Pressures Affecting Conservation Status of Designated Natural Features in Scotland: Impacts, Policy Context and Recommendations

Pressures affecting conservation status of designated natural features in Scotland: Impacts, policy context and recommendations

Contents

Acknowledgements ...... ii

Executive Summary ...... iii

1 Introduction ...... 5

2 Assessing feature condition ...... 7

3 Pressures ...... 9

3.1 Invasive species ...... 10

3.2 Overgrazing ...... 11

3.3 Recreation and Disturbance ...... 12

3.4 Water management ...... 13

3.5 Under-grazing ...... 14

3.6 Agricultural Operations ...... 15

3.7 Natural Event ...... 16

3.8 Burning ...... 17

3.9 Forestry Operations ...... 18

3.10 Trampling ...... 19

4 Remaining Challenges ...... 20

4.1 Policies, strategies and plans ...... 20

4.11 Strategic approach ...... 20

4.12 Legislation ...... 20

4.2 Voluntary initiatives, incentives, advice and enforcement ...... 25

4.21 Voluntary initiatives ...... 25

4.22 Advice ...... 26

4.23 Enforcement ...... 27

4.3 Data gaps ...... 33

4.31 Monitoring feature condition ...... 33

4.32 Identifying pressures and remedies ...... 33

4.4 Funding ...... 34

4.41 Budget cuts ...... 34

4.42 Securing new funds ...... 35

4.5 Climate Change ...... 36

5 Recommendations ...... 37

Annex 1: Marine Protected Areas ...... 38

References ...... 40

Acknowledgements

All data for feature condition and pressures were downloaded from the Protected Nature Sites page on Scottish Environment Web1, provided by Scottish Natural Heritage ©. Data were accessed on 09/12/2015 and, as the database is regularly updated, the data represent a snapshot of feature condition at that time. Designation boundaries for SSSIs, SPAs, SACS, Ramsar sites and MPAs were downloaded from SNH Natural Places2. All maps were produced in ArcGIS 10.3.1. All images are from RSPB Images ©.

Executive Summary Scotland’s land and sea support rich and varied assemblages of species and habitats which, in their own right and in combination, contribute significantly to Scotland’s natural heritage and economy. A suite of 1,868 protected areas have been designated under national, European and international legislation. These protect the very best of Scotland’s natural heritage and deliver multiple ecosystem services. However, despite the vital role that protected areas play in species and habitat conservation, progress towards improving condition of designated natural features has stalled in recent years. Feature condition in Scotland is determined by Scottish Natural Heritage’s (SNH) Site Condition Monitoring (SCM) programme, which is the application in Scotland of the Joint Nature Conservancy Council’s (JNCC) UK-wide Common Standards Monitoring. SNH release annual updates on the condition of designated natural features of protected sites, next due in May 2016. Between 2007 and 2015, the number of features reported as favourable under the National Indicator (NI) increased from 76% to 79.3%. However, most of this increase is due to unfavourable (SCM) features being moved into an unfavourable Recovering Due to Management category, which is then summarised as favourable for the purposes of the NI. Significantly, the number of features assessed as favourable as defined by SCM did not increase during that time period. This report uses publically available data, accurate as of December 2015, to investigate the barriers to improving feature condition of protected areas in Scotland. No negative pressures were identified for 40% of features. Of these, 10% were in unfavourable condition so this category contains both features which had no negative pressure and features for which it was not possible to assign a pressure. Of features for which pressures were identified, the top ten pressures are discussed. Invasive species are the top pressure, impacting 19% of designated features, followed by over-grazing (17%); recreation and disturbance (8%); water management (8%); under-grazing (6%); agricultural operations (5%); natural events (4%); burning (4%); forestry operations (3%) and trampling (3%). Many of the pressures identified, and the land uses associated with them, are influenced by a suite of policies, strategies and plans, supported by enforcement measures and incentives. However, these tools are far from safe as we have seen with the ’Fitness Check’ of the EU Bird’s and Habitat’s Directives, which was instigated by the EC following pressure to reduce the perceived regulatory burden on business. In light of the body of evidence supporting the efficacy of the Directives, and considerable public support for them, there are indications that the focus is shifting away from legislative change towards better implementation of the existing laws to benefit nature and business. However, policy gaps, over-reliance on voluntary measures and limited budgets for advice and management all continue to contribute to the challenge of reducing pressures on designated features. Budget cuts to statutory agencies have further limited progress and climate change is increasing the threat to features which are already under pressure. Our natural environment is irreplaceable and must be safeguarded. Protected areas play a crucial role in protecting and reversing declines of priority species and habitats but even these most special sites continue to be undermined by poor implementation of the legislation designed to protect them. Reversing declines in biodiversity will require concerted and coordinated effort by public bodies, NGOs and private landowners, using adequate resources and targeted management to

iii

improve the condition of designated sites, thus helping secure sustainable land management of the wider countryside.

Recommendations

 Current land use practices are having a significant impact on condition of designated features. The Scottish Land Use Strategy and Scotland’s Third National Planning Framework must be better linked and use in a coordinated way to guide and inform the choices we make about land use and land management at a national, regional and local level in Scotland.  All available policy instruments must be used in a coordinated and effective way by all statutory agencies to improve the condition of protected areas.  Scottish Government must commission a policy review to identify gaps hindering progress in feature condition improvements and new legislation should be developed where required.  SNH and Scottish Government should engage more proactively and constructively in EU level and national conversations which dictate and target the funds available for nature conservation in Scotland.  Scottish Government must invest in a framework to ensure that that public money is invested in a more strategic, coordinated way to deliver maximum benefits for biodiversity and other ecosystem services.  Scottish Government should make adequate funds available to SNH for research to identify pressures and remedies and to develop and disseminate advice to land managers.  SNH, Scottish Ministers and Courts must use the powers at their disposal to stop activities which negatively impact designated features and to secure restoration and conservation of habitats upon which those features depend.  SNH should commit to developing a monitoring system which can adequately measure the impact that conservation interventions are having on feature condition, and thereby to ‘benchmark’ and track progress towards favourable condition.  Scottish Government must recognise that protected areas can deliver wide social and economic benefits and ensure that adequate resources are deployed to secure their positive management.  SNH should take a higher-level, strategic and coordinated approach to secure national and EU funding for management and restoration of all protected areas in Scotland.  Scottish Government and other statutory agencies must recognise that improving the management of protected areas, alongside wider conservation measures, will be vital for increasing the resilience of species and habitats to climate change.

1 Introduction Scotland’ s land and sea support a rich and varied natural heritage, much of which has been shaped and influenced by man for centuries. The mountains, moorlands and heath which cover 46% of Scotland’s land area contain 90% of the UK’s montane habitat3 and one of the largest contiguous areas of blanket bog in the world, as well as iconic species such as mountain hare, golden eagle and red deer, ptarmigan, dotterel and wildcat4,5,6. Freshwater habitats support globally important populations of Atlantic salmon and freshwater pearl mussels7. Almost 1000 species of bryophytes occur in Scotland, representing 87% and 60% of UK and European totals respectively and up to 5% of the global total8. Agricultural land can also provide vital wildlife habitat. Machair, a High Nature Value farming system of international significance, is globally restricted to northern and western Scotland and north-west Ireland and supports a wide variety of bees and butterflies and birds, as well as one of the only British populations of the Irish lady’s tresses orchid9. Scotland’s seas are home to internationally important populations of whales and dolphins, 90% of the UK’s grey seal population and around a third of the EU’s breeding seabirds including the majority of the global populations of Manx shearwaters and great skuas. In their own right and in combination, these assemblages of species and habitats have contributed significantly to Scotland’s economy and around a fifth of Scottish industries rely on the natural environment10. Protected areas represent the very best of Scotland’s natural heritage and play a vital role in conserving and reversing declines of priority habitats and species. Protected areas alone are not enough to halt and reverse the loss of Scotland’ biodiversity, but are a fundamental building block for effective conservation across the wider landscape. A network of 1,868 protected areas have been designated under national, European and international legislation11 (Table 1), which make a significant contribution to the protection of 39 biodiversity priority habitats and 197 priority species in Scotland and the delivery of favourable conservation status at an EU level. Biodiversity priority habitats and species are those which are very vulnerable or in strong decline, for which targeted action has been identified12. Scotland’s network of protected areas has a function in the maintenance of ecosystem services, education, tourism and recreation and provides opportunities for scientific research13. There is also a growing body of evidence demonstrating the well-being14 and socioeconomic benefits15, 16 derived from protected areas. They are the front line of defence against the growing pressures on the natural environment and the policies and legislation which underpin them are the key drivers for the protection of vulnerable habitats and species. It is important to note that the underpinning legislation and policies are far from safe, with a reduction in political will, a focus on deregulation to promote economic growth and a consequent reduction in funding. The most clear manifestation of this has been the threats to the EU Bird’s and Habitat’s Directives. However, when given appropriate weight in decision making, the protected areas system ensures that development does not damage our most important places for wildlife, by providing clear spatial guidance which reduces uncertainty, delay and wasted effort, and enables the right developments in the right place, maximising environmental, social and economic benefits. Target 11 of the ‘Aichi’ global biodiversity targets commits Governments to play their part to ensure that by 2020 we “ have over 17% of the terrestrial and inland waters, and 10% of the coastal and marine waters of the world by area, in effective, equitably managed and ecologically representative connected systems of protected areas, integrated into wider landscapes and seascapes.” Scotland’s

protected areas network covers 18% of the land area17 and 20% of our seas18. Therefore, Scotland has surpassed the coverage aspect of the 2020 Aichi Target 11. However, much remains to be done to secure the effective management of these areas.

