Biodiversity strategy and delivery plan: strategic environmental assessment

5. Appraisal of options

Flagship species vs an ecosystem approach

5.1 The use of flagship species, including charismatic megafauna, is an established approach to raise the profile of biodiversity planning. Recognising species' role in healthy ecosystems, such an approach has benefits for biodiversity through increasing awareness and familiarity of the issues surrounding biodiversity conservation.

5.2 However, the use of a single species approach which utilises charismatic megafauna (or alternatively well-known habitats) has the potential to undermine a focus on the key interdependencies which support healthy ecosystems. In this respect a landscape-scale ecosystem approach is an approach which more closely recognises the building blocks and interdependencies which are inherent in healthy ecosystems.

5.3 In light of the above, the SEA will consider two options as reasonable alternatives, as follows:

• Option FS1: Utilise an approach which places an additional impetus on particular flagship species or well-known habitats.
• Option FS2: Utilise an approach which focuses on ecosystems at a landscape scale.

Table 5.1: Appraisal of options relating to flagship species vs an ecosystem approach

Option FS1: Utilise an approach which places an additional impetus on particular flagship species or well-known habitats.

Option FS2: Utilise an approach which focuses on ecosystems at a landscape scale.

Biodiversity, flora and fauna:

Discussion of potential effects and relative merits of options

A flagship species approach proposed by FS1 may help facilitate enhanced engagement with the biodiversity resource of local areas amongst residents and visitors. This will help increase awareness and understanding of the biodiversity of different locations and their distinct ecological, geological and landscape resources. In this respect a focus on species such as capercaillie, black grouse, red squirrel, sea otters beavers and others would support a recognition of different areas' role for biodiversity conservation. It will also reinforce the role of ecotourism in supporting biodiversity conservation.

Focusing on the conservation of a particular type of flagship species would also have indirect effects through helping to facilitate the management of large areas of habitat; in addition to facilitating the reintroduction and protection of certain flagship species, it would also support many other less well-known species. In this respect the approach may help the conservation of other co-occurring habitats and species.

A flagship species-focused approach can however be inefficient, expending more resources on particular species, whilst not supporting wider biodiversity enhancements. In this respect, Option FS2, through taking a comprehensive place-based conservation approach, may provide additional opportunities to deliver biodiversity enhancements which benefit a broader range of habitats and species, whilst increasing the resilience of ecosystems which support a wider range of biodiversity assets.

Both approaches therefore offer numerous potential benefits for the conservation and enhancement of biodiversity assets. Given these approaches are not exclusive, and both approaches could be taken forward in a complementary way, it is not possible to rank the options in terms of their sustainability performance in relation to this SEA topic.

Rank of preference FS1: =

Rank of preference FS2: =

Climatic factors:

Discussion of potential effects and relative merits of options

Option FS2 has the potential to support an approach which increases the resilience of habitats and species to the likely effects of climate change. In this respect, through enhancing ecosystems at the landscape scale, the option will support the adaptability of species through reinforcing ecological connections and networks. A place-based ecosystems approach will also help enable conservation planning to focus on the likely changes resulting from climate change, and the interventions required to help biodiversity adapt.

In contrast the narrower focus of Option FS1 on flagship species may limit opportunities for enhancing the resilience of different locations to the effects of climate change.

Rank of preference FS1: 2

Rank of preference FS2: 1

Air:

Discussion of potential effects and relative merits of options

Given the existing low levels of air and noise pollution in many areas earmarked for biodiversity enhancements, the options are unlikely to have significant differences relating to effects on the baseline for this SEA topic.

Rank of preference FS1: =

Rank of preference FS2: =

Water:

Discussion of potential effects and relative merits of options

An ecosystems approach facilitated by Option FS2 has the potential to support water quality. This includes through helping to enhance the regulating ecosystem services provided by natural habitats. Enhanced ecosystems will also reinforce the capacity of the landscape to support the provisioning of water resources for users within different locations and their biodiversity.

Otherwise, the approach facilitated by Option FS1 is unlikely to have any direct significant effects on water resources, although it may support indirect effects for the regulating ecosystem services provided by natural habitats.

Rank of preference FS1: 2

Rank of preference FS2: 1

Soil:

Discussion of potential effects and relative merits of options

Through taking a more coordinated ecosystems approach, Option FS2 may do more to support enhancements to soils resources. In this regard, the delivery of enhancements to the key regulating and supporting ecosystems services provided by a wide range of natural habitats would have benefits for soils resources through helping to manage erosion, regulate water quality, facilitate soil formation, and enabling enhanced nutrient and water cycling.

Rank of preference FS1: 2

Rank of preference FS2: 1

Cultural Heritage:

Discussion of potential effects and relative merits of options

With regards to Option FS1, the presence of flagship species (when reintroduced) will contribute to the historic and cultural landscape of the specific areas given the historic presence of these species.

