Draft Environment Strategy: consultation analysis

2. Vision and outcomes

The draft Strategy began by describing the Scottish Government’s vision: “One Earth. One home. One shared future. By 2045: By restoring nature, ending Scotland's contribution to climate change and tackling pollution, our country is transformed for the better - helping to secure the wellbeing of our people and planet for generations to come.”

The draft Strategy presented a set of outcomes that will support the delivery of this vision. Four outcomes described goals for tackling climate change and restoring the health of our natural environment, in Scotland and overseas:

• Scotland’s biodiversity is restored and regenerated.
• We have ended Scotland’s contribution to climate change.
• We minimise pollution and waste in our environment.
• Scotland’s global environmental impact is sustainable.

Two outcomes described the positive transformations in Scotland’s society and economy that will support these goals, while creating wider benefits for prosperity and wellbeing:

• Scotland’s society is transformed for the better by living sustainably, in harmony with nature
• Scotland’s net zero, nature positive and circular economy thrives within the planet’s sustainable limits.

Two cross-cutting outcomes explained how this will help to strengthen Scotland’s resilience to global risks and support social justice in Scotland and overseas:

• We build Scotland’s resilience to climate change and other global environmental risks.
• These transformations are achieved through a just transition and support climate and environmental justice.

The draft Strategy outlined the high-level pathways for driving progress towards these outcomes, summarising key existing policies while also identifying priorities and proposals to guide future policy development across the breadth of government.

This chapter presents an analysis of responses to Q1 and Q2, which asked respondents for their views on the draft Strategy’s vision and outcomes.

Vision

Q1. Do you agree with the vision of the Environment Strategy?

Q1 was answered by 120 respondents. Although it was an open question, the framing of the question led most to comment on their level of agreement. Sentiment towards the Strategy was generally positive, with 95 respondents leaving comments that indicated they agreed or partially agreed with the vision. Ten respondents commented that they disagreed with the vision, while other respondents were unsure, or their responses could not be categorised as agreement or disagreement.

Respondents then elaborated on reasons for agreement or disagreement. The themes evident in their comments included reasons to agree with the vision, such as the positive impact on the environment or social justice, as well as reasons for disagreement or caveats to agreement, including the ambiguity of phrasing or potential impacts on businesses. Other themes included links to other policy areas.

Reasons for agreement

Environmental benefits

Many respondents agreed with the overall vision on environmental grounds. They welcomed the recognition of the interlinked crises of climate change, biodiversity loss and pollution, and supported the ambition to restore ecosystems both on land and at sea. Several responses emphasised that the vision aligns well with existing frameworks, such as the European Landscape Convention and Scotland’s Landscape Charter, and saw the Strategy as a natural extension of these commitments.

There was strong support for the idea that nature has intrinsic value as well as providing benefits to people. Several respondents felt that the ethical framing in the draft Strategy, which recognises responsibilities to other species and to the wider living planet, is an important strength. A few highlighted the importance of nature-based solutions, rewilding, woodland expansion and regenerative approaches to land management.

Some respondents also emphasised the importance of land use, agriculture, and marine systems in achieving the vision. They pointed to opportunities for habitat restoration, rewilding, agroforestry, and plant-based agri‑food systems to contribute to large‑scale carbon sequestration and ecosystem recovery, while noting that extensive livestock systems can also play a positive role when managed sustainably.

Social Justice

Many respondents welcomed the explicit focus on social justice, fairness and equity in the vision. They felt it is essential that environmental progress goes hand‑in‑hand with reducing inequalities, improving public health and creating greener jobs. Several emphasised that the transition must be ‘just’, ensuring that communities most at risk from climate and environmental harms are supported and that benefits are shared fairly.

Several respondents highlighted intergenerational and global dimensions of justice, including Scotland’s responsibility towards people in the Global South and future generations. Some respondents stressed that environmental policies should never be designed or implemented in ways that deepen poverty or undermine basic rights, and called for a clearer commitment to placing people and communities at the heart of delivering the Strategy.

At the same time, some respondents questioned the framing of concepts such as climate and environmental justice. They worried that the repeated use of such language could risk politicising what they viewed as a shared national priority. These respondents nonetheless tended to agree that fairness and inclusion are essential, but preferred that they be framed in a way that they felt would unite, rather than divide, public opinion.