Table 1: Nature conservation designations in Scotland: policies and number of sites

Designation Scale of Policy Number of sites protection

Site of Special National Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act 1425 Scientific Interest 2004

Special Area of European Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC) 239 Conservation

Special Protection European Birds Directive (2009/147/EC) 153 Area

Ramsar Site International Ramsar Convention on Wetlands of 51 International Importance 1971

Despite the vital role that protected areas play in species and habitat conservation, progress towards securing improvements in site condition has stalled in recent years. The trends in the conservation status of designated natural features of protected sites suggest that more work is required to ensure that the protected areas network is effectively managed and ecologically coherent. The target to achieve 95% of protected natural features in favourable condition by 2010 was missed and subsequently dropped by Scottish Government, in favour of an ambiguous national performance indicator to “improve the condition of protected nature sites”19. This is a disappointing indication of a lack of ambition in delivery of protected area objectives, which is of great concern given that effective management of protected areas enables them to deliver ecosystem services and greater benefits for nature. Currently, around a fifth of designated features consistently remain in unfavourable condition, and there has been minimal improvement in recent years. This need not be the case: protected areas targets can be met by means of by making the use of all the available tools, including regulation, incentives and voluntary measures to secure targeted management, provided this is underpinned by adequate resourcing. This report uses publically available data to investigate the barriers to improving feature condition of protected areas in Scotland. Given the data available, the report has a primarily terrestrial focus. However, the challenges are just as great, if not greater, within marine protected areas. An overview of marine sites is provided in Annex 1.

2 Assessing feature condition Feature condition in Scotland is determined by Scottish Natural Heritage’s (SNH) Site Condition Monitoring (SCM) programme, which is the application in Scotland of the Joint Nature Conservancy Council’s (JNCC) UK-wide Common Standards Monitoring. SNH release annual updates on the condition of designated natural features of protected sites, the most recent in May 2016. In 2010, SNH also published a detailed update on progress from SCM reporting rounds 1 and 2, a description of distribution, condition, management issues and actions taken for designated features20. This report does not aim to duplicate the information published by SNH but will provide an overview of trends in feature condition and the pressures impacting them. SCM is a 6 year rolling programme which assesses condition as one of seven condition categories:

 Favourable maintained  Favourable recovered  Favourable declining  Unfavourable recovering  Unfavourable no change  Unfavourable declining  Partially destroyed These are summarised into three summary condition categories:  Favourable  Unfavourable recovering due to management (RDM) – unfavourable features for which management options have been identified  Unfavourable Scottish Government reports annually on 55 national indicators to show progress towards a range of national outcomes, one of which is to improve the condition of protected nature sites21. For purposes of reporting on this national indicator (NI), the categories “favourable” and “unfavourable RDM” are combined and reported as favourable (favourable (NI) hereafter) (Figure 1).

Figure 1: Feature condition category groupings for assessed condition, summary condition and the national

A number of features have not been assessed and are excluded from the calculation of the NI. Using this method, SNH reported that 79.3% of all features were in favourable (NI) condition by March 201522. This figure comprised 66.2% features assessed by SCM as favourable (maintained,

recovered or declining); 6% assessed as unfavourable recovering; and 7.1% assessed as unfavourable RDM, although these figures varied slightly between designations (Figure 2).

100% 90%

80% 70% 60% Unfavourable 50% 40% Unfavourable (RDM) 30% Favourable Percentageoffeatures 20% 10% 0% SSSI SPA SAC Ramsar All sites Designation Figure 2: Percentage of features in each summary condition category within designated sites in Scotland

In the same document, SNH report that there was an increase of 7.9 points since 2005, when 71.4% of features were favourable (NI). However, the category of unfavourable RDM was not introduced until 2007 so data for 2005 cannot be compared with later data. Between 2007 and 2015, the number of features reported as favourable (NI) increased from 76% to 79.3%. Most of this increase is due to more unfavourable (SCM) features being moved into the unfavourable RDM category. Significantly, the number of features assessed as favourable (SCM) did not increase during that time period (Figure 3). This is despite condition improvements in features managed by environmental None-Government Organisations (eNGOs) and statutory agencies over the same time period, which indicates that there may have been concurrent deterioration in the condition of features on privately managed land for the overall trend to stay the same.

100%

90%

20.7

21.2

21.6

21.9

22.5

22.8

22.9

28.6

80%

Unfavourable (SCM)

7.1

6.6

5.6

5.9

5.2

5.6

6.5

8.9

4.5

6 6 4

70% 6

5.3

6.2

6.2 4.8 60% Unfavourable (RDM)

50%

Unfavourable recovering (SCM)

40%

67.5

67.4

67.1

66.2 66.2

65.7 65.6 30% 64.7

Percentageoffeatures Favourable (SCM) 20%

10%

0% 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Year Figure 3: Trends in feature condition between 2005 and 2015 for all features under all designations23. 8

3 Pressures Scotland’s landscape is changing, habitats are being lost, species are in decline and vital ecosystem services are increasingly under threat24. Unsustainable resource use, habitat loss, pollution and invasive non-native species are considered some of the greatest threats to biodiversity and climate change is adding increasing pressure to already vulnerable species and habitats. Despite the protection afforded by legislation, designated features are still susceptible to these pressures, both on and off site (Figure 4) and many are affected by multiple pressures, often as a result of poor implementation, inadequate resourcing and over-reliance on voluntary initiatives25. SNH’s remit includes securing the conservation and enhancement of nature and landscapes; fostering their understanding and facilitating their enjoyment; and promoting their sustainable use and management26. However, pressures such as those associated with agricultural operations, water management and forestry operations fall under the remit of other statutory agencies, which all have a duty to further the conservation of biodiversity within protected areas and in the wider countryside27. These pressures are also influenced by wider national and EU policies and strategies. Therefore, whilst SNH have significant responsibility for, and must provide leadership in nature conservation in Scotland, other authorities and land managers have a significant part to play. No negative pressures were identified for 40% of features. Of these, 10% were unfavourable (SCM) so this category contains both features which had no negative pressure and features for which it was not possible to assign a pressure. Of features to which pressures were assigned, the top ten pressures are discussed below.

2500

2000 Unfavourable

1500 Unfavourable RDM

1000 Favourable

500

Other

grazing

Burning

Trampling

Extraction

Air pollution Air

Over

Development

Water quality Water

Natural event Natural

Wildlife crime Wildlife

Under

Infrastructure

Number ofaffected Number featureseach in condition category

Climate Change Climate

To be identified be To

Invasive species Invasive

Military activities Military

site management site

Forestry operations Forestry

Water management Water

specific competition specific

Statutory undertaker Statutory

Conservation activities Conservation

Agricultural operations Agricultural

Maintenance activities activities Maintenance

Recreation/disturbance

Plant pests and diseases and pests Plant

Inter

No proactive management proactive No

Game/ fisheries management fisheries Game/

Dumping/ storage of materials of storage Dumping/

Proactive on Proactive

No negative pressures identified pressures negative No Flood defence/coastal defence works defence defence/coastal Flood Pressure Figure 4: Pressures affecting designated features across all protected areas for nature in Scotland, and the percentage summary condition of features impacted

3.1 Invasive species Invasive species are the single largest pressure impacting designated features in Scotland. They can be defined as animals or plants which, in the absence of control, are likely to have significantly adverse impacts on biodiversity; other environmental interests; or social or economic interests28. Potential impacts include predation, resource competition and introduction of disease to native species. SNH report three categories of invasive species which impact designated features:

 Presence or changing extent of invasive species (Uncategorised)  Presence/changing extent invasive species – NATIVE (Native)  Presence/changing extent invasive species - NON NATIVE (Non-native)

Headline figures:

 983 assessed features (19%) are affected by invasive Figure 5: Sites where SNH site condition monitoring has species across all designated sites (Figure 5). identified invasive species as a pressure  33% of affected features are in unfavourable condition.  16% of affected features are unfavourable RDM.  20% were uncategorised.  37% were native, eg. birch, bracken, gorse and willow.  43% were non-native, eg. conifers, rhododendron and sitka spruce.  Woodland features, followed by wetland features and then upland habitats, are under the greatest pressure from invasive species (Figure 6).  61% of upland mixed ash woodland, 55% of raised bogs and 54% oak woodland features are affected by invasive species. Figure 6: Number of individual features within each broad feature category affected by invasive species 10

3.2 Overgrazing Grazing can be an important habitat management tool but grazing in the wrong place, at the wrong time or at too Figure 4: Number of individual features affected in each high a stocking density can have a negative impact on broad feature category vegetation assemblages and the habitats they comprise. Inappropriate grazing has been shown to reduce species diversity and reduce abundance of vascular plants, grasses, lichens, liverworts and mosses; favouring herbs, shrubs and sedges29. Furthermore, once the damage is done, reducing grazing pressure in the absence of other management interventions may not be enough to restore original species composition30. SNH site condition assessments identify a number of sources of overgrazing but the two with the largest impact are:

 Overgrazing by livestock  Overgrazing by deer Headline figures:

 887 assessed features (17%) are affected by overgrazing across all designated sites (Figure 7). Figure 7: Sites where SNH site condition monitoring has identified over-grazing as a pressure  36% of affected features are in unfavourable condition.  18% of affected features are unfavourable RDM.  Upland habitats, followed by woodland features and then birds, are under the greatest pressure from overgrazing (Figure 8).  63% dry heath, 60% of upland oak woodland, 58% upland assemblages and 30% blanket bog features are impacted by overgrazing.

