30x30 'Solutions Workshops' - Output summaries

Summaries to guide principles

They have to have value/purpose or potential value for nature.  

• Need to ensure clarity around 'value'/ 'purpose'/ 'importance' (in framework).   
• Needs to be supported by how it can be implemented ecologically and legally  
• Balance between particular species and ecosystem-based measures...  
• Having an eye to how IUCN/CBD and other countries in 'measuring' value.  
• Purpose example; species specific, increasing connectivity, increasing resilience to pressures, representativeness  

• ‘Potential value for nature’ how is this defined?   
• Recognition 2030 too short for many sites to achieve the criteria. Such sites should not be entirely discounted from the process but may need to separated into a pipeline of sites that would count towards the +30% once they have met the relevant criteria.
• A similar system could be implemented for existing sites that are 'Unfavourable (and not recovering)' being in a pipeline that could contribute towards the +30% for a prescribed period of time. Beyond that, if not improved and contributing, then removed or looked at to reassess the sites merit.  

Assurance of long term, sustained and maintained, delivery for nature  

• Delivered through site management plans  
• Need for defined roles and responsibilities and commitment  
• Legal protection via (conservation covenant/ burdens) (Carbon trading)    
• Definition of long term protection 30 or 100 years – 30 years complements many planning permissions but nature’s timescales tend to be longer.  
• Agreement that a compromise on length of protection is needed to ensure the 'burden' isn't seen to be too big to engage people. This should not be on a site-by-site basis to avoid a confusing system but may be dependent on the type of OECM. Further work and engagement on this point would be needed.  

Well/effectively managed  

• Need for future proofing (from Climate Change) so need for diversity in location, species, habitats etc.   
• Adaptive management informed by monitoring.   
• Management groups required at catchment scale to allow for management at the correct level (recognising that offsite pressures key to site aims)   

'Equitable' and delivering other benefits  

• Ecosystem services/ nature-based solutions   
• Resilience to climate change (both mitigation and adaptation)    
• Delivering for other national policies   
• Access (phasing out deer fences), health and wellbeing   
• Community engagement, community empowerment   

• Sustainable use/resource extraction does not need to be banned but there must be clarity over what is acceptable/will not impede the biodiversity goals of an area and would need to be subject to some sort of assessment. Further work and engagement on this point would be needed.

General discussion points 

Please note the points below are a summary of discussions had on the day, there was not necessarily agreement/consensus on these points from all taking part. They have been captured to aide in future discussions on these topics as this work progresses.  

• How to factor in the unknown, where there is a lack of data.... expert input
• Protection should be long term 30 or 100 years
• Local community role in monitoring and management (not just externals 

• The 10% - justification needed. Without clear reason as to why it’s needed, risks undermining the other 20%. Are existing designation types (vs OECMs) the strictly protected part (e.g. European sites ~10% and are not allowed to be developed on without IROPI). May need further guidance on the 10% before making more detailed decision).
• The 10% could be focused on intensive active restoration engaging local people. (Rather than potentially what it could be which is removing people from them)
• Representativeness of habitats/species
• How to address integration of PAs/ 30x30 network into wider landscape? – Importance of communication. 
• Flexibility vs 'too open to interpretation'
• Need for long term government funding
• Data baseline for assessing new/current sites? The need for monitoring
• How can we create a flexible system that would allow more dynamism in the face of climate change but ensure that key species and habitats are adequately safeguarded?

‘Equitable’ and delivering other benefits

• There was a suggestion that development could also be acceptable. This could be restricted to OECMs not 'Protected Areas'. However, not unanimous support and Legislation needs for this would be complicated.

Funding

• Finance needs to be included. No point designating a space that doesn't have sustainable funds to finance the management needed. Only count what can actually be financed.
• Assurance of monitoring?

Need a step approach in identification of sites with a leading body

• First sweep of sites that we know are 'good enough' to be protected but currently aren't.
• Bottom up approach to site 'nomination'
• Looking at a scale level rather than individual sites - e.g. deer management zone.
• Role of a top down, 'enforced' approach?

Role of urban environment

Many of the points below represent wider changes that need to occur outside of protected areas to allow biodiversity decline to be halted.

