick said: “The factors that lead to depopulation are complex and interdependent. This plan cuts right across government – in policy areas including housing, healthcare, transport and education – to help deliver solutions that address the needs of individual areas”. This important report by the University of the West of Scotland and CoDeL is complete and sits with the Council, but has not yet been published and is not referenced in the creation of this budget. The Community Action Plan Steering Group contributed extensively to a case study of the Glenkens within this report and would like to see their community contributions being meaningfully used. 1.3. Glenkens Context: ‘A review of rural education in the Glenkens’, CoDeL, 2024: “Educational opportunities are intricately bound up with community and economic development, as well as housing provision, and should not be seen in isolation. • • The provision of rural education plays critical roles in ... o delivering on national (Scottish) and local (D&G) policy to support thriving rural communities, directly addressing depopulation and developing skills, opportunities and resilience for their long-term sustainability; o sustaining vibrant local economies, through education that meets the recruitment needs of local employers, in the present and the future, and encourages enterprise. Recent rigorous research shows that school closures lead to local rural depopulation in the medium term.” ‘Education & Learning in the Glenkens’, GCAT, 2025. “We want to work in partnership with Dumfries & Galloway Council to create a sustainable and stable statutory educational provision in the Glenkens, from Nursery to senior years, that will attract working-age families into the area and give our young people the best possible start in life. Right now, decisions about school closures often don’t fully consider the long-term costs to the economy, community or environment. We need a better approach - one that sees rural schools as part of a bigger solution to rural depopulation, and a key part of the bigger picture of Scotland’s wellbeing economy.” 3. Overall response to the Budget proposals in the light of this policy context: 3.1. The proposals don’t seem to contain any reductions of senior management positions to reflect the proposed reduced service provision. The third sector has been cutting its cloth to suit available budgets for many years, resulting in a lean, efficient and enterprising sector. It is time now for the Council to consider the cost of itself and to work proactively with the third sector to better deliver the vital services which our communities rely on. 3.2. The proposals don’t seem to be informed by the University of the West of Scotland research into Rural Depopulation that the Council commissioned to inform important policy decisions. 3.3. 69% of the proposed cuts in monetary terms are aimed at children and young people. This will only accelerate the decline of working age people with families living in rural communities. 3.4. Why is the economic importance of our rural areas to the future of Dumfries and Galloway and Scotland not reflected in the proposals? Dumfries and Galloway produces over 80% of the milk and around 30% of the timber produced in Scotland. These rural industries depend on our rural communities. They need them to thrive, and to attract and retain people of working age. 3.5. Why are only rural schools included in the proposal for closure? The 4 Dumfries high schools are no more than a ten minute drive from each other and are currently running at <40% capacity between them. Closing 1 out of 4 urban schools to bring them back in line with Council rules on capacity would have far less effect on the long-term prosperity of Dumfries and Galloway than closing rural schools. 3.6. The proposals don’t include any efficency savings in Adult Health and Social Care or Loan Repayments, both significant cost bases. 3.7. Tackling Poverty and Inequality funding supports Patient Transport, which provides vital access to hospital appointments for people in rural D&G. Without this modest funding that pays for the fuel as volunteers take people to appointments, appointments will be missed and health conditions worsen. There is often no suitable public transport and no taxis in rural areas. This funding mitigates the hyper-local effects of poverty in rural communities in other important ways as well and is spread thinly enough as it is. 3.8. The proposals include wide cuts to ASN children and students, which disadvantages both them and mainstream students. Why are we targeting the most vulnerable in our communities? 3.9. The CAP Steering Group supports the call for more creative partnership working and different ways of achieving the necessary outcomes made in the TSDG response to this consultation. In particular, their responses to the proposals to de-fund Citizens Advice, and Direct Support Payments to children. 4. Conclusion The Glenkens Community Action Plan Steering Group has been working to realise the ambitions of the people of the Glenkens for more than 3 years now. Over this time, it has become clear that we cannot create the thriving, sustainable communities we know we can be without holistic, coherent support at a strategic level from our regional partners such as Dumfries and Galloway Council. The Council commissioned work on regional depopulation in order to create such a holistic, coherent strategy – yet this budget process is proceeding with no apparent reference to that report. We call on the Elected Members to raise the following points with Council officals: • • • • Are our D&G rural communities valued for the contribution we make to regional prosperity? This budget seems to consider us to only be an inefficent cost-base. Where is the strategy to combat rural depopulation? Where are the transformational ideas needed to turn that strategy into action? Why are we still protecting old-fashioned Council models of delivery at the significant expense of our children and our community organisations? It is well past time for change, and the Glenkens stands ready to partner with the Council to pilot innovative and transformational ideas such as Education and Learning Hubs, demand-responsive community transport and more. There is a way to do more with less and it is to make bold decisions based on objective evidence and then re-design the public sector as an enabling service towards enacting those decisions in partnership with communities - not preserving old ways of working that no longer fit. The Glenkens Community Action Plan Steering Group 20-11-2025 Appendix 1: Over-arching responses to the Budget Proposals 1. Policy Disconnect • • • • • • • • • Why has the DGC-commissioned report into Rural Depopulation not been published and used to inform this budegt proposal? When will the report be published? Why are 69% of the proposed cuts affecting children and young people, who make up 15% of the population? This will only accelerate the decline of working age people with families living in rural communities. Why do the proposals all favour reduction in public services rather than a remodelling of our council to deliver services more efficiently, in creative and strategic partnerships with their communities? For example, the work being done in Clackmannanshire. For as long as DGC maintains its ‘No compulsory redundancies’ policy, how will any of the staffing cuts proposed here affect the real bottom line? Staffing costs represent 58% of the total budget, just as they did in 2024/25. Where are the cuts to senior managers to reflect the proposed cuts to delivery staff? Presumably many fewer senior posts will be needed to manage fewer staff and deliver fewer services? Where are adult social care costs in the consulation? They make up 23% of the budget, as they have done with no change since at least 2024/25. Public sector reform is required to make these more effective (as per the Wigan model) before we start removing education services. Has the Council’s debt been renegotiated as low as possible? This represent 7% of the budget, down only 1% from 2024/25 levels as a share of the budget. Why does the Corporate Change fund not feature in the budget? It sat at £3million after the last FY. It can fund a £250k post-event review of the August 2025 Bus Network Review process – why are other uses of it not being put out for consultation? Why are the 4 Dumfries schools that are no more than a ten minute drive from each other and are currently running at <40% capacity between them not in the proposals for closure like the rural schools are? Closing 1 out of 4 urban schools to bring them back in line with Council rules on capacity would have far less effect on the community than closing soe rural schools. 2. Consultation Process concerns • • • • Where are the impact assessments associated with each proposal? How can we make decisions without knowing the true impact? Where are the equalities assessments associated with each proposal under the Public Sector Equality Duty? Why are some of the references in the associated documents not real? Have they been AI generated? Were they logged on the ScotGov Scottish AI Register? Who designed the consultation, and why does it have such leading questions, such as Use schools more effectively by bringing pupils into underused modern school buildings? Was the ‘Scottish Government: consultation good practice guidance’ followed in the creation of the consultation? Appendix 2: Specific responses to budget proposals: 1. Sustained focus of resources • Reduce spending on external [community based] Children and Families services in Social Work - £100k/yr = 0.3% of the £35M funding gap Proposal: Support the TSDG proposals for better ways of supporting Children and Families through their communities. • End funding for Information and Advice services provided by Citizens Advice - £906,000 per year – 2.5% of the £35M funding gap Last year, more than 8,000 people across Dumfries and Galloway received support and advice from this service. This service helped people with more than £8.6m of debt and supported bringing £9.8m back into households and local economies. Proposal: Protect the budget and make a multi-year award to allow them to deliver their services even more efficiently. 2. Modernise delivery of services • Reduce spending on children’s direct payment support - £140k/yr = 0.4% Proposal: Support the TSDG proposals for better ways of supporting children in partnership with communities and support organisations. • Reduce emergency assistance payments through the council's Children and Families service - £40k/yr – 0.1% Proposal: Support the TSDG proposal that the Council better understands the impact of this decision on its duties before making any decision. 3. Maximise use of fewer assets • Consult on the closure of small nurseries - £100k/yr = 0.3% Which nurseries are these? Not stated in FAQs. Consideration needs to be given to the disproportionate effect of closing rural nurseries on the sustainability of their host communities. The use of unidentified ‘private providers’ seems disingenuous – why would the private sector replace the public sector in these cases? Proposal: Allocate the budget on the basis of a strategic view on averting rural depopulation, and recognizing the evidenced negative impact of closing schools and nurseries on rural population levels. • Use schools more effectively by bringing pupils into underused modern school buildings. £2M/yr? 5.7% Which schools would be affected by this proposal? Not stated in FAQs. Significant consideration needs to be given to the disproportionate effect of closing rural schools on the sustainability of their host communities. Why is one of the 4 Dumfries High Schools currently running at <40% occupancy not a proposal for savings? Proposal: Allocate the budget on the basis of a strategic view on averting rural depopulation, as per Council and SG prioirities, and recognizing the evidenced negative impact of closing schools and nurseries on rural population levels. Proposal: Shut one Dumfries High School to bring the other 3 up to DGC-approved levels of minimum occupancy. *Sarah, do you have those numbers about how much each school costs still? I can’t remember where that was. Consult on school closures – 20 / 25 / 50 pupils. £300k - £3M/yr = 0.9 – 8.6% There is no impact assessment on the students or the host communities for these closures, so how can they be assessed? Have the increased travel costs been taken into account in the cost savings? They haven’t been in the past. Have the costs of carrying out the consultations been taken into account in these figures? Proposal: Allocate the budget on the basis of a strategic view on averting rural depopulation, and recognizing the evidenced negative impact of closing schools and nurseries on rural population levels. 4. Develop a smaller more flexibly skilled workforce • Reduce staffing of Early Learning and Childcare support – £200k/yr = 0.6% This represents a 50% reduction of early years support for ASN children are hidden in ‘Early Years’. • Close three Inclusion Bases and shift to outreach support - £40k/yr = 0.1%. Why even contemplate disadvantage both ASN young people and mainstream young people by disrupting both learning environments? Also, the cost saving seems very low for such a dramatic move – is that because no staff can be made redundant? • Share headteachers between small and larger primary schools. - £50k/yr = 0.1% Sharing management of primary schools disproportionately affects rural primary schools. What is the equalities impact assessment of that? Proposal: Stop looking at education as a cost base and start looking at it as the bedrock of sustainable communities. Invest in education fairly across the region to avert ongoing depopulation issues. 