Terrestrial and freshwater sites - biodiversity commitment: consultation analysis

Chapter 4 Proactive Management of Protected Areas and Other Important Areas for Biodiversity (Qs 2 – 3)

Overview

These questions in the consultation paper propose to amend the existing provisions for Land Management and Nature Conservation Orders to clarify their purpose and if necessary strengthen them through clarifying their role in addressing slow deterioration over long periods, such as addressing the threat of invasive non-native species spreading over native habitats such as woodlands. This would ensure that it is beyond doubt that the provisions are able to enforce active management of natural features in protected areas (whether protected habitats in their own right or habitats which support protected species), including where restoration is required.

Question 2

Should the Scottish Government clarify the existing powers that require management and restoration of protected areas, to make it clear that this requirement also covers protected areas that are experiencing slow deterioration over a long period of time (e.g. invasive non-native species spreading over native habitats such as woodlands)?

Responses to Question 2 by respondent type are set out in Table 4 below.

A majority – 86% of those who answered the question – agreed that the Scottish Government should clarify the existing powers that require management and restoration of protected areas, to make it clear that this requirement also covers protected areas that are experiencing slow deterioration over a long period of time. 8% disagreed with the proposals and 6% were neither agreed or disagreed.

The majority of both organisational and individual responses were in favour of this 88% of organisational responses and 80% of individual responses were marked either ‘agree’ or ‘somewhat agree’. Organisations and individuals who disagree were also closely aligned with 7% of organisations not being in favour of the proposal and 10% individuals marking either ‘somewhat disagree’ or ‘disagree’.

Question 3

Should the Scottish Government expand the existing powers to enforce and incentivise management and restoration of protected areas, to cover other land in situations where it has been identified to have significant benefits to be achieved through nature restoration?

Responses to Question 3 by respondent type are set out in Table 5 below.

Of the responses to this question, 88% of organisations, and 80% of individuals agreed the Scottish Government expand the existing powers to enforce and incentivise management and restoration of protected areas, to cover other land in situations where it has been identified to have significant benefits to be achieved through nature restoration.

A minority, of organisations and individuals, 7% and 10% respectively, disagreed with the proposal, responding either ‘disagree’ or somewhat disagree’. 3% of individuals responded as unsure to this question with no organisations answering this and 5% of organisations and 10% of individuals neither agreed nor disagreed.

Qualitative analysis

Of the 64 respondents, 56 provided a comment at question two, and 56 provided a comment at question three.

Respondents believed that the existing powers and measures in place have not been as effective as initially hoped, citing by the low number of enforcements that have taken place since their introduction. As such, respondents commented that before any substantive changes are made, suggestions were made, a review of the current powers and procedures should take place to ensure they are fit for purpose and to consider how they would work in future to avoid similar patterns emerging.

Respondents commented that the proposals to potentially broaden the scope for the designation of protected areas may increase the responsibilities that NatureScot would assume and noted likely requirement for additional resources that would be required. Respondents hoped that if funding were made available to NatureScot, they would be able to offer assistance in the management of sites that are of an unfavourable condition as well as providing support to supporting landowners, gathering data and sharing learning leading to an overall improvement of site conditions.

It should be noted however, that some respondents expressed concern that the proposals could increase the burden of responsibility for land owners without any appropriate financial assistance and who may then face action if a site shows signs of degradation. Concerns were also noted that any potential expansion of NatureScot’s powers in might lead to lead to a power imbalance against land owners in the making of land management decisions and how this might negatively affect relationships.

The possibility of implementing voluntary management arrangements with financial incentives, guidance and management plans as a non-legislative alternative to the expanding of enforcement measures was viewed favourably among many respondents. Some respondents felt that this method could lead to stronger relationships among parties involved in site management and could potentially improve long term prospects of sites. It was also considered that this option could possibly be more cost and resource effective than an approach more focused towards enforcement.

Some organisational respondents also suggested that any decisions taken forward as a result of this consultation should be done with long term commitments and funding in mind. They believed that long term security assurances would demonstrate the importance the Scottish Government places on these sites prevent any eventual unwinding of progress.