• Currently, local nature sites are not necessarily managed for nature. Do we need statutory regulation for these to be included?
• Considering climate change too, and thinking about food growing - perhaps allotments, community gardens and farms that take on full-regenerative farming could be included in 30x30 too
• Railway lines, golf courses, universities, FLS land, could be managed more for nature than current regime.
• If the natural environment is crucial to health, and some GPs are making "nature prescriptions", then maybe all hospitals should have these areas.
• Possibly include cemeteries in the list of sites, usually benignly managed. long term management guaranteed
• Could schools be involved too, part of each playground/ field turned over to biodiversity, already started happening in many schools.

Summaries to guide principles  

Comprehensive/consistent data management/collection approach  

• Monitoring methodology is consistent and should be prioritised over frequency.  
• Data and monitoring schemes are scientifically robust and effective  

• Different areas/sites can require a separate monitoring focus – (species, features, ecosystem health, ecosystem services, climate change, pressures, primary productivity and management effectiveness?).   
• Establish a baseline before monitoring begins.  
• Holistic approach - not focused on one species/habitat, but looking at the whole ecological picture - i.e. habitat & environmental surveys ---> species diversity  
• Sector specific consultation on local monitoring, e.g. small crofting based group, farming group forestry group etc.  
• Identify the rights holders and stakeholders are. This informs who is responsible for monitoring  

Making best use of new technologies  

• Using a mixture of active and passive monitoring  
• No ‘re-inventing the wheel’, both existing and new tech (and monitoring methodologies) to be used in conjunction when appropriate.   

Reporting and informing/Communication  

• Data collected must meet local, national and international reporting requirements.  

• Monitoring data is effectively communicated and accessible by different sectors with different levels of monitoring and tech literacy.  
• Improve communication of data need, methodology and outputs to all groups  
• Improved communication and the recording of this (POBAS etc.)  
• Use and build upon data that already exists - National bat monitoring scheme, Wetland & breeding bird, Butterfly survey etc.  
• Monitoring should influence management and policy  

• Monitoring should be linked to the success of interventions  
• Monitor subsequent actions/management not just site condition  
• Monitoring outputs must feed into land management and factor in an adaptive management approach if appropriate.  

Work with local communities  

• Increased use of citizen science  (strong links to 'People' theme) 

• Understand the barriers to communities from monitoring   
• Monitor behavioural impacts of incentives, e.g., outcomes payments, biodiversity credits   
• Social science - to inform stakeholders about monitoring and to use this technology to build capacity and show the benefits. Ensure that the effects of action for nature on people feature in monitoring outputs  
• Demonstrate the value (skills, jobs (how many people buy wild shot venison etc.)) that monitoring results could bring to an area  
• Local forums or champions to help facilitate/disseminate monitoring data.  

• Establish local groups with agreed sites to be monitored  
• supporting (resources/advice) communities to monitor their local area  
• Build long term relationships with local communities  
• Adequate support for local communities to understand the impact of data and management  

Simplify monitoring to make it achievable  

• Maximise use of existing data to inform monitoring and to identify the gaps going forward  
• Translate international/national/national targets to local level  
• Don’t forget to include those who are not tech literate. This will increase buy in.  
• Use common species as indicators where feasible.  

Monitor at the strategic level  

• Needs to be an informed decision on what data we need and how we use it.  
• We need to be able to say ‘This is what we’ve done and this is how it is working’  
• Building  relationships with local and national monitoring  
• Negative results need to be reported and disseminated - don't fund management that doesn't work  
• Identifying monitoring data gaps (inverts, geo gaps of well monitored species)  

• Monitoring should be on whether a type of management works – this should result in only having to monitor a sample of sites under this management regime to determine effectiveness.  
• Integrate Site Condition Monitoring with other types of monitoring Ecosystem health, flooding - building on Habitats and species.  
• Establishing landscape scale collaborations/farmer clusters.  
• Facilitation of monitoring at landscape scale.  
• Monitoring should be dynamic to take account of succession and climate change  

General discussion points 

Please note the points below are a summary of discussions had on the day, there was not necessarily agreement/consensus on these points from all taking part. They have been captured to aide in future discussions on these topics as this work progresses.  

