Biodiversity - strategic framework: consultation analysis

Section Six: Statutory Targets for Nature Restoration

Summary

• Overall, respondents agreed with the proposed approach to placing targets on a statutory footing. This included the criteria for selecting targets, the forms of targets, examples of potential target topics, the number of targets, and the timescale of delivering on targets.
• Respondents were broadly positive about the proposed approach to reviewing targets, highlighting that it was important that targets remain relevant and an adaptive management approach be adopted. Uncertainty surrounding the approach was predominantly due to a lack of detail or concern that the potential to review targets should not affect the governmental ambition to act.
• There was agreement with the proposed approach of aligning reporting timescales for targets with existing reporting requirements, with some suggesting that more frequent reporting was needed to ensure public scrutiny. Overall, the sentiment relating to an independent review body was positive, with many respondents highlighting the need for both independent and impartial accountability.

Placing Targets on a Statutory Footing

This section relates to question 6a (closed response n=200 and open-text response n=162).

The approach proposes that the Natural Environment Bill should establish the framework for targets and that this will include the high-level topics against which targets will be required to be set. The detail of the targets, such as the quantitative figures, will then be provided in secondary legislation. This approach allows for targets to be agile and to adapt to unforeseen circumstances, and ensures that parliamentary scrutiny is maintained.

Overall, respondents agreed with the approach to placing targets on a statutory footing, with 77 per cent of all respondents agreeing with the approach (153/200), eight per cent disagreeing (16/200) and 15 per cent stating that they were unsure (31/200). The graph below sets out these responses broken down by respondent type, i.e. whether they are individuals or organisations.

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

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

Sentiments within open-text responses broadly mirrored the closed-question responses. Many reiterated a general agreement with the principle of statutory targets, with organisations providing more focused responses on the proposed legislative approach.

Respondents who agreed with the approach gave reasons including the focus on flexibility and adaptability (28 respondents), but also the need for clear long-term direction to enable well-informed planning. In addition, 23 respondents gave additional comments relating to the importance of accountability and the enforcement of targets.

'We do agree that an approach whereby the Bill provides a high-level framework, with the detail coming through secondary legislation, is the correct one. We do not believe this Bill should be the place for setting specific targets or prescriptive outcomes, but setting the vision and enabling powers for what intends to be achieved.' (NFU Scotland)

'Statutory targets ensure that there is a legal duty to act for relevant public bodies and establish a long-term approach […]. Establishing this framework of targets in legislation will help to provide clarity and certainty about the long-term direction of government policy.' (Environmental Standards Scotland)

'Yes, so long as they are fair and carefully considered and remain agile and adaptable to changing circumstances.' (Individual response)

A minority of responses disagreed with the approach, which was driven by several factors including: concerns surrounding the potential for perverse incentives, reference to examples of other statutory targets which were perceived not to be fit for purpose, and reservations regarding the cost associated with the potential legal challenge which might arise. A few responses disagreed with the proposed approach on the basis that the detail or figures involved with the statutory targets should be subject to parliamentary scrutiny within primary legislation.

'Targets don't by themselves change anything, as the repeated failure to achieve climate targets shows. Regulation and resources are the key.' (Individual response)

Amongst the respondents who highlighted that they were not sure about the proposed approach, eight said that they could not provide a definitive opinion without more information on the details of the targets, including the responsibilities on public bodies for enforcing them.

'More information on the nature of targets and how these would impact on local authorities is required before we would be able to comment. At present it is not clear which bodies would be bound by the targets, what support will be available to meet them, what sanctions will be levied for failure to do so, or which council services will enforce these.' (Local authority)

'We would welcome more detail on the governance and accountability aspects of the proposals to "place targets on a statutory footing", such as the consequences should the targets be missed, and the practical impact or change made by these targets being statutory in nature.' (Law Society of Scotland)

Part 1: Process for Selecting and Setting Targets

Criteria for Selecting Targets

This section relates to question 6b (closed response n=182 and open-text response n=115).

The consultation proposes a range of criteria to be taken into account in the selection of targets, including alignment with relevant Scottish, UK, EU and global strategies or legislation, with targets galvanising actions which are SMART.

Nearly three quarters of respondents agreed with the criteria set out for the selection of targets (73 per cent or 133/182), with 13 per cent disagreeing (23/182) and 14 per cent unsure (26/182).

Overall, open-text responses provided positive comments on the proposed criteria, suggesting that they were a good starting point which could evolve as knowledge develops and new legislation comes into force. Across responses, 36 commented on the importance of simplicity or the need for prioritisation across the targets. In response to this question, and across other relevant sections in the consultation document, there was agreement that the criteria should be specific, measurable, achievable, relevant, and time-bound (SMART), with 13 responses specifically referencing this, although a few also noted that this should not be a constraint on ambition.