Option FS2, through seeking to take an ecosystems approach at a landscape scale, has the potential to lead to the delivery of biodiversity conservation and enhancement measures which more appropriately fit within the context provided by the cultural landscapes and historic environment of different locations. This includes through the approach providing the opportunity to shape biodiversity enhancements in ways which complement and reinforce the intrinsic character of its landscapes and cultural settings. In this regard the broader approach promoted through this option is likely to bring wider benefits that those facilitated through Option FS1.

Rank of preference FS1: 2

Rank of preference FS2: 1

Landscape and geodiversity:

Discussion of potential effects and relative merits of options

With regards to Option FS1, the presence of flagship species (when reintroduced) will contribute to the cultural landscape of a particular location given the historic presence of these species.

Option FS2, through seeking to take an ecosystems approach at a landscape scale, has the potential to lead to the delivery of biodiversity conservation and enhancement measures which more appropriately fit within the context provided by the cultural and historic landscapes of the specific areas in Scotland. This includes through the approach providing the opportunity to shape biodiversity enhancements in ways which complement and reinforce the intrinsic character of its landscapes and cultural setting. These benefits for landscape character are likely to be broader through this option than for Option FS1.

Rank of preference FS1: 2

Rank of preference FS2: 1

Material assets:

Discussion of potential effects and relative merits of options

The approaches facilitated by the options are unlikely to have any significant effects relating to the material assets SEA topic, including relating to waste or use of materials.

Rank of preference FS1: =

Rank of preference FS2: =

Population and human health:

Discussion of potential effects and relative merits of options

A flagship species approach proposed by FS1 may help facilitate enhanced engagement with the biodiversity resource of different locations in Scotland amongst residents and visitors. This will help increase awareness and understanding of each location's distinct ecological, geological and landscape resources.

Option FS2 may be less effective in this regard. However, through taking a comprehensive place-based conservation approach, the option has increased potential to deliver wider ranging multifunctional benefits for human health, wellbeing and quality of life.

Rank of preference FS1: 2

Rank of preference FS2: 1

Summary conclusions:

5.4 Option FS2 is most favourably performing overall, ranking highest in relation to the majority of the nine SEA topics (climatic factors, water, soil, cultural heritage, landscape and geodiversity and population and human health). In this respect it is considered that taking a coordinated ecosystems approach through Option FS2 could do more to support enhancements to soils and water quality and increase the resilience of habitats and species to the likely effects of climate change. Option FS2 also has the potential to lead to the delivery of biodiversity conservation and enhancement measures which most appropriately fit within the context provided by the cultural landscapes and historic environment of different locations. Through taking a comprehensive place-based conservation approach, Option FS2 also has increased potential to deliver wider ranging multifunctional benefits for human health, wellbeing, and quality of life.

5.5 However, Option FS1 also has the potential to bring a number of positive significant effects relating to these topics. It should also be noted that the two approaches proposed by the options would not need to be exclusive, and both approaches could be taken forward in a complementary way. As such, it is likely that a mix of approaches would deliver the broadest range of significant positive effects across the topics.

Restorative vs regenerative approach

5.6 Traditionally conservation in Scotland has been focussed on restoring species and habitats lost, notably in recent centuries. This has concentrated on the restoration of ecosystems to previous states which have since been lost or heavily degraded. One problem with this is the climate has changed considerably, allied with land use intensification. Essentially, in many cases it is impossible to recreate the conditions of the past. And even if this was possible, the assemblages restored would not be resilient to changes ahead.

5.7 It was discussed at the workshop that there is a need for the SBS to take a regenerative approach. This is with a view to enhancing the richness and adaptability of habitats and species to ongoing pressures, including to the effects of climate change. It was noted though that this may lead to different outcomes in terms of conservation, where the habitats and species which benefit may be different to previous states.

5.8 To explore this issue in more detail, the following two options will be considered as reasonable alternatives through the SEA:

• Option R1: Take an approach through the SBS which focusses on the restoration of specific ecosystems.
• Option R2: Take a regenerative-led approach through the SBS which does not focus on the restoration of specific ecosystems.

Table 5.2: Appraisal of options relating to a restorative vs regenerative approach

Option R1: Take an approach through the SBS which focusses on the restoration of specific ecosystems.

Option R2: Take a regenerative-led approach through the SBS which does not focus on the restoration of specific ecosystems

Biodiversity, flora and fauna:

Discussion of potential effects and relative merits of options

Taking a restoration-led approach through the SBS (Option R1) would likely engage the use of traditional management methods and focus on historic ecosystems that are unique and valued highly. Restoring specific ecosystems will help restore important groupings and concentrations of species. For example, in the case of Scotland's Atlantic Rainforest, ferns, lichens, fungi and mosses are characteristic. Another example is the globally important freshwater pearl mussel population, being supported through the physical restoration of rivers in priority catchments. Option R1 would align with the introduction of statutory nature restoration targets, which are considered to lead to positive effects in terms of species abundance, distribution, and extinction risk and habitat quality and extent.

