30x30 themed workshops

How do we decide what is included in the 30x30 network, what criteria do we use and what flexibility is required for future challenges (e.g., climate change, pests, INNS)?  What happens once 30% is achieved, future management, will the sites continue to contribute to the goal, long term?   

1. How do we define, and ensure clarity in whether they are included, for the following terms; 
   • existing protected area types included (SSSI, RAMSAR, European sites, NNRs),  
   • those that already exist and could be included with changes (e.g. Nationals Parks or LNCS),
   • those novel types that could be made (e.g., OECMS) 
   • and the need for a strictly protected 10%
2. What is required in the definition to ensure all different levels/tiers of protection contribute towards the overall aim?
3. In the move to landscape scale thinking, what considerations are needed to ensure we continue to address protection of specific types of habitats and species (including less charismatic taxa)? 
4. How can bottom-up projects be incorporated effectively into 30x30? 
5. How will sites be identified? What are the selection criteria? How important is it to achieve a geographic spread of area included within 30x30 and what needs to be done to ensure this happens? 
6. How do we prevent the other 70% being ‘where everything else happens’, causing nature decline in other areas and protected areas becoming isolated islands (e.g., buffers in addition to Nature Networks)? 
7. To what degree and how should balance between positive biodiversity impacts and other benefits (e.g., Climate mitigation and adaptation and cultural ecosystem services) be incorporated? 
8. In selecting sites and criteria for them how can flexibility be best incorporated to ensure protected areas are as fit for the future as they can be (e.g., climate change, pests, INNS) 
9. How can the selection criteria, or wider actions, be taken to ensure areas are effectively management and genuinely contribute towards the goal (bending the curve) rather than achieving 30% on paper (e.g. should there be additionality)? 
10. How can we ensure there is accurate baseline data, both for identifying new sites quickly and at scale, but also in assessing the suitability of existing contributors towards the 17% (is biodiversity actually benefiting from what we’re currently including and planning to add)? 
11. How can the framework help address lack of access to adequate and up-to-date data for areas of importance, migration routes, connectivity? 

Themes and challenges from the Discovery Workshop

Group 1 - Monitoring and data

• Additionality in restoration projects is a barrier to recognition of existing conservation efforts or areas biodiversity refugia (Challenge 8)

Group 2 – level/character of protection

• Different tiers of protection - how to establish and manage these especially with multiple land types and uses? (Challenge 1)
• Level of protection for species and habitats (and entire protected areas) e.g. from developments of different types. How will planning and development be managed (e.g. putting wind turbines in a bat migration route). (Moved to theme: Policy and legislation)
• How to address protection of species as well as habitats - some species need several small areas of habitat to support meta populations rather than one large one (Challenge 2)
• Ability to protect areas from development, forestry, lack of management, invasive species etc once identified (Moved to theme: Policy and legislation)

Group 2 – site selection/ identification

• Local Nature Conservation Sites often undervalued but provide a really good opportunity to address this issue - identified using agreed criteria and provide stepping stones within the wider countryside that protect biodiversity and often form a buffer of good habitat around SSSI's and other designated sites (Challenge 1)
• How are protected areas chosen? Will it be the 'easy option' e.g. land in public ownership? Or will it be based on habitat/species conservation data and level of protection? (Challenge 4)
• Protecting 30% of land area should not leave 70% unprotected (everything crammed into the other 70%). (Challenge 5)
• How will sites be identified consistently across the country and will there be an even spread geographically? SSSI coverage varies quite widely across Scotland at present.  Will there be consistent measures across Scotland for protecting these areas? (Challenge 4)
• Will just those sites that are currently of high biodiversity value be included in 30x30 or will it include areas that have the potential to be restored to good habitat - such as plantations on lowland raised bogs, PAWS etc (Challenge 4)
• Competing land uses and the ability to deliver these as well as protect areas for biodiversity. (Moved to theme: management)
• Difficulty of protecting biodiversity within urban areas due to pressures on land. Development pressure is high within these areas and there can be a tendency to suggest they can be replaced by newly created habitats.  Also attitudes to less neat and tidy areas - areas protected for biodiversity don't fit with this. (Moved to theme: Policy and legislation)

Group 2 – data quality and availability

• Access to adequate and up-to date data to identify those areas that are of importance for biodiversity, especially in remote areas (Moved to theme: data and monitoring)
• Ongoing monitoring to check success of sites - e.g., of protective measures (Moved to theme: monitoring)
• Knowledge gap (baseline data), e.g., regarding bat migration routes, to inform connectivity & management requirements. (Moved to theme: data and monitoring)
• Up to date knowledge of what is actually on sites. e.g. We have SPA designation for hen harriers but no one knows if they are actually on site as we don't have the staff to undertake site surveys. (or potentially (Moved to theme: data and monitoring)