5. Budget savings options previously considered • End funding for all Tackling Poverty and cost of living projects - £630,000 per year = 1.8% TPI funding funds Patient Transport, which provides vital access to hospital appointments for people in rural D&G. Without this modest funding that pays for the fuel as volunteers take people to appointments, appointments will be missed, as there is no suitable public transport and no taxis. This funding mitigates the hyper-local effects of poverty in rural communities in other important ways as well and is spread thinly enough as it is. Proposal: Support the TSDG proposal that DGC should protect this much-needed investment in tackling poverty and inequalities to help maintain the community structures and supports that have been created and are relied on, and should indeed commit funding on a multi-year basis to allow better outcomes for the same amount of investment. • Reduce Additional Support for Learning (ASL) teachers in primary schools - £120k/yr = 0.3% As above, this disadvantages both ASN and mainstream students. How will the savings be realised with no compulsory redundancies? Proposal: Stop looking at education as a cost base and start looking at it as the bedrock of sustainable communities. Invest in education fairly across the region to avert ongoing depopulation issues.  Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Response to October 2025 Budget Proposals from Dumfries and Galloway Council Description An account of the resource From the Glenkens Community Action Plan Steering Group, with a particular focus on the impacts of the cuts on the educational provision for the Glenkens through a rural depopulation lens. Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context CAP_33 Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource GCAT Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available CAP Steering Group Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2025 Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Glenkens & District Trust CAP Theme 3 education https://glenkensarchive.scot/glenkens_archive/files/original/20/636/Glenkens_Skills_and_Jobs_Fair_evaluation_cover.jpg 3a47ce2ac39019b16d370adcf475afd6 https://glenkensarchive.scot/glenkens_archive/files/original/20/636/Glenkens_Skills_and_Jobs_Fair_evaluation.pdf d4a89ea8d9bed2c14fd84b0adaeaad34 PDF Text Text pdftext_placeholder Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Community Action Plan Description An account of the resource Documents relating to the Glenkens and District Community Action Plan, initially drawn up by Glenkens & District Trust in 2020. Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Text Any textual data included in the document Glenkens Skills and Jobs Fair, Dalry Secondary School, 30th September 2025, Evaluation Report The Glenkens Skills and Jobs Fair was funded by a grant from DGWorks, the Local Employability Partnership, from their No One Left Behind grant scheme, which aims to ‘deliver a system that is more tailored and responsive to the needs of people of all ages, especially those who are disadvantaged in the labour market’. The grant was allocated to the Glenkens Community and Arts Trust (GCAT), to work in partnership with the Glenkens Community Action Plan Steering Group and Dalry School Parent Council in order to create and promote an event which showcases the breadth of opportunity for employment, training and employability support in the area. Pre-event The two months before the event saw a broad publicity campaign, aimed both at attendees and exhibitors. A freelance project coordinator was appointed, and this dedicated resource was crucial to the success of the project. Posters and flyers were created and put up in locations across the Glenkens, including village noticeboards, shops, bus stops and community buildings. A ¼ page ad was placed in the Glenkens Gazette, a free, bi-monthly publication covering the entire Glenkens area. The Glenkens Hub website had a dedicated page for the event (https://glenkens.scot/community-events/skills-and-jobs-fair), and a social media campaign to find attendees was also organised, increasing in intensity toward the day of the fair, with a press release sent out to local media outlets a fortnight before the event. There was a clear focus in the advertising on career changers as well as school students - we wanted to showcase the range of employment opportunities available in the Glenkens to people of all ages. Planning meetings were held between GCAT, Dalry PC and the head teacher of Dalry and Castle Douglas Secondary Schools. Primary and secondary schools in the area were contacted by email and asked to inform parents of the Careers Fair, which was also advertised in the Developing the Young Workforce Dumfries and Galloway newsletter. Exhibitors were mainly recruited by direct contact (the Glenkens and District Trust was very helpful in providing contact details for wind farm developers and associated companies), and some got in touch to request a stall having seen advertising for the event. On the day The event was well supported by a range of employers, local, national and international, but all active in the Glenkens and wider D&G region. In addition to employment opportunities, representatives from local employment support bodies were on hand to offer advice to those who would benefit from additional support to enable them to work, and representatives of two local wind farm community benefit funds were also present to highlight the opportunities for local people to receive assistance with work related training or costs. Turnout for the event was excellent, with 57 attendees of a range of ages - indeed, there were more post-school adults who attended than there were high school students. 27 representatives of 19 organisations exhibitited at the event, including the following sectors: - renewables - construction - infrastructure - civil engineering - market gardening/food - forestry - hospitality - home care - childcare - environment Employers: • Carsphairn Community Woodland • Dynamic Domestic • Galloway and Southern Ayrshire Biosphere Partnership • Galloway Food Hub • Jones Bros. Civil Engineering • Natural Power Propagate • Scottish Childminding Association • SP Energy Networks • SureCare Dumfries and Galloway • The Kenmure Arms • Tony Gee • Vattenfall Employability support: • Better Lives Partnership • Developing the Young Workforce Dumfries and Galloway • DG Works Local employability and skills partnership • Skills Development Scotland Education Grant Funding: • Carsphairn Renewable Energy Fund Ltd. • Glenkens & District Trust Legacy An important part of the legacy from the event was building links between local employers and community organisations, and connecting them directly into the education system. The positivity generated by this event will hopefully be a catalyst for ongoing improved links and a raised awareness of the wealth of employment opportunities in rural D&G. One employer fed back (unprompted) that subject to interviews etc., they believed they were in a position to offer a young person who had approached them at the event employment in the area. All stallholders took part in a video interview on the day, and information about how to get in touch, types of careers etc was collected before the event. The videos and information are now all available to view on a dedicated page on the Glenkens Hub. This will provide a useful support to Careers Advice at Dalry and Castle Douglas High Schools, as well as an ongoing resource for people looking for employment opportunities in the Glenkens. • https://glenkens.scot/local-employers-and-support Summary of data received from attendee feedback forms Reasons for visiting skills fair 8% To plan options for future study 4% 22% To find out about career paths in the Glenkens To find out about apprenticeship opportunities 13% To find out about graduate roles in the Glenkens 18% 35% To look for a job To find out about opportunities to retrain When asked ‘were you able to find what you were looking for’, every respondent answered ‘yes’. When asked about barriers to employment, one respondent answered that transport was a barrier to employment for them, and two answered that lack of suitable childcare was a barrier. All of the respondents to the questionnaire stated that they would like to see the skills fair return as a regular event, and attendees left the following comments: • • • • • Great to see all the opportunities in one place, thank you! It was a really great event, lots of friendly people and I was able to find out information that will be really useful when thinking about what I want to do after I finish my current internship role Very interesting to see the demand of roles in the renewable sector. Very good fair. What an amazing opportunity for us Great event Feedback received verbally from attendees included: • • I was really glad that you made it clear that the event was for ‘crusties’ like me as well as young people. I had a really positive conversation about opportunities with the wind farm developers and will be sending my CV The event was buzzing, I never realised there were so many opportunities in the local area Exhibitor feedback Feedback from exhibitors on information received beforehand was positive, and all respondents commented that their interactions with fair visitors were positive and productive. Comments on the catering were especially positive. All but one respondent confirmed that they would like to be involved in future events. Comments: • • • • A very good event, I really enjoyed it, everyone was friendly and welcoming and those who attended, engaged well with the businesses. I also found it useful as a networking event. It was really impressive. Often attendance is poor at such events but this was buzzing. Excellent event and well supported by the local community Thank you so much for running the fair! I thought it was fantastic! Really well attended and with a good atmosphere. Event costs Delivery costs Project Coordinator time: preparation, delivery, evaluation Venue hire Travel expenses Publicity Catering £200 GCAT planning support Total Budgeted £ 897.00 £ 150.00 £ 150.00 £ 250.00 £ 350.00 £ 200.00 £ 1,997.00 Actual £ 920.00 £ 82.50 £ 127.00 £ 306.87 £ 354.29 £ 200.00 £ 1,990.66 Learning points Event date: This event was held in the University term: early summer (late May/early June) would be a better time for the event to be accessible for higher education students home for the holiday as well as school pupils and the general public. Pre-event correspondence with exhibitors: Some exhibitors were not able to use a Google form to complete their details as it was blocked by internal firewalls. Publicity: Staff from Doon Academy would have liked to bring pupils but they had an event clash. Letting them know earlier may increase the footfall from areas further afield from Dalry. A bigger publicity campaign (socials and emails) from the schools would probably have resulted in more students coming along. Students from CD should be clearly invited, as well as those from Dalry. Event logistics: The majority of the planning took place over the summer holidays, when it was not possible to engage directly with school staff. Access to the school building for the exhibitors to set up was slightly challenging because of the security requirements of the school. The offer of transport from GCT was not taken up by anyone. The Fair was timed to coincide with the public bus in from CD which worked well. The two-hour window spanning the end of the school day and the end of the working day also worked well, it was busy from start to end. On the day: One stallholder had not registered so there were not sufficient tables, which we were able to rectify on the day but it meant that one stallholder was slightly squashed. It may be worth getting an extra table or two put up in case of this happening again! Video recordings The fair was very busy, which was great, but made it more of a challenge to record a video interview with each of the stallholders alongside answering queries, counting people, highlighting the feedback forms etc. – it would probably be better to have an extra member of GCAT staff or volunteer at the event. Feedback forms Only around 20% of attendees completed a feedback form, with 3 in the age 16-25 age bracket and nobody under 16. It might be better to give young people the option to feed back their views in different ways – comments board, post-it notes etc Future events We asked employers whether an annual event would be too frequent, and if we were to run another skills fair, would they prefer June 2026 or June 2027. One respondent said 2027 but all the others said that they would be happy to attend another such event in June 2026. Acknowledgements With thanks to DG Works Local Employability Partnership for funding the skills fair, to Dalry School and Parents Council and the Glenkens CAP Steering Group for the planning support, and of course to all of the exhibitors and attendees for making this so successful. Full Exhibitor Feedback • Was the information shared before the event sufficient for your planning purposes? Was there anything that could have been improved? • • • • • • • • • • • • nothing needing improved, all information shared was detailed and concise Yes The information was so clear and in great detail and happened exactly as explained The information was very thorough received beforehand. Yes - nothing that could have been improved Information shared was sufficient for planning, slight communication blip, in that you were unaware I would be attending. Yes, it was very well organised Yes It was all good Yes, we had all the information we needed. One thing that might help for exhibitors next time would be more info on the expected audience. For example, we saw many more older jobseekers than expected compared to school pupils, so any data or steers on who/how the fair is being publicised could be helpful. Absolutely not a criticism, and appreciate it’s the first time for the event! Were you happy with the interactions that you received with Fair visitors? • • • • • absolutely, I had good interactions with parents, pupils and other exhibitors Yes Yeah they were great, met