• Public sector should focus on monitoring sites in private ownership, where LA's groups may find it hard to engage
• Multi stakeholder responsibility for data - check SBIF review
• Monitoring should never just be for monitoring's sake (beyond legislative requirements)
• Success can occur through natural interventions
• Any land management delivered should be as a result of monitoring.
• Effective management for Biodiversity rather than specific features
• Understanding the needs and feedback of land managers
• Ensure that management is delivered on a large enough scale to be effective.

Opportunities in public and private funding to help monitoring in future - efficiency & synergy.  

• Financial incentives to get community buy in
• Grant awards should have a mandatory element of monitoring attached
• Monitoring should directly inform funding priorities

Encouraging skilled people into the public sector

• Encouraging skilled people into the public sector
• Maintaining taxonomic expertise

Summaries to guide principles  

Management, outcomes and monitoring must be clearly linked to allow evidence based decision making that is able to cope with dynamism (i.e., be adaptive not become too fixed/unnecessarily prescriptive) Management needs to operate and work at the relevant levels/scales 

• Needs to pick up, highlight and acknowledge management issues that operate at a landscape scale and how these will be addressed beyond the site boundary of the protected area (e.g. INNS, herbivore impacts) 
• Cross-boundary cooperation network to allow implementation of such management to reach defined outcomes (by whichever way) 
• Finance linked with management needs to be more closely aligned with long term nature of what's needed 

Policy alignment is needed to ensure good management is not hindered by contradictory policies  

• State funded policies that lead to damaging management need to be looked at critically 
• Legislation to be looked at for ‘loopholes’ (e.g. forestry plantation species, seeding into protected areas) 
• Landownership class should not be a barrier to good management 

Management needs to be transparent, with a clear strategic land use strategy 

• Decided management plans/prescriptions needing to be clearly presented (e.g. use of infographics) and tailored to those groups who will be responsible for enacting them. 

• A clear strategic steer on how to manage conflicts with regards to habitat prioritisation in protected areas is needed 

To enact a transformational change in management adequate training and awareness raising will be needed 

• Training on management is key to success and so should be considered in incentivisation/accreditation schemes 
• Awareness of why management measures are necessary is key (as there will be 'losers' and so detractors of the needed changes to land management) 

Regulation needs updated to address lack of action/management on land and better deal with/punish poor or damaging management 

• Strong requirement for a clear, fair and well communicated process for this, especially if poor/damaging management linked with loss of financial gains 
• Resource heavy so need to be reasonable in application  

A recognition/accreditation system should be developed to encourage a ‘pull-through’ rather than ‘push-through’ approach to change in management (e.g. red tractor) 

• Such an accreditation process should not just apply to land owners but service providers to landowners (shared burden, more fair) 
• Recognition would allow land managers to be an exemplar act as nodes for change in their sector/region/communities 

Financial (or other) incentivisation is needed to support good management through all phases e.g., maintenance management not just restoration management.‘Who’ is responsible for management needs be clearly defined and communicated at the earliest stage 

• Statutory agencies (e.g. NatureScot, Local authorities) national goal setting 
• Partnership working will be key to achieving landscape scale management, existing regional networks should be looked to (e.g. 5 RLUPs, ~50 DMGs) and resourced  
• Trend-setting networks within different sectors are valuable (e.g. NFFN). 

General discussion points 

Please note the points below are a summary of discussions had on the day, there was not necessarily agreement/consensus on these points from all taking part. They have been captured to aide in future discussions on these topics as this work progresses.  

Adaptive Management

• Management must not be too prescriptive.
• Recognising what went before didn't get it all right so needs to be that ability to keep checking if working.

Mainstreaming Existing/Good Management

• Is there the need for another protected areas review (focussed on management)
• Is this the time to look at management advice for the existing suite as times have changed.
• Question the dogma of existing baselines
• Good management exists and is being practiced but needs to be encouraged to create a 'cascading shift'
• Agricultural reform critical in ensuring good management is rolled out further.