Group 3 - representedness

• Need to ensure that protected areas increase in all areas, rather than the 30% being achieved in just a few areas. Equally, it may not be appropriate for some areas to increase to 30% - e.g some cities? (Challenge 4)
• Need to ensure that connectivity underpins the future sites network and doesn't view wildlife as being in isolated islands. (Challenge 2)
• Many SSSI's were designated quite some time ago. Designated features are not always still relevant and the "fixed in time" aspect of SSSI management doesn’t account for expansion of some features (ie  declining native woodland at the expense of wet heath) (Challenge 7)
• Risk that we view that 30% as being "where the wildlife goes" but then overseeing the decline of the remaining 70% - potential net balancing? (Challenge 5)
• Protected Area Network currently failing to represent all species groups e.g. less charismatic taxa. (Challenge 6)
• Simple designation doesn't mean that they are appropriately managed for their interest. Many current SSSIs very poorly managed. (Challenge 8)
• Agreement of balance over what habitats should be protected - link to networks here - e.g. networks of woodland v open habitats (Challenge 2)
• Some species have odd niches that don't fit into SSSI styled sites- risk of species being overlooked and lost. (Challenge 2)
• The perception that trees = stored carbon and other habitats less valuable for carbon ie woodlands might be valued more over other habitats (Challenge 6)
• Problem with distribution of potential new sites- what if some areas over extensive areas are now too nature poor/impacted by agriculture? Should 30% be the best 30% nationally or should there be a regional approach (e.g. 30% of each region?) (Challenge 4)
• Potential clashes with post- EU drive for food independence and security (Moved to theme: management)
• Golf courses! Example of attempts to use PAN as multi-purpose uses in (Moved to theme: management)

Group 3 – flexibility

• What do we mean by protected area? Not everyone might agree over what we mean by a protected area for nature if we move away from the more traditional designations (Challenge 1)
• Ensure PAs are fit for the future - climate change, pests and pathogens, and changes in species distributions (Challenge 7)
• Does allow f[or] this partition areas in to nature areas and non-nature areas where management becomes increasingly negative? True landscape-scale change required in use of land. (Challenge 5)

Group 3 – equality

• Balancing conservation with continued land use, access and possible repeopling. (Moved to theme: People)
• Is the 30% going to be protected at the expense of general conservation of the remaining 70%? (Challenge 5)
• Overly complex language is a barrier (Moved to theme: People)
• What form will these new protected areas take? I understand there is a moratorium on new SSSIs but not sure if that's just a matter of policy or legal? However, this would be the most appropriate mechanism from existing tools? (Challenge 1)
• Will local projects be able to apply to be part of the 30% (Challenge 3)

Group 4 – Defining a Protected Area/OECM (other effective area based conservation measure)

• Too many different types of designations (Challenge 1)
• Need to agree on definitions (Challenge 1)
• What role are existing areas doing and could they do more. (Challenge 4)
• Need to maximise protection for nature at landscape scale and in rural and urban areas - there will be a varying need for biodiversity across landscapes. (Moved to theme: Policy and legislation)
• Planning systems needs to incorporate protected areas but still allow for development where appropriate (Moved to theme: Policy and legislation
• Better definition of what/how OECM's can contribute (Challenge 1)
• Restoration as well as new protected areas (Challenge 8)
• To better understand the role for National Parks (Challenge 1)

Group 4 – ecological considerations

• Existing network of sites not always in good management, adding new sites increases the challenge of regulation and management (5) (Challenge 8)
• There are different ideas about what we mean by nature and what can be counted towards the 30% (3) (Challenge 1)
• Challenge to make the links to habitats and species outside of protected areas too (3) (Challenge 5)
• What does a nature network look like or comprise - the definition and understanding is crucial in terms of decision making and project support mechanisms (2) (Moved to Nature Networks)
• Pockets of Nature (eg Cairngorm National Park Authority areas) get large government investments, and other important areas are starved of management for nature resources (1) (Moved to theme: Funding and resources)
• climate change and extreme weather events pressure on existing habitats and species and the network of sites as well as new sites potentially (1) (Challenge 7)
• Current system is not dynamic - things are shifting and changing (Challenge 7)
• International fit for migratory species (Challenge 2)