Alignment with sectors

Several respondents representing specific sectors or organisations indicated that the vision aligns closely with their aims and ongoing work. Examples included food and drink, agriculture, aquaculture, energy, cultural organisations, transport, and community woodland management. They described ways in which their sectors are already contributing to nature restoration, sustainable resource use, decarbonisation and community wellbeing. Several provided positive examples of ongoing work in sectors such as transport, built environment, higher education and youth engagement that they felt could help deliver the vision if adequately supported.

A few identified an important enabling role for the culture, education and research sectors in shaping public attitudes, supporting behaviour change, and building the skills and knowledge required for a just transition. These respondents felt the draft Strategy could more explicitly acknowledge and harness these contributions within the vision.

Reasons for disagreement or caveats

Ambiguity, definitions and clarity

Many respondents agreed with the broad direction of travel but felt the vision and accompanying narrative were too vague in critical areas. They called for clearer definitions of key concepts, expressing the view that key terms such as sustainable, in harmony with nature, restored, regenerated, and just transition are used inconsistently or without sufficient explanation, making it difficult to understand what success looks like. Some respondents noted, for example, that minimising pollution could imply anything from marginal reductions to near-elimination, and therefore requires a clearer specification. One respondent highlighted inconsistencies between the written vision and the visual diagram in the draft Strategy, noting that the narrative lists pollution as one of the three major environmental crises, while the corresponding figure does not. Another respondent also pointed out that the draft Strategy shifts between terms such as nature, environment, biodiversity and ecosystems without clarifying their intended scope, which they felt weakened the overall coherence.

Several respondents described the draft Strategy as overlong, disjointed or difficult to navigate, and worried that this could limit its usefulness as a guiding framework. Several commented that the document is lengthy and repetitive, suggesting that a clearer, more concise narrative would help local authorities, communities and delivery partners understand what is expected of them. A few respondents sought a stronger focus on near-term, tangible benefits, such as improved air quality, lower energy bills from decarbonised buildings, better access to green spaces, and stronger local economies. They argued that these kinds of concrete outcomes would help build public support for the Strategy.

Some respondents also highlighted the gap between high‑level aspiration and delivery. They noted a long history of structural and organisational barriers that have slowed or prevented implementation of previous policies. In their view, the draft Strategy needs to provide more details on how these barriers will be addressed, how responsibilities will be allocated, and how progress will be monitored and enforced. Some attendees of the environment consultation workshop called for clarity on the draft Strategy’s relationship with the publication “The Environment Strategy for Scotland: vision and outcomes”, which was published in 2020.

Ambition

Several respondents felt that, although the vision is broadly positive, it does not yet match the scale and pace of action required to address the dual crises of climate change and biodiversity loss. Some argued that the draft Strategy reflects a ‘business as usual’ approach and that more fundamental changes to economic models, land ownership, resource use and consumption patterns will be needed. This was supported by attendees of the economy consultation workshop, who suggested that the draft Strategy does not analyse the drivers of the problem, which they felt are business-as-usual policies, including Scottish Government economic policies such as Scotland’s National Strategy for Economic Transformation.

Several respondents called for stronger ecological targets rooted in Scottish land management, clearer commitments to rewilding and restoration, and more explicit recognition of the need for systems change. A few felt that the draft Strategy should place greater emphasis on the intrinsic value of nature, rather than framing environmental action primarily in terms of economic or human-centred benefits.

Timeframe

Some respondents expressed concern about the timescales associated with the vision, particularly the 2045 target date. They believed that the accelerating pace of environmental degradation requires earlier deadlines and clearer interim milestones. Some called for net zero to be achieved by 2030, arguing that anything later would be inconsistent with international scientific advice. Some attendees of the economy consultation workshop supported this, suggesting that the draft Strategy needs to work faster and on a larger scale.

One felt that a 20‑year timeframe can provide continuity across multiple parliamentary cycles and offer a practical planning horizon. Another respondent supported the existing timescale but emphasised the need for urgent action in the short and medium term to remain on track.

Perceived gaps

Many respondents identified specific areas they felt were under‑represented or missing from the vision. Examples included adaptation to climate impacts already being experienced, the central role of invertebrates in ecosystem functioning, the needs of island communities, the rights and participation of children and young people, and the importance of individual animal welfare.

Several respondents argued that the draft Strategy should include more about limiting and repairing environmental damage that has already occurred, rather than focusing mainly on future opportunities. A few respondents called for stronger links to foundational documents, such as Scotland’s Forestry Strategy and the UK Forestry Standard, or for a more explicit commitment to large-scale rewilding and the restoration of key species.

