The Scottish Biodiversity Strategy Stakeholders' Annual Event

The Scottish Biodiversity Strategy Stakeholders’ Annual Event

Tuesday 20 June 2017 Battleby Conference Centre, Perth

REPORT

Contents

Overview ...... 1 Presentations ...... 5 Taking Stock: Where are we on the Road to 2020? ...... 5 INNS, seabirds and climate change – what constitutes success? The impact of Invasive Non-Native Species on UK seabird populations ...... 8 Mice, mustelids and the magic of camera trapping - engaging young people in biodiversity ...... 10 Engaging Land Managers in Species Protection - Marsh Fritillary ...... 12 Recovering the European Oyster population in the Dornoch Firth: an exemplar corporate partnership with The Glenmorangie Company ...... 16 The Business end of Biodiversity: engaging business through Natural Capital ...... 18 The Greener Greenways Project: successful approaches to engaging communities in managing habitats and citizen science ...... 20 Workshops ...... 23 The NBN Atlas ...... 23 Prioritising species action in Scotland ...... 26 Learning from the Species Action Framework ...... 29 Strathard: a landscape to live, work and play ...... 32 Protected Areas and the Biodiversity Challenge ...... 34 Framing biodiversity successes, priorities and challenges for agriculture ...... 36 Balancing land use in the Uplands ...... 39 Programme ...... 42 Participants ...... 45

Overview

The Stakeholders The target audience for the Scottish Biodiversity Strategy Annual Stakeholders’ event 2017 comprised all those directly involved in delivering and supporting actions for biodiversity in Scotland, including members of the biodiversity working groups and from the lead organisations for actions and targets in “Scotland's Biodiversity - a route map to 2020” (the Route Map).

Promotions were targeted at the environmental NGOs, LBAP officers, Local Records Centres, land managers, ecologists, academics and researchers. Efforts were also made to invite representatives from associated sectors such as farming, estate management, health, tourism, the utilities, and from businesses.

All the biodiversity working groups were represented at the event, with the Chairs of the Science Support Group and the Landscape-scale Group attending, and the new Chair of the Habitats and Species working group facilitating a workshop.

A list of the participants is provided at p45.

The aim of the event The aim of the event was to update and inspire stakeholders and to engage them in identifying current issues and opportunities arising in tackling the 2020 challenge and implementing the Route Map. The event also aimed to promote the sharing of knowledge and experience, and to provide an opportunity to discuss challenges towards 2020 and beyond.

Specifically the event aimed to explore three themes:

1. In what different ways can we measure “biodiversity success”? 2. What new and innovative approaches can we use to engage with business? 3. What are the challenges and opportunities for biodiversity as we approach 2020?

Context A second annual report on the Route Map will be published in September, providing an update on progress with the Priority Projects and targets. Other important developments during 2017 were noted in the keynote presentation from Pete Rawcliffe, including: finalising the suite of ecosystem health indicators for publication (September), developing assessments for those Aichi targets on which progress has not yet been reported, and developing a vision and actions for a national ecological network. Many of the stakeholders at the event are involved in these activities, which provided an important context for the event.

Looking ahead, work will be needed to develop the vision and practical actions for biodiversity beyond 2020. The event was an opportunity to begin to consider this against the background of progress on the SBS and Route Map, exploring issues such as:

1. What is important and what needs to be done (our priorities)? 2. Are we doing enough to address the underlying causes of biodiversity loss? Is our balance of effort right? 3. How should we define and measure success?

Presentations Presentations from the RSPB, the North East Scotland Biodiversity Partnership, Butterfly Conservation and Sustrans looked at different ways in which they are measuring the success of their projects. Approaches vary according to the outcomes sought, ranging from strict biological outcomes when eradicating INNS, to increased understanding and enjoyment of nature among school children, and much in between, including communities restoring habitats along cycle paths, and farmers protecting butterfly populations.

Mike Elm from the Scottish Forum on Natural Capital looked at how natural capital is being used to engage the business sector in Scotland and at initiatives to enable the contribution made by biodiversity to natural capital to be understood and included. An inspiring presentation from Hamish Torrie from The Glenmorangie Company and Calum Duncan from the Marine Conservation Society described their ground- breaking work to restore the Native European oyster to the Dornoch Firth after an absence of over 100 years.

Reports on the presentations follow on pp 5-22.

Workshops Three workshops looked at challenges and potential solutions arising from Brexit and changes to incentives and market conditions, and demographic changes, and arising from environmental pressures such as climate change. These focussed on the agricultural sector, land management in Upland Scotland, and on the role of protected areas.

Three workshops focussed on actions for species and habitats: one workshop reviewed the lessons learned from the Species Action Framework, another discussed priorities for the Habitats and Species working group, and a third looked at the potential role of the NBN Atlas in helping to build evidence and understanding of the state of nature.

A further workshop looked at the Strathard Initiative and the lessons learned from this project on how we might prioritise future actions for biodiversity through the ecosystems approach

Reports on the workshops follow on pp 23-41.

Plenary discussion A short plenary discussion concluded the day. This provided stakeholders with the opportunity to highlight any issues they wanted to raise. Issues included:

 The need to work together to develop a shared vision for the national ecological network;

 The potential to develop new projects at landscape-scale to integrate biodiversity into other land uses;

 The economic sense of adopting a preventative approach to INNS;

 The importance of involving other sectors, in particular the Health sector through demonstrating the health and well-being benefits of biodiversity;

 The need to build an evidence base that helps us to understand, explain and illustrate the facts around biodiversity loss; and

 The need to recognise and support countryside rangers, LBAPs and volunteers who lead activities on the ground.

Key messages from the event  The working groups provide a strong network of committed individuals and organisations that can continue to work together to set priorities and drive actions to deliver a wide range of biodiversity outcomes

 There is concern over the possible negative impact of Brexit on biodiversity

 There is widespread support for targeted actions to secure gains for vulnerable and threatened species and habitats by addressing pressures on biodiversity

 We need to strengthen our evidence-based approach in order to design effective mechanisms to address the pressures on biodiversity

 The SBS vision to 2030 is a strong one but we need to continue to make the case to decision makers at all levels of the multiple benefits to people and the economy from Scotland’s biodiversity and from the healthy ecosystems which support it.

Presentations

Taking Stock: Where are we on the Road to 2020?

Pete Rawcliffe, Head of People and Places Unit, SNH

Context The 2020 Challenge for Scotland's Biodiversity - A Strategy for the conservation and enhancement of biodiversity in Scotland is the starting point for this event. The 2020 Challenge (or SBS) is based around the three principles of conserving nature, involving people, and providing multiple benefits, and it sets out the Vision that in 2030 Scotland is “a world leader in biodiversity conservation, everyone is involved; everyone benefits, and the nation is enriched”.

This 2020 Challenge is itself based on the EU Biodiversity Strategy 2011, which reflects our obligations to address the internationally agreed Convention on Biological Diversity Aichi targets. Guiding us to 2020 we have Scotland's Biodiversity - a route map to 2020 (the Route Map), which sets out the six Big Steps for Nature, with 80 actions being led by many of the biodiversity stakeholders attending this event.

Progress The first Annual Progress Report 2015/16 on the Route Map was published in September 2016 with the second annual report due later in 2017. The first annual assessment was a broadly positive one, with both targets on protected areas delivered and good progress on most underpinning projects. However, two of the native woodland targets were assessed as not on track, and further action was required on others including natural capital, public engagement, priority species, and ecological connectivity.

The most recent six-month interim report on the Route Map (July – Dec 2016) is similarly positive. Of the 80 actions in the Route Map, 68 (i.e. 85%) are “on track” including five actions which have been completed or exceeded expectations. Twelve actions (15%) were assessed as “not on track”. This compares favourably to progress reported in June 2016. A recurring theme regarding those actions reported

5 as “not on track” is insufficient funding to enable future completion and/or uncertainty associated with Brexit.