Management of existing protected areas types may need to differ to that of OECMs

Long term management

Proactive management/Positive management

• Management needs to not JUST be about preventing damage but also about improving condition)
• Current management instructions are negative, rather than presenting the opportunities. (Either biodiversity opportunities/restoration but also the work/funding that might be available to them)
• Outcomes based approach. Much more positive approach with greater buy in.
• Need to think about how different things needs managed (some are very range restricted and may need quite strict management) others have much broader needs and so there could be broader less pushy management requirements?

‘Simplify’

• Clear vision from SG, lined up across all sectors so they work together (Three key strands; ‘Recognition’, ‘Regulation of people still needed’ and ‘Incentives’)
• Policy incoherence will make good management at landscape scale harder.
• Management activities that are vital for biodiversity goals to be met shouldn’t be hamstrung by other regulatory barriers (or landownership class)
• Land management grant funding to sit within one new central body who then looks to reach out to specific bodies for advice about applications (e.g NS or SF)
• Land managers language is key here, if they’re to manage it needs to be pitched to them
• Key use of existing trusted networks (NFFN, SLE etc)
• Recognition that landowners are the solution not just 'the problem'
• Changing the narrative to find the common ground that will allow joint up management between landowners.
• Trust and transparency

Landscape scale management

• Management needs to be at the landscape scale
• Landscape scale management planning will require adequate resources (quite alot).
• Management should be focussed towards habitats not individual species (which can still act as indicators/not be ‘forgotten’)

Summaries to guide principles  

Shaping communication in such a way that moves perception from restrictions (in access and activity - 'what you can’t do') to 'what benefits can they provide'  

• Building in ecosystem services - this messaging will change as ecosystems develop. Inclusive of cultural benefits (health and wellbeing and cultural)  
• Influenced by scale and time and spatial change (e.g. adapting to different climate)  
• Both on site and in digital delivery  

Using accessible, inclusive, engaging language where possible without removing detail  

• Flag or acknowledge where this isn't yet possible  

Use of a “30x30” brand  

• Centred around the 30x30 definition   
• Promotes a unified approach and international status of the target  
• Standard set of messaging/wording to add weight  
• Ties into Nature Networks and the role sites in the wider Network/s  

• Help with engaging communities and stakeholders  
• Need to promote simplicity, avoid over-badging and keep focus on explaining the space  

Targeted messaging and communication styles to different groups based on their framing and values. Focus on optimism and stories of hope motivating actions and drive behaviour change  

• Story-based approach (using real life example/case studies)  

• Using it to show case benefits and promote responsible use  

Make it relevant  

• Access and engagement – protected areas/demo sites where people are  

Building cultural ownership and role of education in valuing nature  

• Lead with the benefits of designations - what does it mean for people - build a sense of care  

• Guardianship addresses that nature/biodiversity is the priority in these areas, and helping define people's role in that  
• Role of volunteering - "By people for people"  

Fully resourced, active, meaningful engagement, early in the process - leading to long lasting, sustainable, resilient and effective management  

• While outcome defined, approach/process to reaching outcome being flexible and based on engagement  
• Balance of top-down targets/definitions and ensuring engagement isn't tokenistic and they have input and ownership over the space  

Transparency and accountability at all levels  

• Clarity in overlap of policies and consultation processes  

General discussion points 

Please note the points below are a summary of discussions had on the day, there was not necessarily agreement/consensus on these points from all taking part. They have been captured to aide in future discussions on these topics as this work progresses.  

Moving perception of 'what you can’t do' to 'what benefits can they provide'

• Change the narrative of what you can't do in a PA but instead push the wider benefits of PAs to build guardianship
• Protected areas perception is that they are closed off to people and inaccessible

PAs where people live

• Tie it into 20min neighbourhoods
• Management of 'urban' spaces would look different
• Promoting PAs across all demographics could help with blended funding
• Including local assets could help bring PA into urban areas/ where people live
• Local Biodiversity Sites, LNCS, nature reserves

Using accessible engaging language

• There's a lot of technical jargon that goes alongside PAs that needs ‘translating’ in appropriate settings
• Protected areas are still quite a scientific concept, this needs addressing if to engage wider folk
• Being aware of narrative and language falling into the binary of nature vs people