Impact on Business

Some respondents, particularly from business and industry groups, agreed with the vision but highlighted concerns about economic viability, regulatory burden and the cumulative costs of transition. They stressed that many businesses operate on very low margins and are already facing rising input costs, supply chain disruptions and new regulatory requirements. These respondents called for proportionate regulation, stable and long‑term policy signals, and targeted support to help businesses invest in low‑carbon technologies, circular practices and resilience measures. They emphasised that economic growth and environmental protection can be compatible, but only if the transition is managed in a realistic and inclusive way.

Other Themes

Links to other policies

Many respondents emphasised the need for the Environment Strategy to act as a genuinely cross‑cutting framework that links climate, biodiversity, pollution, land use, agriculture, forestry, marine policy, planning, education and economic development. They were worried that, as currently drafted, the Strategy risks becoming an overview of existing policies rather than a tool for identifying gaps and driving additional progress. Some of the attendees of the economy consultation workshop reinforced this view and suggested that the Strategy should explore more radical ideas and a vision for what the 2050 economy might look like.

Several respondents argued that the draft Strategy should include a clearer analysis of why existing policies have not yet delivered the desired outcomes and outline how these gaps will be addressed. Attendees of the environment and economy consultation workshops supported this point, suggesting the need for a “backward review” of previous strategies and policies, horizon scanning to understand implementation, and the need to review the Strategy in accordance with other assessments, such as the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. Some respondents emphasised the importance of aligning with the Climate Change Plan, the Scottish Biodiversity Strategy, and other major frameworks, as well as embedding biodiversity and environmental considerations across all government portfolios.

Match with Government action

Several respondents questioned the extent to which current government decisions and delivery mechanisms align with the high-level vision. They cited examples where, in their view, recent policy choices or delays sit uneasily alongside the draft Strategy’s ambition, including missed statutory climate targets, halted or weakened initiatives and planning decisions with significant biodiversity impacts.

These respondents emphasised that maintaining credibility will require clear and consistent follow-through, including robust regulation, adequate funding, dedicated leadership roles, and transparent reporting. A few called for stronger commitments to community‑led initiatives and enhanced public engagement to help translate the vision into practical changes on the ground. Some of the attendees of the economy consultation workshop suggested that the draft Strategy could include accountability tables, pointing to the example of the UK Industrial Strategy.

Other views

Several respondents stressed the importance of behaviour change, everyday choices and local action. They argued that sustainable options must be affordable, convenient and visible if people and businesses across Scotland are to participate fully in achieving the draft Strategy’s aims. These views were raised repeatedly across responses to the consultation and are addressed in later questions.

A few respondents offered broader reflections that did not sit neatly within the main themes. These included strongly worded criticisms of the overall direction of environmental policy, scepticism about concepts such as the circular economy, and concerns that economic priorities could override environmental and social goals. Again, these respondents typically repeated their views throughout their responses.

Outcomes and pathways

Q2. Are there any outcomes that you feel should be removed, added or changed in the Environment Strategy?

A wide range of suggestions on how the draft outcomes could be strengthened were provided in 105 responses to Q2. The most common themes related to adding new outcomes, refining biodiversity and climate outcomes, strengthening the pollution outcome, and improving measurement, monitoring and reporting. Other themes included changes to the global and society outcomes, governance and enforcement, the economy, justice, resilience, ambiguity and definitions, and forestry.

For ease of reading, the analysis below firstly presents suggested changes to each of the existing outcomes, followed by suggestions for additional outcomes, and other themes.

Comments on existing outcomes

‘Scotland’s biodiversity is restored and regenerated’

Several respondents welcomed the ambition to restore and regenerate biodiversity but sought greater clarity about what this would mean in practice. Many highlighted the need to define a clear baseline for “restored” and “regenerated” nature, noting that Scotland’s ecosystems have been altered over long periods and that different sectors may assume different reference conditions. Respondents also emphasised gaps in the current framing, particularly the need to recognise soils, peatlands, marine environments and nature networks as essential components of Scotland’s ecological recovery. Some pointed to the scale of past failures to halt biodiversity decline and stressed the need for more explicit commitments on issues such as ecosystem functioning, species recovery and managing invasive non-native species.