Over the last few months we have taken steps to refresh the SBS working groups, including discussing with Chairs how we can increase our support for them. Good progress has been made on developing a suite of Ecosystem Health Indicators to underpin much of the SBS. With important contributions from the James Hutton Institute and Environment LINK we are making progress on the National Ecological Network – by later this year we hope to see a statement and action plan alongside further discussions on specific actions, priorities and resources.

Looking ahead there are two significant reporting deadlines; the 2nd annual Route Map progress report in September 2017, and an Interim Aichi report due in December. In addition, every public body will have the 2nd wave of Biodiversity Duty Reporting to prepare for December.

Challenges Of course, there remain a number of challenges to delivery. Each year it becomes more difficult to do the work required within shrinking public sector budgets. Are we prioritising the right things? Are we being creative enough in making the case for spend in this area from other budgets, for example where biodiversity actions help to deliver across a range of Government objectives such as economic growth, health and educational attainment?

Our Vision for Nature in the SBS challenge is a powerful and positive one but are we doing enough to engage the public in it? Do we have the public’s ear? How do we best capture it again considering all the other things going on out there in the real world?

Finally, there remains the issue of the impact we are having – are we doing enough to tackle the underlying causes or drivers of biodiversity change such as climate change and land management intensification, rather than just the symptoms such as loss of species and habitat change. Where should the balance lie between them? Critical to delivering on the SBS will be legislation and policy across the environment, climate change rural affairs, marine, and economic and social portfolios. The future impacts of Brexit are unknown, but clearly have the capacity to impact significantly upon the legal, policy and funding landscape for biodiversity.

Conclusions The 2020 Challenge presents a bold and ambitious agenda with which everyone at this event is engaged and enthusiastic. The Route Map seeks to operationalise the SBS; it seeks to identify priorities for large-scale collaborative action involving many people to carry out actions to support or deliver on priorities, and to support mainstreaming of biodiversity through ensuring that others see the benefits nature can bring to their work and life.

If we are to continue to make progress there are 4 big “asks” we now need to “answer”:

 To deliver the programme of activity in the Route Map

 To apply an ecosystem approach – doing work in a bigger more integrated way

 To focus more on the key drivers of biodiversity loss

 To mainstream biodiversity delivery – involving more sectors, organisations and individuals in implementation of the Strategy.

INNS, seabirds and climate change – what constitutes success? The impact of Invasive Non-Native Species on UK seabird populations

Dr Paul Walton, Head of Habitats and Species, RSPB Scotland

Islands around the UK are critical for national biodiversity – for example, they are home to globally significant seabird populations, including 80% of the world’s Manx shearwaters, 70% of Northern gannets, and 60% of Great skuas – the majority of these populations are to be found on Scottish islands. However, seabird populations have experienced an overall decline of over 70% since 1986. Effects vary geographically and across species, but falling prey fish availability, linked to climate change, is a key driver. Kittiwakes are among the most severely affected species. The long-term CEH study on the Isle of May tells us that poor breeding performance in Kittiwakes is linked to increases in sea surface temperature, together with impacts from industrial fishing.

In addition, Invasive Non-Native Species (INNS) pose a serious threat to island seabird populations; in Scotland these include stoats, hedgehogs and rats. The Norway rat was successfully removed from Ailsa Craig using warfarin bait, and in the Shiant Isles in the Minch RSPB Scotland has been managing a SNH/EU LIFE funded project, with the support of the islands’ owners, to eliminate introduced black rats to benefit seabirds.

Biosecurity Plans However, eradicating INNS is expensive and time-consuming – it is far more efficient to prevent INNS from establishing in the first place, and essential that vulnerable biodiversity is protected from INNS impacts through effective biosecurity measures. Nevertheless, only six of the UK’s breeding seabird SPAs have up-to-date biosecurity plans in place. So RSPB Scotland is developing a project proposal that will see Biosecurity Plans put in place for the UK’s 41 seabird island Special Protection Areas (under the EU Birds Directive). The proposal includes actions under the following three headings.

Preventing incursions  Awareness-raising aimed at potential means and points of entry for INNS such as ferries and ports

 Reducing the risk of invasion along specific pathways

 Putting in place enhanced detection of INNS with three specialist dogs

Early detection  Purchasing and employing monitoring equipment on 25 priority islands

 Training island managers in using detection tools to carry out monitoring checks

Building capacity  Setting up 8 regional response hubs to store response kits

 Recruiting and training volunteers to form regional response teams

In line with the conference theme, RSPB Scotland proposes that the following criteria for success should constitute a shared imperative for our breeding seabird populations:

 Biosecurity plans will be in place and implemented at all key seabird breeding colonies

 There will be a rolling programme of Island Restoration to maximise breeding opportunities for seabirds so they can best utilise what prey is available

 Best practice will be employed in eradication

 Building maximum Resilience in our globally important seabird populations will be undertaken as a critical national climate change adaptation measure.

Mice, mustelids and the magic of camera trapping - engaging young people in biodiversity

Rose Toney, NE Scotland Biodiversity Partnership Co-ordinator

It is difficult for people to value what they don’t know is there, but much of our wildlife is secretive or nocturnal by nature. However the increasing availability of low-cost, high-functioning camera traps is opening up a new window on wildlife.

The North East Scotland Biodiversity Partnership first grasped this new opportunity in 2013, with the purchase of several camera traps that were then loaned to local community groups. The project quickly expanded and in 2014 we started to work more closely with schools.

Children are instinctively fascinated by wildlife - combining their innate curiosity with the use of new technology provides a wonderful tool to engage young people in biodiversity. With considerable assistance from countryside rangers and other conservation professionals, more than 250 children from a dozen local schools, both rural and urban, have been able to find out more about the animals with whom they share their school grounds and surrounding land.

In 2016, thanks to support from SNH to celebrate the Year of Innovation, Architecture and Design, the pilot project was upscaled and rolled out to 20 schools right across Scotland. This started with a training day at Battleby, where rangers and other staff working with schools were equipped with the skills to get the most out of using camera traps. With the loan of equipment, including small mammal boxes, they were up and away. The schools submitted a short compilation video at the end of a four month period of camera trap use, to highlight the wildlife that they found and, crucially, show engagement by the children in the process.

The judges were amazed and delighted by the level of engagement demonstrated in the videos. Not only were some exciting and secretive species shown exploring the school environment, but also the sense of excitement and engagement by the children was clear to see. From creating wildlife detectives to new film-makers, the schools ran with the project in ways beyond what we could have imagined, demonstrating innovation, new ways of learning, and whole school involvement to an incredible degree.

So what is the key to the success of this project? There are many demonstrable benefits including providing the opportunity for outdoor learning, presenting a level playing field for young people to learn, engendering positive attitudes towards wildlife and encouraging action to benefit wildlife. And, of course, it’s fun! In times of tightened financial constraints, it is a low-cost project that can be easily replicated right across Scotland and it has a huge legacy value. Outdoor learning is now firmly integrated into the school curriculum – hopefully, one day (soon), camera trapping will be integrated within outdoor learning!

We think this is a magical project, but don’t just take our word for it, the quotes below from the schools involved are the best endorsement we could receive.

Quotes from Primary Schools involved in the project “Our pupils and staff were not only captivated by the animals that visited our garden, but motivated to learn more about them and find out how to encourage other wildlife”.

Ciara Gibson, PT, Grandtully Primary

“It’s just such a fantastic educational experience for everyone! The whole school are hooked and the children are viewing their playground so very differently. Their wee minds have been blown...Cannot thank you both enough!”