Cultural ownership and role of education in valuing nature

• Helping to address the perceived people/nature dichotomy
• Current solutions to irresponsible behaviour tend to lean towards costly/regulatory
• Cultural ownership of an area - if people feel like the issue/species belongs to them, they're more open to responsible behaviour
• Need to address distrust of particular groups (e.g. young people) or less traditional ways of engaging in nature (e.g. being noisy)
• PAs used as sites of education and awareness raising of nature connectedness - both with schools and politicians

Build political ownership and buy in

• Influence and accountability
• We need politicians celebrating and championing our protected areas more widely, and have a wider awareness of nature.
• A current method is politicians visiting nature reserves - they do like to see how this connects to people, e.g. volunteers, visitors, staff - but will also champion particular species.

Targeting messaging to different groups based on their values

• Short term economic case is peoples priorities - there would be a gain in being about to apply nature to this framing
• Building local pride on 'their' landscape
• Partnership working to help promote biodiversity and build buy in
• Need to 'relate' biodiversity to people
• Stories of hope motivation actions

Building better relationships through active, meaningful engagement early in the process

• Realising and sharing the wider benefits of protected areas for communities/ landowners/ land managers as part of early meaningful engagement could be effective to build trust
• Being clear about what the objectives are and if we are sticking to them
• Two way communication
• Fully supported & resourced engagement mechanisms (eg. co-design often/inevitably has a range of 'discomfort zones' - part of constructive process)
• Recognising that land owners are dealing with multiple land aspects, polices etc - and working on solutions to that
• Upfront, realistic, transparency communication on the roles people play and who has what power where
• Important to have joined up thinking across the spectrum of land owner engagement including agricultural funding schemes.

Trusted messengers

• Need the message coming from politicians for third sector to use
• Community anchor organisations (e.g. development trust)
• Industry advocates could also be important to connect to communities of interest - e.g. National Farmers Union, Scottish Land & Estates, Scottish Crofting Federation, Development Trusts Association, etc...

Addressing the complex tier system in communication

• Using mapping and layers to help visually depict designated areas/types
• Not about changing the names of designations, but changing how we talk about them
• Communication will vary depending on audience. Graphics are good and can show relationship with humans and nature.
• Targeted communication methods (along with messages) for the different audiences
• Balance needed between making information accessible and ‘dumbing down’ information for public
• Case study 'stories' that illustrate some of of the PAs and the links between them
• E.g. SSSI - are not just for scientists. So explaining more about what SSSI actually are and what they do beyond their 'name' or primary designated purpose

In an urban area, non-designated areas or non-protected species can have a greater value to nature locally than those are protected and we shouldn't lose the important message that all nature is valuable.

Summaries to guide principles  

The delivery vehicle/process for funding in itself needs to be properly resourced to provide a simple and easy to use process.  

The need to maintain statutory funding but also ensure better coherence between departments/briefs to maximise benefits (and stop contradictory actions)  

• Public policy, where it directs resources, has to be suitably robust so as to not overlook/miss opportunities  
• The developing agricultural subsidies policy in particular needs to fully take into account the objectives of 30x30  

How public and private money interact needs to be defined.  

• There needs to be clarity at what level public finances pay for 'improvements' versus at what point private finance starts funding (to ensure genuine additionality and avoid ‘double-financing’).  

The flow of private finance needs to be accelerated, with a simple process (from an applicants point of view) and with appropriate oversight from a body that has a strategic overview (all habitat types etc)   

• Proportionate application processes. Funding bodies need to take sensible risk approach.  
• Funding structures that are frequent barriers (e.g. match funding) should only be used where there is a clear need  

There must be access to adequate funds at all key stages recognising that some stages (project set up and monitoring) currently under resourced  

Funding should facilitate (and reward) working in a collaborative fashion.  

Funding must recognise that success comes through approaches that combine bottom up as well as top down. It needs to be 'filtered at the correct levels' so as to not be overly prescriptive at the national level its set (e.g RLUPs).  

Co-production should be used to develop the actual funding streams/application processes.  

General discussion points 

Please note the points below are a summary of discussions had on the day, there was not necessarily agreement/consensus on these points from all taking part. They have been captured to aide in future discussions on these topics as this work progresses.  