Group 5 – baselines

• need clarity on the baseline - there is no way the current 17% baseline is managed for nature, even if it is subject to protective designation (Moved to theme: data and monitoring)
• Definitions (Challenge 1)
• Will rewilded areas such as the Langholm community project be included? (Challenge 3)
• how to define 'long term' protection for OECMs? (Challenge 1)
• Not go back to nature - people dichotomy. People are part of nature, so need to be careful that management for nature (only) is not excluding the people within those areas. Bottom-up approach is increasingly advocated at international level. (Moved to theme: People)

Group 5 – scale, ambition, timescales

• Can I cheekily share a paper we published earlier this year that takes a slightly alternative look at the value of nature in Scotland as a component of Scotland's Ecological Footprint and the potential contribution of peatland restoration to Scotland to improving Scotland's Ecological Footprint? Biocapacity and cost-effectiveness benefits of increased peatland restoration in Scotland (Not a challenge to take forward)
• It is good that 30x30 is being co-planned with the Nature Network initiative as there are huge opportunities for developing mutually supportive proposals that serve both objectives. (Not a challenge to take forward)
• 30x30 should deliver massive change for nature - the framework and actions need to deliver additionality  e.g. there is therefore a risk in designating OECMs from places that already exist e.g. MOD land, as these places are already delivering benefit for nature but would there be additionality in officially classifying them as an OECM? (Move to Legislation, Policy & Governance) (Challenge 8)
• Develop a coherent narrative about how the 30% relates to the wider 70% and the role of nature networks in connecting the two - be clear that the 30% has a particular function (to be protected in the long term, not just managed for nature) (Challenge 5)

Group 13 – selection of component sites

• How do we make sure sites in the network are the best areas for nature? (Challenge 4)
• What is the role of ‘restoration’ in 30x30 sites – is it just current biodiversity driving selection or restoration potential? (Challenge 4)
• How will the additional sites be identified and using what evidence? (Challenge 4)
• Who will have the ultimate decision what is designated? (Challenge 4)
• How can creativity in approach be fostered during the process? (Challenge 7)
• Will there be a nomination process for sites to be included in the 30x30 network? (Challenge 4)
• What criteria will be used to select the additional sites and what role will science play in that? (Challenge 4)

Group 13 – existing or new mechanisms for delivery

• Are existing protection mechanisms delivering for biodiversity through equitable management and if not how is this achieved? (Moved to theme: Management)
• Where existing approaches are working, don’t seek to complicate matters further (Challenge 8)
• Look to integrate delivery mechanisms (eg. Regional Land Use Partnerships) so that duplication of discussions amongst similar groups is eliminated. (Moved to Theme: Management)
• How do UNESCO designations (World Heritage, Biosphere, Geoparks) contribute and integrate with 30x30 network? (Challenge 1)

Group 13 – what does protected for nature mean in practice?

• Is it more Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI), European sites, etc to achieve 30x30 or will other mechanisms contribute? (Challenge 1 and 4)

Youth group (Separate event with Young Scot)

• They may not be very different to non-protected areas (Challenge 5)

Challenges that have been relocated to this theme:

From theme: data and monitoring

• Definitions (Challenge 1)
• Will rewilded areas such as the Langholm community project be included? (Challenge 3)
• how to define 'long term' protection for OECMs? (Challenge 1)
• Do we have enough baseline data to identify possible new sites? (Moved back to data and monitoring)

From theme: people

• Agreeing on the contributions to OECM's (Challenge 1)
• Will local projects be able to apply to be part of the 30% (Challenge 3)
• Is the 30% going to be protected at the expense of general conservation of the remaining 70%? (Challenge 5)
• What form will these new protected areas take? I understand there is a moratorium on new SSSIs but not sure if that's just a matter of policy or legal? However, this would be the most appropriate mechanism from existing tools? (Challenge 1)
• Making sure the 30 x 30 is really reached not just an on paper target met with nothing really changing on the ground (Challenge 8)

From theme: legislation & policy

• Do we need to expand the types and categories of protected sites to be broader and cover more areas? (Challenge 1)
• LNCS If were to be included there would be a notable increase in area. However, these are not protected sites. It would be helpful if these could be elevated and resourced such that they have a statutory footing (obvs would all need reviewed to see if still appropriate) (Challenge 1)
• Are new areas either designated or OECM going to be targeted to buffer existing areas (Challenge 5)
• National Parks - they are not necessarily delivering for nature (Challenge 1)
• Perception/quality challenge - could be a temptation to designate very large areas to meet the target with perception of lower standards (Challenge 8)
• How will you define effective management and ensure that benefits are equitable? (Challenge 8)
  • How will you integrate longevity? (Covered under each theme separately)
  • Need to consider how rewilding will be considered within the target (Challenge 1)
• Ensure that the focus is on how the 30% can best deliver nature's recovery and protection, not on getting to the % target (challenge 8)
• Effective management key - about quality of sites not just quantity (Challenge 8)
• How do we ensure site with 30x30 network are connected and function more like a network than a collection of individual ‘island’ sites (Challenge 5)
• Get what we've got into good condition first and maintain that (Challenge 8)