However, a focus on restoring specific ecosystems could increase the vulnerability of wildlife, particularly in the context of climate change. In this respect, if living conditions were to change within a restored ecosystem, for example associated with changes in rainfall and temperature, the functionality of the systems which support habitats and species in the longer term could be undermined.

Taking a regenerative approach to the SBS (Option R2) arguably provides increased opportunities to enhance the resilience of habitats and species, including through connecting areas and better supporting the delivery of Nature Networks. The regenerative approach is likely to better allow the movement of wildlife across landscapes, supporting a range of species that makes an ecosystem diverse and adaptive and unique to its location. For example, sustainable natural regeneration through effective forest and woodland management can lead to a greater diversity of woodland species.

Overall, it is considered that a hybrid of both options is likely to lead to the greatest range of positive effects. This would allow the SBS to place focus on restoring Scotland's flagship ecosystems while also recognising the interconnected nature of ecosystems across landscapes and the importance of supporting ecosystems that are resilient.

Rank of preference R1: =

Rank of preference R2: =

Climatic factors:

Discussion of potential effects and relative merits of options

Implementing nature-based measures that restore historic ecosystems (Option R1) can help to tackle climate change by, for example, storing carbon. Certain historic habitats such as peatland are vital carbon sinks; reflected through Scotland's widespread and ongoing programme of peatland restoration. Continued focus on restoring Scotland's peatland, alongside other key ecosystems, is therefore anticipated to lead to positive effects - supporting Scotland's efforts to deliver Net Zero and adapt to climate change.

A regenerative approach (Option R2) will better facilitate the adaptation of ecosystems, allowing nature to respond to the changes in climate likely to be seen in the future. By being well adapted to their location, ecosystems can help manage climate change in a variety of ways. For example, coral reefs provide hotspots of marine life that are a key contributor to coastal communities' economic vitality, while also protecting coastal areas from storms. Positive effects can also be seen in the built environment, through regenerative transformation of existing ecosystems in urban areas. Regenerative agriculture also supports farming and food production, while rebuilding biodiversity to ensure the flow of ecosystem services.

While it is considered that both options perform positively in relation to climate change mitigation and adaptation, Option R2 has additional scope to increase resilience to the effects of climate change.

Rank of preference R1: 2

Rank of preference R2: 1

Air:

Discussion of potential effects and relative merits of options

It is considered that both options have the potential to support air quality. Both restoring and regenerating woodland, for example, will support the recovery of trees and other plants that help clean the air. Taking a regenerative-led approach through the SBS (Option R2) may however do more to support the regulating ecosystem services related to air quality that can be provided by a resilient ecosystem.

Rank of preference R1: 2

Rank of preference R2: 1

Water:

Discussion of potential effects and relative merits of options

It is considered that both options have the potential to support water quality. This includes through helping to enhance the regulating ecosystem services provided by natural habitats. Restored ecosystems will also reinforce the capacity of the landscape to support the provisioning of water resources for users within different locations and their biodiversity. However, taking a regenerative-led approach through the SBS (Option R2) may do more to support the regulation ecosystem services provided by resilient ecosystems than Option R1.

Rank of preference R1: 2

Rank of preference R2: 1

Soil:

Discussion of potential effects and relative merits of options

It is considered that both options have the potential to support soil quality. However, through supporting interconnected, evolving ecosystems, Option R2 may do more to support approaches which facilitate enhancements to soils resources over the longer term. In this regard, the delivery of enhancements to the key regulating and supporting ecosystems services provided by natural habitats would have benefits for soils resources. This includes through helping to manage erosion, regulate water quality, facilitate soil formation, and enabling enhanced nutrient and water cycling. For example, the approach promoted by Option R2 may support regenerative farming, which will support soil conservation to regenerate and contribute to multiple ecosystem services.

Rank of preference R1: 2

Rank of preference R2: 1

Cultural Heritage;

Discussion of potential effects and relative merits of options

Focusing on the restoration of specific ecosystems (Option R1) will positively impact cultural heritage, replicating historic landscapes and supporting the historic setting of features and areas of historic environment interest. Peatland landscapes, specifically, are known to contain significant historic environment (including archaeological) features which depend upon healthy, stable habitats within fully functioning ecosystems for their long-term preservation. Restoring ecosystems therefore can have a role in supporting the long-term conservation of heritage assets and their settings and prevent their degradation. Furthermore, the restoration of ecosystems can contribute towards the understanding of, and access to, the historic environment, providing valued information on changes over time.

Taking a regenerative approach to the SBS (Option R2) is less likely to support original habitat types or include an area's original species communities and is therefore less likely to directly replicate the historic condition of the landscape and the heritage assets that sit within it.

Rank of preference R1: 1

Rank of preference R2: 2

Landscape and geodiversity:

Discussion of potential effects and relative merits of options

Focusing on the restoration of specific ecosystems (Option R1) will positively impact on the landscape, replicating historic landscapes and supporting landscape character and features. Peatland, for example, plays a role in contributing to the quality and character of the wider landscape in certain parts of Scotland. Scotland's forests and woodlands are another example of ecosystems that can represent the historic character of the landscape.