Private Finance

• Public funding will never be enough and so private finance will be needed.
• The public sector - at large - may need considerable upskilling with regards to blended finance. 
• Need to understand the language of private finance to allow them to understand what it is they’re investing in.
• Accreditation, by setting a standard, can be very useful in allowing inflow of private finance (look to previous examples e.g., SMEEF).
• New technologies (private finance has a preference for real time data not an annual report)
• List of projects by amount of funding needed (to allow ease of investment from different scale companies etc)
• 30x30 is long term, look to disentangle market trends from the investment
• Ability to feed into - and pull down from - a fund (an investment vehicle that can increase scale and decrease costs)
• Recognise the risks that some types of work may becoming more desirable to invest in than others (i.e., easier, better returns, greater public support).
• Private money has the will but needs the guidance/direction? Who provides this? Likewise projects don’t necessarily know how to access this funding. Is there a role for a public body to oversee/help facilitate]
• SG have a role in making sure their estate has a pre-prepared list of suitable projects for investment a ‘non-public projects register’.
• Need to be mindful of green washing

Public money

• Public funding can’t just disappear, those statutory requirements must still be fully financed
• Local authorities role in bridging gap between public and private, in the same way there are 20 year Local Development Plans they should have a 20 year Land Management Plan for their protected areas that will make it easier to identify management needs that require funding
• Existing money needs to be looked at to make sure there is coherence and pulling in one direction. Any agri/forestry scheme needs to be checked for clashes etc.

Simplifying the process

• Accountability needs to not result in unnecessarily complex funding systems (need to make sure as simple as possible)
• Understand that private landowners will find it much easier to work through one scheme (not really fussed if that funding pot is actually made up of multiple sources)
• The need to continue to recognise this work is all part of the larger SBS and ES for Scotland that relies on joint up working across all Sectors.

Working at Scale (geographic and temporal)

• Success here is key - the facilitation across landscapes. If 'packaging' projects then preference for ones that work at regional scale.
• Looking within a region at how their area can best deliver against 'national tagets' within their area by partnerships operating within that region.
• Long term outcomes = long term work = green jobs (maintaining local communities if done correctly)
• Designated pot for maintenance. Recognising the continued benefit of the healthy environment.
• Funding schemes can have a 'multiplier' for joined up working and/or, some pots could only be available for landscape scale
• Role for governance structures such as RLUPs in directing National Funding at the regional scale (almost a common sense filter at the regional scale). Recognising that big central pots of money can have massive impacts on a landscape (in quite an undemocratic way)
• Identify good management on farmland - can it be recognised and encouraged? Well funded advisory service would then be key here.

Fairness in funding

• Funding models must not penalise those that have already been working in biodiversity friendly ways.
• Financial markets for biodiversity mirroring those in carbon
• Carrot and stick need to be twinned with a lot of facilitation/good communication of all these issues we're trying to tackle (a lot less simple)
• Funding that helps community engagement key

Sensible funding

• Funding models need to be responsive to changing needs. But, not in such a way that it abandons previous good work
• Use 30x30 as the opportunity to be more targeted and less ad hoc, would allow more collaborative working.
• Funding targeted at different stages of projects 1. Shovel ready (easy) 2. The setting up of projects (harder)
• Maintenance - often difficult to secure. A scheme that targeted investment to this would be key.

Summaries to guide principles  

A legal/policy definition is needed for new types of protected areas (inc OECMs) 

• Cover minimum requirements, avoid being as prescriptive/cumbersome as traditional designation types to allow greater responsiveness more flexibility  

Revisit existing reviews of policy/legislation to identify recommendations already identified, that still apply, but have not been addressed 

• Look at SCM results to highlight potential weaknesses (common pressures and their policy drivers) 

Review existing legislations ability to obligate positive management/prevent a lack of management to identify new legislative needs. 