Newtonhill Primary

“I liked putting the camera out. Before I saw the video of the pine martens I thought they were make-believe creatures like unicorns!”

Florence McNeil (Age 6)

Short films from some of the primary schools Braemar Primary School https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CQURmKlvInA Caerlaverock Primary School https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z8H0DOZqgl0 St Andrews Primary https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AxxOTxID6kg Grandtully Primary School https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XoZRDVoz5Pc

Engaging Land Managers in Species Protection - Marsh Fritillary

Dr Tom Prescott, Senior Conservation Officer, Butterfly Conservation Scotland

The status of the Marsh Fritillary butterfly in Scotland The Marsh Fritillary butterfly has suffered declines throughout Europe. The British Isles, particularly Scotland, is considered one of its few strongholds, being home to some of the most important populations in Europe. Severe declines, particularly in England and Wales, led to the butterfly being listed as a UK Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) Priority species as well as being on the Scottish Biodiversity List. It is also included on Annex II of the EC ‘Habitats Directive’ and it is protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981.

The butterfly has become extinct over a large part of its former range in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, whilst even in Scotland it has declined in distribution by around 12% since the mid-1980s, compared to an overall UK distribution decline of 46% between 1970-1982 and 1995-2004. Despite conservation efforts, the butterfly still declined in distribution in the UK by 9% between 1995-99 and 2005-09. Declines in abundance at monitored sites have been even steeper at 73% between 1983 and 2004. There have also been similar dramatic declines recorded in Europe.

In Scotland Marsh Fritillary has a limited distribution, being restricted to the Argyll islands and the neighbouring strip of Argyll mainland, although new colonies have recently been found both to the north and south of its former known Scottish distribution: on and adjacent to Bute, and in south-west Highland and on the islands of Tiree and Eigg. This possibly indicates that the butterfly is colonising new areas although it may also be due to increased recording effort in these remote locations.

The life-cycle and habitat requirements of the Marsh Fritillary butterfly In Scotland the Marsh Fritillary occurs in a wide range of habitats including damp/wet and species-rich grassland, rush pasture, damp moorland and coastal heath. The adult butterflies are on the wing from mid-May to early July. The female butterfly lays her eggs in batches of 20 to 80 on the underside of the leaves of the caterpillar’s

12 sole Scottish foodplant, devil’s-bit scabious. On hatching, usually in July, the caterpillars stay together, living communally within a protective silken web they spin themselves. They subsequently overwinter in a more toughened web within a tussock and re-emerge in early spring to continue their development, still feeding on the leaves of devil’s-bit scabious.

Maintenance of suitable Marsh Fritillary habitat is best achieved through light grazing, ideally by cattle or ponies/horses. However, due to the varied and non- uniform nature of Marsh Fritillary sites in Scotland, a standard grazing prescription that fits all sites is not applicable. Management advice therefore has to be bespoke. Furthermore, Marsh Fritillary populations are more robust if they form part of a network of linked habitat patches forming sustainable meta-populations, where local losses or extinctions can be balanced by re-colonisations from neighbouring colonies. This highlights the importance of working at a landscape scale.

Challenges to working with land managers Initially the project, primarily funded under the SNH Species Action Framework (SAF) in partnership with Butterfly Conservation Scotland (BCS) and Forestry Commission Scotland, focussed on the Appin area of north Argyll as this is a key area for the butterfly with a number of important sites and is readily accessible. However, this was not as straightforward as initially expected and several difficulties presented themselves:

 It was very difficult, primarily because of the Data Protection Act, to find out who owned or managed the sites where the butterfly had been recorded.

 If and when contact was established, usually by local enquiries close to where the butterflies had been sighted, landowners were mostly unaware that Marsh Fritillary was on their ground, or of BCS, or the Project Officer. This was usually resolved by informal discussion, which provided a good opportunity to explain the requirements of the butterfly.

 In several instances it transpired that the “butterfly” fields were being managed under a pre-existing agri-environment scheme, usually the Rural Stewardship Scheme (RSS). This meant that even if the existing grazing regime was detrimental to Marsh Fritillary, which was often the case, it was not possible to

adjust the management until the end of the scheme, which could be anything up to five years away. This all proved to be very frustrating.

The critical contribution made by the SRDP Rural Priorities Scheme However, the timely launch of the Scottish Government’s SRDP Rural Priorities (RP) Scheme in 2008 provided a useful delivery mechanism for this work. It soon became apparent that there was a niche for the Project Officer to act as a specialist adviser under the RP Scheme to assist landowners/managers, through their agents, to gain entry into the scheme. This was important as RP is a competitive scheme in which applicants enter their land for five years but need to ensure that their proposals are produced to a high standard, scoring as many points as possible.

The partnership between the Project Officer and the land owners’/managers’ agents from Scottish Agricultural College (SAC) Consulting and Agrimony was particularly crucial, as the agents knew when each of their clients was coming out of RSS and therefore interested in entering RP. The initial success of the first few applications in gaining entry into the new RP Scheme quickly bred further interest, and both agents and landowners/managers were soon proactively contacting the Project Officer to undertake site assessments for Marsh Fritillary to look for the presence of suitable or potential habitat.

Management advice was given across 20 meta-populations, with involvement at a minimum of 202 sites; 114 of these were successfully entered into Rural Priorities, and 76 other sites were visited and management was discussed with the owners. However, not all sites were eligible or suitable for entry into RP, highlighting issues with the scheme.

The success of this project is primarily due to the co-operation and goodwill of the site landowners/managers and their agents and the willingness to work together.

The Agri-environment and Climate Scheme The Rural Priorities Scheme has now been replaced by AECS (Agri-environment and Climate Scheme). It is similar in that it is a competitive scheme, and flexible bespoke grazing plans that benefit Marsh Fritillary are permissible. However, the all- important points system has changed making it more difficult for applicants with

Marsh Fritillary to gain entry into AECS. What is most frustrating is that many of the attributes that are assessed and scored lie outwith the hands of the applicant or the butterfly, including: is the land designated? What is the area of landholding and thus the proportion of land that is entered into the scheme? Is there an ancient monument? Willingness of neighbours to collaborate.

In conclusion Marsh Fritillary benefitted enormously under the Species Action Framework project and RP scheme, through a Project Officer employed by Butterfly Conservation Scotland oiling the wheels and being the central hub between the butterfly, the landowner/manager, their agent, and the scheme assessors, to help farmers gain access to RP under a bespoke grazing plan that benefits the butterfly. The current AECS scheme needs to be tweaked, and the scoring system reviewed, to return to these glory days.

Recovering the European Oyster population in the Dornoch Firth: an exemplar corporate partnership with The Glenmorangie Company

Calum Duncan, Head of Conservation Scotland, Marine Conservation Society, and Hamish Torrie, Director of Corporate Social Responsibility, The Glenmorangie Company

The Vision of The Glenmorangie Company The Glenmorangie Company Vision is for “A Sustainable Future for our brand homes and their communities in Glenmorangie, Tain and Ardbeg on Islay”, while the ultimate goal of The Glenmorangie Company’s corporate social responsibility ambition is “Enhanced Brand Desirability”, and the Company is committed to sustainable development, which it addresses through:

 Protection and enhancement of our cherished surroundings

 Finding new sources of energy and efficient waste disposal

 Working together with the Tain community and our environmental partners

The Dornoch Environmental Enhancement Project – DEEP The Company completed construction of its Anaerobic Digestion plant in May 2017. This has produced a 95% Reduction in COD (chemical oxygen demand), but that leaves the challenge of the remaining 5%.