Taking a regenerative approach to the SBS (Option R2) is less likely to support historic habitat types or comprise a representative reflection of area's historic species communities and is therefore less likely to lead to the direct replication of historic landscapes.

However, a focus on a regenerative approach to ecosystems through Option R2 is a commitment that can provide multiple benefits over the longer term. This includes through the development of resilient and distinct landscapes that supports climate change mitigation and adaptation, promotes biodiversity, and provides other multifunctional benefits.

Rank of preference R1: 1

Rank of preference R2: 2

Material assets:

Discussion of potential effects and relative merits of options

The approaches facilitated by the options are unlikely to have any significant effects or differences relating to the material assets SEA topic, including relating to waste or use of materials.

Rank of preference R1: =

Rank of preference R2: =

Population and human health:

Discussion of potential effects and relative merits of options

Engagement of the public with 'traditional' habitats and species might be easier under Option R1, increasing awareness and understanding of a location's distinct ecological, geological and landscape resource.

Both options have the opportunity to support community involvement, including through direct experiences and improved education, for example through community biodiversity initiatives.

A focus on a regenerative approach to ecosystems through Option R2 could better connect ecosystems within and to the built environment. In this respect incorporating naturally functioning, evolving ecosystems into the planning and design of the built environment would deliver multiple benefits to benefit both biodiversity and communities.

Option R2 may also support the multifunctionality of green space through, for example green infrastructure provision, etc., ensuring that communities have access to wild spaces near their home and place of work. Option R2 is subsequently likely to support the development of high quality natural and built environments which are resilient to climate change. A regenerative approach to managing local resources also has some potential to support communities through investment in sustainable farming (nature restoration, food production, etc.) and green tourism.

In this respect a focus on regenerating ecosystems through Option R2 is anticipated to perform most positively overall, facilitating opportunities in terms of new investment, new job opportunities and supporting the overall health and wellbeing and quality of life of communities.

Rank of preference R1: 2

Rank of preference R2: 1

Summary conclusions:

5.9 Option R2 ranks highest in relation to four of the nine SEA topics (climatic factors, air, water, soil, and population and human health). While both options perform positively in relation to these topics, taking a regenerative-led approach through the SBS may do more to support the regulating ecosystem services related to air, water and soil quality that can be provided by a resilient ecosystem. A focus on regenerating ecosystems is also considered to best facilitate social and economic opportunities relevant to the population and human health SEA topic. This includes through supporting the health and wellbeing and quality of life of communities, and through promoting investment and employment opportunities. While it is considered that both options perform positively in relation to climate change mitigation and adaptation, Option R2 has additional scope to increase resilience to the effects of climate change.

5.10 A focus on the restoration of specific ecosystems through Option R1 will most positively impact the cultural heritage and landscape SEA topics, including through replicating historic landscapes and supporting the historic setting of features and areas of historic environment interest.

5.11 In terms of biodiversity, it is considered that a hybrid of both options is likely to lead to the widest range of positive effects. This would allow the SBS to place focus on restoring Scotland's flagship ecosystems while also recognising the interconnected nature of ecosystems across landscapes and the importance of supporting ecosystems that are resilient

5.12 The approaches facilitated by the options are unlikely to have any significant effects or differences relating to the material assets SEA topic.

Options relating to the implementation of the SBS

5.13 A central element discussed at the March 2022 workshop is how the SBS relates to other sectors (such as agriculture, forestry, transport and others) in terms of the implementation of the strategy.

5.14 One approach would be to leave the implementation of the SBS to sector-specific strategies, plans and programmes. This would lead to the SBS acting as a standalone higher-level document for biodiversity, with a view to the key elements relating to biodiversity conservation and enhancement being implemented through the strategies, plans and programmes developed for specific sectors.

5.15 An alternative approach would be the delivery of a standalone SBS and delivery plans. This would involve the preparation of the overarching SBS, which would then be implemented through subsequent SBS-specific 5-year delivery plans (note, we understand that this is in effect the preferred option).

5.16 In this respect, two options have been assessed through the SEA:

• Option DP1: Develop an overarching SBS which would then be implemented through sector specific strategies, plans and programmes.
• Option DP2: Develop a standalone strategy, which would be accompanied by subsequent SBS-focussed delivery plans covering all sectors.

Table 5.3: Appraisal of options relating to the implementation of the SBS

Option DP1: Develop an overarching SBS which would then be implemented through sector specific strategies, plans and programmes.

Option DP2: Develop a standalone strategy, which would be accompanied by subsequent SBS-focussed delivery plans covering all sectors.