lots of people and other organisations and shared details, with some really productive contact made today Yes – It was lovely to meet with a chat to the local childminders, it also gave me a better insight into the area’s needs for childcare Yes • • Excellent event, visitors were all very engaging. Yes, I spoke to some interested people I was very happy with the venue, stall position and the interactions with people who visited the stall. Yes we had lots of chats with people genuinely interested in how to get into regenerative farming Yes, interactions were positive and engaged. We were particularly struck by how many career-changers were interested in renewables. Was the area allocated for your stand suitable, and do you have any feedback on the venue or catering? • • • • • • • • • • venue was good size and in central location for the area, I spoke to people who attended Kirkcudbright Academy so attendees were happy to travel – catering was excellent, thank you. Yes/Hospitality was great and the venue was suitable for the event Very much so, food was great It was fantastic to have catering at the event, made a big difference to me especially as my journey was along one Yes, catering was the best I've experienced and I go to a lot of events Hall was set out well, good venue and food looked lovely The catering and venue were very good The catering was fab it was fine Yes the space was ideal, and clustering the energy/renewables sector worked well. Catering was unexpected but very welcome! Would you be interested in participating in future events? • absolutely, yes. • Yes • Absolutely • Yes • I'd love to be involved in any future events! • Yes • Yes • • • Possibly, we need to do more research into the needs of the community for childminders – speaking to those already working in the roles there may be little business to go around Yes Keen to participate in future events Do you have any other comments? • • • • • • a very good event, I really enjoyed it, everyone was friendly and welcoming and those who attended, engaged well with the businesses. I also found it useful as a networking event. No It was really impressive. Often attendance is poor at such events but this was buzzing. Excellent event and well supported by the local community Thank you so much for running the fair! I thought it was fantastic! Really well attended and with a good atmosphere. Thank you for having Vattenfall at your event! Testimonials • • • “An excellent event for both businesses and attendees. Dalry Secondary School has good accommodation and is excellently situated for the Glenkens Community. Huge thanks and congratulations to Becca and her team for a great event”. "Yesterday's event was a powerful reminder of the impact that communityled initiatives can have to allow local communities and pupils to consider a career within their own localities and to improve employment opportunities" "It’s clear from the attention to detail and thought put into the skills and jobs fair that there is a strong community spirit and desire from everyone living and working in it to pull together to create an event of real value. There was a broad spectrum of organisations there, which gave people lots of choice when it came to talking to people and a chance to think about alternatives they maybe hadn’t considered as a career option. These • • • • • events should be delivered where people are at and organised by people who know their community and its needs best.” I would be delighted to be invited to attend any future event. A brilliant local event to share wider employment opportunities to the local community. This was a really valuable event and very important for the Glenkens to raise awareness of all there is on offer. It was also a rare and important opportunity for networking between different rural employers and organisations who don’t often have the chance to come together in one place. It was fantastic to have the opportunity to engage with local people to let them know about what we do and the variety of roles available at the GSA Biosphere Partnership. The Glenkens Skills & Jobs Fair was an excellent, well-delivered event bringing together local people with the businesses and organisations supporting new opportunities in this part of Dumfries & Galloway. This fair helped us raise awareness of the myriad careers and jobs opportunities associated with wind farm development, and in particular the types of jobs that will be generated by our next proposed project in the area - Quantans Hill Wind Farm - should it be consented. Although these potential jobs could still be two or three years in the future, we know from experience that if we want local people to grasp these opportunities, responsible developers like Vattenfall must start early by raising awareness, sign-posting and providing insights into how the industry works. The Glenkens Skills & Jobs Fair was an excellent opportunity for us to pursue this, and throughout the evening our team had numerous positive conversations with local residents of all ages. These conversations also helped deepen our understanding of the challenges, aspirations and ambitions of the local community, and this feedback will help mould our local employment strategy should Quantans Hill Wind Farm go ahead.  Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Glenkens Skills and Jobs Fair, Dalry Secondary School, 30th September 2025, Evaluation Report Description An account of the resource The Glenkens Skills and Jobs Fair aimed to create and promote an event which showcases the breadth of opportunity for employment, training and employability support in the area. Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context CAP_32 Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource GCAT Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Glenkens Community Action Plan Steering Group Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2025 Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource DGWorks CAP Theme 3 https://glenkensarchive.scot/glenkens_archive/files/original/20/635/250702_E_L_Report_cover.jpg de1de828bc38ad005893083a76a65fa8 https://glenkensarchive.scot/glenkens_archive/files/original/20/635/250702_E_L_Report_final.pdf 8c1313a6d261826d2a407b237dfce457 PDF Text Text pdftext_placeholder Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Community Action Plan Description An account of the resource Documents relating to the Glenkens and District Community Action Plan, initially drawn up by Glenkens & District Trust in 2020. Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Text Any textual data included in the document Education & Learning in the Glenkens June 2025 Prepared by the Glenkens Community & Arts Trust for the Glenkens and District Community Action Plan Steering Group Rural Schools: More Than Just Classrooms Why Our Local Schools Matter For Everyone Dalry students bird surveying In rural places like the Glenkens, schools aren’t just where children learn. They’re the heartbeat of the community - bringing people together, keeping families in the area, and offering learning for all ages. And the results speak for themselves: attainment levels in many rural schools are among the highest in their regions. But more and more, these schools are under threat of closure or mothballing, and decisions are being made based on short-term costs rather than the long-term impact on communities. “RURAL EDUCATION IS NOT JUST ABOUT LEARNING MATHS AND READING — IT’S ABOUT GROWING UP WITH A SENSE OF PLACE, OF IDENTITY AND OF BELONGING” Let’s Look at the Bigger Picture The Scottish Government’s own 2011 Commission for the Delivery of Rural Education report1 made it clear: Rural schools should be seen as community assets. They recommended schools be part of wider local plans to support jobs, learning, and vibrant communities. This includes offering adult education, apprenticeships and making use of local expertise - yet many of these recommendations are not being put into action, 14 years later. Outdoor learning in New Galloway What’s Happening in the Glenkens Locally, a major report2 on education in the Glenkens area has sparked big conversations across Scotland. It found that closing rural schools contributes to depopulation - families leaving and fewer families moving in, fewer jobs and depleted community life. But it also showed how rural schools can lead the way in delivering place-based learning that gives our young people the skills to stay and thrive in their communities. Our Local Place Plans3 all highlight the importance of our local schools. 1 A Vision for Rural Education in Scotland Working in partnership to sustain our communities Dalry and Kells pupils on top of the Mulloch While we understand the severe pressures on local authorities and education departments in these financially constrained times, we firmly believe that there is a way through this that will benefit both our rural communities and the Scottish economy in the longer term if we all work together. The joint aim must be having great learning provision for all ages in vibrant and thriving rural communities. “WITHOUT A SCHOOL, WE LOSE PEOPLE. AND WHEN WE LOSE PEOPLE, WE LOSE CUSTOMERS, WORKERS, AND THE FUTURE OF THE RURAL ECONOMY. IT’S ALL CONNECTED.” Planning for Success . The communities of the Glenkens are working on two fronts: We want to work in partnership with Dumfries & Galloway Council to create a sustainable and stable statutory educational provision in the Glenkens, from Nursery to senior years, that will attract working-age families into the area and give our young people the best possible start in life. We’re also exploring the idea of creating a Glenkens Education and Learning Hub - a space for learning through all stages of life, supporting young people, adults and local employers, and strengthening community life. What could this Hub do? ● Help young people get skills and qualifications that support the local economy ● Support older adults to keep learning, re-training or gaining qualifications locally ● Support employers in the area by up-skilling a local workforce in response to their needs ● Strengthen the local economy and respond to climate and nature challenges 2 What needs to change? Right now, decisions about school closures often don’t fully consider the long-term costs to the economy, community or environment. Parents can feel powerless. And local councils are pushed into short-term savings because of how the system is funded. We need a better approach - one that sees rural schools as part of a bigger solution to rural depopulation, and a key part of the bigger picture of Scotland’s wellbeing economy. Learning water safety in Loch Ken “WE MUST MOVE BEYOND SEEING RURAL EDUCATION THROUGH THE NARROW LENS OF COST-EFFICIENCY. IT IS A CORNERSTONE OF RURAL National and Regional Change RENEWAL & ECONOMIC RESILIENCE.” . ● Funding: Schools should be funded in a way that supports community sustainability, not just numbers on a spreadsheet and urban-centered metrics. ● Training: Teachers need training and resources designed for small rural schools. ● Partnerships: Local employers, schools, and communities should work together to create opportunities for young people to stay, learn, and work here. ● Engagement: Parents and communities should have a real say in what happens to their schools. Let’s Work Together The communities of the Glenkens are ready to build something better. But we can’t do it alone. We need support from government, education leaders, funders and the wider public to turn ideas into reality. With the right help, we could lead the way for rural education across Scotland showing how a great education provision can support whole communities to thrive and grow. 3 The Fuller Picture Executive Summary This paper explores the future of rural education in the context of the Glenkens community, highlighting findings from the 2024 CoDeL report2 and outlining practical recommendations for national and local policymakers. It emphasises the strategic importance of children as a nation’s core asset and positions rural schools not as cost burdens but as vital community hubs supporting long-term sustainability. Key messages include the need to reform funding models, reshape teacher training for rural contexts, ensure equitable community engagement in educational planning, and support innovative ideas like the proposed Education and Learning Hub. The 2024 publication of ‘A review of rural education in the Glenkens’ (the Report), commissioned by the Glenkens & District Trust4 and written by Thomas Fisher and Theona Morrison of CoDeL5, has led to considerable debate on the future of rural education, not just within the Glenkens but regionally and nationally. Children are Scotland’s most vital long-term asset: socially, economically, and culturally The importance of education and learning provision is a topic that is now understood as key to the longer-term sustainability of our rural areas and to the economic health of the country more generally. At the same time, there is recognition that this is an extremely challenging issue that will need innovative thinking and approaches to address it. The current crisis has been many years in the making and will take time to address. However, this should not mean that we are defeatist in finding a solution. On the contrary; we here in the Glenkens feel invigorated to explore and develop new ways to address the issue. “I LOVE MY SCHOOL BECAUSE IT’S WHERE I FEEL PART OF SOMETHING. IF I HAD TO TRAVEL FAR TO ANOTHER SCHOOL, I’D MISS ALL OF THAT. I WOULDN’T HAVE TIME, AND I WOULDN’T FEEL AS CONNECTED. THIS SCHOOL ISN’T JUST ABOUT LEARNING — IT’S MY WHOLE LIFE.” D&G P5 PUPIL 4 The Fuller Picture Rural education is a national opportunity, not just a local challenge For too long, decisions on education provision - both buildings and teachers appear to have been driven either by cost considerations or by looking at the topic only through the lens of conventional individual educational outcomes. This thinking now needs to evolve if the