Scottish seabird conservation action plan: consultation analysis

6 Monitoring progress and success (Q4)

6.1 The Scottish Seabird Conservation Action Plan is described as an evidence-based approach to seabird conservation, and the role of evidence was highlighted at various points in the document. As part of the discussion on implementation, the action plan stated that assessing progress in delivery will require monitoring and review activities and that, ultimately, success in achieving the vision set out will be assessed by changes in seabird populations and conservation status.

6.2 The action plan acknowledged that achieving change will be a long-term process. It sets out four existing sources of evidence for assessing the success of the action plan linked to the UK Marine Strategy Part 1, the Scottish Marine Assessment (SMA), the National Seabird Census, and Birds of Conservation Concern (BoCC): Future BoCC. It also notes that emerging evaluation frameworks associated with the Scottish Biodiversity Strategy may also provide suitable means of monitoring progress. Question 4 asked respondents for their views on the proposed measures for monitoring progress and success.

Question 4: Do you have any views on what measures we should use to monitor progress and success?

Please give us your views.

6.3 Altogether, 83 respondents – 17 organisations and 66 individuals – commented at Question 4.

6.4 The RSPB campaign response also commented on Question 4, and the views expressed are included in the analysis presented below.

6.5 Respondents commented on (i) the measures and related data sources that might be used for monitoring progress and success, and (ii) more general issues related to monitoring progress and success in relation to the action plan. Each of these are discussed in the sections below.

Measures that should be used to monitor the action plan

6.6 There was broad agreement among organisations about the importance of monitoring progress and success, as this would allow the associated actions to be properly directed and adapted, and the action plan to be reviewed and revised. Respondents also said that monitoring should be based on good quality, robust, up-to-date data, and that there should be clarity on the data sources to be used.

6.7 There was broad agreement that bird population data would provide an important measure of progress and success. Some endorsed the proposed data sources. However, it was more common for respondents to identify shortcomings or gaps in the proposed evidence sources for monitoring the action plan. Specific concerns expressed by respondents related to:

• The lack of Scotland-level information in the data sources highlighted within the action plan – it was stated that only two of the sources mentioned (Scotland’s Marine Assessment 2020 and a future National Seabird Census) provided such information
• The lack of updating (since 2019) of NatureScot’s Scottish biodiversity indicator for seabirds
• Whether the National Seabird Census would provide the necessary thresholds or limits to measure progress.

6.8 Respondents also suggested a need for improved data on issues such as seabird populations and survival rates at a colony and regional level, and a need for greater knowledge about juvenile bird survival rates.

6.9 Respondents called for:

• A properly resourced seabird census that did not rely on the volunteer sector, and adequate resources to allow for annual updating of the SMA
• The use of the most up to date seabird distribution maps (available from the Natural England OWEC POSEIDON project).

6.10 There were also calls for further monitoring and research in relation to the pressures affecting seabird populations. Some respondents highlighted the importance of gathering data on specific issues such as bycatch rates, biosecurity incursions (that is, the unplanned introduction of non-native species and diseases into an area), and beached birds. Others highlighted the need to increase understanding of a broad spectrum of pressures related to, for example, fisheries, climate change and renewables, or to build the evidence in relation to the impact of cumulative pressures on seabird populations. The roll-out of remote electronic monitoring of bycatch was seen as a matter of urgency by some environmental and nature organisations and was also highlighted in the RSPB campaign response.

6.11 Additionally, respondents said that account should be taken of pressures outwith Scottish waters, and thought there would be value in linking up with UK initiatives and activities which could provide relevant data.

6.12 Individuals generally offered similar, albeit briefer views. By and large, they agreed that seabird population numbers were key to monitoring the progress and success of the action plan, and that data on this should be gathered via regular bird surveys. Individuals also mentioned a range of other activities that they suggested could contribute to the monitoring of the action plan. In addition to the issues mentioned by organisational respondents (see paragraph 6.8), these included monitoring of breeding and feeding behaviours, habitat mapping, and wider surveys of marine life.

General issues related to monitoring progress and success

6.13 Most of those who commented at Question 4 – among both organisations and individuals – offered views of a general nature. The comments largely focused on: (i) oversight of the action plan and the broad approach taken to monitoring progress and success; (ii) review, reporting and publication; (iii) stakeholder engagement and collaborative working; and (iv) funding. On each of these, there was a great deal of consensus in the views expressed by respondents. The main points made in relation to each are summarised briefly below.

Oversight of the action plan, and the approach to monitoring progress and success

6.14 Environment and nature organisations and individuals often commented on the oversight of the action plan, and the general approach that should be adopted to monitoring progress and success.

6.15 Respondents endorsed oversight of the plan by the proposed Seabird Conservation Delivery Partnership (SCDP). A body with designated responsibility for delivery and review of progress was seen as important to ownership and accountability, and monitoring and research was seen as having an important and integral role within the overall management of the action plan. Within that context, various respondents highlighted the following:

• The implementation of the action plan had to be viewed as a long-term project, given the long-lived nature of seabird species. Monitoring activity had to take a similarly long-term view.
• The actions in the plan had to be translated into SMART objectives, with clarity about ownership, timelines, and funding in order to aid implementation and associated monitoring activity. Respondents frequently stressed the importance of timelines and deadlines, both for high level actions such as the establishment of the SCDP, and more operational issues such as the frequency of the various surveys that would provide monitoring data for the action plan.
• Monitoring activity should be coordinated and comprehensive.

6.16 In a few cases, respondents referred to the need for an overall approach based on a ‘theory of change’ with agreed outputs and outcomes and indicators of progress, or they advocated an ‘adaptive management strategy’. Others did not use such terms, but there was nevertheless a general consensus that there needed to be a clear framework for monitoring the plan, and a process for reviewing and revising the plan in the light of monitoring data and emerging evidence.

Review, reporting and publication

6.17 Organisations and individuals wished to see regular – some said annual – reviews of the action plan by the SCDP and said that such reviews should be published. Reporting on implementation and progress was seen as important in (i) maintaining focus on the action plan and the funding being provided to take this forward, and (ii) informing the future development, implementation and monitoring of the action plan.

6.18 Some said that clarity was needed on the time period the action plan was intended to cover, and timelines for future revisions and updates, and that a mechanism was needed to ensure that the action plan and future iterations incorporated the most up-to-date evidence.

6.19 Respondents also called for the publication of data collected as part of monitoring efforts – in a form able to be interrogated.

Stakeholder engagement and collaborative working

6.20 There was a great deal of consensus among respondents about the importance of stakeholder engagement and collaborative working in monitoring the progress and success of the action plan. Respondents highlighted the following in their responses:

• Consulting with (and feeding back to) stakeholders such as the British Trust for Ornithology (BTO), Scottish Wildlife Trust, RSPB, COAST, and bird ringers, all of whom had experience and expertise in this area
• Making use of (and providing funding for) local groups and initiatives, community projects, citizen science, small scale research projects, and encouraging them to contribute to monitoring activities
• Sharing data and providing opportunities for knowledge exchange.

6.21 One organisation from the fishing sector indicated the value of working with the fishing sector in undertaking monitoring activities but was keen that this did not over-burden those involved.

Funding

6.22 Respondents were agreed that the action plan and the activities associated with monitoring progress and success needed to be adequately funded. They wished to see continued and improved funding of research studies and monitoring activities related to seabird conservation, and said that this should extend to funding voluntary, community and local projects whose work might support the delivery and monitoring of the action plan.