Biodiversity - strategic framework: consultation analysis

Section Eight: Impact Assessments – Part B

This section contains a summary of the responses to the Impact Assessments for Part B, which includes the proposals to create statutory targets for nature restoration as well as changes to National Park legislation.

Respondents were asked whether any of the provisions in Part B of the consultation will have any adverse effects on particular groups (as set out in the subsections below). Respondents were also asked where there were any additional actions or changes to existing actions which can be taken to deliver benefit. The responses to both of these questions have been summarised below, with specific suggestions included in bullet points.

Figure 8.1 below sets out the response to questions understanding whether there would be any adverse impacts on any of the following groups. Overall, limited adverse effects were anticipated.

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

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

Human Rights Impact Assessment

This section relates to questions 8a (closed response n=89 and open-text response n=26) and 8b (closed response n=81 and open-text response n=16).

The Human Rights Act 1998 incorporated the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) into UK law. It means that public authorities, such as the Scottish Government, must not act in a way which is incompatible with the rights set out in the ECHR. It is therefore vital that we consider how the proposals will impact on human rights.

There was a limited anticipated impact of the plan on human rights. Amongst the seven respondents who agreed that there may be, this was centred on increased pressure on land, which could increase land prices, or elements of the plan which could impact individual property rights.

Actions with which to mitigate this impact included conducting regular and systematic socioeconomic baselines, encompassing factors such as land acquisition costs, which should be conducted at consistent intervals to discern any unintended consequences arising from implemented actions.

Equality Impact Assessment

This section relates to questions 8c (closed response n=81 and open-text response n=15) and 8d (closed response n=75 and open-text response n=11).

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, and ensures that the Scottish Government meets its obligations under the Equality Act 2010 and the Public Sector Equality Duty.

No adverse effects were raised by respondents.

Fairer Scotland Duty Assessment

This section relates to questions 8e (closed response n=86 and open-text response n=25) and 8f (closed response n=80 and open-text response n=24).

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'.

Respondents provided limited comments on the impact on socioeconomic inequality. One respondent noted the potential disadvantageous impacts of some of the proposals on rural areas in which populations are often of lower socioeconomic groups than average.

Regarding National Park governance, one respondent noted that reducing the locally elected element of the strategic board may risk unbalanced decisions being made at planning committees, which would be detrimental to the National Park aims regarding sustainable communities.

Island Communities Impact Assessment

This section relates to questions 8g (closed response n=79 and open-text response n=24) and 8h (closed response n=74 and open-text response n=21).

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.

Respondents noted that island communities are often more reliant on fishing as a source of economic wealth and job security, which could negatively impact island communities were any restrictions to come into force.

Child Rights and Wellbeing Impact Assessment

This section relates to questions 8i (closed response n=79 and open-text response n=15) and 8j (closed response n=72 and open-text response n=13).

The Articles of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, and the

child well-being indicators under the Children and Young People (Scotland) Act 2014,

apply to all children and young people up to the age of 18 years, including non-citizen and

undocumented children and young people. It is important that the Scottish Government consider how these proposals may impact on children's rights and well-being.

No adverse effects were raised by respondents.

Business and Regulatory Impact Assessment

This section relates to questions 8k (closed response n=81 and open-text response n=34) and 8l (closed response n=72 and open-text response n=19).

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.

Respondents provided a range of perspectives on the impact of the proposals on business, with several responses highlighting the potential conflict between biodiversity targets and commercial activities for some businesses. Many of these respondents noted that a change in business practices was necessary to meet the necessary targets.

A few respondents raised concerns surrounding the impact on farming and land-based businesses in Scotland, which may experience an income reduction or an increase in costs. In addition, two respondents highlighted additional challenges relating to the potential impacts on food security were there not to be support for farmers to implement sustainable farming practices alongside biodiversity stewardship.

There will be conflicts of interest between environmental protection and climate targets and the targets and activities of some commercial activities, but these should not be allowed to dilute or destroy the objectives or nothing will be achieved.