Biodiversity, flora and fauna:

Discussion of potential effects and relative merits of options

By targeting specific sectors, Option DP1 is likely to be able to provide tailored/bespoke management initiatives reflecting the particular land use types affected by the sectoral plan. This may also encourage voluntary commitments to protect biodiversity, for example in relation to the use of natural resources, or sustainable agriculture, to support ecosystem functionality. It is also considered easier to quantify success/ enhancements through sector specific strategies, where monitoring indicators are tailored.

However, a drawback of Option DP1 is that it is arguably more restrictive and labour intensive. Option DP2 conversely seeks to take a holistic, strategic approach which would better connect ecosystem enhancements across sectors, supporting the delivery of Nature Networks.

Developing a stand-alone strategy through Option DP2 would likely require multi-stakeholder engagement, taking a bottom-up approach to understanding key challenges and opportunities for biodiversity at a strategic scale. Biodiversity would be the main focus through Option DP2, compared to Option DP1 which risks the subsuming of biodiversity considerations within sectoral plans. Recognising the importance of stakeholder input, it is considered that this approach has the potential to better deliver biodiversity enhancements across sectors. This includes initiatives such as the delivery of Nature Networks.

A stand-alone strategy could however take an extensive amount of time to agree and subsequently implement, likely being highly complex with extensive consultation required. It may also be difficult to implement adaptive management that responds to cross sectoral threats to biodiversity, and there may also be difficulties terms of identifying monitoring indicators which are targeted to any issues raised.

At this stage it is not possible to differentiate between the relative performance of the options. This will be dependent on the effectiveness of implementation through either the sector specific strategies, plans and programmes (Option DP1) or SBS-focussed Delivery Plans covering all sectors (Option DP2).

Rank of preference DP1: ?

Rank of preference DP2: ?

Climatic factors:

Discussion of potential effects and relative merits of options

It is considered that both options could deliver positive effects in terms of increasing the resilience of habitats and species to the likely effects of climate change. However, in light of the factors highlighted under the biodiversity topic above, it is not possible to differentiate between the relative performance of the options at this stage. This will be dependent on the effectiveness of implementation through either the sector specific strategies, plans and programmes (Option DP1) or SBS-focussed Delivery Plans covering all sectors (Option DP2).

Rank of preference DP1: ?

Rank of preference DP2: ?

Air:

Discussion of potential effects and relative merits of options

It is considered that a standalone strategy would deliver improvements to air quality across all sectors, with the potential for positive effects. However, Option DP1 presents an opportunity to tailor proposed initiatives within specific sectors such as transport where air pollution has the most potential to be addressed, and where intervention can be focused through biodiversity-related interventions. This may do more to deliver positive effects than Option DP2.

Option DP1 also presents an opportunity to target forestry/woodland as a sector which could contribute to significant improvements in air quality.

Rank of preference DP1: 1

Rank of preference DP2: 2

Water:

Discussion of potential effects and relative merits of options

It is considered that a standalone strategy would deliver improvements to water quality across all sectors, with the potential for positive effects. By targeting specific sectors, Option DP1 is likely to be able to provide tailored/bespoke water quality initiatives, with efforts focussed on those sectors most relevant (e.g., river basin, coastal and marine). This may do more to deliver positive effects than Option DP2.

A cross-sector approach facilitated by Option DP2 though also has the potential to support water quality, including through initiating mutually complementary approaches to biodiversity enhancements across all sectors which support water quality.

Rank of preference DP1: 1

Rank of preference DP2: 2

Soil:

Discussion of potential effects and relative merits of options

Through the delivery of sector-specific strategies, Option DP1 is likely to be able to facilitate the delivery of enhancements to the key regulating and supporting ecosystems services provided within key sectors associated with this SEA topic (e.g., agriculture and forestry). This is likely to support erosion management, water quality regulation, facilitate soil formation, and enable enhanced nutrient and water cycling.

However, a standalone strategy may, through biodiversity-related interventions, better support interconnected, evolving ecosystems through initiating mutually complementary approaches to soil management across all sectors. It is therefore uncertain as to which approach would bring increased benefits in relation to the soil topic.

Rank of preference DP1: ?

Rank of preference DP2: ?

Cultural Heritage:

Discussion of potential effects and relative merits of options

Option DP1 has the potential to lead to the delivery of biodiversity conservation and enhancement measures which more appropriately fit within the context provided by the cultural landscapes and historic environment associated with different sectors (e.g., agriculture, forestry or coastal). This approach provides the opportunity to shape biodiversity enhancements in ways which complement and reinforce the intrinsic character of specific landscapes, seascapes, and cultural settings, tailored towards the particular sector being considered.

Option DP2 seeks to develop an overarching strategy that covers all sectors, which may do less to specifically benefit the historic environment in certain sectors. However, ensuring that all land and sea areas are under integrated biodiversity-inclusive planning can positively address land and sea-use change to support the historic environment.

At this stage it is not possible to differentiate between the relative performance of the options. This will be dependent on the effectiveness of implementation through either the sector specific strategies, plans and programmes (Option DP1) or SBS-focussed Delivery Plans covering all sectors (Option DP2).

Rank of preference DP1: ?

