Biodiversity - strategic framework: consultation analysis

Section Five: Impact Assessments - Part A

This section contains a summary of the responses to the Impact Assessments for Part A, which includes the Scottish Biodiversity Strategy (SBS) and the first five-year Delivery Plan.

The consultation document notes that, except for the Strategic Environmental Assessment, much of the detail needed to carry out full impact assessments is not available at this stage, and in many cases specific impact assessments will need to be made as the policies to deliver on each action are developed.

Strategic Environmental Assessment

This section relates to questions 5a (n=66), 5b (n=56), 5c (n=55) and 5d (n=60), which were all open-text responses.

In Scotland, public bodies (including the Scottish Government) are required to assess, consult on and monitor the likely impacts that their plans, programmes and strategies will have on the environment (as per the Environmental Assessment (Scotland) Act 2005).

The consultation asks for views on the:

• accuracy and scope of the environmental baseline set out in the environmental report
• predicted environmental effects set out in the environmental report
• reasonable alternatives set out in the environmental report
• proposals for mitigation and monitoring of the environmental effects set out in the environmental report.

Overall, responses varied in their assessment of the accuracy and scope of the environmental baseline set out in the report. Several respondents acknowledged the report's comprehensive nature, covering a wide range of environmental issues and factors impacting Scotland's biodiversity and nature. A few respondents were positive about the consideration of the climate crises alongside biodiversity loss, with the scope of the report deemed to be appropriate (considering the strategic focus of the documents within Part A of the consultation). One respondent welcomed the inclusion of both mitigation and adaptation approaches, whilst another gave a positive comment relating to the scope of the baseline including culture, well-being and the historic environment.

'Overall, the environmental baseline provides a comprehensive overview of the key challenges and considerations. It accurately reflects the current situation and highlights the interconnectedness of a range of factors impacting nature, biodiversity and the environment.' (Aberdeen City Council)

'The accuracy and scope of the subject environmental report are adequately articulated and focused, which addresses the environmental challenges.' (Six Degrees Edinburgh)

Some respondents noted the length and detail contained within the SEA, providing suggestions as to the readability and presentation of the report. Furthermore, concerns were raised by a few respondents with regard to the quality and coverage of data, as well as knowledge gaps in understanding the complexity of environmental concepts and biodiversity measurement. A few respondents noted perceived omissions in the baseline, including marine environments and monitoring farmland habitats. Two respondents noted that the international impacts relating to actions taken in Scotland should be considered for both the baselines and the broader scope of the report, whilst one respondent noted the need to reference the Ramsar Convention.

'[We] believe the representation of environmental data could have benefitted from the use of charts, diagrams and spatial representations to display the key information in a more readily digestible way to [readers].' (Perth and Kinross Council)

'It is unclear whether the baseline to be designated is one from which things are expected to improve (restoration) or from which they should not degenerate (conservation) — if the latter, then setting the baseline based on the "current and future situation" is worrying, given the already poor state of many habitats and species in Scotland.' (Organisational response)

In relation to the predicted environmental effects set out in the environmental report, respondents were broadly positive that the effects were accurate, with several respondents suggesting that these assessments were clear and fair and encompassed the key relevant issues.

'Taken at the strategic level, the predicted environmental effects appear reasonable.' (Fife Council (Planning Services))

'Agree in principle, with the proviso that this is a dynamic process and [that] ongoing assessment will be required to highlight changes and take appropriate action.' (South of Scotland Enterprise)

'The assessment has highlighted some uncertainties with regards to the effect of habitat restoration and new habitat creation on the fabric and setting of the historic built environment and landscape character […] which is an area of concern, especially for the Scottish Borders (where these assets are of immense cultural significance). We therefore welcome the consideration of the recommendations flowing from this point that have been set out.' (Scottish Borders Council)

Several respondents noted that they did not feel able to comment on the proposed effects. A few respondents also sought further details on the effect on species, with some respondents also noting omissions relating to the marine environment and aquaculture and the 'offshoring' of impacts.