Figure 8: Number of individual features in each broad feature category impacted by overgrazing 11

3.3 Recreation and Disturbance Increasing people’s use of the Scottish outdoors is a national performance indicator and 50% of adults visit the outdoors at least once a week31. Protected areas represent the very best of Scotland’s natural heritage and attract opportunities for tourism and recreation. Wildlife-rich green space has been linked to stress reduction in adults32 and children33; and individuals with access to nature are less likely to become overweight or obese34. However, access must be carefully managed to ensure that people have an opportunity to enjoy the natural environment whilst the landscapes and wildlife that draw them there are protected. Headline figures:

 435 of assessed features (8%) are affected by recreation and disturbance across all designated sites (Figure 9).  21% of affected features are in unfavourable condition.  3% of affected features are unfavourable RDM.  Pressures include car parking, cycling, dog walking, Figure 9: Sites where SNH site condition monitoring has fishing, motor bikes, off road vehicles, walking and wild identified recreation and disturbance as a pressure  camping.  Birds (52% of total), followed by upland habitats then earth science features are under the greatest pressure from recreation and disturbance (Figure 10).  53% of breeding golden plover, 53% of breeding greenshank, 41% of non-breeding redshank and 35% of breeding dunlin features are impacted by recreation and disturbance.

Figure 10: Number of individual features within each broad feature category impacted by recreation and disturbance 12

3.4 Water management Scotland’s water resource is precious and 70% of all designated features are listed as water-dependent. These are defined as features whose condition are related to freshwater or could be impacted by water related pressures. Water management includes abstraction, flow regulation, morphological alterations, diffuse and point source pollution and poor practice can negatively impact designated features. Headline figures:

 393 assessed features (7.5%) are affected by water management across all designated sites (Figure 11)  41% of affected features are in unfavourable condition.  10% of features are unfavourable RDM.  26% of water management pressures come from diffuse pollution, 21% from morphological alteration, 7% from flow regulation, 3% from point source pollution, 2% from abstraction and 41% uncategorised or to be identified.

 Birds, followed by wetlands then freshwater habitats are Figure 11: Sites where SNH site condition monitoring has under the most pressure from water management identified water management as a pressure pressures (Figure 12).  74% breeding golden plover, 68% breeding greenshank, 58% of eutrophic lochs and 43% of raised bog features are impacted by water management.

Figure 12: Number of individual features within each broad feature category impacted by water management 13

3.5 Under-grazing As outlined above, grazing can be an important habitat management tool. A number of habitats, for example semi-natural grasslands, have been altered by historical human agricultural activity35. They rely on sustainable grazing systems to maintain species diversity and prevent scrub encroachment36. Some species such as ground- nesting birds require a mosaic of sward heights for cover and patches of open ground for feeding. Taller vegetation and scrub can provide cover for predators so under- grazing can reduce habitat suitability. Therefore, under- grazing, often associated with agricultural abandonment of marginal land, can have a negative impact on vegetation structure, and the biodiversity these habitats support. Headlines:

 319 assessed features (6%) are affected by under- grazing across all designated sites (Figure 13)  33% of affected features are in unfavourable Figure 13: Sites where SNH site condition monitoring has identified under-grazing as a pressure condition.  20% of affected features are unfavourable RDM.  Lowland grasslands, followed by wetlands and then upland habitat features are under most pressure from undergrazing (Figure 14).  67% of lowland acid grassland, 61% of fen meadow and 53% of lowland neutral grassland features are impacted by under-grazing.

Figure 14: Number of individual features in each broad feature category impacted by under-grazing 14

3.6 Agricultural Operations Agricultural production takes place on 75% of Scotland’s land area37 and the food and drink industry is worth £14Billion38. Traditional farming systems had a role in creating and maintaining many important habitats. However today around a fifth of green house gas emissions originate from agricultural activities39 and agricultural intensification has been linked to degredation and loss of habitats and declines in biodiversity40. The agriculture sector contributes to several listed pressures, including over-grazing, under-grazing, trampling and water management. These are not counted again in this section, which instead refers to operations such as drainage ditches, spreading slurry, poaching and off-road vehicles. Headlines:  241 assessed features (5%) are affected by agriculatural operations across all designated sites (Figure 15).  26% of affected features are in unfavourable condition. Figure 15: Sites where SNH site condition monitoring has  7% of affected features are unfavourable RDM. identified agricultural operations as a pressure  Birds, followed by upland habitats then freshwater habitats are most under pressure from agricultural operations (Figure 16).  47% of Atlantic salmon, 29% of eutrophic lochs and 21% of hen harrier features are impacted by agricultural operations.

Figure 16: Number of individual features within each broad feature category impacted by agricultural operations 15

3.7 Natural Event This pressure is poorly defined within the SNH feature condition data but it includes events such as flooding and landslides. Frequency and intensity of such events are likely to increase in response to climate change. By 2050, Scotland is predicted to experience warmer, wetter winters and warmer drier summers, increased frequency and intensity of extreme precipitation events, reduced frequency of frost and snowfall and a rise in sea levels41, which will increase pressure on susceptible features. Whilst such events are unpredictable and difficult to plan for, improving the management of protected areas, alongside wider conservation measures, will be vital for increasing the resilience of species and habitats to natural events. Headlines:

 206 assessed features (4%) are affected by natural events across all designated sites (Figure 17).

 29% of affected features are in unfavourable condition. Figure 17: Sites where SNH site condition monitoring has  5% of affected features are unfavourable RDM. identified natural events as a pressure  Birds, followed by earth science features then coastal features are most under pressure from natural events (Figure 18).  30% of machair, 21% of breeding Arctic tern, 19% of breeding shag and 18% of breeding Arctic skua features are impacted by natural events.

Figure 18: Number of individual features in each broad feature category impacted by natural events 16

3.8 Burning Burning has traditionally been used across grass and heather moorland42, to manage grazing conditions for livestock and deer and to create heather mosaics for food and cover for red grouse. Burning undertaken on suitable rotations and intensities may have some applications for conservation by maintaining a varied vegetation structure for plant, invertebrate and bird communities43. It has been reported to aid wildfire risk reduction although there is no empirical data to support this. Burning can have negative impacts on soil44, water quality45, peat hydrology, aquatic invertebrate populations and carbon storage46. Despite a presumption against burning on deep peat47, recent research found that 28% of all 1-km squares subjected to burning in Scotland overlie deep peat, and the annual number of burns increased significantly between 2001- 1148. Negative impacts may be particularly pronounced when combined with other pressures such as over-grazing 49 and drainage . Figure 19: Sites where SNH site condition monitoring has identified burning as a pressure Headlines:  201 assessed features (4%) are affected by burning across all designated sites (Figure 19).  34% of affected features are unfavourable.  14% of affected features are unfavourable RDM.  58% of features impacted by burning are upland habitat featuress (Figure 20).  71% merlin, 50% hen harrier, 44% dry heath and 27% of blanket bog features are impacted by burning  Considering unfavourable features alone, 100% of hen harrier and merlin features, 59% dry heath and 51% blanket bog features have burning listed as a pressure. Figure 20: Number of individual features in each broad feature category impacted by burning 17

3.9 Forestry Operations Woodands cover 18% of the land area of Scotland; 52% of this is owned by Forestry Commision Scotland. Conifers account for 76% of the total woodland area and for 93% of the woodland area in public ownership50. The area of woodland has expanded over the past 90 years, from around 5% cover just after the First World War, This expansion has been primarily for commercial forestry, and has been achieved at the cost of important open upland and grassland habitats51. As many of the most badly affected habitats were not subsequently designated for nature protection, the true impacts of forestry are not captured by the feature condition data. Drainage, harvesting activities, forest tracks and heavy machinary associated with forestry operations can all have an impact on designated features. Forestry can also be a potential source of invasive species . Headlines: Figure 21: Sites where SNH site condition monitoring has  171 assessed features (3%) are affected by forestry identified forestry operations as a pressure operations across all designated sites (Figure 21).  21% of affected features are in unfavourable condition.  6% of affected features are unfavourable RDM.  Birds, followed by earth science and invertebrates are most impacted by forestry operations (Figure 22)  53% of Atlantic salmon, 42% breeding golden plover and 35% breeding dunlin features are impacted by forestry operations.