• This needs to be twinned with concerted efforts to increase knowledge/skills, more than just guidance, hands on learning/visiting experts etc. 
• A good system is seen as having a ‘big carrot but also an operational stick’  

Rationalisation of existing protected area designations suite, not universally supported and only if clear evidence there’s value to doing so (and if so, simplify to the highest level as default) 

If maintaining all existing designation types (and adding more) need to significantly improve communications 

• Focus on ‘what it means’ rather than ‘what designation type it is’. What are the objectives, what are we trying to achieve and why.  
• Communication to be targeted at specific audiences 

Clarity over whether or not inclusion within 30x30 in itself effectively results in further protection of such land, important for developers and consenting authorities. Different (government) departments have a role to identify the gains from protected areas associated within their sectors and so champion them 

Reformed agricultural support payments must not make it harder for those in protected areas (e.g. a higher bar)  

• Rent formula for tenant farmers and crofters. Ensuring they are not excluded from ability to enter schemes  

Loss of a feature – where better management won’t allow for its return - should not be linked with removal of the area from protection but the beginning of looking to see what that area can deliver going forward. Would need to be based on a robust and transparent evidence-based process.

Our +30% needs to be future proofed, with research on what’s in our suite and how that will look in a given number of years (10, 50, 100) to ensure continued strategic approach. Increased flexibility and adaptability will be needed from our protected area suite, this should avoid being on an ad hoc basis 

• National parks could be good experimental/exemplar sites for novel (flexible) management 
• Look to adaptive management approaches to some of those known conflicting points (more broadly than just in NPs) 
• When exercising flexibility this should be incorporated into management plans (gives clarity and certainty) and a clear rationale always needs to be given and, process followed 

General discussion points 

Please note the points below are a summary of discussions had on the day, there was not necessarily agreement/consensus on these points from all taking part. They have been captured to aide in future discussions on these topics as this work progresses.  

Need to embed 30x30 in various emerging policies

• Land use strategy (and others)

Reviews

• To create better policy we need to look at those existing PAs that are not working

• • Winners vs losers - habitats – favourable vs not favourable
  • Review of existing policy landscape to see what’s working/not working (but be proportionate - this can be slow process)
  • Find the changes needed to make existing legislation better (most issues around delivery)
  • Conservation Advice Packages but ‘beefed up’ to include landscape scale
  • Conflicts in species/habitats and management types
  • Single species cant be forgotten about.
  • Protected Area suite in a warming climate

Clarity

• Interim targets just add complexity - have an action plan/route map and end target
  • Effectiveness of management target for that 30% is OK!

• Relating the 30x30 contribution to other targets on biodiversity is key.
• Targets more to do with SBS action plans rather than within 30x30
• Outcomes AND actions both have a role but it needs to be thought through.
• A more long term/large scale direction is needed as to what we're wanting all our protected areas to do
  • An opportunity to look at our suite now for in 30, 50 or 100 years.

New designation types or improving existing types

• Already too complex, not a great appetite for a new type.
• If a new type, need to be very clear what its bringing that’s new and needed.
• Restoration type protected area – would this be a half-way house to an existing designation type?
• Be careful any restoration type doesn’t actually constrain the amount of land that is being recovered.
• More flexibility over the ability to alter designation types. (Allow for change rather than perpetually in bad state)
• Clear and transparent process for establishing why changes needed (e.g. climate change NOT poor or lack of management)
• Support for being able to review what’s on protected areas (features)
• Adaptive management important but not well supported by current legislation/policy

Need legislation to penalise 'not doing anything' where this damaging

Good site - Legislation should protect and congratulate stewardship

Bad site – Incentives

Agricultural (and other rural) policies links with Environmental Policies

• Current policies can accidentally penalise and not recognise landowner effort.
• Contradictions between deer and livestock policies need to be addressed (deer control where there’s a minimum stocking density of sheep)
• Individual initiatives - too many of them for landowners to navigate
• Red tractor style scheme for farmers etc who work in most sustainable way. Dont keep using the same case studies over and over (Accreditation scheme)
• Rationalisation of this to a place where they can look at whole holding and see what they can deliver that will maximise this
  • Habitat scale much easier for land managers rather than species
  • Important role of RLUPs in making the joint up landscape scale work actually work
  • Outcomes based measures not good for farmers – better is ‘are they carrying out this [good] management style’
  • Supporting of whole farm / whole landscape plans
• The agriculture minister/department needs to support the nature friendly farming.