Rank of preference DP2: ?

Landscape and geodiversity:

Discussion of potential effects and relative merits of options

Option DP1 has the potential to lead to the delivery of biodiversity conservation and enhancement measures which more appropriately fit within the context provided by the cultural and historical landscapes of different sectors (e.g., agriculture, forestry or coastal). This approach provides the opportunity to shape biodiversity enhancements in ways which complement and reinforce the intrinsic character of specific landscapes and cultural settings, tailored towards the particular sector being considered.

Option DP2 seeks to develop an overarching strategy that covers all sectors, which may do less to specifically benefit the historic environment in certain sectors. However, ensuring that all land and sea areas are under integrated biodiversity-inclusive planning can positively address land and sea use change, retaining and enhancing landscape and seascape character.

The relative performance of the options will be dependent on the effectiveness of implementation through either the sector specific strategies, plans and programmes (Option DP1) or SBS-focussed Delivery Plans covering all sectors (Option DP2).

Rank of preference DP1: ?

Rank of preference DP2: ?

Material assets:

Discussion of potential effects and relative merits of options

Given their biodiversity focus, the approaches facilitated by the options are unlikely to have any significant differences relating to the material assets SEA topic, including relating to waste or use of materials.

Rank of preference DP1: =

Rank of preference DP2: =

Population and human health:

Discussion of potential effects and relative merits of options

Developing a standalone strategy through Option DP2 will do more to support a consistent multi-sectoral 'whole society' approach to becoming a nature positive Scotland. In this respect a series of biodiversity-related plans covering all sectors would potentially do more to support the health and wellbeing, quality of life and economic benefits that have the potential to arise from biodiversity enhancements. As such, Option DP2 has the potential to better ensure coherence and alignment between sectors in terms of coordinating the biodiversity enhancements that benefit communities.

Rank of preference DP1: 2

Rank of preference DP2: 1

Summary conclusions:

5.17 It is difficult to differentiate between the options in relation to the majority of SEA topics. This is given the relative performance of the options will be dependent on the effectiveness of implementation through either the sector specific strategies, plans and programmes (Option DP1) or SBS-focussed Delivery Plans covering all sectors (Option DP2).

5.18 Options can though be differentiated in relation to the air quality and water topics, where Option DP1 has been identified as best performing. In this respect Option DP1 presents an opportunity to tailor proposed initiatives within most relevant sectors such as transport and forestry, enabling the delivery of targeted biodiversity interventions which maximise positive effects.

5.19 In terms of the population and human health SEA topic, Option DP2 has the potential to more effectively ensure coherence and alignment between sectors in terms of coordinating the biodiversity enhancements that benefit the health, wellbeing and quality of life of communities.

Options relating to the timeframes of Delivery Plans

5.20 A key aim of the Scottish Biodiversity Strategy is for Scotland to be Nature Positive by 2030, and to have restored and regenerated biodiversity across the country by 2045. This is in line with the commitment to halt biodiversity loss by 2030 in line with the Leaders' Pledge for Nature. This also aligns with the timescales of the key targets agreed by the Scottish Government associated with biodiversity, including relating to the 30 x 30 target which seeks to ensure that by 2030 at least 30 per cent of terrestrial, inland water, and of coastal and marine areas are effectively conserved and managed.

5.21 In this respect there is potential for the SEA to compare two approaches to the Delivery Plan element of the SBS. A first approach would be to focus the initial Delivery Plan actions (i.e., over the first five years) on the specific current drivers behind biodiversity loss, and by targeting those actions which will help deliver the required enhancements in the period to 2030. This would specifically focus on the key actions that can be achieved in this initial timeframe.

5.22 An alternative approach is to take a broader perspective which sees nature recovery as a longer-term process. This would shape Delivery Plan actions in a way that seeks to deliver benefits over the longer term, rather than limiting the focus of the first five-year Delivery Plan specifically on the 2030 targets.

5.23 On this basis, two options can be assessed through the SEA:

• Option BT1: Focus the first five-year Delivery Plan actions specifically on the current drivers behind biodiversity loss, targeting those actions which will help deliver the required enhancements in the period to 2030.
• Option BT2: Take a longer-term approach to Delivery Plan actions which seeks to deliver broader benefits for biodiversity.

Table 5.4: Appraisal of options relating to the timescales of Delivery Plans

Option BT1: Focus the first five-year Delivery Plan actions specifically on the current drivers behind biodiversity loss, targeting those actions which will help deliver the required enhancements in the period to 2030.

Option BT2: Take a longer-term approach to Delivery Plan actions which seeks to deliver broader benefits for biodiversity.

Biodiversity, flora and fauna:

Discussion of potential effects and relative merits of options

Focusing the first five-year Delivery Plan specifically on the current drivers behind biodiversity loss (Option BT1) can help focus efforts on actions that can be delivered effectively and efficiently over the shorter term, helping to ensure that 2030 targets are met.