Biogenic Reef Restoration in the Dornoch Firth The Glenmorangie Company is working with Government, the environmental agencies, SMEs, charities, communities and academics, in particular in a powerful ‘Triple Helix’ collaboration between The Company, the Marine Conservation Society and Heriot-Watt University in an ambitious and ground-breaking environmental project in the neighbouring Dornoch Firth.

As is the case all around Scotland and indeed the rest of the UK, and even worldwide, seabed habitats in the Dornoch Firth have been altered by human activity, with large areas affected by mobile fishing gear. As a result, our expectations of how to identify the baseline conditions for a healthy ecosystem have changed over time.

In the past Native European oysters were abundant on all coasts, with 30 million harvested in one year during the 1800s from the Firth of Forth alone: they have now been completely extirpated.

The plan The plan is to restore Native European oysters to the Dornoch Firth, to shift the ambition of marine conservation, and to go beyond protecting the resources we have today to restoring ecosystems to their full potential.

Aims and benefits The aim is to return oysters for the first time in 100 years and to take Dornoch Firth habitats back to their past (unimpacted) state.

The oysters in the Dornoch Firth will not be for harvesting but are a reintroduction of biodiversity to fulfil their natural role in the ecosystem. Many benefits will result from oysters being the ultimate bio–filtrators and reef builders. DEEP will restore 40 ha of oyster reef to generate biodiversity hotspots, more fish, carbon storage, and improved water quality (and deal with the final 5% of COD from the distillery) and the reef will naturally export oyster spat beyond the Firth on the tide. It is estimated that the oyster bed will fix 200T of carbon per year and 20T of nitrogen in the first 5 years.

This is an ambitious project, with 40 ha of oyster restoration requiring up to 4,000m3 of waste mussel shell as cultch (the material laid down to provide points of attachment for oyster spat), and requiring 2 million oyster spat. The next steps include securing funding to help build oyster ponds to provide the spat and to support other restoration and cultural projects.

Long term the partnership hopes that the learning and ‘know-how’ from DEEP can be replicated in other parts of the world where shellfish reefs are under threat.

Watch a short film on the project https://vimeo.com/218449879?dm_t=0,0,0,0,0

The Business end of Biodiversity: engaging business through Natural Capital

Mike Elm, Project Officer, Scottish Forum on Natural Capital

The value of ecosystem services Monetary values for all ecosystem services are impossible to determine. Some services, such as providing the oxygen we breathe, cannot be given a meaningful value. The services that can be given a monetary value, however, have been estimated to be worth between £21.5 and £23 billion per year to Scotland.

Scottish business and natural capital The Scottish Natural Capital Survey 2016 investigated Scottish business relationships with natural capital through an online survey aimed at business leaders. Around half of responses in 2016, and in the previous survey in 2014, stated that action to protect and enhance natural capital in Scotland is “urgent”. In 2016 55% of respondents stated that natural capital is either essential or important to their organisation.

A number of initiatives are underway to support the use of natural capital accounting by businesses. These include the Healthy ecosystem metric framework, which is being developed by members of the Natural Capital Leaders Platform and Investment Leaders Group alongside experts in academia, corporate sustainability and biodiversity conservation comprising in part a composite ‘healthy ecosystem’ metric with sub-components of biodiversity, soil and water.

Another influential initiative is the Natural Capital Protocol, which “is a framework designed to help generate trusted, credible, and actionable information for business managers to inform decisions”.

Biodiversity and natural capital The importance of biodiversity needs to be made clear in relation to natural capital as its complexity can leave it at risk of being ignored or under-emphasized. A supplementary report Biodiversity at the heart of accounting for natural capital from the Cambridge Conservation Initiative to Strengthen Biodiversity in the Natural Capital Protocol (with lead authors from the University of Cambridge, Fauna & Flora

International, the RSPB, and UNEP-WCMC) describes “how biodiversity is central to the natural capital framework and yet its values are often overlooked in natural capital assessments. It sets out positive ways that businesses and others can better reflect biodiversity concerns into decisions and sets out next steps for future work”.

Integrating natural capital into the Scottish economy The Scottish Forum on Natural Capital has over 80 member organisations from private, public and voluntary sectors. A key strategic aim of the Scottish Forum is to ensure that natural capital-related initiatives, such as the Natural Capital Protocol, are widely adopted within Scotland. Organisations looking for support can contact the Forum. Scotland is at the heart of developing the concept and application of natural capital and Edinburgh will host again the World Forum on Natural Capital on 27-28 November 2017.

It is important that biodiversity stakeholders in Scotland, including Government, public bodies and NGOs help businesses to integrate natural capital into their thinking through making it clear what their “ask” is of the business sector, and ensuring that biodiversity is clearly identified within strategies such as the Scottish Government's Programme For Scotland and Scotland’s Economic Strategy.

The Greener Greenways Project: successful approaches to engaging communities in managing habitats and citizen science

Lenka Sukenikova, Ecologist, Sustrans Scotland

The project aims The Greener Greenways project was run by two Sustrans Scotland project officers, Lenka Sukenikova, Ecologist and Laura White, Volunteer Coordinator. It ran for 3 years from 2013 – 2016 when it was funded by SNH, and continues under the Greener Greenways banner but at a reduced scale. It is hoped that a larger Greener Greenways-style project will be supported in the future.

From its inception the Greener Greenways project supported the Scottish Biodiversity Strategy aims to “protect and restore biodiversity on land and our seas” and to “connect people with the natural world, for their health and wellbeing”. It did this through improving and creating habitats on traffic-free sections of the National Cycle Network through engaging volunteers and the public in citizen science and practical habitat management.

The role of the Wildlife Volunteers The National Cycle Network (NCN) comprises around 2,400 miles in Scotland, of which around 600 miles is traffic-free. Overall there is a cycle route within 2 miles of 78% of the Scottish population!

Twelve traffic-free routes were chosen for the project, mostly within the Central Scotland Green Network (CSGN) area, and “wildlife volunteers” were recruited. Working with the volunteers was a two-way process in which the volunteers engaged in various actions including habitat management, litter-picking, wildlife recording, and spreading the word. In return the project offered training in practical skills, friendship, the opportunity to achieve the John Muir Award, and references to help in finding work.

Volunteer involvement in surveying species and habitats Citizen science was a very important part of the project, and training was provided in wildlife recording for many taxa, including birds, lichens, mosses & ferns, butterflies,

20 amphibians, bumblebees, bats, wildflowers, fungi, snails, mammals, winter trees, badgers and ladybirds.

Data were shared with national recording schemes by using Sustrans’ own iRecord data entry form, and records were also collated and displayed on Nature’s Calendar. Sustrans makes an important contribution to wildlife recording schemes in the UK through encouraging and enabling its users to provide data to schemes including the RSPB Big Garden Birdwatch, the Bumblebee Conservation Trust’s BeeWalk survey (Sustrans volunteers are one of the biggest areas of growth in records), and the UK Butterfly Monitoring Scheme. The NCN provides many opportunities for young people to work towards the John Muir Award, including: Discover a wild place, Explore it, Do something to conserve it, Share your experiences.

Volunteer involvement in habitat management Professional ecologists worked with the wildlife volunteers to draw up Habitat Management Plans (HMPs) for selected routes targeting a number of habitat types, including grassland, woodland, scrub, wetland, hedgerows, orchards, and invasives. Volunteers were then offered training in a variety of habitat management skills, including traditional techniques (e.g. grassland scything) to enable them to carry out the habitat management and improvements set out in the HMPs.

Corporate workdays were also organised as an opportunity for businesses to meet their Corporate Social Responsibility objectives and to tackle tasks set out in the HMPs. This provided additional manpower, helped to promote Sustrans to a new audience, and linked to Sustrans’ “Workplaces” work.