'Alignment with other commitments is essential, particularly where achieving the targets in one area could impact another.' (UK Environmental Law Association)

'I agree with the criteria set out for the selection of targets. However, we would ask the government to prioritise ambition over alignment.' (Scottish Rewilding Association (campaign response))

Points of disagreement centred on views that some criteria were missing, including reference to specific policies with which targets should align, such as marine, agriculture, woodland, food security, and land use policy and legislation. A few respondents highlighted the need for flexibility to align with local policy and needs, and one raised concerns regarding challenges in aligning with strategy legislation which has been delayed, e.g. the Climate Change Plan Update, the Land Use and Agriculture Just Transition Plan, and the Land Reform Bill.

The Forms of Targets

This section relates to question 6c (closed response n=176 and open-text response n=118).

The consultation proposes that Scotland's statutory targets should include a combination of outcome targets and output targets.

Nearly three quarters of respondents agreed that the targets should include a combination of outcome and output targets (71 per cent or 125/176), with 14 per cent disagreeing (25/176) and 15 per cent unsure (26/176).

Most respondents agreed that a mixture of outcome and output targets was needed to drive effective action on nature restoration, with varying opinions as to the prioritisation between outcomes and outputs. Eight responses suggested the prioritisation of output targets, with observations that output targets are useful for smaller organisations that can contribute and report on a scale appropriate for their size and scope. A few respondents suggested that, due to the complexity of biodiversity, less focus should be placed on outcome targets if they are too prescriptive.

Some 17 responses highlighted the importance of outcome targets, saying that output targets are effective for actions but that they might not ultimately lead to delivering the changes required on the ground where outcomes may be more appropriate. The response from Scottish Environment LINK suggested that the distinction between, and the need for both, outcome and output targets should be explicitly recognised by the framework to be set out in the legislation.

Disagreement with the proposed approach articulated arguments related to prioritising measurability and the relevance of input targets. For input targets, one respondent suggested that these would contribute to delivering the range of benefits and the value for money that are needed, whilst a few responses said that there should be a focus on delivering resources and funding whilst showing long-term commitment and leadership.

'We would like to see an input target of resources into nature-positive work expressed as a percentage of GDP, and that to be a long-term commitment that future governments are obliged to meet. The immediacy and scale of the issue [require] positive government leadership, not just in target setting but in resourcing and supporting the action and outcomes which are required.' (Community Land Scotland)

Examples of Potential Target Topics

This section relates to questions 6d (closed response n=177 and open-text response n=115) and 6e (closed response n=154 and open-text response n=76).

The consultation sets out a list of potential topic areas for statutory targets for Scotland which is not exhaustive nor definitive, but rather is included for indicative purposes only.

Just under half of respondents (47 per cent or 84/177) agreed that the list of topic areas is sufficiently comprehensive in terms of the focus on proposed target areas and the overall scope, with over a quarter disagreeing (29 per cent or 52/177) and under a quarter unsure (23 per cent or 41/177).

Many respondents agreed in principle with the proposed list but noted that they could not provide a definitive opinion without further details. In particular, further clarity was sought in relation to nature-based solutions and natural capital.

Seventy respondents gave further comments relating to missing potential target topics including species genetic diversity, soil quality, water quality, light pollution, reintroduction of species, introduction of low/no-disturbance areas, pathogen reduction, afforestation or reforestation, deer management, and targets relating to the indirect drivers of biodiversity loss (such as community engagement and education).

Number of Targets

This section relates to question 6f (closed response n=176 and open-text response n=131).

The Scottish Government proposes having the smallest feasible number of targets, which reflects the complexity of nature restoration.

The majority of respondents agreed with the suggested approach (61 per cent or 108/176), a quarter of respondents were unsure (25 per cent or 55/176), and the remainder disagreed (14 per cent or 24/176).

Respondents gave comments agreeing with the proposed approach, suggesting that the clarity and simplicity of targets were important to ensure successful achievement of outcomes and avoid creating an undue burden, perverse effects, or alienating stakeholders.

The negative or uncertain sentiment centred on concerns that targets needed to be comprehensive enough to meet the scale of the nature and climate challenge, ensuring that there was a balance between feasibility and ambition.

'We support this proposal, but suggest there is likely to be differences of opinion in terms of what is feasible. We suggest that a more appropriate wording would be '[…] the smallest number of feasible targets […]'.' (The James Hutton Institute)

'It should be the most achievable and appropriate set of targets to address the agreed priorities. This smallest feasible notion, firstly, underplays the complexity of the natural world but, secondly, suggests a cost-saving approach which is not suitable for a period of major ecological crisis.' (Individual response)

Timescale for Statutory Targets

This section relates to question 6g (closed response n=161 and open-text response n=111).

The Scottish Government proposes aligning targets with the 2030 and 2045 timescales of the Strategy, with the option to include interim values with specified dates.

Nearly two thirds of respondents agreed with the proposal (63 per cent or 101/161), with 19 per cent disagreeing (30/161) and 19 per cent unsure (30/161).

Open-text responses provided a mixed perspective, with comments including agreement on the alignment with strategy, fears that the proposed dates are too far away to deliver the necessary impact, and recognition that neither of these timeframes is long-term in ecological terms. One local authority noted that, considering that the Bill is not due to be ratified until 2026, meeting any 2030 deadlines with present budgets and capacity will prove to be challenging.