A few also stressed that translating biodiversity ambitions into effective policy and regulation would be crucial. Examples included strengthening links with planning, ensuring regulatory coherence for sectors such as aquaculture and forestry, and improving the evidence base underpinning biodiversity-related decisions. Several respondents believed that full restoration of Scotland’s biodiversity by 2045 may be unrealistic given the long timescales involved in ecological recovery and the accelerating impacts of climate change. They supported the ambition but argued for clearer milestones, more detailed definitions, and realistic expectations about what can be achieved within the timeframe. Some of the attendees of the environment consultation workshop suggested that biosecurity issues and the overseas use of banned chemicals on imported products were missing from the draft Strategy.

‘We have ended Scotland’s contribution to climate change’

Many respondents commented on the climate outcome and felt the wording required greater clarity. Several argued that the phrase “ended Scotland’s contribution to climate change” was overly simplistic, noting that greenhouse gases emitted even at net zero continue to contribute to warming for decades. Some felt the outcome did not fully reflect Scotland’s historical emissions or the continued impact of activities such as deforestation linked to imported commodities. Many respondents also asked for clearer inclusion of consumption-based emissions rather than limiting the outcome to territorial emissions, emphasising that Scotland’s environmental footprint extends far beyond its borders.

Several respondents sought stronger recognition of nature-based solutions as part of both mitigation and adaptation, highlighting the role of peatlands, soils, restored ecosystems and reforestation in removing emissions and increasing resilience. Some raised concerns about the use of carbon offsets and the risk of relying on international carbon markets rather than achieving emissions reductions. A few stressed the need to avoid carbon leakage by ensuring that decarbonisation does not simply offshore emissions or undermine domestic industry. Many respondents also raised sector-specific considerations, including the need to distinguish between livestock systems, recognition of low-carbon protein production in aquaculture, and ensuring a just transition for workers and communities most affected by climate policy.

‘We minimise pollution and waste in our environment’

Many respondents sought a stronger and more clearly defined pollution outcome, with several arguing that wording such as “minimise pollution” lacked ambition or precision. They emphasised that pollution encompasses a wide range of pressures, including agricultural chemicals, plastics, sewage, airborne particulates and marine debris, and felt that the draft Strategy should clearly define these categories to support accountability and targeted action. One respondent also highlighted the need to address legacy pollutants and contaminants of emerging concern such as PFAS (per-and poly fluoroalkyl substances), pesticides and pharmaceuticals, noting that these substances can have harmful effects even at low concentrations and require more than simple volume reduction. A few respondents specifically advocated for including litter within the pollution outcome, emphasising its environmental impacts at both micro and macro levels.

Several respondents raised environmental justice concerns, noting that unmanaged pollution disproportionately affects vulnerable or disadvantaged communities. A few noted the need for improved evidence, monitoring, and risk management to fully understand the sources, fate, and impacts of pollutants. A few respondents also argued that the pollution outcome should align more directly with the framing of the UN’s “triple planetary crisis” of climate change, biodiversity loss and pollution. A small number pointed to practical challenges and inconsistencies, for example, in relation to single-use cup charges, chemical regulation, and the need for island-specific pollution metrics, all of which they suggested should be more clearly reflected in the outcome and supporting policies. Some attendees of the environment consultation workshop suggested that light and noise pollution were key gaps in the draft Strategy, particularly given their effects on biodiversity.

‘Scotland’s global environmental impact is sustainable’

Several respondents felt the global outcome required strengthening. Many emphasised the need to recognise Scotland’s overseas consumption footprint. A few argued that the outcome should reflect Scotland’s positive global contribution. Some raised concerns about reliance on carbon markets. Two noted gaps relating to invasive species, global biodiversity drivers, and marine frameworks.

‘Scotland’s society is transformed for the better by living sustainably, in harmony with nature’

Many respondents supported the aspiration to transform society, but several noted that key terms, such as “living sustainably” and “in harmony with nature,” required a more precise definition to ensure a shared understanding and practical delivery. Many emphasised that achieving societal transformation would require cultural change, public engagement, and education, including stronger references to the role of the arts, heritage, cultural participation, and nature connection in shaping values and behaviours. A small number of respondents also emphasised the need for more explicit support for lifelong ecological literacy and education for sustainability across all sectors, noting that meaningful change depends on reaching the entire population, not just those in formal education.

