Environment strategy: behaviour changes needed to achieve Scotland's goals for biodiversity

Appendix B: Stakeholder workshop outline

Organisations represented in the stakeholder workshop

• Cairngorms National Park Authority
• Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC)@
• Marine Conservation Society (MCS)
• Nature Scot
• Public Health Scotland (PHS)
• Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB)
• Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA)
• The Conservation Volunteers (TCV)
• The James Hutton Institute

Workshop agenda

12.30-12.55

Welcome & Introduction to the project and participants

Presentation & discussion on the eight behaviour categories identified by project

12.30-12.55

Welcome & Introduction to the project and participants

Short break

12.30-12.55

Welcome & Introduction to the project and participants

Presentation & small group discussion on policy gaps and future priorities for addressing biodiversity behaviours

12.30-12.55

Welcome & Introduction to the project and participants

Plenary discussion on potential options and interventions to fill policy gaps.

Overview of workshop discussions

The online stakeholder workshop had fifteen participants and began with introductions to the project and participants. Following this, a Slido poll was used to ask participants which three behaviour categories they thought were the most important of the eight identified from the literature, in terms of impact. The results from this poll had the three most important behaviours as ‘choosing more sustainable product options (67%), ‘eating less meat’ (60%), and ‘investment in biodiversity’ (60%). Participants were also asked if there were any behaviours that they thought the Scottish Government should not target, with 56% voting for wildlife gardening. Participants felt that wildlife gardening wasn’t the best use of government effort, partly because it’s already well-covered by TV, charities, and public campaigns. Some thought resources would be better spent on areas with bigger impact, such as food choices, supply chains, or supporting volunteering. Others pointed out that not everyone has a garden, so it’s not the most inclusive behaviour to focus on. Overall, participants broadly agreed with the eight behaviour categories identified as relevant and suggested some other types of behaviour that could be considered. These related to specific types of outdoor recreation activities or mentioned behaviours of other groups out with the project scope (farmers/land managers). After the break there was a presentation on policy gaps and what should be prioritised. Discussion highlighted the importance of information availability, awareness raising (e.g. labelling, creative communications), and wider system changes, such as support for regenerative farming, shortening supply chains, regulation of advertising/greenwashing, subsidies for sustainable foods, opportunities for environmental volunteering, scepticism around regulation and enforcement (e.g. around littering, responsible dog ownership). To enact change, it was noted as important to target ‘beyond the converted'. To make real change happen, people said it’s crucial not just to focus on those already engaged, but to find ways of reaching those who are less inclined or able to make sustainable choices under current conditions. Participants said that a key way to do this is by making things as easy as possible for people. Other important ways of encouraging pro-biodiversity behaviours included fostering nature connections, such as environmental education in schools, and improving access to nature. There was discussion on the limitations of relying solely on behaviour change without systems change. Also, there was a suggestion for the Scottish Government to act as an enabler of both structural and cultural shifts and actively intervene to create behaviour change in the shorter-term.