Figure 22: Number of individual features in each broad feature category impacted by forestry operations 18

3.10 Trampling Trampling is closely linked with overgrazing and in this context is associated with livestock and deer, although human recreation can also be a cause. Trampling can reduce soil porosity, resulting in increased surface run-off and soil erosion52. In peatland habitats, it has been linked to reduction in cover and species richness of Sphagnum mosses, lichens and liverworts and an increase in the area of bare peat53. The eggs and chicks of ground-nesting birds are also susceptible to trampling so grazing animal densities must be carefully managed during the nesting season. Headlines:

 169 assessed features (3%) are affected by trampling across all designated sites (Figure 23).  34% of affected features are in unfavourable condition.  12% of affected features are unfavourable RDM.  Trampling predominantly impacts upland habitat Figure 23: Sites where SNH site condition monitoring has features (Figure 24). identified trampling as a pressure  72% of all features impacted by trampling are upland features  50% of alpine and subalpine heath, 43% of alpine and subalpine calcareous grasslands, 25% of montane acid grasslands and 20% blanket bog are impacted by trampling

Figure 24: Number of individual features in each broad feature category impacted by trampling 19

4 Remaining Challenges 4.1 Securing positive land management: Policies, strategies and plans

4.11 Strategic approach

A well-managed network of protected areas should be seen as a major contribution to sustainable development and as such incorporated into strategic planning policies. Influencing land management inside and outside of the protected area network and reserves is challenging – but essential. Agriculture and forestry affect 92% of Scotland’s land area and have contributed to the declines of natural habitats as previously discussed. Targets for renewable energy development, forestry expansion and food production can sometimes be in direct conflict with protected area objectives but can also offer significant opportunities for enhancing or complementing protected areas. However, nature conservation is often seen as the sole responsibility of SNH and environmental NGOs. We must reach a point where all land use sectors understand the impacts of unsustainable land management practices and the duty they have to manage land responsibly. To this end, a coordinated, integrated and strategic approach must be taken to land use in Scotland. The Scottish Land Use Strategy54and Scotland’s Third National Planning Framework55 should provide a mechanism to guide and inform the choices we make about land use and land management at a national, regional and local level in Scotland. These policies should also be better linked with the National Marine Plan56 to ensure that all of Scotland’s natural heritage is protected. It will be critical that all relevant policy instruments have the concept of ecological networks, which embrace the full range of conservation tools, of which protected areas are a key component.

4.12 Legislation

Legislative tools already exist to address many of the top pressures impacting designated features (Table 2). These tools are far from safe as we have seen with the ’Fitness Check’ of the EU Bird’s and Habitat’s Directives, which was instigated by the EC following pressure to reduce the perceived regulatory burden on business. On the basis of the substantial body of evidence collected, and supported by a campaign spearheaded by a partnership of NGO’s at a UK and EU level, there are indications that the focus is shifting away from legislative change to a focus on better implementation of the existing laws to benefit nature and business. The campaign received an unprecedented level of support with over 520,000 EU citizens signing an EC petition, over 100,000 of these being from the UK. This demonstrates public support for strong nature laws and provides a mandate for action for Governments across Europe. All available policy instruments must be used in a coordinated and effective way to improve the condition of protected areas. Where necessary, SNH should exercise powers under Section 12 of the Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act 2004 to advise other public bodies of the steps that should be taken. Development of stronger national legislation may be required to tackle some pressures, for example deer management. Such policy gaps should be identified and filled as a priority.

Table 2: Main policies, strategies and plans relevant to each pressure

Policy Invasive Over- Over- Recreation Water Under- Agri - Natural Burning Forestry Trampling /Strategy/Plan species grazing grazing and management grazing operations event operations (livestock) (deer) disturbance

EU Birds Directive x x x x x x x x x x x

EU Common x x x x x x x x Agricultural Policy

EU Forestry x x x x Strategy

EU Habitats x x x x x x x x x x x Directive

EU Water x x x x x Framework Directive

The Common x x x x Agricultural Policy (Cross- Compliance) (Scotland) Regulations (2014)

Core Paths Plans x

Deer (Scotland) Act x x x (1996) as amended by the Wildlife and Natural Environment (Scotland) Act (2011)

Environmental x Impact Assessment (EIA)(Agriculture) (Scotland) Regulations 2006, transposed from EIA Directive.

Historic x x Environment (Scotland) Act 2015

Land Reform x x (Scotland) Act (2016)

Muirburn Code x x (2011)

Nature x x x x x x x x x Conservation (Scotland) Act (2004); Wildlife and Countryside Act (1981) amended by the Wildlife and Natural Environment (Scotland) Act (2011)

Scottish Forestry x x Strategy (2006)

Scottish Land Use x x Strategy (2016-21)

Scottish Rural x x x x x x x Development Programme 2014- 21

Scottish Outdoor x Access Code

Town and x Countryside Planning (Scotland) Act (1997)

Wildlife and x Countryside Act (1981) amended by the Wildlife and Natural Environment (Scotland) Act (2011)

Water x x x Environment (Controlled Activities) (Scotland) Regulations (CAR) 2011

Water x x Environment and Water Services (Scotland) Act 2005

4.2 Securing positive land management: Voluntary initiatives, advice and enforcement A suite of mechanisms are available to secure positive land management for nature conservation on privately owned land, including voluntary initiatives, advice and enforcement. Enforcement and incentives associated with each of the top ten pressures are outlined in Table 3. When used appropriately, these tools can encourage land managers to take the steps required to secure favourable condition of designated features. However, an over-reliance on voluntary measures and a reluctant to fully utilise enforcement tools has contributed to the ongoing damage of protected areas.

4.21 Voluntary initiatives

Voluntary approach is a term referring to non-mandatory arrangements by the private sector to meet commitments which go beyond those imposed by existing regulation57. Voluntary initiatives include market-led, incentive-based approaches and non-monetary approaches58. In a nature conservation context, incentive-based initiatives are offered as compensation for income forgone due to management changes or for undertaking activities above and beyond regulatory obligations. For example, SNH has powers, derived from Section 15 of the Countryside Act 1968 (as amended)59; Section 49A of the Countryside (Scotland) Act 196760 and; Section 16 of the National Parks & Access to the Countryside Act 196761, to enter into management agreements with land owners to secure appropriate management for nature conservation. SNH’s Natural Care Initiative, launched in 2001, provided a boost to SNH’s management agreement programme. However, the programme has since been subsumed into the Scottish Rural Development Programme62 (SRDP), with the budget for management agreements falling from £4.8M TO £2.5m between 2010/11 and 2014/15 and the number of management agreements falling from 1000 to 600 over the same period63.

The Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) is the largest source of financial support for incentivising sustainable management of Scotland’s rural areas. The agri-environment-climate scheme in Pillar II of the CAP (SRDP) is the main mechanism available for incentivising land management tailored to specific species and habitats and for designated sites. Adequately targeted, species-specific agri- environment schemes have proved effective at increasing populations of some bird species, for example corn bunting64. Uptake and payment for agri-environment schemes are higher within SSSIs in Scotland, which indicates that government targeting of funds towards protected areas is working65. However, this budget is severely overstretched and opportunities were missed to maximise funds available for agri-environment in the current scheme. Given the importance of agri- environment measures for securing protected area management and the need to green the CAP more widely, SNH and Scottish Government should engage more proactively and constructively in EU level and national conversations which dictate and target the funds available for nature conservation in Scotland.

SEPA administer a Water Environment Fund (WEF)66 to deliver improvements to the physical condition of the water environment by restoring urban and rural river systems. The fund is aimed specifically at improving physical condition of water bodies to good ecological status, as defined by the Water Framework Directive (WFD). In reference to protected areas, WFD Article 4, Section 1c

states that “Member States shall achieve compliance with any standards and objectives at the latest 15 years after the date of entry into force of this Directive...” and Section 2 states that where more than one objective applies to a water body, the most stringent must apply. This is not currently happening in cases where nature conservation objectives are more stringent than WFD objectives and the latter are prioritised for WEF decisions. There are opportunities to meet both WFD and protected area objectives, for example by removal of invasive non-native species and by reversing damaging water management impacts. However this would require much better coordination between SEPA and SNH to determine how and where the fund is spent. Scottish Water also provide funding for land management, the Sustainable Land Management (SLM) Incentive scheme67. The SLM Incentive Scheme funds capital and management items within specific drinking water catchments to tackle pressures impacting drinking water quality. The fund is particularly focused on peatland restoration and reducing diffuse pollution. Whilst improving drinking water quality is the main aim of the fund, there is overlap between the water catchments and protected areas. Scottish Government must invest in a framework to ensure that that public money is invested in a more strategic, coordinated way to deliver maximum benefits for biodiversity and other ecosystem services. The voluntary non-monetary approach is used less frequently for nature conservation and, in the absence of economic incentives, it relies on the intrinsic values that a land manager places on conservation68. The approach has limited success where other priorities have primacy over nature conservation. For example, in Scotland, a voluntary approach to deer management has failed to reduce the impacts of over-grazing and trampling by deer on designated features, possibly due to conflicts with sporting interests. This has resulted in calls from eNGOs, with support from MSPs, for greater powers to assist SNH in securing effective deer management. Another example is the voluntary approach taken in implementation of Environmental Impact Assessment (Agriculture) (Scotland) Regulations 200669. These regulations cover projects for the conversion of uncultivated land and semi-natural areas into intensive agricultural use; and projects which restructure rural land holdings. However, screening for environmental impacts relies on landowners notifying authorities of activities. As a result, only 35 screening decisions have been taken between 2007-2013 across all of Scotland70. More widely, the efficacy of this approach has been questioned. A recent study found that 82% of voluntary schemes performed poorly on one or more performance criteria, when target achievement, target ambition and level of uptake were considered. The same study found that schemes performed significantly better when implemented in conjunction with regulations and incentives71. SNH and Scottish Government must use the full suite of tools at their disposal to secure site condition improvements, reducing their reliance on voluntary measures.