rhetoric on the importance of rural Scotland to the Scottish economy and its future is to be borne out in strategic and coherent action. “OUR LOCAL SCHOOL DOESN’T JUST EDUCATE KIDS — IT KEEPS THE WHOLE VILLAGE ALIVE. WHEN YOUNG FAMILIES STAY, THEY SHOP LOCALLY, THEY WORK LOCALLY, AND THEIR KIDS BECOME THE FUTURE STAFF FOR BUSINESSES LIKE MINE. WITHOUT A SCHOOL, WE LOSE PEOPLE. AND WHEN WE LOSE PEOPLE, WE LOSE CUSTOMERS, WORKERS, AND THE FUTURE OF THE RURAL ECONOMY. IT’S ALL CONNECTED.” SHOP OWNER, GLENKENS The strategic link between rural schools and rural repopulation efforts There is now widespread acceptance that tactical school closures contribute to rural depopulation in the medium term, based on clear evidence. In addition, while there is recognition that rural schools face challenges, it is also understood that they provide many benefits to communities and pupils, giving them a sense of belonging, respect and resilience. Even if our young people choose to leave, we know that a solid grounding of place-based education makes them much more likely to return and settle when they have families of their own. “RURAL SCHOOLS AREN’T JUST EDUCATING PUPILS — THEY’RE GROWING THE FUTURE LEADERS, CARERS, CREATORS, AND PROBLEM-SOLVERS WHO WILL SHAPE THE NEXT GENERATION OF RURAL LIFE. THIS IS WHERE TRANSFORMATION BEGINS — WITH CHILDREN WHO ARE ROOTED IN THEIR COMMUNITIES AND READY TO CARRY THEM FORWARD“ 5 The Fuller Picture Update This paper seeks to update on activity since the publication of the 2024 Report, as well as to suggest some areas for further consideration by politicians, policy makers, educationalists and funders. These have evolved from numerous meetings and discussions with a wide range of people both locally and across Scotland, of every political persuasion. The Report has been widely circulated and well received across a wide spectrum of interests in Scotland and beyond. There are three key areas to highlight: 1. The community-led nature of this research, based on real community experience and need, has been welcomed. The strategic use of wind farm community benefit monies to make such research possible demonstrates the importance of ensuring that community benefit decision makers are well informed about the issues and challenges in their area and able to act quickly. 2. There is now widespread acceptance that tactical school closures contribute to rural depopulation in the medium term, based on clear evidence. In addition, while there is recognition that rural schools face challenges, it is also understood that they provide many benefits to communities and pupils, giving them a sense of belonging, respect and resilience. The debate has moved more to ‘What needs to be done differently?’ rather than the previous ‘deficit model’ mindset of perceiving disadvantage and inefficiency due to low numbers. 3. There has been significant support for an agreed and stable statutory provision for under-16 education in the Glenkens, and a post-16 Education and Learning Hub, to deliver rural-based learning from cradle to grave. Such a coherent provision would provide the following benefits: a. Give young people skills, opportunities and genuine choice to pursue their lives and careers locally or elsewhere (place-based education rather than exam-based schooling focused on ‘learning to leave’). b. Support vibrant local economies by meeting the recruitment needs of local employers now and in the future through the creation of an in-situ all-age workforce. Also stimulating interest in new enterprises based on what a vibrant local economy needs rather than just what already exists. c. Equip rural communities with the skills to respond to the climate and biodiversity emergencies by building on existing local knowledge and expertise. 6 The Fuller Picture This topic is not simply of relevance to the Glenkens, or indeed only to Dumfries and Galloway. It is increasingly a difficult topic right across rural Scotland, with regular examples of school closures where communities feel disempowered and the long-term holistic implications are not sufficiently considered. However, there are many innovative examples2 (case studies) within Scotland and elsewhere that demonstrate innovative practice that rural schools, local councils and the educational sector can build on. A positive way forward While we can understand the severe pressures on local authorities and education departments in these financially constrained times, we firmly believe that there is a way through this that will benefit both our rural communities and the Scottish economy in the longer term if we all work together. The joint aim must be having great learning provision for all ages in vibrant and thriving rural communities. Warm words about the importance of our rural communities which are then undermined by negative national and regional policy or funding decisions must be challenged and addressed. Some fundamental changes in the national financing and policy framework, as well as changes in the mindset of education professionals, would achieve this aim. We believe that by working together constructively, this journey will lead to a very positive destination. We would propose the following matters for consideration by Education Departments and by Scottish parties as they prepare their political manifestos: 1.The overall economic and financial impact of school closure and mothballing proposals needs to be properly considered by decision makers. The narrowness of the current analysis, focusing simply on the direct costs of small schools, does not provide a full picture of the financial and economic ramifications in the medium and longer term. There are a number of examples in Dumfries and Galloway, highlighted by the Rural and Small Schools Alliance6, that demonstrate this. Without correct information how can decision makers make good decisions? The current funding model drives any education department towards a short-term tactical approach to closure/mothballing of the school estate, rather than supporting them to take a strategic approach by assessing the community impacts and economic consequences for the area in the longer term. 7 The Fuller Picture If parents lose confidence in the future of their school, move their children and the school roll falls, it is not surprising that with the current incentives, a local authority would use this as a basis for closure/mothballing. Indeed, in some cases they may catalyse such action for the tactical gains. A strategic region-wide approach, based on meeting overall regional economic aspirations, would allow more constructive conversations with parents and stakeholders in pursuit of a shared vision of rural sustainability. 2.The Scottish Government’s Urban/Rural Classification classifies 94% of the land mass of Scotland as rural, but only 17% of the population is based in rural communities. However, 34% of Scotland’s schools are rural, which challenges the perception that it is ‘only a few schools’. Comments have been made about the difficulty in attracting and retaining teachers in rural schools and that bigger, urban-based schools are needed to retain teachers. We suggest instead that there needs to be a rethink and a refocus on how we train and develop teachers. Given the high percentage of rural schools, why are they not given more prominence in policy development, and does there need to be a rethink on how the national strategy relates to rural schools? Solutions could include: • Training and CPD tailored to the small rural school environment. • Producing suitable material resources appropriate for rural schools – they may be different from those used in urban schools; not all learning has to be exam based. • Promoting school collaborations and the use of online learning to make the most of limited resources and reduce professional isolation. 8 The Fuller Picture 3.Changing the mindset of Education professionals is a huge task as there is a very firm view about what young people need from their education, and a reluctance to think about the wider and longer-term economic ramifications of school closures. This approach, aligned with the need to cut costs, is a major obstacle. However, we believe that the root cause of this mindset is the framework and policies within which Education professionals are required to work and the way in which they are measured, monitored and rewarded. If the Scottish Government and policy makers do not see the need for investment in education and childcare provision as fundamental for the longer-term economic prosperity and robustness of rural areas, and therefore Scotland as a whole, then it will be impossible for this mindset to evolve. We need policies and funding that actively support the warm words about repopulating our rural areas. 4.The unequal power between parents/communities and Education professionals needs to be considered and addressed. Current parents are put in a hugely difficult position by being required to ensure their own children's futures are protected, while also being expected to consider the longer-term, wider community impacts of education provision in their area. There needs to be more thought given to what processes could support good debate and longer-term effective planning. Parents recognise the challenges and the need to change, but they are often forced into confrontation or argument as this is the only way for their views to be heard. In addition, the current nature of the engagement with parents inevitably leads to changes in the parents involved, as each cohort moves through the school and then leaves. This comes with the resultant loss of the background and understanding of the rationale for decisions. A process involving mediation/engagement/effective community involvement could lead to longer-term and better supported discussions, removing the heavy personal pressure on current parents. There also needs to be a recognition that it is usually individuals voluntarily giving their time that must deal with paid Education professionals. 9 The Fuller Picture 5.The Glenkens community have the ambition to develop an Education and Learning Hub to meet their young people’s needs, to support learning for all ages in the community, and to make the area attractive to working families and therefore sustainable into the long term. However, without funding and support to take the idea from a concept to a deliverable plan, this is likely to remain only an ambition. Volunteers only have so much capacity! Given the support for this concept and the increasing recognition of the need for learning and education to better meet the short-, medium- and long-term needs of the wider community it serves, then we need the foresight of funders to support us at these early stages. We need to develop a detailed plan with education providers and potential employers to consider the true feasibility of this transformational project. In Summary There is passion and commitment from people in the Glenkens to progress these ideas and to become an exemplar for how education can be cost-effectively delivered in rural Scotland to support both our young people and the wider cohort of people who live here. This will enable our communities to thrive and repopulate – but we need our regional and national organisations to support us. References: This document has been prepared by the Education and Learning sub-committee7 of the Glenkens CAP Steering Group8 in pursuit of the delivery of the Glenkens & district Community Action Plan9. June 2025 1: www.gov.scot/publications/commission-delivery-rural-education-report/ 2: glenkens.scot/reports-resources-archive/a-review-of-rural-education-in-the-glenkens 3: glenkens.scot/local-place-plans 4: www.glenkenstrust.org.uk/ 5: codel.scot/ 6: www.facebook.com/groups/562411589942434/ 7: glenkens.scot/education-and-learning 8: glenkens.scot/community-groups/community-action-plan-steering-group 9: glenkens.scot/reports-resources-archive/community-action-plan Many thanks to the Rural and Small Schools Alliance Dumfries & Galloway, Dalry Parent Council, and all the members of the community who have contributed to this report. Overpage: Rhelm, a young indie rock band formed in the Glenkens in 2023 10 A good educational provision isn’t just delivering the curriculum. It is shaping resilient, thoughtful, connected citizens, preventing rural depopulation and helping local economies thrive. This is what rural education can offer. June 2025  Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Education & Learning in the Glenkens Description An account of the resource This paper explores the future of rural education in the context of the Glenkens community, highlighting findings from the 2024 CoDeL report and outlining practical recommendations for national and local policymakers. Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context CAP_31 Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource GCAT Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available CAP Steering Group Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2025 Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Glenkens & District Trust CAP Theme 3 education https://glenkensarchive.scot/glenkens_archive/files/original/20/634/LifeAndLandITheGlenkens_cover.jpg ad608a745ead297879cd4b6b0aa37f67 https://glenkensarchive.scot/glenkens_archive/files/original/20/634/Life_and_Land_in_the_Glenkens_web.pdf 3df31c378f5d90f79423de3e98419fa1 PDF Text Text pdftext_placeholder Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Community Action Plan Description An account of the resource Documents relating to the Glenkens and District Community Action Plan, initially drawn up by Glenkens & District Trust in 2020. Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Text Any textual data included in the document Life and Land in the Glenkens Welcome to the Glenkens. Whether you’re turning these pages from a city flat, a suburban home, or a countryside cottage, we invite you to slow down, take a breath, and see what life looks like from here...      