Several respondents raised the importance of community empowerment and land ownership, arguing that local governance of natural resources and recognition of long-standing rural and island stewardship traditions should play a central role in delivering this outcome. A few emphasised the need to link the outcome more directly to place and wellbeing, including the role of high-quality environments, healthy landscapes and cultural heritage in supporting resilience and inclusion. Additional suggestions included strengthening references to sustainable housing, transport and food systems to make the societal transformation more tangible, and integrating wellbeing, equity and fairness more explicitly into the outcome.

Some of the attendees of the economy consultation workshop suggested that the draft Strategy needed to clearly outline the benefits to ordinary people by specifying the community benefits, which they believe are currently missing.

‘We build Scotland’s resilience to climate change and other global environmental risks’

Some respondents generally supported the resilience outcome, but requested clearer recognition of the different dimensions of resilience. Some emphasised that climate adaptation should be explicitly referenced within the outcome rather than assumed to sit underneath broader resilience aims, noting that adaptation requires its own focus, actions and monitoring. Some highlighted the importance of ecological resilience, including the role of restored ecosystems, diversified land management, and nature-based solutions in supporting long-term stability. These respondents pointed to examples such as the need for resilient soils, healthy woodlands, and restored wetlands as foundational elements of Scotland’s capacity to withstand climate impacts.

Alongside this, several respondents stressed the need to recognise social resilience, including the ability of communities to adapt to extreme weather, energy disruptions and environmental shocks. This included the importance of strong local networks, access to green spaces, and support for vulnerable groups. A few highlighted the particular needs of rural and island communities, referencing decentralised heat sources, energy security, and local capacity to respond to climate-related risks. Some also noted opportunities to integrate resilience considerations across various sectors, including cultural venues, infrastructure planning, and emergency preparedness, suggesting that a more explicit framing would help embed resilience consistently throughout the Strategy. Some of the attendees of the environment consultation workshop suggested that the role of prevention was missing in relation to resilience.

‘These transformations are achieved through a just transition and support climate and environmental justice’

Several respondents welcomed the inclusion of climate and environmental justice as a core outcome, but commonly sought a clearer definition of what the terms would mean in practice. Some emphasised the need to ensure fairness for workers, households and communities affected by major environmental and economic transitions, noting that the burdens of change should not fall disproportionately on those with the fewest resources. Examples included concerns about policies that require household-level investment, such as home energy improvements, which one respondent argued must be supported to avoid deepening inequalities.

A few respondents also raised broader dimensions of justice. Some highlighted the importance of intergenerational equity, noting that future generations should inherit a healthier and more stable environment. Some suggested that the outcome should recognise justice for rural and agricultural communities, who may face distinct challenges in the transition. A few respondents advocated expanding the concept of justice to include nature itself, suggesting that non-human species should be recognised as requiring protection and space to thrive. These perspectives reflected a broader call for a more explicit, operational definition of a “just transition” that outlines how fairness, accountability, and shared benefits will be embedded across all draft Environment Strategy outcomes.

‘Scotland’s net zero, nature positive and circular economy thrives within the planet’s sustainable limits’

Several respondents felt that the framing of a “net zero, nature positive and circular economy” required a clearer definition, particularly regarding how different policy areas would be aligned to keep Scotland within environmental limits. A few of these respondents noted that achieving this outcome would depend on stronger integration of land use, food systems, infrastructure planning and industrial policy.

Some respondents emphasised the need for a more explicit role for different sectors. Examples included calls for recognising the potential of the built environment to contribute to net zero and biodiversity goals, the importance of sustainable land-based food production, and the contribution of responsible aquaculture and forestry. Two respondents suggested that the outcome should explicitly incorporate restoration rather than focusing solely on minimising harm, and that planetary boundary concepts should be applied more consistently to measure Scotland’s environmental footprint.

Several respondents also stressed the importance of a circular economy within this outcome. This included requests for improved waste treatment infrastructure, alignment of regulation across sectors, and clearer references to resource efficiency, reuse, and reducing dependence on high-impact supply chains. A few highlighted the need for stronger public engagement and education to ensure that circular practices are embedded across households, communities and businesses. Overall, respondents sought a more detailed articulation of how net zero, nature recovery and circularity would be delivered together in a way that respects environmental limits.

Some of the attendees of the economy consultation workshop suggested that the economy outcome should be reworded to “allows everyone to thrive within the planet’s sustainable limits”, to reflect a greater focus on people rather than the economy.