4.22 Advice

The information available to land managers is patchy at best and confusing at worst. Some pressures, such as burning, are described as having both positive and negative impacts. In many cases, the pressures haven’t been identified so it will be unclear what remedial action land managers are required to take. Once again, Environmental Impact Assessment (Agriculture)(Scotland) Regulations 2006 are an example of this, with the low number of screenings for environmental impacts resulting from lack of awareness on the part of farmers of their obligations. Clear, consistent advice must be provided to land managers on the factors impacting feature condition and

the steps required to improve it. The recovery of the corncrake from extinction in Scotland is an example of what can be achieved when advice is provided in conjuction with targeted financial support72. Scottish Government should make adequate funds available to SNH for research to identify pressures and remedies and to develop and disseminate advice to land managers.

4.23 Enforcement Article 6(2) of the EU Habitats Directive requires that Member States take appropriate steps to avoid deterioration of designated habitats and species. SNH, along with other statutory agencies, have a legal duty to secure improvements in the condition of designated features. To support them in this role, a range of enforcement tools are available to address many of the top pressures (Table 3). Chapter 2 (Sections 23-28) of the Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act 200473 and regulations 19 and 20 of the Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Regulations 199474 make provisions forNature Conservation Orders (NCOs) on SSSIs and Natura sites respectively. NCOs can be used to protect natural features of defined areas of land from damage by making specified activities illegal for at specific time period. Importantly, NCOs not only apply to SSSIs and Natura sites but can also be used to protect land outside the protected area network which Scottish Ministers consider to be important for its natural features; and land which is contiguous or otherwise associated with any of the above. Thus, NCOs give SNH powers to stop damaging activity both within protected areas and in the wider countryside, where natural features are at risk. There are currently only nine NCOs in force in Scotland. Scottish Ministers reviewed all NCOs in 2010/11 and revoked 1475. No new NCOs have been made since 2006/0776. Chapter 3 (sections 29 to 37) of the Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act 2004 and regulations 19 and 20 of the Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Regulations 1994 make provisions for Scottish Ministers to make Land Management Orders (LMOs) on SSSIs and Natura sites respectively. LMOs give Scottish Ministers powers to compel a land manager to carry out land management required to conserve, restore or enhance condition of designated features on SSSIs and Natura sites. SNH must first have offered to enter into a management agreement with the land manager. If the land manager fails to enter into an agreement or fails to deliver the agreed actions, SNH may make a proposal to Scottish Ministers, who can then make an LMO. On an SSSI or Natura site that is unoccupied, or where the owner could not be contacted after reasonable attempts, SNH may use LMOs to carry out conservation work. There are currently no LMOs active in Scotland. Section 40 of the Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act 2004 gives powers to Courts to impose a Restoration Order (RO), which is a criminal penalty for intentional or reckless damage to designated features of SSSIs or Natura sites. ROs may specify the actions required to restore damaged features to their former condition. Failure to comply, without a reasonable excuse, is an offence and SNH may carry out the work, recovering their costs from the responsible person. No Court has made a restoration Order. Used effectively, these enforcement powers should enable SNH to secure the positive land management required to improve feature condition. However, as is evident from the number of active Orders, these powers are under-utilised. As a result, around a fifth of designated features remain in unfavourable condition in Scotland. SNH, Scottish Ministers and Courts must use the powers at their disposal to stop activities which negatively impact designated features and to secure restoration and conservation of habitats upon which those features depend.

Table 3: Key enforcement, incentives and policy challenges with each pressure

Pressure Enforcement tools Incentives Responsible Responsible body Policy challenges sector

Invasive The Wildlife and Countryside SRDP Fisheries, forestry, Scottish Ministers; • Emphasis remains on voluntary approach rather species (Scotland) Act (1981) enables agriculture, SNH; Forestry than enforcement passing of Species Control Orders anglers, pet trade, Commission • Species Control Orders can only be passed if and Emergency Species Control gardeners and Scotland; SEPA voluntary Species Control Agreements fail Orders to tackle invasive species. others • Lack of funding for coordinated action on The 1981 Act was updated by the control and eradication Wildlife and Natural Environment • No mechanisms to assess effectiveness of (Scotland) Act 2011 to cover the prevention measures release or planting of all non- native species and the keeping, • Still don’t fully understand impacts of NNS/INNS sale and notification of invasive • Incomplete dataset of INNS species. • Poor understanding of biosecurity • Control methods have not been developed for many INNS • Legislation only covers non-native species

Over-grazing Good Agricultural and Ecological SRPD: Grazing Agriculture SGRPID • There is no longer a GAEC for overgrazing so no (livestock) Condition (GAEC) 5 but only with options; wetland link to cross-compliance reference to grazing around management; • Relies heavily on incentives from Agri- water courses and feeding grassland options environment schemes to maintain suitable grazing troughs; Nature Conservation levels SNH Management (Scotland) Act 2004 enables SNH Agreement • No new NCO or LMO has been made since the to seek Land Management Order Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act 2004 came if overgrazing is considered to be into force. impacting feature condition on • LMOs require an SNH offer of a management

Pressure Enforcement tools Incentives Responsible Responsible body Policy challenges sector

designated sites; a Restoration agreement to have been rejected by an Order may be made only after a owner/occupier before SNH can seek an order; conviction for reckless or their ability to do so is constrained by their budget intentional damage to an SSSI, or for breach of Nature Conservation Order/Land Management Order

Over-grazing Control Scheme; Control SRDP: Moorland Sporting estates SNH • Relies heavily on voluntary deer control (deer) Measures; Emergency Measures; Management Option • Landowners can set their own culling targets Land Management Order • Landowners may make economic gains from deer and may be reluctant to reduce numbers • SNH are reluctant to use regulation and resources are too limited for them to take on more responsibility

Recreation Power to exempt particular land General public, Local Authorities; • One of Scotland's national performance and from access rights; Path Orders; tourism, sporting SNH; indicators is to get more adults visiting the disturbance Nature Conservation Orders estates outdoors. SNH are also becoming more focused on visitor numbers. This may increase awarenesss and appreciation for protected areas but it may also result in greater pressure from recreation and disturbance • Funding cuts mean snh and local authorities may not have the resources they need to identify and address damaging recreational behaviour

Pressure Enforcement tools Incentives Responsible Responsible body Policy challenges sector

Water Statutory Management For actions above Agriculture, SGRPID; SEPA; SNH; • RBMPs are key mechanism for reducing water management Requirements; GAECs; General and beyond, forestry, transport Scottish Water management pressures and improving water body Binding Rules (GBRs) regulatory quality but there is a gap in knowledge between requirements what is required to reach good water body status several incentive and favourable conservation status so SEPA only schemes are aim for good water quality status available: SRDP Agri- • Applications for SLMIS are low because farmers environment are primarily interested in funding which will help Climate, Forestry them meet their regulatory obligations and this is Grant Scheme and outside the scope of the fund Environmental Cooperation Action Fund; SEPA Water Environment Fund; Scottish Water Sustainable Land Management Incentive Scheme (SLMIS)

Under- Land Management Order could SRPD: Grazing Agriculture SGRPID; SNH • There is no longer a GAEC for undergrazing so grazing be imposed by SNH if options; wet;and no link to cross-compliance undergrazing is considered to be management; • Relies heavily on incentives from Agri- impacting feature condition on grassland options environment schemes to maintain suitable grazing designated sites; change to a SNH Management levels grazing regime is generally an Agreement • Areas that have been undergrazed suffer from Operation Requiring Consent scrub encroachment which must be remedied. under s16 NC(S)A 2004 This can be challenging. For example, on blanket

Pressure Enforcement tools Incentives Responsible Responsible body Policy challenges sector

bog, bringing heather back into control requires burning or flailing which can both harm sphagnum mosses. On wet grassland, ground may be too wet to get machinary in to treat or cut scrub or rushes so hardier grazers such as ponies may be required to improve grazing for livestock

Agricultural Statutory Management SRDP Agri- Agriculture SGRPID • Poor compliance and insufficient enforcement operations Requirements; GAECs; Controlled Environment Activities Regulations and GBRs; Climate

Natural N/A N/A N/A N/A event

Burning Land Management Orders; SNH Management Agriculture, SGRPID; SNH • Muirburn Code is not rigid enough – Restoration Order; GAEC 6 agreements; SRDP sporting estates presumption against burning on SSSIs but burning Maintainance of soil organic Agri-Environment sometimes prescribed as a management method; matter Climate - Moorland presumption against burning on deep peat but Management option Douglas et al., 2015 found that this is still a major issue • Carbon impacts of burning are two-fold: stored carbon is released during the burn and from damaged peat; damaged peat is less able to capture and store carbon • Carbon impacts of burning not currently legislated for under the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009 nor is it addressed adequately in RRP2. RPP3 due for consultation in Autumn and must address this