‚ƒ
                       
 
 
 
                   
   
     
   ­   
  € 
       ©   Here in the Glenkens, we are always looking for new ways to reflect and amplify voices within our communities. In light of this, and thanks to funding from NatureScot, we commissioned a local young journalist to delve into life in the Glenkens with fresh eyes... W e invite you to embark on a journey through the heart and soul of our beautiful community. Born from the rolling hills, serene landscapes and thriving communities of the Glenkens, the pages that follow are devoted to capturing the essence of life here our shared triumphs, tribulations, and everything in between. The Glenkens is a tapestry woven with the threads of our unique stories, and here you will find reflections on both the highs and lows that define our experience. From the breathtaking beauty and biodiversity of our natural surroundings to the warmth of human connections, we shine a light on what makes our community truly special. We want to celebrate our shared history, acknowledge our struggles, and look toward the future with determination and unity. Every article is a reminder that while challenges may arise, there are always stories of hope and the indomitable spirit of our area waiting to be told. They also invite questions: How can we continue to celebrate what makes our community unique while addressing the challenges we face? How can we ensure that the land that we are living on allows communities, wildlife and local economies to thrive? This is an open invitation to engage, connect, and share in the diverse narratives that compose the rich mosaic of our lives here. Pictured is the view coming over the hills from the B729 Moniaive road towards the B7000 High Carsphairn road, looking towards the Rhinns of Kells N estled in the heart of Dumfries and Galloway, the Glenkens is known for its landscapes, rich history, and environmental diversity. Life here offers a serene lifestyle wrapped in natural beauty. The rolling hills, lush forests, and shimmering lochs create a unique backdrop that transforms with each season. The slower pace of life encourages mindfulness, prioritising of both mental and physical well-being, and residents often find profound satisfaction in their connection to the land and to each other. suitable accommodation can be a significant issue. For younger families and newcomers to the area especially, it can be hard to establish roots. belonging, ensuring that both current residents and future generations can navigate the complexities of rural living together. The absence of accessible childcare options is another pressing worry. This situation often impacts working families, limiting job opportunities and requiring parents to prioritise and compromise. Similarly, the educational landscape in the Glenkens can be challenging. That togetherness is embodied by the many active community groups and organisations, one of which is the Glenkens Community & Arts Trust (GCAT). GCAT was created in response to the devastating Foot and Mouth epidemic of 1998 and since then has consistently delivered high-quality arts and community development work across the Glenkens and beyond. While our local schools offer a tight-knit, nurturing environment appreciated by many, limited resources and smaller school rolls can hinder some opportunities that larger urban schools can afford. By supporting activities that are essential to the quality of life of the people and the environment, GCAT strives to make the Glenkens an excellent place to live for residents of all ages. This is done both through providing high quality arts at the CatStrand arts centre, but also by playing a core community development role, evolved in response to local needs and led by supporting delivery of the Glenkens & district Community Action Plan. The spirit of collaboration means that the struggles of rural life are met with determination, resourcefulness, and support. Those who live in the area have nature on their doorsteps and know just how peaceful and fulfilling it can be. Traditional and new job opportunities allow people to make their life here. Rural living, however, is not without its unique set of challenges and at times this may seem a bit daunting. Limited public transport is one of the primary challenges to life in the Glenkens, and our remoteness can make accessing essential services a significant hurdle. With the only public transport being buses, and bus services being infrequent and often unreliable, many people are dependent on private vehicles. For some, the nearest grocery store or medical facility may be over ten miles away, necessitating careful planning and reliance on neighbours and friends. Housing also presents challenges of its own. While the breathtaking landscapes and charming homes offer a romantic appeal, the cost of living and finding Employment opportunities are similarly constrained. Many of us seek work in sectors such as agriculture, tourism, or a flourishing variety of creative industries. Yet the demand for high quality, nonseasonal jobs currently outstrips the available positions, leading to a struggle for economic stability. Young adults in particular may look elsewhere for work, which can contribute to a slow population decline and a reduced sense of community vitality. While these issues, mentioned one after another in this way, can make for scary reading, the light at the end of the tunnel shines bright and the community here in the Glenkens thrives on resilience and camaraderie. The spirit of collaboration means that the struggles of rural life are met with determination, resourcefulness, and support. Local initiatives and shared gatherings foster a strong sense of Life in the Glenkens may present its share of challenges but, ultimately, emerges as a testament to the resilience of rural living. With the strength of community collaboration and an unwavering commitment to improvement, residents continue to cultivate a joyful and fulfilling life amidst the scenic beauty of this remarkable area. There are many opportunities ahead, both in community work and in the local economy, and it is by continuing to work together that we will make the most of them. Pictured below centre is last year's Carsphairn Show © Christopher J Caygill. To the left is a view of Woodhead Leadmines, Carsphairn, and below right is the New Galloway link path, both courtesy of the Glenkens Hub photo gallery Case Study: Living in the Glenkens T en miles east of Carsphairn, deep in the Ken Valley, lies a place that perfectly captures rural living. Twisting through the glen, the road immerses you in natural beauty, a changing landscape that never fails to inspire. No matter the weather, you can’t help but smile as you take that solitary moment to appreciate what beholds you. For most, it’s a fleeting moment, but for Melissa and Ben Ade, it’s home. They moved into their current house in 2011, but their hearts have always been in the Glenkens, from childhood, and have always brought them back to their roots. “We spent six months traveling around Morocco, Spain and Portugal, living in a Land Rover, but when we came back we had a very refreshed perspective on the area,” explained Ben. “We had a huge appreciation for the Glenkens and for our home. We are very lucky here.” Appreciation for the area prompted the couple to stay and to raise a family, with the vision of giving their children the same treasured experiences that they hold dear. “I have fond memories of just being free as a child,” remembers Melissa. “The burn, the hills, the mud. That is all I’ve ever hoped for my children, to be able to express themselves in nature and their environment.” “When it comes to rural living, the positives far outweigh the negatives. You could move to a city and have a lot on your doorstep but you also won’t get what we have here or be able to raise a family in such a good community. Everyone in the Glenkens as a whole just looks after each other. "I have family down in Leeds and they don’t know their neighbours two doors up, whereas we know everybody locally and if anyone new ever comes into the area we are quick to introduce ourselves.” New people moving into the area is something that is becoming more and more of a rarity, due to the challenges of rural living that can be seen on the surface when one considers relocating. As Ben says, however, if you dig a little deeper, solutions to those concerns are all around. “People often use work as a reason not to live here but if you look at things in another way, there are unlimited possibilities for you, especially if you are self-employed. Showing a bit of entrepreneurship can go a long way. Ben and Melissa with their three children outside the shepherd's hut they let out to holiday makers We ourselves have thought of ways to diversify income and have built traditional shepherd’s huts to be let out as holiday homes.” “Alongside that, Melissa has also recently qualified as a forest school practitioner so we will be able to open that same area up for children to explore. This will give us the chance to teach them some rural skills such as woodworking, mechanical engineering and baking. "Big industries do a lot to provide people in the region with jobs but the opportunities to make something for yourself here are endless.” Demonstrating their entrepreneurial spirit, Melissa and Ben have a website for their self-catering holiday business and forest school sessions: www. HeartoftheGlen.com. Ben is the author of two travel books about their adventures abroad titled “I have fond memories of just being free as a child...The burn, the hills, the mud..." Travels with a Tiny Tortoise and Notes from El Ahouli, which are both available to purchase online. Housing and transport are two other hurdles that people worry about but, as can be seen across the whole of the Glenkens, communities come together to create initiatives that work for the sole purpose of bettering the lives of the locals. Time and time again, the Glenkens will provide answers to rural living problems. “There are houses available to rent and buy, and while you might earn more in a city, life here is much cheaper. You have the space and the help of the local community to build a life.” Their own home was once in a boggy field. Now, it’s off-grid, powered by solar, with water from a mountain spring and woodburning stoves for heat. “We may be off-grid but one thing for sure is that people are trying to make a positive difference. We have our own challenges, on a personal level, but we love it here. It’s not all about the money or the easiness of things for us. We’re happy and healthy and really, that's all that matters.” T he Glenkens & District Community Action Plan, published in September 2020, is a model for economic and social regeneration. It aims to make the area a connected, resilient, and carbon-neutral place where people like Melissa and Ben want to live, work, raise families, and grow old. It will be somewhere that other places in Scotland will look to for inspiration. For any community to thrive, its people must feel heard and, most importantly, understood. Residents often express concerns about limited access to essential services, employment opportunities, and infrastructure. While common in rural areas, these issues can lead to isolation. The Glenkens Community Action Plan (CAP) seeks to change this narrative by promoting active participation among its people and seeing their priorities actively delivered. In order to do this, the action plan targets four key themes to implement local initiatives and combat rural challenges. Things that have been achieved over the last three years specifically because the communities suggested them in the action plan include: 1. A Connected Community The Glenkens Hub, launched in April 2023, provides an easy-to-use website and social media channel to amplify community voices. It hosts an events calendar, local job opportunities and loads of information about Education, Land Use and much more: www.glenkens.scot. The Glenkens Youth Group provides a safe and undirected space for young people (P7 – S3) to hang out. The free Monday evening sessions are very youthled, with activities such as cooking, craft making and instrument learning. They also run summer holiday programme, which last year included bee-keeping, water sports and a trip to the Edinburgh Fringe. All of the above are now GCAT projects, although the Youth Group was pioneered by Local Initiatives in New Galloway before handing over to GCAT. 2. An Asset-Rich Community Support for Local Place Planning (LLP) has been essential in making certain that the voices of our communities are heard at a regional level. With the support of GCAT through NatureScot and SOSE, Dalry Community Council volunteers have created an exemplar Local Place Plan which has a parish-wide focus on the issues affecting them. Their LPP was the first in the region to have a clear focus on land use and the environment in its considerations, as well as villagerelated priorities. Crossmichael, New Galloway & Kells, Carsphairn, and Balmaclellan are now developing their own LPPs with support from GCAT. Most of our Town and Village Hall are run by teams of amazing volunteers, and they have been re-doubling their efforts over the last few years, ensuring that their buildings are fit for modern rural living and meeting the needs of their communities. They are supported in this by the Glenkens Community Asset Network, which takes some of the legwork out of managing these assets. 