Committing through the delivery plan to ambitious 5-year targets such as 30x30, and to be Nature Positive by 2030, will provide clarity as to the ultimate aims of the delivery plan. This is likely to facilitate the engagement of stakeholders and communities through relevant programmes and projects. Furthermore, placing focus on the 2030 milestone has the potential to better allow for effective monitoring of whether the SBS is on track to achieving its longer-term vision.

However, there may be some difficulty in demonstrating 2030 targets are being met in the short term, as the benefits may not yet be realised (i.e., wholescale restoration of habitats and recovery of vulnerable species are likely to be delivered over a longer term). Additionally, it is considered that many priority actions will take significantly longer to implement, particularly where multiple stakeholders and investors are involved.

The approach put forward through Option BT2 seeks to deliver broader benefits for biodiversity in the longer term, likely focusing on landscape scale projects and programmes, for example delivering ecosystem restoration to benefit a wider range of habitats and species and supporting the resilience of ecosystems. Longer term planning for biodiversity will also place focus on further strengthening ecosystems, including Nature Networks, building on and accelerating what has worked to date. The approach will also enable consideration to be given to longer term issues such as changes to the climate, or natural changes to habitats (e.g., succession), and how networks/groups of sites will look in a given number of years (10, 50, 100 years).

However, delivering benefits over a longer term through Option BT2 may not specifically meet the 2030 commitments made alongside other countries (i.e., the 30x30 target). Option BT2 will instead likely do more in terms of looking ahead, recognising that in many locations in Scotland the environment is different from that in the last century, and will seek to take an approach that supports diverse, rich, and resilient biodiversity over time.

Overall, it is considered that a hybrid of both options is likely to lead to positive effects of greatest significance. This places focus on implementing the transformational changes needed to meet 2030 targets, while also restoring and regenerating Scotland's ecosystems to sustain diverse, rich, and resilient biodiversity over the long term for future generations.

Rank of preference BT1: =

Rank of preference BT2: =

Climatic factors:

Discussion of potential effects and relative merits of options

It is considered that climate change mitigation and adaptation will be supported through both options. However, through Option BT2, enhanced consideration will be able to be given to the future climate of Scotland, or natural changes to habitats (e.g., succession), recognising that longer term changes in climate affect the viability and health of ecosystems. Notably this includes through influencing the longer-term shifts in the distribution of plants, animals, etc. Option BT2 will enable the consideration of how networks/ groups of sites will look in a given number of years (10, 50, 100), enabling the delivery of broader benefits for biodiversity, including ecosystem services.

In this respect Option BT2 has the potential to do more to enhance the longer-term adaptability and resilience of different locations to the likely effects of climate change.

Rank of preference BT1: 2

Rank of preference BT2: 1

Air:

Discussion of potential effects and relative merits of options

Healthy ecosystems support air quality by reducing the levels of air pollution in their environment, absorbing carbon dioxide and filtering pollutants such as nitrogen dioxide through their leaves. A short-term focus on enhancements to biodiversity through Option BT1 will lead to positive effects in this respect.

A longer-term approach supported by BT2 has the potential to do more to support ongoing enhancements to air quality over an extended timescale, for example supporting increased plant cover (trees and other vegetation) and adapting to the effects of climate change.

Rank of preference BT1: 2

Rank of preference BT2: 1

Water:

Discussion of potential effects and relative merits of options

Option BT1 will have a focus on shorter term enhancements to biodiversity. This will support improvements in water quality.

Healthy ecosystems support water quality by supplying, purifying, and protecting freshwater resources. A short-term focus on enhancements to biodiversity through Option BT1 will lead to positive effects in this respect.

A longer-term approach supported by Option BT2 has the potential to do more to support ongoing enhancements to water quality and quantity over an extended timescale, for example in response to climate change. This is likely to include restoring and enhancing ecosystems and natural features through the delivery of nature-based solutions. Building resilient ecosystems in this respect will support indirect effects for the regulating ecosystem services provided by natural habitats.

Rank of preference BT1: 2

Rank of preference BT2: 1

Soil:

Discussion of potential effects and relative merits of options

Option BT1 will have a focus on shorter term enhancements to biodiversity. This will support improvements in soil quality.

Option BT2 may do more to support enhancements to soil resources over time. In this regard, the long-term delivery of resilient ecosystems (e.g.,

in response to climate change) will lead to enhancements to the key regulating and supporting ecosystems services provided by natural habitats. This would deliver multiple benefits for soil resources over the longer term through helping to manage erosion, regulate water quality, facilitate soil formation, and enabling enhanced nutrient and water cycling.

Rank of preference BT1: 2

Rank of preference BT2: 1

Cultural Heritage:

Discussion of potential effects and relative merits of options

Through focusing the first five-year Delivery Plan actions specifically on the current drivers behind biodiversity loss, Option BT1 has the potential to deliver biodiversity enhancements in ways which complement and reinforce the intrinsic character of Scotland's landscapes and cultural settings. For example, as well as biodiversity value, hedgerows and other form of traditional boundaries have historic and cultural importance, indicative as they are of historic patterns of land use. It is however recognised that positive effects in this respect are dependent on the specific nature of proposed enhancements, and whether the cultural value of historic features is taken into consideration.