Pressure Enforcement tools Incentives Responsible Responsible body Policy challenges sector

Forestry Biodiversity duty for publicly SRDP Forestry Grant Forestry Forestry • Tree planting targets could increase pressure in operations owned forest; Tree Preservation Scheme; Water Commission; SNH; the future Orders; Controlled Activities Environment Fund SEPA; SGRPID • 24% forestry not complying with GBRs in 2013 - Regulations and GBRs 18, 20,21, need more enforcement 22 and 23

Trampling See over-grazing (livestock) and Agriculture, (deer) sporting estates

4.3 Data gaps

4.31 Monitoring feature condition The sheer scale of the monitoring programme required to assess condition of 5353 designated features across 1868 protected areas for nature presents a challenge. Only a proportion of features are assessed each year, with the aim of assessing each feature once in each six year cycle of the programme. Results are then added to a cumulative annual total. Regardless of their condition status, the features added will have little impact on trends represented by the cumulative annual total. Hence, increases and decreases in overall feature trends will not be discernible using this method of reporting. In addition, 23% of features have not been assessed since Cycle 1 and yet they are still contributing to the NI. SNH should commit to developing a monitoring system which can adequately measure the impact that conservation interventions are having on feature condition, and thereby to ‘benchmark’ and track progress towards favourable condition. This would benefit both land manager and statutory agencies.

4.32 Identifying pressures and remedies Whilst the pressures discussed above have a significant impact on the designated natural features of protected sites, it is important to note that they are only part of the story. Around 20% of features with unfavourable conservation status are reported as having “no negative pressures identified”. A further 10% have pressures listed as “other”. This makes it difficult to identify management options necessary to secure favourable condition status or to move features towards recovery. This issue is more pronounced for some features than others. For example, 40% of seabird features are in unfavourable conservation status. Of these, 63% are reported as having “no negative pressures identified”. A further 18% have pressures reported as “other”. Therefore, no remedy is being proposed for a full 81% of seabird features in unfavourable condition. Even when a pressure has been identified, an effective remedy may not be available or is infeasible due to resource limitations. For example, invasive species have been identified as the most frequent pressure impacting designated features. Despite this, control measures have not been identified for all invasive species and the cost of coordinated eradication programmes are considered prohibitive. Impacts of invasive species are likely to put increasing pressure on designated features in future if early action is not taken to prevent their spread. In some cases off-site remedies may be required. For example, seabird breeding numbers and breeding success are affected by food availability and weather; water and land management upstream can impact designated features of protected areas located downstream; and global climate change can drive frequency of natural events. Identifying off-site pressures and delivering off-site remedies can be challenging but this must not be used as a reason not to try. Investment in more research is required to identify and understand the pressures affecting feature condition and the remedies required to achieve favourable conservation status.

4.4 Funding

4.41 Budget cuts Financial resources are a major limiting factor on action to protect and restore biodiversity. Therefore, coordination, prioritisation and targeting of funds where they will have most positive impact is essential. However, in a challenging economic climate, environmental considerations are often overlooked for resource allocation and funding for public sector bodies with environmental duties has fallen steadily since 2007 (Figure 25). During the same period, SNH’s Natural Care Programme, dedicated to the management of protected areas, was subsumed into the less targeted SRDP Programme 2007-14.

120

100 SNH

Forestry 60 Commission

Annual Budget(£M)Annual 40 SEPA

0 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15

Figure 25: Trends in annual budgets of Forestry Commission, SNH and SEPA between 2007 and 2015 compiled from online annual reports.

The ecosystem services provided by the Natura 2000 network have been well documented; provisioning (eg. food, fibre, fuel, medicines), regulating (eg. water regulation and purification, erosion control, pollination, genetic diversity) supporting (eg. nutrient cycling, water cycling, production) and cultural (eg. recreation, education, research) services are valued at €211.5 million per year in Scotland77. Thus, funding for nature conservation is essential: our health and well-being depend on it and it must become a priority for investment. Scottish Government must recognise that protected areas can deliver wide social and economic benefits and ensure that adequate resources are deployed to secure their positive management.

4.42 Securing new funds Large pots of EU money are available to secure nature conservation, such as Interreg and the EU Life programme. The EU Life programme supports environmental, nature conservation and climate action projects in Europe. Scotland has benefited from Life projects aimed at machair, raised bogs, blanket bogs, oak woodlands, seabirds, Atlantic salmon, capercaillie, freshwater pearl mussel and hen harrier, amongst others. Across the UK, NGOs have managed 80% of the projects78, ensuring that many millions of pounds were secured and spent on conservation projects in local communities, which delivered for habitats and species. However, a higher-level, strategic and coordinated approach is required to secure national and EU funding for management and restoration of all protected areas in Scotland.

The growing natural capital movement is increasing our understanding of the “value” of of Scotland’s natural heritage. This may open up innovative new funding streams from the private sector. Natural heritage in Scotland, including the ecosystem services provided by it, have been valued at £21.5-£23 billion per annum79, with nature-based tourism worth £1.4 billion per year and supporting 39,000 jobs80. A number of Scotland’s other key industries, including forestry, food and drink depend on clean water, fresh air and fertile soil. Natural heritage also has an intrinsic value for people who live and visit Scotland, which means it is valued for what it is rather than what it can do81. New frameworks are developing to capture these benefits and generate income to fund restoration. For example, the Peatland Code provides a mechanism by which businesses can meet their corporate social responsibility targets for carbon emissions reductions by providing funds to incentivise peatland restoration projects on private land82. Schemes such as the Peatland Code are referred to as Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES) schemes. One of the key limitations of PES schemes is that they only work for aspects of the natural environment for which economic values can be derived. Thus, intrinsic values can be underestimated or neglected. However, they should be considered as one mechanism within a suite of mechanisms to secure better management of natural resources.

4.5 Climate Change Climate change is considered to be a significant pressure facing habitats and species nationally and internationally. By 2050, Scotland will experience warmer, wetter winters and warmer drier summers, increased frequency and intensity of extreme precipitation events, reduced frequency of frost and snowfall and a rise in sea levels83. Many species are expected to experience shifts in their breeding distributions across Europe, both in location and in extent, as northern and southern range boundaries shift northwards in response to climate change84. We have already started to see the impacts of climate change on wildlife: a quarter of UK butterfly species and many moths are spreading north and several have colonised Scotland in recent decades, including the comma and holly blue butterflies85; and mean numbers of 12 breeding seabird species declined by 42% between 1986 and 2013, with climate change impacts on prey species thought to be a key factor in their decline86. Some species and habitats are more susceptible to the impacts of a changing climate than others. Coastal habitats may be particularly vulnerable due to sea level rise. Species with lower dispersal ability, and those living at higher altitudes and at the northerly reach of their ranges may be particularly at risk as they have nowhere to go when their climate envelop shifts. For example, dotterel may feel the negative effects of warming; snow buntings may be lost as they depend directly on characteristically snowy habitats87; and machair, a low-lying habitat, is susceptible to rising sea levels which increase the risk of flooding with brackish water, causing salt deposition and osmotic stress of species in the affected area88. However SNH’S pressures data do not adequately reflect the threats from a changing climate. Climate change is reported as a pressure for only 0.3% of designated features, of which 53% are in unfavourable condition. Improving the management of protected areas, alongside wider conservation measures, will be vital for increasing the resilience of species and habitats to climate change.

5 Recommendations

 Current land uses are having a significant impact on condition of designated features. The Scottish Land Use Strategy and Scotland’s Third National Planning Framework must be better linked and use in a coordinated way to guide and inform the choices we make about land use and land management at a national, regional and local level in Scotland.  All available policy instruments must be used in a coordinated and effective way by all statutory agencies to improve the condition of protected areas.  Scottish Government must commission a policy review to identify gaps hindering progress in feature condition improvements and new legislation should be developed where required.  SNH and Scottish Government should engage more proactively and constructively in EU level and national conversations which dictate and target the funds available for nature conservation in Scotland.  Scottish Government must invest in a framework to ensure that that public money is invested in a more strategic, coordinated way to deliver maximum benefits for biodiversity and other ecosystem services.  Scottish Government should increase investment in reserve to build a more comprehensive and current evidence base to enable the identification and understanding of pressures and remedies and to develop and disseminate advice to land managers.  SNH, Scottish Ministers and Courts must use the powers at their disposal to stop activities which negatively impact designated features and to secure restoration and conservation of habitats upon which those features depend.  SNH should commit to developing a monitoring system which can adequately measure the impact that conservation interventions are having on feature condition, and thereby to ‘benchmark’ and track progress towards favourable condition.  Scottish Government must recognise that protected areas can deliver wide social and economic benefits and ensure that adequate resources are deployed to secure their positive management.  SNH should take a higher-level, strategic and coordinated approach to secure national and EU funding for management and restoration of all protected areas in Scotland.  Scottish Government and other statutory agencies must recognise that improving the management of protected areas, alongside wider conservation measures, will be vital for increasing the resilience of species and habitats to climate change.