3. An Economically Flourishing Community One of the most important assets to the Community Action Plan is the focus on building community wealth. The Glenkens interprets Community Wealth Building (CWB) in its widest sense and sees it as critical to thriving and sustainable communities. It is not just about monetary benefits from wind farms or other developments – rather, it is about working in partnership with those organisations who create wealth from or within the area to ensure that some of that wealth supports the communities hosting the organisations. The Galloway Food Hub, Propagate and the Pamela Young Trust are all examples of community responses that are working to create a more sustainable and vibrant Glenkens for us all. 4. A Carbon Neutral Community The Loch Ken Trust Ranger Service focuses on ecological protection, responsible camping and water safety, combining their educational messages with fun activities such as cook-outs and water activities to reach as many people as possible. Many village and town halls have secured funding for carbon footprint reductions. The CatStrand recently cut 10 tonnes of carbon emissions annually by replacing their oil boiler with solar panels and air source heat pumps. These are just a few examples of how the Community Action Plan is shaping and supporting the Glenkens. By resourcing the community and working together, local solutions are emerging to problems that many remote-rural communities face. Accountability, partnership working, and delivery are key. To achieve this, the Glenkens has organised itself perhaps uniquely: • GCAT is a delivery organisation, both delivering Community Action Plan projects and supporting the many other local organisations that are working on CAP priorities too. • The CAP Steering Group is a group of volunteers from across the Glenkens who keep the CAP relevant and assess progress against the communities’ priorities. They are planning to refresh the CAP later this year, using the Local Place Plans as valuable inputs. • The Glenkens and District Trust is our local funding body, which administers our wind farm community benefit funds through the Glenkens and District Community Fund, supported by Foundation Scotland. Their funding strategy is aligned very heavily with the Community Action Plan, meaning that they can confidently fund projects and activities that they know the Glenkens communities value. Between them, these three organisations are working hard to support the communities of the Glenkens to achieve their ambitions. They lobby regionally and nationally for solutions to those problems we can’t fix ourselves and for regional and national agencies to see the value of working with local place-based organisations to achieve their shared outcomes. While community empowerment is historically and currently strong in the Glenkens, strategic local and regional partnerships remain essential in continuing to combat rural depopulation and support healthy landscapes and communities. Pictured is the village sign coming into New Galloway courtesy of the Glenkens Hub photo gallery Case Study: The Galloway Food Hub L ife in Dalry is usually relaxed and peaceful; unless, of course, you happen to visit on a Galloway Food Hub packing day... Every second Friday, the village comes to life and is filled with customers, box packers, food drivers and volunteers, all coming together to help the social enterprise tick. The Galloway Food Hub (GFH), born from an idea in the Glenkens Community Action Plan, was set up to give better access to local food in rural communities by creating a hyper-local supply chain. “A scoping study showed people wanted better access to local food, and an online marketplace was the best way to do that,” says GFH Coordinator Lesley Atkins. Launched as a pilot in 2021, the Glenkens Food Hub was started by Propagate with 11 producers and 20 customers, operating every three weeks. Now, it serves over 100 customers fortnightly with 33 suppliers, expanding beyond the Glenkens to the wider Galloway region. We’ve even had to change the name, as we’ve expanded out of the Glenkens” “Seventy-five percent of our food is locally produced, with the rest being certified organic from Scotland and beyond,” Lesley explains. “We have 13 collection points across Dumfries & Galloway, plus home delivery in the Glenkens.” Lesley now champions a network of growers, farmers and makers of ecologically produced good food across the Galloway region. She helps them to build a workable, online food hub to create a circular economy around food in the local community. Ordering is simple: customers browse all the suppliers online between midday Friday and midday Tuesday, place a single order, and collect from a chosen point. Much like any communityrun organisation, however, it takes people like Lesley and the Food Hub team to dedicate time and effort into giving back to their community. What can be seen time and time again in the Glenkens is the willingness that local people have for community wealth building, and the more people committed to helping create positive change, the better. “There’s so much that people can do to help if they would like to. They can come on a Thursday or a Friday to prep boxes or deliver. "We usually do the whole thing with two members of staff and about four or five volunteers. Help with marketing and handing out leaflets is always appreciated, as is taking photos for Facebook and Instagram. It's a great social network and we couldn’t do it without the volunteers.” As a Community Interest Company, the Food Hub is driven by a passion for sustainable, locally produced food. Membership is free to anyone in Dumfries & Galloway who wants to support its mission. “The other thing we do offer for keen gardeners, if they are growing fruit and veg in their own gardens without chemical intervention, is that they can sell their surplus through the food hub. We have a profile called Galloway Growers where we offer homegrown fruit and veg. People can just ring us up to say they will have an extra three cucumbers next week, for example, and we’ll put them on the website to sell for them.” As a Community Interest Company, the Food Hub strives to benefit the people of the Glenkens and invites anyone to join them on the journey. Free membership is open to anyone based in Dumfries & Galloway with an interest in GFH. Whether a customer, a supporter, a business or an organisation, if you are interested in the work that is done and would like to join a group of people who are passionate about real food, produced sustainably from the land around us, the opportunity is there. “For me, it was a great way to meet people after moving here,” says Lesley. “It’s about making good food accessible while building a healthier, more connected community.” For any community to thrive and continue to grow, its people need to feel heard and, most importantly, understood. The Galloway Food Hub is a perfect example of something so positive being created in the Glenkens by doing just that. It also needs a funder that understands its community. The Glenkens and District Trust was able to fund the Galloway Food Hub through its early days because it knew it was a community priority. Funding ingenuity and passion that breeds an economically flourishing community. To find out more visit the website at gallowayfoodhub.org.uk or Facebook and Instagram @gallowayfoodhub Pictured above are some of the Food Hub volunteers, and to the left is an example of a Food Hub order, packed up and ready for delivery ‘A Vision for Land Use in the Glenkens’ is a document which developed in 2023 in response to the rapid rate of land use change in the area, set in the context of the Glenkens at that time. Let's take a look at some of the key elements of the Vison: “We are a forested area, a farming area, an energy generation area. We are a watery area, given life by our rivers and lochs. Our natural environment is so special that we are part of the Galloway and Southern Ayrshire UNESCO Biosphere. Our landscapes attract visitors from all over the world. We are a peaty area and our soil stores some of Scotland’s best carbon. It is our home, where we work, live and play. All of these land uses are intertwined and affected by influences within and outwith our control. We are an organised and coherent community which has sought and achieved balance in land use over many years through partnership working and effective engagement. However, the speed and intent of land use change in the Glenkens is overwhelming and the lack of power to effect change is daunting. The disconnect between policy intent and local realities has led to disengagement in some and huge frustration in others.” Land use in the Glenkens - whether forestry, farming, wind farms, housing or business - has been on many people’s minds for some time now. In late 2022, the Glenkens was selected as a focus area for the South of Scotland Regional Land Use Partnership pilot project, led by the Social Enterprise Academy. This resulted in the Glenkens Land Use Vision, adopted as part of the Glenkens Community Action Plan in summer 2023. At its core, the Vision champions one simple principle: Everyone who takes value from our land returns value to it. The Glenkens could be an exemplar of sustainable land use practice in building resilience for climate, biodiversity and communities. To try and achieve this, the Land Use Vision has three sections of recommended actions: 1) Local Action reviews • Embody best practice in land use for biodiversity protection and climate adaptation • Ensuring meaningful local participation in land-use decisions, in line with Scottish Land Commission guidelines • Ensure inclusive collaboration among landowners, stakeholders and communities • Develop a public database of environmental data for the Glenkens to create baseline land use mapping and encourage enhanced biodiversity In pursuit of this, and thanks largely to support from NatureScot which has allowed GCAT to support the volunteers working on this topic, various studies and plans have been made. A 2024 feasibility study on a Glenkens Land Use Forum concluded that a network - rather than a formal forum - would be the best model for collaboration. Another study recommended the creation of a Glenkens Festival of Land to promote community engagement with the topic, which GCAT has secured funding to deliver in 2025. 2) Regional Action The South of Scotland needs a clear Land Use Framework and Local Development Plan that accounts for cumulative impacts and environmental sensitivity. Instead of relying on high-capacity communities to drive action, structured regional or national mechanisms should identify and address issues systematically. Key priorities include: • A Communities Representative on the Regional Land Use Framework (RLUF) Advisory Group to advocate for local needs • Updating of the D&G Forestry and Woodland Strategy (2014) and Local Biodiversity Action Plan (2009) • Involving community representatives as strategic partners in land-use policy 3) National Action Scotland must establish robust mechanisms nationally that value and amplify rural voices. Communities should not just be consulted but empowered to shape policies, regardless of their volunteer capacity. Urgent priorities include: • Clarifying roles, responsibilities, and accountability across public land-use bodies • Implementing holistic subsidy schemes for agriculture and forestry that recognise the link between climate, biodiversity, and economic sustainability • Shifting financial structures toward positive environmental impacts rather than reinforcing unsustainable practices The true seat of power in the land-use sector is opaque. No single public body holds full accountability for land use decisions. Best practice guidelines are not always followed, and community interests lack protection. For the Glenkens, the call for sustainable and balanced land use resonates deeply. These frameworks and policies are not merely bureaucratic jargon; they are essential tools for preserving the beauty and biodiversity of our beloved environment. The full document, ‘A Vision for Land Use in the Glenkens’ can be found at www.glenkens.scot/land-use Pictured is a view from Loch Ken showing a variety of young hardwood trees backed by mature conifers Case Study: The Upper Urr Environmental Trust T hough some challenges and hardships of life here have been highlighted in this special edition, one constant has remained clear - the Glenkens is a stunning part of the world. While that may be easy for anyone to see, it is not as easy to understand what needs to be done to keep it that way. For those of us who cherish the beauty and biodiversity of the natural world, the importance of taking action to protect our local environments cannot be overstated. Only by acknowledging the significance of biodiversity, nurturing our connection to nature, promoting environmental education, and engaging with our communities can we make a meaningful impact on our surroundings. “A lot of forestry was going on in the area when I joined the community council, so I wanted to see if anything could be done to make it work better for our communities. "Forestry is important but there has to be balance. Well-managed woodlands are a real asset, but the commercial forests that we see that you can’t actually walk in and where not a lot lives are really changing our landscape, and our biodiversity.” The definition of forestry from the the Oxford online dictionary is “the science or practice of planting and taking care of trees and forests". The Upper Urr valley is home to some important habitats and species. Survey work from 2020 highlighted the surprising diversity of the area, with just one portion of land having nearly 150 species of plants and more than 40 species of birds - several of which are which are all about engaging with the local landscape creatively, so keep an eye out for those on our Facebook page. “There is a really good sense of community here and people of all ages, living nearby and in surrounding areas have given time and effort to make this a really lovely community site which is brilliant and a great thing for kids to take part in. “Environmentally, biodiversity is the most important focus for me,” adds Joe. “Working with the developers (Foresight Sustainable Forestry) to get peatland restored and the riparian planting plans we have discussed over the line will be the biggest wins for the area. “It’s good to be working with Foresight to secure the site as a nature reserve which otherwise would have been abandoned as it’s unsuitable for commercial growing.” "It’s...something that can be managed by the community for the community, and that’s a really good example of partnership working with developers.” In order to do just that, the Upper Urr Environmental Trust (UUET), founded in 2020 with a board of three volunteer trustees all living within the Corsock area, was set up with the vision to improve the habitat, environment and ecology in the Upper Urr valley. UUET chair, Joe Seed, has a centurieslong family tie to the area. He is willing to put his hand up and be heard when it comes to our local environment. on the red list. “It’s inspiring to know that the area is so rich in wildlife,” adds Joe’s partner, local designer Martha Schofield. The UUET was set up to take a lead in making a positive change in the area, protecting habitat as much as possible for the benefit of the environment and for people. Joe says: “We have events coming up There are seven acres in community management, and in this area the paths will be maintained, benches will be installed, and many native broadleaf trees have already been planted. Joe continues: “It’s just somewhere nice to go and spend some time, something that can be managed by the community for the community, and that’s a really good example of partnership working with developers.” Pictured are volunteers, including Joe and Martha with their two children, planting trees at the UUET Glaisters Bridge site D eep in the folds of southwest Scotland, far from the blur of motorways and the noise of city streets, lies a place where time takes its time... The Glenkens is a region shaped by rivers, glens, and gently rising hills - a quiet corner of Dumfries and Galloway where life moves with the seasons and people still stop to chat on the high street. For those who live here, it is more than a beautiful landscape; it’s a way of life rooted in nature, neighbourliness, and a deep sense of place. To those unfamiliar with rural life, the Glenkens might not appear on the radar. It’s not a region that shouts for attention. But for those willing to look a little closer, it reveals something rare and quietly powerful: a community that thrives not in spite of its remoteness, but because of it. The Glenkens sits at the heart of Dumfries and Galloway, in southwest Scotland, roughly equidistant between the Solway Firth to the south and the Ayrshire coast to the north. It’s an area of small villages and scattered farms, set against a backdrop of rolling Galloway hills. Settlements like New Galloway, St John’s Town of Dalry, Balmaclellan, and Carsphairn form the backbone, with Mossdale, Laurieston, Parton and Corsock on the periphery, linked by winding rivers and interspersed with lochs. The Glenkens hills are the source of the Water of Ken, Water of Deugh and the River Dee. These meander south through a series of lochs which form the upper part of the Galloway Hydro Scheme, the first major large-scale hydroelectric development in Britain, built in the 1930s. To the west, Galloway Forest Park - Britain’s first Dark Sky Park - spreads across the horizon, rich with wildlife and walking trails. To live in an area like this one is to become part of something quietly remarkable. There’s a strong tradition of self-reliance here, but also one of deep mutual support. People look out for one another, and there is a rhythm to living rurally that those in the city rarely experience. Nature is not something you visit but something you live alongside all year round. Winters are dark and quiet, with snow often dusting the hilltops. Spring brings lambing and the reawakening of the land. Summer is marked by long evenings and community gatherings. Autumn comes with misty mornings and the rustle of leaves underfoot. Local life here is rich with character and culture. Village halls host music nights, craft fairs, and ceilidhs. Volunteers run everything from lunch clubs to community gardens; they are the beating heart of the Glenkens communities. This is one of the wonderful thing about the Glenkens; people feel genuinely needed and valued when they get involved. Very different to life in a city, where you are largely anonymous and have to find your network of people, key to life in a small community is being able to rub along with people. An ability, through necessity, to get along with folk you otherwise may never have chosen to spend time with, and the mutual respect and understanding this engenders is invaluable to a thriving rural community. In a world that’s increasingly fast, loud, and digitally saturated, the Glenkens offers a different kind of wealth - one measured not in money or possessions, but in time, space, and belonging. People don’t move here to get rich; they move here to grow their own food, to know their neighbours, and to watch the stars without the glare of city lights. Some are drawn by family roots, others by a desire for change. And many find, once they arrive, something they didn’t even know they were missing. Life and Land in the Glenkens is a celebration of that life. It’s for those who live here and those who are curious. It’s a way of opening a window onto a part of Scotland that’s easy to overlook, but once found, hard to forget. Welcome to the Glenkens. Whether you’re turning these pages from a city flat, a suburban home, or a countryside cottage, we invite you to slow down, take a breath, and see what life looks like from here. Pictured below left is Loch Ken Marina, centre are the Carsphairn hills, and right is a photograph from a birdwatching session with Dalry Secondary School pupils, all courtesy of the Glenkens Hub photo gallery T he original content in this document was first featured in the April/May 2025 edition of the Glenkens Gazette. The Glenkens Gazette has reflected and amplified the voices of the Glenkens communities for nearly 25 years. It is a bi-monthly print newsletter, usually extending to 36 pages, and has become a key community resource for the area, working to increase community cohesion and mitigate population decline. The Gazette team periodically create feature editions on issues of key community concern (see also their June/July 2023 edition on land use). This current publication has been made possible through funding from NatureScot, as part of their wider support for communityled work on land use across the country. The Glenkens Hub began as an events calendar and local news site, and has rapidly evolved into a key community resource. One of its many facets is hosting community research looking at the issues that affect our communities the most (for instance, take a look at www.glenkens.scot/land-use). The Glenkens Hub is supported in this work by the Glenkens and District Community Fund. This fund is administered by the Glenkens and District Trust, and Foundation Scotland, to ensure that community benefit monies are used to add real value to the communities of the Glenkens. The Glenkens Gazette and Glenkens Hub are projects which sit with the Glenkens Community and Arts Trust (GCAT), a key local anchor organisation for the Glenkens. GCAT has a twin focus: delivering high quality arts for the area through the CatStrand arts centre, and leading on delivery of the Glenkens Community Action Plan in order to support the communities of the Glenkens in achieving what they want, and need, most. GCAT is supported in this second aim by the Glenkens and District Community Fund and the Community Action Plan Steering Group. If you would like any more information on our work on land use or wider work on community development and community wealth building, contact me on helen@catstrand.com, or visit www.glenkens.scot/reports-resourcesarchive/community-action-plan Many thanks to all who contributed to this special edition, from the Gazette and Hub team, to those involved in the case studies, to Ross Sanderson who brought everything together in his own unique voice. Also, of course, to all the many volunteers, community workers and local businesses who make the Glenkens so special your work is so appreciated, and makes a real difference. Helen Keron, GCAT Chief Executive, May 2025 The Glenkens Gazette is supported by its sister website, the Glenkens Hub (www.glenkens.scot). This was created in 2023 in direct response to the Glenkens Community Action Plan priorities. Pictured are children enjoying a Biosphere Explorers session in the woods outside New Galloway Further reading: the bigger picture Glenkens Hub resources: Other websites: Community Action Plan – Overview, Steering Group Meeting Reports and Annual Reports (www.glenkens. scot/reports-resources-archive/community-action-plan) The Glenkens Hub - www.glenkens.scot Glenkens Land Use Vision – 2023 Vision and follow-up reports (www.glenkens.scot/land-use) Galloway Food Hub - www.gallowayfoodhub.org.uk Local Place Planning – Updates and the completed Dalry Local Place Plan (www.glenkens.scot/local-place-plans) The Glenkens and District Trust - www.glenkenstrust. org.uk Heart of the Glen - www.heartoftheglen.com Upper Urr Environmental Trust - www.uuet.co.uk Life and Land in the Glenkens was written by Ross Sanderson. Originally from Edinburgh, Ross is a 26-year-old professional journalist who now lives and works in the Glenkens. After graduating from university in 2020, he spent time working in both Zambia and Spain before returning home and settling here. This feature has been made possible through funding from NatureScot - many thanks to them for their support of our communities' work. ...the Glenkens offers a different kind of wealth - one measured not in money or possessions, but in time, space, and belonging... Some are drawn by family roots, others by a desire for change. And many find, once they arrive, something they didn’t even know they were missing.  Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Life and Land in the Glenkens Description An account of the resource Life and Land in the Glenkens was commissioned to reflect and amplify voices within our communities, through case studies and a fresh look at life in the Glenkens from a local young journalist Ross Sanderson. Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context CAP_30 Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource GCAT Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available GCAT Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2025 Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Glenkens & District Trust CAP Theme 3 land use https://glenkensarchive.scot/glenkens_archive/files/original/20/633/250131_GH_Year_2_Report.jpg 99e94477f1c8630e75cba4424d4c8a85 https://glenkensarchive.scot/glenkens_archive/files/original/20/633/250131_GH_Year_2_Report.1.pdf b63f44eec6a8f9bf5858a00f647df416 PDF Text Text pdftext_placeholder Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Community Action Plan Description An account of the resource Documents relating to the Glenkens and District Community Action Plan, initially drawn up by Glenkens & District Trust in 2020. Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Text Any textual data included in the document Glenkens Hub 2024 Report 1. Overview of delivery 2. Review of development and delivery in 2024 3. 2024 survey results and additional identified needs 4. User data 5. Ongoing and future development 6. Acknowledgements 7. Appendix 1 - General Survey Comments 8. Appendix 2 – Survey Suggestions for Improvements 1. OVERVIEW OF DELIVERY The Glenkens Hub has now completed the first two years of delivery to end 2024, funded by the Glenkens & District Community Fund through the Glenkens and District Trust and Foundation Scotland, and the Galloway Glens Landscape Partnership Scheme. Like the Glenkens Gazette, it is a GCAT project and is supported by the volunteer Gazette Steering Group as well as the GCAT staff and Board. It is managed by the Glenkens Hub Digital Editor (one day/week role). Key outcomes of the Glenkens Hub are: • • • • • Bringing communities together via shared calendar events and regular activities. Enhancing community resilience through access to key information. Strengthening the sustainability of local groups and businesses via dedicated webpages, news articles and social media. Providing a permanent home for community resources such as reports and studies, the Galloway Glens archive and copyright-free photographs. Promoting community development and highlighting issues of local importance such as land use, education, the proposed Galloway National Park, housing and transport. The website is a most effective ‘shop-front’ for living and working in the Glenkens. It allows residents to feel more connected to their place, and organisations to promote Glenkens’ priorities to regional and national stakeholders. “Excellent communication for those who live in the area to find out what is happening. This is a vital resource for those who live rural and is excellent for new residents.” 2. REVIEW OF DEVELOPMENT AND DELIVERY IN 2024 Throughout its second year of delivery, the Glenkens Hub sought to support the local community by amplifying news and events and reflecting the issues of most importance. Local news outlets and Facebook were monitored 6 days per week and the turnround time for submissions to the Hub was same or next day (excluding Sundays). This despite only 7.5 funded hours being available per week, so it reflects the huge volunteer effort of the Glenkens Hub Digital Editor in particular. Although the Update Us form was still available to use, most contributors either emailed submission or contacted the Hub via Facebook. Effective monitoring of Facebook posts meant that many events and news items were shared and transferred to the Hub website without any extra effort from community members. Notable site improvements made in response to community feedback and need through 2024 include: • • • • • • • • • • • Glenkens Communities summary pages created to bring together community spaces, groups and events for each local community. Community Council Minutes hosted for Crossmichael & District; Corsock & Kirkpatrick Durham and Royal Burgh of New Galloway & Kells CCs. Sub-site created for Crossmichael community, mirroring their existing website to keep their sense of ownership while allowing volunteers to focus on other tasks. Front-page noticeboard created to pin posters and promote adverts for local groups e.g. “volunteers needed” posters plus adverts from individuals e.g. “housekeeper wanted” as an alternative to the previous notice board / Freecycle page which was not well used. Back issues of the Glenkens Gazette indexed by Google and now fully searchable direct from the Hub. Webpage created to bring together non-partisan information resources about the proposed National Park; Hosting the documentation and procedures required for the Glenkens Gazette to fulfil its obligations as a member of Impress: The Independent Monitor for the Press CIC. Education & Learning and Land Use pages developed to collate ongoing discussions and local news and provide a window on the issues for stakeholders. Hosting online hustings to promote community engagement in General Election (see below). Public and private spaces in support of Glenkens Community Spaces Network Food Month 2024 promotion and admin support. In addition, the Glenkens Hub and Glenkens Gazette took part in several partnership working projects including: • • • The Citizens’ Agenda with the Scottish Beacon, which sought to give communities greater control over the topics discussed by potential candidates in the 2024 General Election. 