'These two dates are pivotal to the movement for biodiversity restoration. They are also spaced well to allow time for projects to demonstrate improvements within [ecosystems], habitats and biodiversity which cannot be seen over short timescales. Some additional milestones between these dates would be good to ensure that momentum is kept.' (Dumfries and Galloway Council)

'Collecting target data on a three-yearly cycle is probably appropriate to balance the urgency with the level of effort that will be required in terms of establishing a baseline and gathering data. This cycle will also align with key dates of 2027, 2030 and 2045.' (Scottish Water)

Part 2: Process for Reviewing Targets

This section relates to question 6h (closed response n=158 and open-text response n=98).

It is proposed that a review and adjustment process will be set out in the Bill. The Scottish Government are proposing that Scottish ministers will be required to seek and publish external expert advice before making any adjustments, with relevant input from an independent review body. Such adjustments would be undertaken via statutory instrument, with appropriate parliamentary oversight.

Over four fifths of respondents agreed that the Bill should allow for the review of statutory targets (82 per cent or 130/158), whilst only nine respondents disagreed (six per cent) and 19 respondents were unsure (12 per cent). Respondents were broadly positive about the proposed approach to reviewing targets, highlighting that it was important that targets remain relevant and an adaptive management approach be adopted. Some respondents who agreed with the approach elaborated with a further comment on how they proposed this process to work in practice, seeking details on the acceptable grounds for reviewing and altering a target which, they note, should be agreed and clearly laid out in advance to avoid the watering-down of targets.

'This will ensure that the targets remain relevant and evidence-based. It will allow for emerging science to be taken into account and for the impacts of monitoring to inform the targets where necessary.' (Soil Association Scotland)

'Scottish ministers should undertake a public consultation on draft regulations to make amendments to the targets. When publishing proposed regulations to amend targets, the Scottish ministers must publish the advice received from the independent review body or other experts, along with a statement of how they have considered the advice received.' (Scottish Wildlife Trust)

Negative responses were characterised by disagreement on the premise of statutory targets in principle, whilst uncertainty was predominantly due to a lack of detail or concern that the potential to review targets should not affect the governmental ambition to act.

Part 3: Process for Reporting on Targets

Reporting Timescales

This section relates to question 6i (closed response n=150 and open-text response n=85).

The Scottish Government proposes aligning the reporting of progress on achieving the targets with existing reporting requirements regarding the implementation of the Biodiversity Strategy in Scotland, which is every three years.

Nearly three quarters of respondents agreed that reporting on targets should align with existing biodiversity requirements (73 per cent or 109/150). Of the remainder, 12 respondents disagreed (eight per cent) and 29 were unsure (19 per cent).

Several respondents who agreed with aligning reporting timescales also commented on the need for external scrutiny and accountability at points of review to streamline reporting processes and avoid the duplication of effort. Some organisational respondents cautioned against over-reporting or over-bureaucratisation, which may inhibit action on the ground.

'It makes sense to align the reporting with that for existing legislation. This would also ensure that monitoring and reporting [are] proportionate, as per the Verity House Agreement.' (Scottish Borders Council)

In disagreement with the proposed approach, 10 responses suggested that more frequent reporting was important to respond to the level of crisis facing biodiversity and nature. One individual respondent suggested the need for a dashboard of more frequent, high-level, public-facing and non-technical statistics to allow for public scrutiny of progress.

'Yes, where appropriate reporting should align with existing progress. But given the urgency of the nature crisis and the continuing lack of overall progress to date, more frequent reporting could be beneficial.' (National Trust for Scotland)

Independent Review Body

This section relates to question 6j (closed response n=160 and open-text response n=107).

The Scottish Government think that it is appropriate to designate an independent review body (IRB) that will have the function of reporting on the Scottish Government's progress in meeting the statutory targets. The Scottish Government propose that enabling powers are included in the Natural Environment Bill to allow Scottish ministers to designate a body as the IRB.

Overall, 81 per cent of responses agreed that an independent review body is needed to report on the government's progress in meeting the statutory targets (129/160), whilst nine respondents disagreed (six per cent) and a further 22 (14 per cent) were unsure.

Within these responses, 65 highlighted that independence and impartiality from government were important for any review body, with the need for a specific remit, broad representation from stakeholder groups, and robust processes to oversee potential conflicts which may arise as a result of the targets.

Across all open-text responses, several provided comments relating to concerns surrounding the costs and resources required to establish and run such a review body, with some organisational responses highlighting that the IRB must be well resourced to be effective. Equally, a few gave suggestions as to the inclusion or consideration of citizen panels or public voice in this process.

'It's essential that monitoring is independent of government. I think that the body should be a small organisation (or part of an existing organisation) and should be able to commission work from outside bodies, rather than paying for a permanent expertise in-house.' (Individual response)

'While some of the functions they undertake are part of [our] current remit, elements of the European Commission (EC) and the European Environment Agency (EEA) functions have not been fully replicated in Scottish environmental governance functions post-EU exit. The proposed IRB could help to remedy part of this gap for biodiversity.' (Environmental Standards Scotland)

'I think citizen panels combined with expert advisors would be a better use of public funds.' (Organisational response)