Annex 1: Marine Protected Areas At present, 183 designated sites contribute to Scotland’s Marine Protected Area Network. These include a subset of the previously discussed SSSIs, SPAs and SACs, as well as 13 additional SACs which sit beyond Scottish territorial waters. The network also includes a suite of Nature Conservation Marine Protected areas (MPAs), which were designated in 2014 (Figure 28) (Table 4).

Figure 28: Designated sites which contribute to the MPA Network 2016. Some sites overlap. Table 4: Marine conservation designations: policies and number of sites

Designation Scale of Policy Number of sites protection

Nature Conservation National Marine (Scotland) Act 2010 (17 30 MPAs sites) and UK Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 (13 sites)

Sites of Special National Nature Conservation (Scotland) 61 Scientific Interest Act 2004

Special Areas of EU Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC) 47 Conservation

Special Protection EU Birds Directive (2009/147/EC) 45 Areas

SNH report on the SSSIs, SPAs and the 34 SACs falling within Scottish territorial waters. JNCC report on the remaining 13 SACs. These 13 SACS and the Nature Conservation MPAs are not included in the NI so it does not represent the full suite of sites designated for nature conservation in Scotland. Within the 140 marine sites SNH are responsible for monitoring, 71% of features are in favourable conservation status, 2% are unfavourable RDM and 24% are unfavourable. 46% of all features and 37% of unfavourable features have no negative pressure identified (Figure 29).

700

600

500

400 Unfavourable

300 Unfavourable RDM 200

Favourable Number offeatures Numberaffected

100

Other

grazing

Burning

Trampling

Extraction

Air pollution Air

Over

Development

Water quality Water

Natural Natural event

Under

Infrastructure

Climate Change Climate

To be be identified To

Invasive species Invasive

Military activities Military

Forestry operations Forestry

Water management Water

specific competition

Statutory Statutory undertaker

Conservation Conservation activities

Agricultural Agricultural operations

Recreation/disturbance

Plant pests Plant and diseases

Inter

No proactive proactive management No

Game/ fisheries fisheries Game/ management

Dumping/ Dumping/ storage ofmaterials

No negative negative No pressures identified Flooddefence/coastal defence works Pressure Figure 29: Pressures impacting designated features within marine protected areas monitored by SNH.

The marine protected area network is still evolving – at the time of writing 14 draft marine SPAs and 4 proposed Nature Conservation MPAs await consultation and designation. The network faces different challenges to terrestrial sites and it is evident that identifying pressures, and thus remedies, is significantly more expensive and problematic in the marine environment. Key priorities will be designating the remaining sites, identifying pressures and securing management measures. Efforts must also be made to identify cost-effective ways to assess marine sites, coordinate the monitoring programmes between responsible bodies and provide feature condition data across the whole suite of protected areas in a consistent format.

References

1 Scottish Natural Heritage Site Condition Monitoring data http://www.environment.scotland.gov.uk/get- interactive/data/protected-nature-sites/ Accessed 09/12/2015 2 Scottish Natural Heritage Natural Spaces Gateway https://gateway.snh.gov.uk/natural-spaces/ 3 UK NEA (2011). The UK National Ecosystem Assessment. UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge. http://uknea.unep- wcmc.org/Resources/tabid/82/Default.aspx 4 Joint Nature Conservation Committee (1999). Information Sheet on Ramsar Wetlands (RIS). http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/pdf/RIS/UK13003.pdf 5 Scottish Natural Heritage (2015) Moorland birds and mammals. http://www.snh.gov.uk/about-scotlands-nature/habitats- and-ecosystems/mountains-heaths-and-bogs/birds-and-mammals/ 6 State of Nature: Scotland (2013) http://www.rspb.org.uk/Images/scotland_tcm9-345855.pdf 7 UK NEA (2011). The UK National Ecosystem Assessment. UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge. http://uknea.unep- wcmc.org/Resources/tabid/82/Default.aspx 8 Rothero, G. P. (2005). Mosses and Liverworts: Naturally Scottish. Scottish Natural Heritage http://www.snh.org.uk/pdfs/publications/naturallyscottish/mossesandliverworts.pdf 9 State of Nature: Scotland (2013) http://www.rspb.org.uk/Images/scotland_tcm9-345855.pdf 10 Marrs S.J., et al. (eds.) (2011). The Changing Nature of Scotland. TSO Scotland, Edinburgh 11 Scottish Natural Heritage (2014). Proportion of Scotland’s Protected Sites in Favourable Condition 2014. http://www.snh.gov.uk/docs/A1285063.pdf 12 Mackey, E.C. and Mudge, G.P. (2010). Scotland’s Wildlife: An assessment of biodiversity in 2010. Scottish Natural Heritage, Inverness. http://www.snh.gov.uk/docs/B811968.pdf 13 World Commission of Protected Areas (1998). Economic Value of Protected Areas: Guidelines for Protected Area Managers. IUCN. https://portals.iucn.org/library/efiles/documents/PAG-002.pdf 14 Bonet-Garcia, F. J., Pérez-Luque, A. J., Moreno-Llorca, R. A., Pérez-Pérez, R., Puerta-Piñero, C. and Zomora, R. (2015). Protected areas as elicitors of human well-being in a developed region: A new synthetic (socioeconomic) approach. Biological Conservation 187; 221-229. 15 Birdlife International. Socio-economic benefits of protected sites – the EU Natura 2000 network http://www.eu- natur.de/attach/119/birdlife_natura_socio.pdf 16 Canavire-Bacarreza, G. and Hanauer, M. M. (2013). Estimating the impacts of Bolivia’s protected areas on poverty. World Development 41; 265-285 17 Scottish Natural Heritage (2013). Natural Heritage Indicator; N7 Land and sea of recognised natural heritage importance http://www.snh.gov.uk/docs/B551631.pdf 18 Scottish Government (2016). Marine Protected Areas. http://www.gov.scot/Topics/marine/marine- environment/mpanetwork 19 Scottish Government (2015). National Indicators – Protected Natural Sites http://www.scotland.gov.uk/About/Performance/scotPerforms/indicator/naturesites 20 Scottish Natural Heritage (2010). Condition of Designated Sites. http://www.snh.gov.uk/docs/B686627.pdf. 21 Scottish Government (2016). National Indicators http://www.gov.scot/About/Performance/scotPerforms/indicator 22 The Proportion of Scotland's Protected Sites in Favourable Condition 2015 http://www.snh.gov.uk/docs/A1621991.pdf 23 Graph generated from data reported in: The Proportion of Scotland's Protected Sites in Favourable Condition 2015 http://www.snh.gov.uk/docs/A1621991.pdf 24 UK NEA (2011). The UK National Ecosystem Assessment. UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge. http://uknea.unep- wcmc.org/Resources/tabid/82/Default.aspx 25 McCarthy, D. and Morling, P. (2015). Using Regulation as a Last Resort: Assessing the Performance of Voluntary Approaches. RSPB.