100 Days of the Green Transition: a project by the Local Storytelling Exchange and The Scottish Beacon. Loch Ken Trust’s Resilience Project, promoting community resilience and information sharing and a dedicated Emergency Information page to direct people to their local resilience group. “I have lived in many different communities, I think that the Glenkens is by far the most progressive of them all in all aspects of community life. It is things like the Hub which combine with all the other community initiatives which add to the attractiveness of the area for those living here and attract other families into the community.” These improvements have resulted in ever-increasing numbers of people visiting the webpage and accessing the social media channels. More details are given in Section 4, but more than 21,000 people visited the Glenkens Hub in just one month (November 2024), with some of the most popular pages being the Events Calendar, Jobs and Volunteering and Glenkens News. 104 people have signed up to receive the monthly Newsletter and more than 500 people follow the Facebook page (13% of the Glenkens population). “The Glenkens Hub is a really valuable local asset and a fantastic source of information. Thank you.” 3. 2024 SURVEY RESULTS AND ADDITIONAL IDENTIFIED NEEDS A survey was carried out between 27/03/24 to 27/05/24 to determine the impact of the Hub and the focus for improvements. The majority of respondents who use the Hub were positive about its content and ease of use. Most people felt the website met the needs identified in the 2020 Glenkens Community Action Plan, namely: • • • • • • • Providing urgent local information and event details, updated daily. Holding centralised information with links to other websites, Facebook pages etc. Providing a local directory and local producers listing. What’s On Listings. Freecycle. Expansion on local issues. Complements the Glenkens Gazette. 78% of respondents said the website was effective or mostly effective as a communication tool, and 67% of respondents would be likely to recommend the website to others in their community. Respondents noted that more needs to be done: • • • to raise awareness of the Hub in general, and in outlying areas of the Glenkens specifically, and felt that community members could help with this. to advertise the Newsletter and the Jobs board. to encourage community organisations, schools and businesses to be active on the site. Specific site improvements identified were as follows: Identified need Site layout and ease of finding information Plan for development • • Search function for Gazette back issues • • • Improve usability of What’s On page • We continue to monitor the methods by which we present information and make conscious choices to make it easier for readers to find the information they need. Linking buttons are used throughout to tie information together and provide multiple access points for users. Gazette back issues are available in pdf format and via an online reader (Calaméo) from the Back Issues page. Google has indexed the back issues and a targeted Google search bar is included on the page to make it easier to search for content inside the pdfs. Work is underway to improve on the current search function offered by Google by creating a permanent digital archive for the Gazette within the Hub. Some users found the What’s On page difficult to navigate; this is partly software driven. As well as the calendar page layout, we now offer the events information in a scrollable list and via filtered menus for location and activity type, to try to provide for all preferences. Many interesting additions were suggested by survey participants. These will be investigated and incorporated as time allows. They include: • • • • • • • • Encouraging schools to be more involved in sharing information. Increase the number of human-interest stories. Providing a visual map of the site. Encourage local businesses to submit articles to promote themselves. Sending notifications as reminders when selected groups / events are happening. Local nature news. More interactive information on urgent information. Local walks organised by location and pulled together in conjunction with local people. See Appendices 1 and 2 for further comments from the survey. 4. USER DATA User tracking was activated in April 2024 and does not seem to have deterred website users. The Hub’s cookie policy can be found here. SOCIAL MEDIA AT 20/12/24 Followers Reach Facebook 515 18.4K Instagram 106 151 At 20/12/24 Annual increase / decrease on previous year 104 +51% 2024Total In last year Annual increase / decrease on previous year Page visits (browsing session) 227,000 +81% Page views (total number of page requests) 46,000 +3% Newsletter subscribers GLENKENS HUB WEBSITE USERS Top pages 1. Home 2. Calendar 3. Jobs and Volunteering 4. Glenkens News 5. Community Events Total In last year Annual increase / decrease on previous year Total clicks (number of times users clicked through to the Hub from a search) 9,170 +14% Total impressions (number of times users see a link to the Hub in search results) 291,000 +7% SEARCH PERFORMANCE 5. ONGOING AND FUTURE DEVELOPMENT The Glenkens Hub will continue to provide same day or next day turn-around on submissions from Monday to Friday, with active weekly monitoring of local news outlets and community activities on social media. A slowing of workload on Saturdays allows for weekly hours overruns to be partially ameliorated. The Hub’s greatest strength has been its ability to adapt to community need within the constraints of the software. One such potential need may be the possible extension of the Hub along the lines of the Uist Beò website which has been designed to attract young people to live and work in the area. Funding is being sought for this and the Hub will continue to evolve to meet community needs as they arise. We will be embarking on a promotional campaign for the Hub in early 2025, ensuring the existing and new residents of the Glenkens are aware of this valuable resource that is available to them. The existing Gazette archive was created by Oli Strum on a volunteer basis – many thanks to Oli for all his work on this. Having proved the concept of Google search on an in-house archive, we will now be transitioning to this in order to future-proof the archive. The role of the Glenkens Hub Digital Editor has evolved over the 2 years to become much more than the content-populator that was originally envisaged. The role now has full responsibility for the delivery of Glenkens communities’ digital communication needs, and delivers these while also horizon-scanning for new opportunities. This has resulted in the Hub becoming a core underpinning of Glenkens and District Community Action Plan delivery – providing underlying support that contributes to successful outcome delivery across the Glenkens. “Thank you for all the work that must go into the site - it really is amazing.” 6. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The Glenkens Hub continues to be valuable and well-regarded addition to the communities of the Glenkens. It brings communities together, hosts their resources and promotes partnership working. Thank you to the many people who have made the Glenkens Hub such a success: • • • • Ongoing support from the Glenkens & District Community Fund through the Glenkens and District Trust and Foundation Scotland, with additional support from the Galloway Glens Scheme legacy fund. The Glenkens Gazette Steering Committee. Oli Sturm for providing the original Glenkens Gazette back catalogue. All the many contributors and readers. 7. APPENDIX 1 - GENERAL SURVEY COMMENTS • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • The Glenkens Hub makes it much easier to find out about events and activities taking place across the Glenkens. I use it very regularly and have recommended it to lots of people. Great to have central resources Everything is exactly where it’s needed I frequently tell people about the Hub. It's fantastic to have so much information all in one place. It’s a great resource of info, and great to have a space that meets the needs of the Glenkens as a whole. Helpful to have one place which consolidates a lot of information about the local community. The Glenkens Hub is a really valuable local asset and a fantastic source of information. Thank you. Great website...... simple. The survey results should be interesting. Thank you for all the work that must go into the site - it really is amazing. Great website - well done! Great resource Excellent communication for those who live in the area to find out what is happening. This is a vital resource for those who live rural and is excellent for new residents. I sincerely hope that the site will continue in the future. I have lived in many different communities, I think that the Glenkens is by far the most progressive of them all in all aspects of community life. It is things like the Hub which combine with all the other community initiatives which add to the attractiveness of the area for those living here and attract other families into the community. We must ensure that we do not lose these important assets. Thank you to all who bring the hub to life 9. APPENDIX 2 – SURVEY SUGGESTIONS FOR IMPROVEMENTS Includes comments in italics. • The Hub is great, and my only comment is really making the What's On listings more user friendly • The Glenkens hub website is excellent. I worry that people in outlying GDT areas, like Corsock, don’t know it can be useful for them • Fortnightly or monthly newsletters by email, pointing to The Glenkens Hub. • I would like a weekly summary email sent out to locals (like DGWGO does). ◦ The Glenkens Hub Newsletter is issued bi-monthly, in between Gazette issues. The Signup page is here - https://glenkens.scot/newsletter. Increasing the frequency of issues would require further funding. • Car share and local transport. ◦ The Transport pages include LiftShare and bus timetables. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • There is something confusing about the layout of the site but I have no idea how this could be rectified; the Events Diary is especially tricky to navigate. It may just be the amount of information on the website that makes it a bit overwhelming. Once I find the information I am looking for, it's great! Its effectiveness partly depends upon people knowing about it and I think more needs to be done to promote it - people generally need to be told about something like this more than once and maybe existing participants could be encouraged to brand their communications and events with - "find out more about us on the hub!" Not all community organisations are active on this website. It’s a great resource of info, and great to have a space that meets the needs of the Glenkens as a whole. It would be good to have info on the reach of the site and social media. ◦ Please see the report issued ahead of the survey – Glenkens Hub 2023 Report. Resilience information. ◦ Our Emergency Information page will include Resilience Team information when it becomes available from the Teams. I wonder if it could have a spotlight on what it's like to live in the Glenkens, to encourage people to move here perhaps? ◦ This is a potential new GCAT project, subject to funding. I found the [Gazette Archive] search engine inadequate when searching for something which was going to reveal a significant number of results. Our schools need to be more involved in sharing information Increase human interest stories. A visual map of things could be a good way to present things Not everyone knows about it so hard to direct people in those cases Encourage local businesses to submit articles Hard to say [how to improve effectiveness as a communication tool] because I don't know what it's reach is, but there will always be folk who've never heard of it The information is there however not everyone will access it. some way of sending notifications when selected groups/events are happening, as reminders Nature news if local More interactive information on urgent information Not everyone knows about it so hard to direct people in those cases Maybe more local walks pulled together in conjunction with local people - organised by village? Gail Challis, Glenkens Hub Digital Editor. Helen Keron, GCAT Chief Executive. January 2025.  Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Glenkens Hub 2024 Report Description An account of the resource Throughout its second year of delivery, the Glenkens Hub sought to support the local community by amplifying news and events and reflecting the issues of most importance. This report includes results from the 2024 survey, user data and plans for future development to meet identified needs. Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context CAP_29 Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource GCAT Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Glenkens Hub Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2024 Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Glenkens & District Trust CAP Theme 1 communication