Suggested additional outcomes

Many respondents proposed adding entirely new outcomes to address perceived omissions. Suggestions varied widely, reflecting different sectoral perspectives, including:

• Several called for outcomes covering animal welfare.
• Several respondents proposed outcomes to reflect the role of public estates, including NHS and education estates.
• Several argued for new outcomes related to food systems, sustainable land-based food production and food security.
• A few respondents called for new outcomes focused on education, cultural change and learning for sustainability.
• A few asked for outcomes addressing health and wellbeing, including attendees of the health consultation workshop.
• A few respondents mentioned forestry, calling for recognition of active forest management and alignment with biodiversity and climate goals.

Other proposed additions included natural capital, planetary boundaries, marine resource use, low-impact rural business practice, built environment and ecological design, sustainable game and wildlife management, and global collaboration on biodiversity and climate action.

Other suggestions

Measuring, monitoring and reporting

Several respondents raised concerns about the measurability of the outcomes. These respondents called for clearer indicators, monitoring frameworks, and expectations for progress tracking. Several respondents requested a clearer analysis of how existing policies are performing, noting that the draft Strategy lists numerous related strategies but provides a limited assessment of whether these are delivering the intended outcomes. They argued that without understanding current performance, it is difficult to judge whether the proposed pathways are adequate or where gaps in delivery may lie. Some suggested that the draft Strategy should identify which policies require improvement, acceleration or replacement, and provide a more explicit rationale for prioritisation.

One respondent explicitly noted that qualitative indicators are needed while several highlighted concerns that data-driven frameworks may mask on-the-ground realities, particularly where numerical metrics do not capture the quality, viability or long-term success of interventions. Respondents pointed to examples such as tree-planting targets, where headline figures may obscure poor survival rates or unsuitable planting methods, arguing that qualitative measures are essential to assess meaningful change. Some highlighted monitoring needs they felt were specific to rural and island contexts, noting that national-level indicators can dilute or obscure the challenges faced by remote communities, including higher burdens of marine litter, distinct waste management constraints, and limited capacity for monitoring. Some of the attendees of the economy consultation workshop suggested that economic success could be measured by material footprint and wellbeing indicators, such as happiness, as rather than GDP.

Governance, regulation and enforcement

Several respondents stressed the need for stronger governance arrangements. They highlighted the importance of robust decision-making frameworks, including mechanisms to assess cross-sectoral impacts, avoid siloed policy development, and manage trade-offs between environmental, economic, and social objectives. These respondents called for long-term investment planning to accompany the Strategy, noting that delivery will require predictable funding, coordinated spatial planning and clearer expectations for public bodies and regulators. A few emphasised the need to embed learning for sustainability across education systems, governance structures, and institutions, arguing that the consistent integration of sustainability principles into decision-making, curriculum design, and public engagement would strengthen the delivery of all outcomes. Some of the attendees of the environment consultation workshop noted the Welsh Future Generations Commissioners identified environmental strategies as not being funding priorities, suggesting that this should be considered to ensure they are adequately resourced for delivery.

Q3. Do you think that the outcome pathways considered together include the important policies, actions and future priorities to achieve the Vision? If not, what changes would you suggest?

Respondent type	n=	% Yes	% No	% No answer
All respondents	126	32	33	35
All answering	82	49	51	-
Individuals	21	33	67	-
Organisations:	61	54	46	-
- Environment and sustainability	22	36	64	-
- Industry assoc./umbrella body	14	57	43	-
- Government and public sector/body	10	100	0	-
- Education and research	5	40	60	-
- Energy	3	67	33	-
- Health	1	100	0	-
- Transport	2	0	100	-
- Other	4	50	50	-

Among those answering Q3, views were evenly split on whether the outcome pathways considered together include the important policies, actions and future priorities to achieve the Vision outlined in the draft Strategy. Just under half (49%) of those answering felt they did, and just over half (51%) felt they did not. Organisations were more likely than individuals to feel the outcome pathways are appropriate (54% compared to 33%, respectively). However, very mixed views were evident by type of organisation, with all government and public sector organisations answering ‘yes’, compared to 57% of industry associations/umbrella bodies and 36% of organisations focusing on the environment and sustainability.