Measuring success Greener Greenways was a success by any measure:

 The funder’s targets were met and exceeded

 It won 2nd place in the Exemplary Initiatives category of the 2015 7th European Greenways Award run by the European Greenways Association

 It was selected as 1 of 5 case studies for CSGN’s Green Active Travel Routes

 It produced the Greenways Management Handbook which is used for dissemination of best practice guidance for the management of greenways

Priorities and challenges  Include lessons learned in future NCN projects

 Incorporate ‘Greening’ measures into new routes instead of retrofitting them

 Continue to build and strengthen partnerships, including with Buglife (Beelines), the CSGN Trust and with the John Muir Way

Workshops

The NBN Atlas

Christine Johnston, National Biodiversity Network (NBN) Scottish Liaison Officer

Aims of the workshop An opportunity to hear from people about functions (such as reporting) and content that would help them with their work.

Help people understand how to use the Atlas and start an ongoing discussion with Atlas users.

Atlas functionality

Existing functionality Search for occurrences of Scottish Biodiversity List species in any specified area.

Set up alerts to be notified when records of specified species are added.

Suggested new functionality It would be helpful if the species lists in the Atlas could be extended to include lists of invasive non-native species (INNS). We can look into uploading any approved lists of INNS but individuals are free to upload their own lists as well.

It would be good to include links to SEWeb and SNH Natural Spaces data downloads, and to National Marine Plan interactive somewhere on the NBN Atlas home screen.

Provide authorised access to enable appropriate data users to see data in finer resolution, relevant for protected species like native oysters.

The NBN should explain the meaning of the data quality tests that are reported in the Atlas - these will help users understand their meaning.

Points raised in discussion

The business model, charging for data and the relationship with Local Records Centres (LRCs) The NBN is about data but it does not provide an “interpretation function”, unlike LRCs which do provide such services – the two systems complement each other. It was noted that the data in LRCs can often be more up to date.

A lot of the data in the NBN (about 80%) are held under non-commercial licences from the organisations that submit records. Consultants can access these datasets at cost from data partners. Attendees noted that this can be expensive and can discourage their use. In LRCs there is often only one small fee to obtain data.

When partners don’t share information this can result in information not being available to support decision-making. However, this can be related to the need to secure revenue to cover the costs of collecting and managing data; this is a long- standing challenge. There is an ongoing review of data infrastructure by the Scottish Biodiversity Information Forum to make the system work in Scotland. So there will be more to say in the next few months.

Data verification It takes time to upload and carry out quality assurance on datasets before their being made available through the NBN Atlas. Eventually, it’s the intention to develop the functionality to allow data partners to upload their own data.

Collecting and managing data on Biodiversity projects Biocollect is a tool for field data capture that is currently being explored in Scotland for managing information on biodiversity projects, but there was insufficient time to discuss this in detail.

Links  NBN Atlas https://nbnatlas.org/

 NBN Atlas Scotland https://scotland.nbnatlas.org/

 NBN Atlas “How to” video tutorials https://nbnatlas.org/help/how-to-video- tutorials/

 Atlas of Living Australia http://www.ala.org.au/

 MERIT (Australian Gvt Environmental Project Explorer) https://fieldcapture.ala.org.au

Prioritising species action in Scotland

Chris Ellis, Chair of the Habitats and Species Working Group and RBGE

Background The workshop gathered feedback on a refreshed remit for the Habitats and Species Working Group. A draft of newly prioritised tasks was presented for discussion in the workshop, alongside the key challenge of balancing ‘flagship’ projects focussed on the Golden Eagle, Red Squirrel etc., with more generic landscape-scale actions (such as habitat restoration and the National Ecological Network (NEN) that we hope might help to protect the bulk of the 1,900+ species on the Scottish Biodiversity List.

Discussion

‘Rationalise the SBL’ – make it smart and searchable. Some form of rationalisation of the Scottish Biodiversity List (SBL) is required; the list needs to be ‘smarter’, so that it can be filtered by users to inform conservation actions e.g. setting of project or restoration targets, decision-making by LBAP officers (which species might be affected by actions based on ecosystems, and which of these species is a national priority), land management decisions by land- agents etc.

Could a smarter and rationalised SBL then provide leverage/mechanism to drive future development of, for example, SRDP/AECS options?

The rationalisation may also help to support a species/biodiversity component in the NEN: can NEN planning be prioritised based on clustered SBL distributions / shared species threats?

To achieve rationalisations, suggestions were:

 Classify species by rarity (e.g. range edge, naturally rare, v. threatened)

 Classify species by habitat type

 Classify species by guild/role (e.g. pollinators)

 Classify species by threat/management issue (e.g. grazing, pollution etc.).

Deploy Citizen Science With respect to citizen science it was noted that recorders are motivated by species, not ecosystems, and that citizen science is itself a way of deepening ‘mainstreaming effects’.

Suggestions were that citizen science could be deployed in two ways:

 Distributions: Atlas data are useful in exploring LBAP priorities (e.g. cross-border distributions), flagging opportunity/threat (e.g. SBL species on land eligible for payment scheme or zoned for development), but the records need confirmed, especially where datasets contain historical records and/or for mobile organisms

 Monitoring: there is a need for volunteer recording of flagship species, e.g. to support priority species targets/actions. This could be especially important for species which are microhabitat specialists.

Scotland’s Biodiversity – a route map to 2020 Many existing Priority Projects are ‘demonstrations’ of best practice, but are perhaps somewhat limited in scope. Do we need new Priority Projects?

There is potential to develop new projects that are supported by an expanded citizen science programme; although it was noted that citizen science activities can be resource hungry, and that the Route Map doesn’t have a set budget.

Some popular mechanisms and projects for species were discussed, for example:

 A “Species Action Framework 2” delivering outcomes with greater risk than the current Priority Projects, which have a high degree of confidence in successful delivery

 Finding new funding sources, such as WREN’s FCC Scottish Action Fund (supported by the Scottish Landfill Communities Fund)

 In all cases select species that help to restore habitats (increasing connectivity), and use the SBL as a way of brigading species and identifying flagships.

Questions were raised about how success should be measured, e.g. when does a species project become self-sustaining?

Questions were also raised about clarity on national species priorities, and alignment to LBAPs; local officers need to know what species could/should be found in their areas and habitats. Action needs to be specific, but there needs to be a common vision of the future.

Strategic Thinking  The Habitats and Species Working Group has a role to play in scoping strategy and making recommendations on mainstreaming species protection within existing and future biodiversity mechanisms

 What are the priorities beyond 2020? Should we focus on endangered species not covered through existing landscape-scale initiatives?

 What is the most effective means of influencing habitat / landscape / ecosystem management and activities for species protection?

 How best to secure a contribution from species actions towards the national ecological network?

Learning from the Species Action Framework

Martin Gaywood, Former Species Action Framework Manager, SNH

What was The Species Action Framework? The Species Action Framework (SAF) was an extensive programme of targeted species management that ran from 2007-2012. It marked a new strategic approach to species management in Scotland through identifying 32 species as the focus of new, targeted management actions over five years from 2007-2012. A full account is contained in the SAF Handbook.

Many familiar projects are part of the SAF, such as:

 Saving Scotland’s Red Squirrels

 East Scotland Sea Eagle Project

 Scottish Beaver Trial

 Cairngorms Wildcat Project

 Scottish Mink Initiative

 Langholm Moor Demonstration Project focussing on Hen harriers

The SAF included projects on many lesser-known species, such as the woolly willow, the great yellow bumblebee, and hazel gloves fungus.

Individual projects fell into the following themes:

 Species conservation – 22 spp.