26 Scottish Natural Heritage (2015). Corporate Plan 2015-2018. http://www.snh.org.uk/pdfs/publications/corporate/Corporate%20Plan%202015-18.pdf 27 Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act 2004 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2004/6/contents 28 Scottish Government (2012). Code of Practice on Non-Native Species http://www.gov.scot/Resource/0039/00398608.pdf 29 Milligan, G., Rose, R. J. and Marrs, R.H. (2015).Winners and losers in a long-term study of vegetation change at MoorHouse NNR: Effects of sheep-grazing and its removal on British upland vegetation. Ecological Indicators, in press. http://ac.els-cdn.com/S1470160X15006044/1-s2.0-S1470160X15006044-main.pdf?_tid=e94fc3a8-ed26-11e5-a441- 00000aab0f6b&acdnat=1458318888_decf493579cabcb5d0df7719dfcbe4f1 30 Milligan, G., Rose, R. J. and Marrs, R.H. (2015).Winners and losers in a long-term study of vegetation change at MoorHouse NNR: Effects of sheep-grazing and its removal on British upland vegetation. Ecological Indicators, in press. http://ac.els-cdn.com/S1470160X15006044/1-s2.0-S1470160X15006044-main.pdf?_tid=e94fc3a8-ed26-11e5-a441- 00000aab0f6b&acdnat=1458318888_decf493579cabcb5d0df7719dfcbe4f1 31SNH (2014). Scotland’s People and Nature Survey 2013/14 http://www.snh.org.uk/pdfs/publications/commissioned_reports/679.pdf 32 Maller, C., Townsend, M., Brown, P. and St Leger, L. (2002). Healthy parks healthy people: The health be1efits of contact with nature in a park context. Melbourne: Deakin University and Parks Victoria 33 Wells, N.M. and Evans, G.W. (2003) Nearby Nature: A buffer of life stress among rural children. Environment and Behaviour 35: 311–330. 34 Bowler, D.E., Buyung-Ali L.M., Knight, T.M., and Pullin, A.S. (2010) A systematic review of the evidence for the added benefits to health of exposure to natural environments. BMC Public Health, 10: 456–466. 35 Poshlod, P., Baumann, A. and Karlik, P. (2009). Origin and development of grasslands in Central Europe. Grassland in Europe, pp15-25. http://booksandjournals.brillonline.com/content/books/b9789004278103s003 36 Hansson, M. and Håkan, F. (2000). Management of semi-natural grassland; results from a 15 year old experiment in southern Sweden. Journal of Vegetation Science 11: 31-38. 37 UK NEA (2011) The UK National Ecosystem Assessment, Chapter 19 Status and changes in ecosystems and their services to society: Scotland. UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge. http://uknea.unep-wcmc.org/resources/tabid/82/default.aspx 38 Scottish Government (2015). The Future of Scottish agriculture: a discussion document. http://www.gov.scot/Resource/0047/00479616.pdf 39 Scottish Government (2015). The Future of Scottish agriculture: a discussion document. http://www.gov.scot/Resource/0047/00479616.pdf 40 UK NEA (2011) The UK National Ecosystem Assessment, Chapter 19 Status and changes in ecosystems and their services to society: Scotland. UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge. http://uknea.unep-wcmc.org/resources/tabid/82/default.aspx 41 UKCP09 Climate Change Projections http://ukclimateprojections.metoffice.gov.uk/ 42 Yallop, A.R., Thacker, J.I., Thomas, G., Stephens, M., Clutterbuck, B., Brewer, T., et al. (2006). The extent and intensity of management burning in the English uplands. Journal of Applied Ecology 43:1138–48. 43 SNH (2015). A review of sustainable moorland management: Report to the Scientific Advisory Committee of Scottish Natural Heritage. http://www.snh.gov.uk/docs/A1765931.pdf 44 Cawson, J.G., Sheridan, G.J., Smith, H.G. and Lane, P.N.J (2012) Surface runoff and erosion after prescribed burning and the effect of different fire regimes in forests and shrublands: a review. International Journal of Wildland Fire, 21, 857-872. 45 Yallop, A. R. and Clutterbuck, B. (2009). Land management as a factor controlling dissolved organic carbon release from upland peat soils 1: Spatial variation in DOC productivity. Science of the Total Environment 407: 3803-3813. 46 Brown, L.E., Holden, J. & Palmer, S.M., 2014. Effects of Moorland Burning on the Ecohydrology of River basins. Key findings from the EMBER project. University of Leeds 47 Scottish Government (2011). The Muirburn Code. Scottish Government, Edinburgh, UK http://www.gov.scot/Resource/Doc/355582/0120117.pdf 48 Douglas, D.J.T., Bellamy, P.E., Stephen, L.S., Pearce-Higgins, J.W., Wilson, J.D. & Grant, M.C. (2014). Upland land use predicts population decline in a globally near-threatened wader. Journal of Applied Ecology, 51: 194-203.

49 SNH (2015). A review of sustainable moorland management: Report to the Scientific Advisory Committee of Scottish Natural Heritage. http://www.snh.gov.uk/docs/A1765931.pdf 50 Forestry Commission (2013). Woodland area, planting and restocking. http://www.forestry.gov.uk/pdf/WAPR2013.pdf/$FILE/WAPR2013.pdf 51 UK NEA (2011) The UK National Ecosystem Assessment, Chapter 19 Status and changes in ecosystems and their services to society: Scotland. UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge. http://uknea.unep-wcmc.org/resources/tabid/82/default.aspx 52 Pietola, L., Horn, R. And Yla-Halla, M. (2005). Effects of trampling by cattle on the hydrolic and mechanical properties of soil. Soil and Tillage Research 82: 99-108. 53 Pellerin, S., Huot, J. and Côté, S.D. (2006). Long term effects of deer browsing and trampling on the vegetation of peatlands. Biological Conservation 128: 316-326. 54 Scottish Government (2016). Getting the best from our land: A Land Use Strategy for Scotland 2016-21. http://www.gov.scot/Resource/0049/00497086.pdf 55 Scottish Government (2014). Scotland’s third National Planning Framework. http://www.gov.scot/Resource/0045/00453683.pdf 56 Scottish Government (2015). Scotland’s National Marine Plan. http://www.gov.scot/Resource/0047/00475466.pdf 57 McCarthy, D. and Morling, P. (2015). Using Regulation as a Last Resort: Assessing the Performance of Voluntary Approaches. RSPB. 58 Santengeli, A., Arroyo, B., Dicks, L.V., Herzon, I., Kukkala, A.S., Sutherland, W.J. and Moilanen, A. (2016). Voluntary non- monetary approaches for implementing conservation. Biological Conservation 197; 209-214 59 Countryside Act 1968 (as amended) http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1968/41

60 Countryside (Scotland) Act 1967 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1967/86

61 National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1967 http://www.rightsofway.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/1967- Launceston-Definitive-Map-1.pdf

62 Scottish Government (2014). United Kingdom - Rural Development Programme (Regional) – Scotland http://www.gov.scot/Resource/0047/00477381.pdf 63 Scottish Natural Heritage (2015). Management Agreements. http://www.snh.gov.uk/protecting-scotlands- nature./protected-areas/managing-protected-areas/management-agreements/ 64 Perkins, A. J., Maggs, H. E., Watson, A. and Wilson, J. D. (2011). Adaptive management and targeting of agri-environment schemes does benefit biodiversity: a case study of the corn bunting Emberiza calandra. Journal of Applied Ecology 48(3); 514-522 65 Yang, S.L., Rounsevell, M.D.A., Wilson, R.M. and Haggett, C. (2014). Spatial analysis of agri-environmental policy uptake and expenditure in Scotland. Journal of Environmental Management 133; 104-115 66 Scottish Environment Protection Agency (2012). Water Environment Fund Annual Report to Scottish Government 2013 - 2014. SEPA, July 2014. 67 Scottish Water (2014). Sustainable Land Management Incentive Scheme: Financing Measures for the Protection of Drinking Water Sources: Information Booklet, Scottish Water December 2014 68 Santengeli, A., Arroyo, B., Dicks, L.V., Herzon, I., Kukkala, A.S., Sutherland, W.J. and Moilanen, A. (2016). Voluntary non- monetary approaches for implementing conservation. Biological Conservation 197; 209-214 69 The Environmental Impact Assessment (Agriculture) (Scotland) Regulations 2006 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ssi/2006/582/contents/made 70 Scottish Government (2013). Public Register of Screening Decisions. http://www.gov.scot/Topics/farmingrural/Agriculture/Environment/16808/publicregister-1 71 McCarthy, D. and Morling, P. (2015). Using Regulation as a Last Resort: Assessing the Performance of Voluntary Approaches. RSPB. 72 Obrien, M et al (2005). Partial recovery of the population of Corncrakes Crex crex in Britain 1993 – 2004. Bird Study 2005 73 Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act 2004 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2004/6/contents

74 The Conservation (Natural Habitats,&c.) Regulations 1994 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1994/2716/contents/made 75 Scottish Natural Heritage (2011). Annual Report and Accounts 2010/2011 http://www.snh.org.uk/pdfs/publications/corporate/annual%20report%202010_11.pdf 76 Scottish Natural Heritage (2007). Annual Report and Accounts 2006/2007 http://www.snh.org.uk/pdfs/publications/corporate/SNHReportAccounts0607.pdf 77 Institute for European Environmental Policy (2008). Costs and social benefits associated with the Natura 2000 Network. http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/financing/docs/natura2000_costs_benefits.pdf 78 European Commission (2014). Life Programme - Country Factsheet: United Kingdom. European Commission, DG Environment http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/countries/documents/uk_en_oct14.pdf 79 UK NEA (2011). The UK National Ecosystem Assessment. UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge. http://uknea.unep- wcmc.org/Resources/tabid/82/Default.aspx 80 Bryden, D.M., Westbrook, S.R., Burns, B., Taylor, W.A., and Anderson, S. 2010. Assessing the economic impacts of nature based tourism in Scotland Scottish Natural Heritage. Commissioned Report No. 398. http://www.snh.gov.uk/docs/B726802.pdf 81 Sandler, R. (2012) Intrinsic Value, Ecology, and Conservation. Nature Education Knowledge 3(10):4 82 International Union for Conservation of Nature (2015) UK Peatland Code. http://www.iucn-uk- peatlandprogramme.org/sites/www.iucn-uk-peatlandprogramme.org/files/Peatland%20Code%20v1.0.pdf 83 UKCP09 Climate Change Projections http://ukclimateprojections.metoffice.gov.uk/ 84 Huntley, B., Green, R. E., Collingham, Y. C. and Willis, S. G. (2007). A Climatic Atlas of Breeding Birds. Durham University, The RSPB and Lynx Edicions, Barcelona. 85 State of Nature: Scotland (2013) http://www.rspb.org.uk/Images/scotland_tcm9-345855.pdf 86 Scottish Natural Heritage (2014). Biodiversity Indicator: The numbers and success of breeding birds. http://www.snh.gov.uk/docs/B424907.pdf 87 Scottish Natural Heritage (2002). Climate change impacts: barriers to dispersal of species and alterations in habitat characteristics. http://www.snh.org.uk/publications/on-line/advisorynotes/154/154.pdf 88 Angus, S. and Hansom, J. (2006). Tir a’mhachair, tir nan loch? Climate change scenarios for Scottish Machair systems: a wetter future? http://www.snh.gov.uk/docs/B472250.pdf