A total of 98 respondents provided a wide range of suggestions on whether the pathways will support the draft Strategy’s vision. Many emphasised the need for more complete and coherent pathways, clearer expectations for delivery, and stronger integration across land management, planning, and sectoral policy. Several focused on actions related to behaviour change, communications and community involvement as essential enablers of progress. Several respondents emphasised the importance of governance, monitoring, data, and regulatory alignment, while some highlighted connections with the circular economy and existing strategies. A smaller number raised additional considerations that did not fit neatly into the core themes.

Pathways

Incomplete pathways

Many respondents felt the pathways were incomplete, overly high-level, or insufficiently directive. Several emphasised that signposting to existing policies risked embedding the shortcomings of previous approaches, including missed targets for woodland creation, gaps in marine protection, and slow progress on water quality and species recovery. These respondents argued that the draft Strategy should be clearer about where existing frameworks have underperformed and where new actions or governance arrangements are needed. Some expressed concern that contradictions persist across policy areas, such as continuing peat extraction despite commitments to peatland restoration or allowing planting on deep peat while promoting carbon sequestration. A few added that the pathways require more detail on sequencing, geographic prioritisation and how different policies interact or overlap. Some of the environment consultation workshop attendees highlighted that the draft Strategy discusses ecosystem actions, not species-specific actions; however, the Biodiversity Delivery Plan has an objective focused on species-specific actions.

Supporting delivery

Many respondents expressed the view that successful delivery depends on adequate resources, strong coordination and clear accountability. They pointed to persistent capacity constraints within local authorities, regulators, and public bodies, noting that ambitions for nature restoration, pollution reduction, and climate action cannot be realised without sufficient staffing, expertise, and long-term funding. These respondents called for statutory monitoring requirements, transparent reporting, and mechanisms to ensure follow-through on commitments. Several suggested that the draft Strategy should explicitly outline delivery responsibilities across government and the public sector and set milestones that reflect the urgency of environmental challenges. A few noted the need for consistent guidance for land managers, developers and public bodies to reduce uncertainty and support practical implementation on the ground. Some of the attendees of the economy consultation workshop suggested that the draft Strategy should be clearer on the connection between the vision and policy levers to deliver it.

Sectoral pathways

Some respondents highlighted gaps in sector-specific clarity. For example:

• In agriculture, respondents raised concerns about soil health, nutrient pollution and the need for integrated farm plans that consider biodiversity, climate and water quality together.
• Respondents questioned the environmental value of non-native monocultures in forestry and called for safeguarding of sensitive habitats, soil carbon and peatlands.
• Marine respondents stressed conflicts between offshore renewables, fisheries, blue carbon protection and marine biodiversity recovery, calling for better coordination between planning and conservation frameworks.
• In energy and infrastructure, respondents noted that siting, design and consenting systems must consider cumulative impacts on ecosystems.
• In transport, respondents suggested that the draft Strategy include more focus on active, shared and public transport rather than the current focus on Electric Vehicles.
• A few emphasised the need to link pathways to the emerging Land Use Strategy, agricultural reform, river management plans and marine policy to ensure coherence.

Circular economy

Many respondents noted that reducing resource use, minimising waste and extending product life reduces emissions, cuts pollution and alleviates pressures on natural systems. Some called for stronger links to the Circular Economy Act, improved producer responsibility measures, and more investment in recycling and reprocessing infrastructure. A few emphasised the need to consider rural and island supply chain challenges to ensure fairness and effectiveness.

Health and tourism pathways

Some respondents highlighted that the draft Strategy could better reflect the role of high-quality natural environments in supporting physical and mental wellbeing. They noted the potential for green and blue spaces to reduce inequalities and increase community resilience. These respondents called for clearer integration of sustainable tourism, visitor management and recreational access into pathways, recognising that unmanaged visitor pressure can harm habitats, increase pollution and strain local services. They also suggested that the draft Strategy align more strongly with health policy to reinforce co-benefits.

Land management

Many respondents emphasised that decisions on tree planting, peatland restoration, agriculture, upland management and renewable development must be coordinated within a systems-based approach. They called for stronger safeguards to protect species-rich grasslands, native woodlands, peatlands and other sensitive habitats. Many advocated for native woodland expansion over commercial monocultures, improved soil health monitoring and integrated land use frameworks that prioritise nature-based solutions. These respondents also highlighted risks associated with carbon markets, offsetting schemes and speculative land acquisition, arguing that community ownership and democratic land governance can deliver more balanced, place-based outcomes.