 Invasive non-native species – 2 vertebrates, 1 invertebrate, 3 plants

 Conflicts of interest involving native species – Hen harrier

 Sustainable use of species – Native deer (Red deer & Roe deer) and Native oyster

Funding came from many sources, including from the partners, and from SRDP Rural Priorities. SRDP also supported project officers who helped to deliver SAF objectives. Funding was around £4m over 5 years (~£800K per year), excluding

29 funding for deer management, with some additional resources put into related work such as research, PhD studentships, and communications. Nearly 100 partner organisations were involved with SAF projects plus 100s of individual land owners and land managers, specialists and volunteers.

Lessons learned from the SAF Discussion focussed on how the SAF experience might inform Activities for species in the Biodiversity Route Map.

 Feedback from partners and SNH leads was largely positive

 SAF provided a shared focus for action, and relatively simple and non- bureaucratic access to funding

 Should have had more consultation / transparency over species selection, fewer over-ambitious objectives, suffered from complications with SRDP

The Route Map to 2020 Scotland’s Biodiversity – a route map to 2020 includes Priority Project 9: Conservation of priority species with the Aim to Deliver focused action for priority species in Scotland, and the Target of Six high profile wildlife projects underway in 2015, with a further suite of species projects to be developed. Its Planned work is to “Develop a suite of species focussed projects (e.g. for curlew, corncrake, corn bunting, water vole, pearl-bordered fritillary, great yellow bumblebee, alpine blue- sow-thistle, tufted saxifrage, marsh saxifrage, and rare lichens of the west coast temperate woodlands)”.

Discussion The workshop was asked to consider some questions:

 What is applicable to the SBS (and how can it be done better)?

 What is not applicable to SBS?

 What should be prioritised and how to prioritise (or has this been done)?

 Who leads and who else is involved?

 What resources can be accessed?

Priorities  Review the Scottish Biodiversity List

 Review progress, and assess which actions to update (has monitoring been adequate?)

 Maximise the benefits from taking a strategic multi-species approach

 Consider revisiting species that narrowly missed being on the SAF list

 Flagship species continue to be important ecologically and for engaging public interest

Resources Resourcing and timescales for the SAF were good. We need to see similar levels of funding again to underpin a co-ordinated and resilient approach to delivering the Route Map. One possibility might be to consider trying to secure a long-term commitment of smaller funds to allow continuity and leveraging in of additional funds.

Options include:

 Developing SAF 2

 Developing a co-ordinated bid for example to HLF, perhaps a Scottish “Back from the Brink” project. In England HLF is supporting a £4.6 million suite of projects, including Species Recovery Projects, with the aim of giving England’s threatened species a better future Note that the above two options are not incompatible.

Support and organisational structure  Specialist advisers are often the key to success with landowners, especially when delivering action via SRDP or similar initiatives

 SAF partnerships worked well – these could be built upon and used for the Route Map

 Public engagement really works but staff are needed to do this

 We need to reduce barriers to people taking action, for example by providing opportunities for training

Strathard: a landscape to live, work and play

Louise Bond, Senior Ecologist, SEPA

Applying an ecosystems approach in practice Louise led a discussion on how the Strathard Initiative is applying an ecosystems approach to engage the community, land managers, and local businesses in this area of the Trossachs.

Here a joint agency partnership is aiming to deliver integrated land, forest and water management that takes into account the critical role of biodiversity in delivering benefits to people. The workshop explored lessons learned to date and how this approach could be applied elsewhere.

General lessons from the project  Engage the community early around their needs; what do they value about their environment?

 The community, “sense of place”, not necessarily the catchment or local authority boundary, should be the basis for selecting the extent of the project area

 An “issue” can be helpful in bringing people together and getting things going. This could be a single overarching goal, for example in Strathard the community were concerned with flooding and interested in natural flood management

 Go in with as few fixed agendas as possible – develop trust, be flexible and listen, learn from other projects, it is not necessarily about money, but about ways of doing things differently – in this case forest management planning and flood prevention

 Avoid using technical terms (e.g. ecosystem services). The language used was more reflective of the things the community valued. The community partnership helped determine the appropriate language

 The ecosystem approach can help the agencies to work together, particularly to identify shared objectives

 It is essential to engage with landowners and managers

 The time from initial consultation to delivery may be too long to sustain community interest (e.g. 3-5 years), so try to develop some “quick wins”

 Consider employing a facilitator

Some specific lessons from the project  Themed events worked well e.g. events on flooding and land-use. All events were based on themes rather than around public bodies’ functions

 No PowerPoint used!

 Good media – short films, interactions, decision trees, kids’ games

 A community mapping drop-in workshop was popular

 Continue to provide feedback to the community as the project evolves

 The project needed resources for coordination: a steering group aimed to involve people in doing the same things but in a different ways and to help people work together better. SEPA co-ordinated the partnership, this resource was 1 day / week over 2 years

 Funding for the project came from 4 partners contributing £10-15K per year over 3 years. Forest Research contributed mapping and technical input and worked closely with the community to prepare questionnaires

 Forest areas can be used for best practice water & forestry management training and demonstration: a Natural Flood Management demonstration area was selected for its accessibility as well as its hydrological characteristics, allowing learning to be shared with partners/community

Protected Areas and the Biodiversity Challenge

Brian Eardley, Designated Sites Manager, SNH

Aim of the workshop The aim of this workshop was to highlight and discuss the “Protected Areas and 2020 Challenge Delivery” review, which SNH is currently undertaking on behalf of the Scottish Biodiversity Strategy (SBS) Protected Areas Working Group. This group currently involves SNH, Scottish Government, SEPA, and FCS, although it is hoped to widen its membership in the future.

The context for reviewing Protected Areas in Scotland While protected areas continue to play a valuable role in delivering many biodiversity outcomes there is recognition that some of the aspects of the way in which protected areas are administered, monitored and managed may be out of step with contemporary approaches to nature conservation. Recently concluded and ongoing work, such as the Protected Areas for Nature review and the UK-wide review of Common Standards Monitoring (the Framework under which Scottish protected areas are monitored), has pointed to weaknesses in the current approach to protected areas, which may be suppressing their overall contribution to biodiversity objectives. These include:

 The focus on individual natural features (habitats, species or earth science), which may represent an approach that is too ‘static’ in a dynamic environment in which the rate of change is increasing (e.g. due to climate change)

 Investment in management on protected areas to maintain a particular natural feature may be sub-optimal from a biodiversity perspective and could ‘divert’ resources from other objectives where the gain could be greater

 There is a need to ‘integrate’ protected areas within wider land uses and ecosystems

 Are we collecting the right data through protected areas monitoring? Should we focus more on monitoring benefits from ecosystem services, such as flood management, carbon sequestration etc.?

 How to resolve conflicting management requirements for multiple natural features on the same site?

During the wide ranging discussion, there was recognition that more could be done under the existing protected areas legislation to safeguard elements of biodiversity, for example by greater use of regulatory powers. Nevertheless, there was general agreement that the approach to protected areas has to be updated to maintain their relevance with the public, and to maintain political support.

Employing the Ecosystems Approach The Ecosystems Approach, in line with much of the thinking underpinning the SBS, was seen to be a logical route to take, as this combines an understanding of the functioning of ecosystems alongside the services they provide, and with greater involvement from local communities and stakeholders – both on the sites themselves and in the landscapes within which they sit and interact. Caution was expressed that we should not instigate change for the sake of it as there are many aspects of protected areas which work well, so these should form the foundation upon which new initiatives should be built to strengthen protected areas and to increase their contribution to SBS objectives. There was also recognition that there is a risk of bringing in new complexities as the focus for protected areas shifts from natural feature condition per se to ecosystem services; however this should not be seen as a barrier to developing the new thinking.