'The marine environment has been omitted completely, with none of the key pressures and trends identified being related to the marine environment.' (Organisational response)

When appraising the reasonable alternatives set out in the environmental concerns, respondents were broadly content with both the options presented and the consideration given to each option. In particular, several respondents agreed that a mix of approaches is beneficial, allowing the potential to adapt to specific local contexts and responding to the urgency of species recovery alongside longer-term ecosystem restoration.

'The reasonable alternatives considered are useful, but it depends upon which of the alternatives are chosen for any particular location.' (Organisational response)

'It is positive to see recognition that alternative scenarios are not mutually exclusive and that a hybrid approach will result in the greatest benefits. This is particularly evident in the comparison of regenerative versus ecosystem restoration approaches, where a hybrid strategy is deemed essential for rebuilding ecosystem health at the landscape scale while delivering high-quality habitat for conservation species.' (Scotland's Rural College)

There were some comments relating to the appraisal of timescale and implementation options, with no clear consensus from respondents as to which approaches were preferred. In relation to the proposed timescales, however, both a hybrid approach focusing on the current drivers of biodiversity loss and a longer-term approach were suggested to be crucial. For implementation, a clear national roadmap for addressing the biodiversity crisis was favoured by a few respondents, whilst some also agreed with the need for sector-specific plans.

Finally, respondents provided a range of views on the proposals for mitigation and monitoring of the environmental effects set out in the environmental report. Many respondents agreed with the intent of the proposals, with a few respondents seeking further details or ambition. In particular, a few respondents noted the need to move beyond area-based measures to incorporate measures of quality, species density, or condition. A few respondents commented on the identifying triggers for initiating intervention when required, with some respondents confident about the annual approach, whilst others preferred assessments over a longer timeframe (2–3 years) to account for seasonality as well as weather anomalies.

'Further work is required to create smarter targets that allow better monitoring. The existing proposals are very high-level and won't provide the opportunity for detailed analysis into performance and progress.' (Organisational response)

'Area measures are not adequate alone, as there needs to be some measure of quality (for example, density of focal species).' (Individual response)

Many respondents highlighted the need for adequate resourcing of the monitoring approach, noting that only limited assessments of the condition of some designated landscapes have been undertaken in recent years due to resource constraints. Building on existing monitoring systems and supporting citizen science approaches were suggested in response to these resource challenges. A few respondents identified that, since many of the effects were uncertain, broader effects should be monitored (including the health effects, wider socioeconomic effects, and the 'offshoring' of impacts). One respondent stressed that uncertainty should be minimised as much as possible.

'In view of the uncertainty of effects identified for the historic environment, we recommend that you should identify measures to reduce uncertainty as far as possible at the strategic level.' (Historic Environment Scotland)

'We do not feel that the SEA explores in sufficient depth the potential for differential impacts on the determinants of health and health outcomes from the proposed overarching strategy and policy actions in different population groups. The SEA did not, for example, identify the risk to human health from infectious diseases arising from nature-positive interventions, nor did the SEA identify the potential for proposed actions contained in the Delivery Plan to increase health inequalities to a greater or lesser degree. For example, it cannot be assumed that availability of high-quality green space will translate to use and, therefore, health and well-being benefits by all population groups.' (Public Health Scotland)

Other Impact Assessments

As set out in legislation, five types of impact assessment are required. The consultation document sets out that much of the detail needed to carry out full impact assessments is not available at this stage, and in many cases specific impact assessments will need to be made as the policies to deliver on each action are developed. As such, at this stage, only limited detail was provided for each impact assessment.

Respondents were asked whether any of the provisions in the SBS or the Delivery Plan will have any adverse effects on the following areas, as set out in Figure 5.1. Moreover, respondents were asked where there were any additional actions or changes to existing actions which could be taken through the Delivery Plan to benefit the aspects set out in the following subsections. The responses to both of these questions have been summarised below, with specific suggestions included in bullet points.

Source: Strategic Framework for Biodiversity Consultation, Scottish Government (2023).

Please note that not all percentages will total 100 per cent due to rounding.

Business and Regulatory Impact Assessment

This section relates to questions 5e (closed response n=82 and open-text response n=60) and 5f (closed response n=70 and open-text response n=48).

Business and regulatory impact assessments (BRIA) help to assess the likely costs, benefits and risks of any proposed primary or secondary legislation, voluntary regulation, code of practice, guidance, or policy change that may have an impact on the public, private or third sector.