Behaviour change

Respondents widely emphasised the need for strong behavioural change measures to support environmental outcomes. Many expressed the view that individuals, households, and businesses require clear incentives, accessible alternatives, and practical support to shift towards low-carbon, low-waste, and nature-positive behaviours. Some stressed that behaviour change should not place disproportionate burdens on those with lower incomes or limited access to alternatives. A few called for clearer guidance on reducing consumption, using greener transport, restoring nature in local spaces and adopting more sustainable land management practices.

Communication and engagement

Some respondents stressed the importance of effective communication and engagement across society. They called for accessible, evidence-based messaging that explains the rationale behind environmental actions and highlights the co-benefits for health, communities and local economies. Some respondents emphasised the need for stronger public engagement processes, particularly in rural and island areas where land use decisions are highly place-based. One respondent highlighted the need for clearer educational resources, noting that educators require more time, training and support to deliver Learning for Sustainability (LfS). Some suggested that campaigns should prioritise practical guidance on recycling, sustainable consumption, local biodiversity actions and household-level changes. Some of the attendees of the environment consultation workshop suggested that the draft Strategy could go further on citizen engagement, giving a voice to nature, and the issue of rights of nature.

Investment and support

Many respondents highlighted the need for long-term, multi-year funding for local authorities, regulators, community organisations and land managers. Some noted that underinvestment in circular economy infrastructure, nature restoration, rural transport, energy upgrades and community projects limits Scotland’s capacity to deliver meaningful change. Some of these respondents also emphasised the importance of financial stability for innovation, research, monitoring systems and nature-based solutions. A few highlighted the importance of aligning fiscal policy and public procurement with environmental goals. Attendees of the economy consultation workshop suggested that the government should identify key sectors in need of investment, and support the development of models for attracting private finance, particularly for nature, where the Scottish Government could explore mechanisms such as nature credits.

Community leadership

Some respondents highlighted the value of community leadership in delivering environmental outcomes. They expressed the view that communities possess local knowledge and have a strong interest in place-based decision-making. Many stressed that environmental projects succeed when communities are empowered, adequately funded and meaningfully involved. Several raised concerns about top-down interventions or offsetting schemes being imposed on communities without adequate consultation. A few emphasised the role of community ownership of land and woodland in balancing climate, biodiversity and pollution outcomes.

Governance

Some respondents highlighted outdated regulatory duties that create confusion, such as the duty relating to sustainable economic growth, and suggested reform to better align with environmental objectives. A few stressed the importance of effective enforcement, noting that current regulatory systems can be under-resourced or constrained by conflicting priorities. They called for clear governance structures, principles of equity and justice, and meaningful parliamentary scrutiny.

Monitoring and reporting

Robust, transparent monitoring emerged as a prevalent theme. A few respondents highlighted gaps in biodiversity data, soil measurements, water quality monitoring and pollution indicators. Some urged the adoption of clear, enforceable targets with measurable milestones and consistent methodologies. They recommended early ecological assessments for planning and development, as well as the better integration of species recovery indicators, natural capital accounting, and whole-life carbon assessment. One highlighted concerns that monitoring systems may overlook island contexts or obscure local pressures when aggregated at the national scale. Another raised concerns about the limitations of existing water classification systems and the need for species-based indicators, particularly for salmon and other priority species.

Links with other policies

Some respondents emphasised that the draft Strategy must align more coherently with related strategies, including the biodiversity strategy, climate change plan, land use strategy, marine planning, river basin management and spatial planning. They noted inconsistencies across policy areas and argued for better coordination to minimise trade-offs and improve delivery. Several highlighted the need to reference guiding principles on the environment and clarify how they apply across government.

Some of the attendees of the consultation workshops highlighted other policy links, including:

• Some health workshop attendees suggested including more information on the links between the Environment Strategy and the population health framework.
• Some environment workshop attendees suggested that the draft Strategy should consider how the “have regard to” provision can be used to drive action in other policies.
• Some economy workshop attendees suggested the draft Strategy should map interactions with the signposted policies to understand how they will deliver, and where they conflict.

Other

A few respondents raised additional issues, including the urgency of cutting fossil fuel emissions, animal welfare considerations, the importance of natural capital accounting and concerns about specific sectors such as quarrying and salmon farming. A few suggested incorporating arts-based approaches, health co-benefits, and more explicit messaging about the severity of Scotland’s biodiversity crisis into the draft Strategy.