Conclusions The conclusion of the workshop was that there is a range of complexities that need to be worked through to better align protected areas with SBS objectives, and that it is important that as the process of change progresses stakeholders are involved in the decision-making process.

Framing biodiversity successes, priorities and challenges for agriculture

Claudia Rowse, Head of Rural Resources Unit, SNH

Introduction This workshop explored the connections between agricultural practice and biodiversity, including the incentives regime, and it considered some of the challenges ahead, including:

 Uncertainty in future agricultural markets and incentives: these both threaten and provide opportunities for biodiversity across much of Scotland

 Integrated regional land use planning: this could provide a mechanism for integration, while other approaches such as a radical review of the incentives regime (as in NZ and Canada), should be considered now for the post-Brexit period

Agricultural land covers over 70% of Scotland, so agriculture has a big impact on biodiversity. This is recognised in the Route Map Priority Project 11: Sustainable Land Management.

Much good work is in place, with many farmers and crofters voluntarily entering into agri-environment agreements covering approximately 22% of Scotland, and Greening measures, while limited, are achieving some benefits for biodiversity. Good advice to farmers is critical, and the new £20m Farm Advisory Service has the potential to improve outcomes for biodiversity.

There have been some biodiversity successes, such as long-term increases in several farmland bird indicator species (linnet, goldfinch) and some successes for species such as corncrake and corn bunting. However, habitats and species are still declining in many places, for example there have been serious declines in some farmland waders (lapwing, oystercatcher) and in curlew numbers in the uplands, while a third of UK BAP habitats are declining in Scotland, including a significant loss of species-rich grassland.

There are many broad issues currently affecting the agricultural sector in Scotland, including profitability, specialisation, fluctuations in the prices of global commodities, policy uncertainty (including from Brexit), an ageing workforce, and the need for innovation in the wider rural economy.

Discussion Post-war agricultural policy has been successful in delivering food but it has also generated farmer debt and non-sustainable practices such as over-grazing by sheep, diffuse pollution, and land management that can exacerbate downstream flooding.

Some of these practices might be addressed by more targeted (zoned) subsidies and better alignment of land use policies, including on biodiversity. Consistency in policy and funding is required over a 20 year timescale, but it is not yet clear how the Scottish Land Use Strategy will contribute to this.

Issues raised in discussion included  A call for clearly communicating what is happening to biodiversity on farmland, with more honesty about what is not going well

 Short-term funding schemes do not provide security for land managers to make long-term decisions, many of which are needed to address environmental management on the farm

 The focus on agriculture as the provider of food has impeded debate about a wider rationale for agriculture; there needs to be a stronger narrative or rationale that agriculture provides many benefits, and land stewardship might be a useful concept in helping to set out this broader approach

 Peer to peer conversations and knowledge exchange are successful ways to support change and innovation, but it is also critical to get the payment system correct so that there is the space and opportunity for farmers to “get it right for biodiversity”

 Agri-environment schemes can make it easier for farmers to implement the Land Use Strategy and develop farming practices that support an ecosystems approach

 Land management tailored to species priorities has generated successes

 Brexit offers opportunities and challenges

 Farmer-led approaches such as a “cluster approach” have the potential to help farmers work more cohesively and to deliver greater benefits for biodiversity at a landscape scale

Balancing land use in the Uplands

Sian Williams, Senior UK Forestry Policy & Casework Officer, RSPB and Dr Paul Walton, Head of Habitats and Species, RSPB Scotland

The policy and strategy context  Scotland's Land Use Strategy 2016 - 2021 (link to webpage) and the Land Use Strategy (LUS) Regional pilot projects. Note that the proposal to “scope the potential to develop a strategic vision for the uplands is LUS Proposal 5 (link to document)

 Deer Management Groups (DMGs). The recent review of DMGs Deer Management in Scotland: Report to the Scottish Government from Scottish Natural Heritage, 2016

 The new Scottish Government Tree Planting Targets1 are included in the draft Climate Change Plan, January 2017

Objectives Sian Williams and Paul Walton took the workshop through some current land management issues in upland Scotland, including moorlands and forestry, and highlighted the opportunities to increase their integration with biodiversity objectives.

The discussion looked at challenges and options around how we can put in place more balanced and environmentally and economically sustainable patterns of land use at appropriate scales in the Scottish Uplands delivering public goods and benefits.

Challenges The discussion identified a number of specific challenges, including:

 Much of Scotland’s open landscapes and upland moors are classed as rare in global terms, yet many areas lack ecological diversity

 Scotland is home to internationally significant wild bird populations, such as a quarter of the world’s breeding curlew population

1 The target is to plant 10,000 hectares (ha) of new woodland (around 22 million trees) every year to 2020, then to increase planting to 12,000ha from 2020-21, 14,000ha from 2022-23 and 15,000ha from 2024-25.

 Land use policies and objectives can act against each other

 We need to understand and address the impacts of current land uses on biodiversity, and what currently stops integration

 A consensus is often missing on how to resolve conflicting land use policies and objectives

 The essential spatial and ecological context is often missing from decision- making

 Should land use be zoned or should we focus on ecological connectivity, and what proportion of land should be used for each sector?

 We ned to learn the lessons from the Land Use Strategy pilots, including on the availability of good data

 How best can we help land managers to respond to different policy objectives?

 There are some inherently challenging land management issues, such as controlling bracken, managing grazing pressure in sensitive habitats, addressing wildlife crime, the current high rate of political change is creating uncertainty, for example around Brexit

 We need to address specific sectoral issues including replacing a rigid and prescriptive approach to forestry with a more flexible approach that integrates additional land use objectives, including biodiversity

Opportunities  Explore the role that community land ownership can play in integrating biodiversity into land use policies; in particular can it deliver environmental, social and economic benefits?

 Can land reform aid the integration of different land use objectives? Review the effectiveness of alternative approaches to land management, including community land ownership

 Develop spatial plans that are ecologically and economically coherent, and that facilitate opportunity-mapping - where are the win-win locations?

 Combine a Government-led “top-down spatial approach” with “bottom-up engagement and implementation”

 Support Regional Land Use Partnerships; in some case these could be based on Deer Management Groups (DMGs), which often operate at an appropriate scale and involve many of the key stakeholders

 Support the development of a network of Regional Land Use Partnerships to share skills and knowledge by helping to identify good practice and the capacity to demonstrate and share good practice

 How can DMGs help to deliver local partnership approaches in the face of sometimes inconsistent and disparate national policy drivers?

 Put in place neutral and well-informed facilitators of a regional approach (the FWAG model worked well) to help different sectors to work together

 Investigate how to enable local communities to use new funding streams, such as from wind farms, to benefit the local environment and to connect communities to their environment

Conclusions  There are areas of policy conflict which regional partnerships could help to resolve

 Local people and people working on the ground must be involved, especially land managers

 There is an urgent need to identify who will play the facilitating role in bringing everyone together at the appropriate scale

Programme

Welcome Welcome from the Chair Angus Campbell, SNH Board member.

Keynote Taking Stock: Where are we on the Road to 2020? Pete Rawcliffe, Head of People and Places Unit, SNH.

Quick fire presentations 1: Perspectives on Success Eradicating INNS from seabird colonies – what constitutes success? Dr Paul Walton, Head of Habitats and Species, RSPB Scotland.

Mice, mustelids and the magic of camera trapping – engaging young people in biodiversity. Rose Toney, NE Scotland Biodiversity Partnership Co-ordinator.

Engaging land managers in species protection – Butterfly Conservation and the marsh fritillary butterfly. Tom Prescott, Butterfly Conservation.