It is considered that taking a longer-term approach to Delivery Plan actions (Option BT2) might better support the historic environment than the approach put forward by Option BT1. In this respect Option BT2 may better facilitate the adaptive management of ecosystems; an iterative process in which management actions are followed by targeted monitoring. This is a process that will help enable a better response to the longer-term realities relating to biodiversity, and the environmental enhancements which an effective SBS will facilitate. This has the potential to complement and reinforce the fabric and setting of the historic environment (including Scotland's landscapes and their cultural settings) over the longer term.

Rank of preference BT1: 2

Rank of preference BT2: 1

Landscape and geodiversity:

Discussion of potential effects and relative merits of options

Through focusing the first five-year Delivery Plan actions specifically on the current drivers behind biodiversity loss, Option BT1 has the potential to deliver biodiversity enhancements in ways which complement and reinforce the intrinsic character of Scotland's landscapes and cultural settings. For example, as well as biodiversity value, hedgerows and other form of traditional boundaries have historic and cultural importance, indicative as they are of historic patterns of land use. It is however recognised that positive effects in this respect are dependent on the specific nature of proposed enhancements, and that the cultural value of historic features is taken into consideration.

It is considered that the longer-term approach to Delivery Plan actions (Option BT2) might better support landscape character over the longer term than the approach put forward by Option BT1. In this respect Option BT2 may better facilitate the adaptive management of ecosystems; an iterative process in which management actions are followed by targeted monitoring. This is a process that will help enable a better response to the longer-term realities relating to biodiversity, and the environmental enhancements which an effective SBS will facilitate. This has the potential to complement and reinforce the intrinsic character of Scotland's landscapes and cultural settings over the longer term.

Rank of preference BT1: 2

Rank of preference BT2: 1

Material assets:

Discussion of potential effects and relative merits of options

It is considered that both options have the potential to lead to positive effects in relation to material assets. However, it is considered that a long-term approach to Delivery Plan actions would best address built material assets, including a programme for long-term blue-green infrastructure investment which can improve living conditions, limiting infrastructure costs in the longer term.

Rank of preference BT1: 2

Rank of preference BT2: 1

Population and human health:

Discussion of potential effects and relative merits of options

The approach put forward by Option BT1 would seek to set clear, ambitious actions and targets, which will likely effectively engage communities and induce public interest. This has the potential to support awareness of biodiversity, and may potentially support increase investment from stakeholders, including from within the private sector.

Conversely Option BT2 takes a longer-term approach to Delivery Plan actions, which could struggle to generate initial investment and engagement without establishing measurable targets and outcomes. However, Option BT2 will likely achieve longer term multifunctional benefits for communities, including economic and social opportunities – supporting new employment opportunities and providing scope for new development to provide lasting benefits for wildlife and increase people's ability to experience nature. While positive effects in this respect may also be delivered to an extent through Option BT1, planning for the long-term through Option BT2 will support approaches which encourage new investment and promote the health and wellbeing of communities over the longer term.

Rank of preference BT1: 2

Rank of preference BT2: 1

Summary conclusions:

5.24 The assessment of the options suggests that Option BT2 performs more favourably in relation to eight of the nine SEA topics.

5.25 In this respect Option BT2 has the potential to do more than Option BT1 to enhance the longer-term adaptability and resilience of different locations to the likely effects of climate change and do more to support ongoing enhancements to air, water, and soil quality.

5.26 Option BT2 will likely achieve longer term multifunctional benefits for communities, including economic and social opportunities – supporting new employment opportunities and providing scope for new development to provide lasting benefits for wildlife and increase people's ability to experience nature. While positive effects in this respect may also be delivered to an extent through Option BT1, planning for the long-term through Option BT2 will support approaches which encourage new investment and promote the health and wellbeing of communities over the longer term.

5.27 With regards to the cultural heritage and landscape and geodiversity SEA topics, Option BT1 may help replicate some of Scotland's historic landscapes in the short term, with benefits for the setting of the historic environment and landscape character. However, through facilitating the adaptive management of ecosystems Option BT2 is likely to perform more positively in terms of complementing and reinforcing the intrinsic character of Scotland's landscapes and cultural settings over the longer term and reinforce the fabric and setting of its historic environment.

5.28 However, whilst potentially limiting longer-term positive effects, it should be noted that the shorter-term approach supported by Option BT1 will also facilitate benefits for the full range of SEA topics. In addition, in terms of biodiversity, flora and fauna, it is considered that a hybrid of both options is likely to lead to positive effects of greatest significance. This approach would place focus on implementing the transformational changes needed to meet 2030 targets, while also restoring and regenerating Scotland's ecosystems over the longer term to sustain diverse, rich, and resilient biodiversity networks for future generations.