Specific sectors, such as farming, forestry, fisheries, energy distribution, and housing development, were noted to expect to face challenges related to the SBS and the Delivery Plan, with respondents providing nuanced insights into the potential impact and considerations unique to each sector.

Concerns surrounding the regulatory burden were noted, particularly in terms of the complexity and volume of proposed regulations, especially for small businesses, farmers, and fishermen.

While acknowledging the potential adverse effects of the SBS and the Delivery Plan, some comments also highlighted opportunities for new markets, biodiversity credits, and positive economic gains from biodiversity initiatives.

Suggestions for further actions included:

• Providing clarity as to funding mechanisms for both grants and funding schemes
• Continuous engagement and collaboration with stakeholders in the relevant sectors
• Delivering actions in line with policies on a just transition and the circular economy

Fairer Scotland Duty Assessment

This section relates to questions 5g (closed response n=77 and open-text response n=42) and 5h (closed response n=73 and open-text response n=44).

The Fairer Scotland Duty (as set out in the Equality Act 2010) requires Scottish ministers and named public bodies to actively consider what more can be done to reduce the 'inequalities of outcome' caused by 'socioeconomic disadvantage' when making 'strategic decisions'.

Some respondents highlighted concerns that prioritising spending on biodiversity over addressing poverty may have negative consequences for socioeconomic inequality, with training needed for workers in changing industries which may be disproportionately affected by the proposed actions.

Equally, one respondent noted that there is potential for the proposals to concentrate wealth, power and land ownership in Scotland unless governmental priorities regarding community empowerment, land reform, community wealth building, and a just transition are embedded in the framework.

A range of perspectives were provided as to the impact of the plan on the affordability of housing in rural areas and protected areas. Equally, some respondents highlighted the potential impact on equality of opportunity for people in urban areas in relation to access to green space.

Suggestions for further actions included:

• Stronger commitments to community engagement in the Delivery Plan

Equality Impact Assessment

This section relates to questions 5i (closed response n=72 and open-text response n=24) and 5j (closed response n=66 and open-text response n=21).

An equality impact assessment (EQIA) is a tool with which to help anticipate the needs of diverse groups when making decisions on projects, policy, or service delivery.

Responses included:

• Reference to lower volunteering rates among people with disabilities as well as the need to address inequalities in accessing volunteering in the environmental sector.
• The limited ethnic diversity within jobs in the environmental sector and represented on trustee boards.
• Calls for additional consideration of barriers faced by specific groups in achieving a just transition.

Island Communities Impact Assessment

This section relates to questions 5k (closed response n=71 and open-text response n=34) and 5l (closed response n=64 and open-text response n=28).

It is a legal duty under the Island (Scotland) Act 2018 to consider any new policy, strategy or service which is likely to have an effect on an island community — through the Island Communities Impact Assessment (ICIA). Further assessment of the impact on island communities regarding the individual actions set out in the Delivery Plan will be necessary as these policies are developed.

The importance of involving communities and local authorities in the decision-making process was stressed by several responses, especially in addressing potential adverse impacts.

A few responses suggested that fisheries management should consider both conservation and community consultation to ensure long-term sustainability for island and coastal communities.

Some stakeholders advocated for a full Island Communities Impact Assessment to evaluate potential adverse impacts, especially related to fishing and coastal communities. This also included recognition of the considerable geographical, social, economic and cultural heterogeneity between them and the need for harmonisation with the National Islands Plan's strategic objectives.

Child Rights and Wellbeing Impact Assessment

This section relates to questions 5m (closed response n=70 and open-text response n=18) and 5n (closed response n=67 and open-text response n=25).

Due to the strategic nature of the Scottish Biodiversity Strategy and the Delivery Plan, it has only been possible to complete a partial Child Rights and Wellbeing Impact Assessment. It is anticipated that a full CRWIA will be developed as the policies through which to deliver the actions in the SBS and the Delivery Plan are further developed.

No salient adverse effects were noted in the responses to this question. A few respondents highlighted the importance of the environment on children's mental health and development. One respondent identified the positive impact of including biodiversity in the curriculum (as outlined in the Delivery Plan).