Quick fire presentations 2: Innovations, priorities and challenges Recovering the European Oyster population in the Dornoch Firth: an exemplar corporate partnership with The Glenmorangie Company. Calum Duncan, Head of Conservation Scotland, Marine Conservation Society and Hamish Torrie, Director of Corporate Social Responsibility, The Glenmorangie Company.

The Business end of Biodiversity: Engaging business through natural capital. Mike Elm, Project Officer, Scottish Forum on Natural Capital.

The Greener Greenways Project: successful approaches to engaging communities in managing habitats and citizen science. Lenka Sukenikova, Ecologist, Sustrans Scotland.

Workshops

Making better use of the NBN Atlas and the Scottish Biodiversity List Christine Johnston, National Biodiversity Network Scottish Liaison Officer will demonstrate the functionality and use of the new NBN Atlas including the Scottish Biodiversity List, and will look ahead at future developments such as improved analysis.

Prioritising species action in Scotland Chris Ellis, Chair of the Habitats and Species Working Group will take us through key questions around the next phase of species-focussed projects. Existing projects can exemplify the best of conservation (e.g. multi-partner, landscape-scale approaches); but we will ask if priority projects are being developed to widen this portfolio of action, and what is the appropriate balance of effort between action for single species and activities that aim to deliver across the Scottish Biodiversity List, and what steps could secure outcomes within (or beyond) current mechanisms that are not being deployed at present?

Learning from the Species Action Framework The Species Action Framework (SAF) was an extensive programme of targeted species management that ran from 2007-2012. Martin Gaywood, SNH’s SAF Manager at the time, will start the workshop by providing an overview of the approach taken during SAF and the lessons learned from this multi-partner approach. This will then be followed by discussion, including how the SAF experience might inform those involved in Biodiversity Route Map Activities for species.

Strathard: a landscape to live, work and play Louise Bond, SEPA Senior Ecologist will lead a discussion on how the Strathard Initiative is applying an ecosystems approach to engage the community, land managers, and local businesses in Strathard in the Trossachs. This joint agency partnership aims to deliver integrated land, forest and water management that takes into account the critical role of biodiversity in delivering benefits to people. The workshop will explore lessons learnt to date and how this approach could be applied elsewhere.

Protected Areas and the Biodiversity Challenge Robbie Kernahan, Head of SNH National Operations Unit and Brian Eardley, Designated Sites Manager at SNH will provide some insight into the findings from the recent Protected Areas for Nature review and then seek to explore how we better evaluate and align the contribution which protected areas in Scotland make to the Scottish Biodiversity Strategy.

Framing biodiversity successes, priorities and challenges for agriculture Claudia Rowse, Head of Rural Resources Unit at SNH, will outline the connections between agricultural practice and biodiversity, including the incentives regime, and consider some of the challenges ahead.

Balancing land use in the uplands Sian Williams, RSPB Forestry policy officer will take us through the current land management issues in upland Scotland, including moorlands and forestry, and will highlight the opportunities to increase their integration with biodiversity objectives.

Plenary discussion – Where Next? Led by Dr Des Thompson, SNH Principal Adviser for Biodiversity.

Participants

Name Organisation Job Title Marina Curran- Argyll and Bute Council Local Biodiversity Officer Colthart Suzanne Burgess Buglife Conservation Officer Helen Dickinson Bumblebee Conservation Trust Officer Paul Mapplebeck Butterfly Conservation Tom Prescott Butterfly Conservation Conservation Advisor Andy Ford Cairngorms National Park Cairngorms Nature Manager Authority Peter Coldwell Comhairle nan Eilean Siar Alison Anderson Dundee City Council Environmental Development Officer Anna Perks Falkirk Council Biodiversity Officer Colin Edwards Forestry Commission Scotland Policy Advisor For Environment & Biodiversity Ian Ford Friends of Riverside Nature Park, Dundee Adam Smith Game and Wildlife Conservation Director Scotland Trust Carol Maclean Glasgow City Council Biodiversity Officer Rob Brooker James Hutton Institute Senior Research Scientist Calum Duncan Marine Conservation Society Head of Conservation Scotland Catherine Marine Conservation Society Scotland Project Officer Gemmell Ewen Cameron N.E. Scotland Local Biodiversity Chair of Awareness and Partnership Involvement Group Christine Johnston National Biodiversity Network Scottish Liaison Officer Rose Toney North East Scotland Biodiversity Ne Scotland Biodiversity Partnership Partnership Co-Ordinator Yvonne Imrie Plantlife Scotland Office Adminstrator Blair Wilkie Police Scotland Wildlife & Environment Officer Christopher Ellis Royal Botanic Garden Research Scientist Edinburgh Zoe Clelland RSPB Conservation Officer Sheila George RSPB Senior Policy Officer Alexander RSPB Head of Marine Policy Kinninmonth Isobel Mercer RSPB Policy Officer Paul Walton RSPB Head Of Habitats And Species Sian Williams RSPB Senior Policy & Casework Officer Sarah Robinson Royal Zoological Society of Head of Conservation Scotland Programmes and Science

Name Organisation Job Title John Kerr Science and Advice for Scottish Head Of Seeds Varieties And Agriculture Pesticides Louise Bond SEPA Senior Ecologist David Harley SEPA Head of Ecology Janet Khan-Marnie SEPA Senior Marine Biodiversity Ecologist Katriona Lundberg SEPA River Basin Management Planner Roger Owen SEPA Principal Specialist Scientist Mark Wells SEPA Head Of Communications Mike Elm Scottish Forum on Natural Project Officer Capital Sebastian Howell Scottish Government Policy Adviser Zeshan Akhter SNH Biodiversity Strategy Officer Roger Burton SNH Portfolio Manager Alan Cameron SNH Communities Officer Angus Campbell SNH Main Board Member Roo Campbell SNH Wildcat Action Project Manager Andy Douse SNH Senior Ornithologist Brian Eardley SNH Designated Sites Manager Martin Gaywood SNH Species Action Framework Manager Robbie Kernahan SNH Head of National Operations Unit Owen McGrath SNH Policy & Advice Officer - Marine Margaret McNair SNH Planning & Renewables Support Claire McSorley SNH Species Lead Clive Mitchell SNH Strategic Development Manager Chris Nevin SNH Policy & Advice - Biodiversity Strategy Manager Dougie Pollok SNH Biodiversity Communications Manager Brigid Primrose SNH Biodiversity Strategy Officer Pete Rawcliffe SNH People & Places Unit Manager Rob Raynor SNH Advisory Officer, Mammals David Rodger SNH Communications Officer - Campaigns Claudia Rowse SNH Unit Manager Deborah Sandals SNH Landscape Officer Jessica Shaw SNH Ornithology Paul Sizeland SNH EcoCo Life+ Project Manager Fiona Strachan SNH Green Infrastructure Project Manager

Name Organisation Job Title Des Thompson SNH Principal Adviser (Biodiversity Development) Jason Watts SNH External Funding Officer Stan Whitaker SNH Ecosystems & Biodiversity Manager Maggie Keegan Scottish Wildlife Trust Louisa Maddison South Lanarkshire Council Countryside Ranger Malcolm Muir South Lanarkshire Council Countryside And Greenspace Manager Jennifer Murphy South Lanarkshire Council Planning Officer Chris Waltho South Lanarkshire Council Development Manager Lenka Sukenikova Sustrans Ltd Ecologist (Greener Greenways) Dominic Hall TCV Natural Communities Co- ordinator Susan Falconer The City of Edinburgh Council Biodiversity Officer Caroline Peacock The City of Edinburgh Council Biodiversity Officer Hamish Torrie The Glenmorangie Co. CSR Director Richard Cooke Trustees of the Dalhousie Factor Estate (1964)

Event organiser and report author Alan Cameron, Policy & Advice Communities Officer, SNH [email protected]