'Given the nature of the targets, there could be impacts on land-based businesses […] they may be affected by increased mitigation or targeted activity to support aims which may have a financial impact.' (Dumfries and Galloway Council)

'Farming and land-based businesses in upland Scotland will be negatively impacted by the proposals in Part B, which will simultaneously reduce their incomes and increase their costs.' (Individual response)

In terms of actions needed to respond to these potential impacts, respondents highlighted the need to effectively communicate the existence of potential grant schemes to businesses, and to ensure detail and clarity in communicating messages to businesses in general.

'Ensuring there is consistency in the messaging — cost implications, access to quality data, and success measures will be key to the delivery of this.' (Individual response)

Strategic Environmental Assessment

This section relates to questions 8m (n=41), 8n (n=39), 8o (n=39) and 8p (n=41).

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, respondents were content with the accuracy and scope of the baselines set out in the environmental report, with a few respondents suggesting that the baselines were comprehensive. Two respondents raised concerns that the assessments did not address the potential international or offshore impacts as a result of the proposals due to displacement of food or timber production. One individual respondent noted that they felt as though the baselines were not presented in a clear manner with which a layperson might engage.

'The environmental report was appropriate and provided a comprehensive baseline.'(Aberdeen City Council)

'We are concerned that the environmental baseline is restricted to Scotland. It therefore does not include negative environmental impacts that are offshored as a result of the proposals. For example, agricultural production that is stopped in Scotland to make way for nature regeneration will move to another country to fill the gap in food production. Production in this other country may well be undertaken in a less nature-friendly way than in Scotland, resulting in a net global disbenefit attributable to the Scottish Government's proposals.' (Upper Deeside and Donside Land Management Group)

The majority of responses relating to the predicted environmental effects set out in the environmental report did not provide comments relating to the report, with several respondents unsure or suggesting that they were 'not qualified' to provide comments in this respect.

Amongst organisational respondents, a few noted that thehigh-level assessment of effects and proposal interactions appeared to be reasonable. One noted that whilst the report concludes that there will be positive environmental effects from designating further National Parks, there are potential negative impacts on cultural heritage in this. Equally, a few respondents raised concerns surrounding the potential for renewables within National Parks.

'We would suggest that within National Parks it should be made clear that climate change mitigation measures will not include new large-scale renewable generation projects in order to avoid the adverse impacts associated with them.' (Organisational response)

Historic Environment Scotland raised several concerns regarding the draft proposals for National Parks, suggesting that the assessment does not adequately explore the cumulative effects of the changes, and did not agree that the proposals will bring medium- and long-term positive effects for heritage assets. They also sought further details and consistency across regions on the assessment for locations for a new National Park, noting that the assessment findings for the North and North-East regions are identical and contain no regionally specific details, and there are no findings at all presented for the historic environment in the South region.

'We consider that the de-prioritisation of the historic environment that would occur at a strategic level as a cumulative result of the proposals would have a significant negative effect on the historic environment.' (Historic Environment Scotland)

Where respondents commented on the reasonable alternatives set out in the environmental report, they were broadly confident that the alternatives have been well researched and considered. A few respondents agreed that the first alternative (no change to legislation or National Parks) is effectively deemed to be unreasonable but that the second two alternatives would both deliver significant positive changes. One respondent agreed that it is not possible to rank the options in terms of their sustainability performance and that it is likely that a mix of approaches would deliver the broadest range of significant positive effects. Finally, one respondent sought further disaggregated details within the reasonable alternatives proposed.

'We note that the legislative changes are treated as a single package in this part of the SEA; however, the report as a whole puts a great deal of emphasis on the benefits the legislative changes designed to increase the collaboration and effort of other public bodies in delivering the NP aims, so the important impact of these measures could perhaps have been examined further in the alternatives.'(Organisational response)

Regarding the proposals for mitigation and monitoring of the environmental effects, a few respondents sought further details on mitigation measures, including identifying who would lead on the relevant actions. Historic Environment Scotland agreed that the involvement of a historic environment specialist may be able to mitigate some negative effects at the project level of the proposals.

In addition, respondents were broadly positive about the monitoring approach and the indicators outlined in the report. One respondent noted the need for additional quality indicators to be monitored, with a few respondents highlighting that it is anticipated that a refined set of indicators will be developed through further stakeholder engagement. One respondent noted that the proposed changes to be monitored and their indicators will require further careful consideration to be effectively applied to marine and coastal habitats due to their complexity and in consideration of how these goals relate to existing monitoring activities.