From theme: Management

• 30x30 should deliver massive change for nature - the framework and actions need to deliver additionality  e.g. there is therefore a risk in designating OECMs from places that already exist e.g. MOD land, as these places are already delivering benefit for nature but would there be additionality in officially classifying them as an OECM? (Challenge 8)

From theme: Funding and resources

• current designations not always fit for purpose - need review in line with species and habitat priorities and plans (Challenge 2)
• There is a lack of a clear, robust biodiversity baseline across Scotland. We have the Farming with Nature project in development but it needs to be rolled out more widely, more quickly (5) (Challenge 10)

Ensuring adequate, targeted, timely and accessible funding is essential for the effectiveness and success of 30x30. How do we guarantee this, as much as possible, when existing sources of funding are limited and often concentrated on a small number certain activities/habitat types? 

1. Who pays for this? How can the 30x30 framework help utilise more creative business models and tap into Natural Capital opportunities and other disparate funding sources? 
2. Should the framework address how funding systems work to create sufficient incentives or penalties associated with activities that are either positive or negative with regards to biodiversity/natural capital? If so, how? 
3. How can the 30x30 framework ensure there is long-term, landscape level funding, providing the stability needed for long-term management goals, and not just for particular focus areas such as the National Parks? 
4. How do we sustainably fund protection and restoration elements that currently experience underfunding such as research, data collection, monitoring, maintenance and hosting and staff costs (e.g., rangers services)?  
5. How can the 30x30 framework ensure that funding is distributed in such a way that it is equitable and reaches those who need to be carrying out work on the ground the most (e.g., crofters and tenant farmers, particularly in remote areas)? 
6. How do we ensure that Local Authorities and land managers (including pubic bodies) have the correct resources and expertise and are properly engaged? Upskilling may need to be facilitated/funded.  
7. Assuming that there is always going to be more funding required than there is available for 30x30, can we coordinate this funding to ensure we maximise the cost effectiveness of any spending and manage expectations amongst stakeholders? 

Themes and challenges from the Discovery Workshop

Group 1 - finance

• To reach the goal, a considerable increase in funds available will be needed (Challenge 1)
• Natural capital opportunities are not being realised (Challenge 1)
• Both insufficient incentives and penalties associated with activities that are either positive or negative with regards to biodiversity/natural capital (Challenge 2)
• Equitable funding for small holdings and crofters, etc (Challenge 3)

Group 2 – funding and resourcing

• Funding for protection of areas. there is a cost in managing land. Also funding for Rangers. numbers have been in decline for years and they are often the first point of contact with public and protected lands. (Challenge 4)
• lots of funding is for short term projects so hard to make long term landscape level plans - plus can have high staff turnover due to short term contracts, requires constant search for funding (Challenge 3)
• Funding commitments (resources) for all aspects (e.g. research, land management) (Challenge 4)
• Resourcing: Address financial and funding barriers to achieving 30x30 - everyone wants to do everything but there's limited resource - need to manage expectations, manage effectiveness, and be clear on how to maximize 30x30 in a cost-effective way. Also what other policy areas are doing that could be addressing that. Need to justify choices (Challenge 7)
• Funding for data collection and maintenance (Challenge 4)
• Funding delivery and management of protected areas (Challenge 4)

Group 3 – resources

• Funding to protect and enhance sites difficult to find. Can we find ways to improve this? (Challenge 3)
• Continued loss of SSSI/PAN quality sites in the wider landscape to development or inappropriate land management approaches. (Moved to theme: Management)
• Current lack of resources for monitoring success and maintenance of protected areas (Challenge 4)
• SSSI monitoring seems to be carried out very infrequently... a better monitoring system seems to be needed...is that going to be properly resourced. (Moved to theme: Monitoring)
• Resourcing - funding structures have to be well designed & there has to be a professional / natural capital approach to planning with a relevant level of expertise across the board (Challenge 1)
• current designations not always fit for purpose - need review in line with species and habitat priorities and plans (Moved to theme: What’s included)

Group 4 – capacity, skills and training

• Lack of access to knowledge, skills, training, advice in and for the sector to understand what this all means and how to achieve it. We also have to be careful with not overcomplicating the language or becoming too 'preachy' (Challenge 6)
• Remote Areas with geographically dispersed settlements - do not have the resource to respond to emergency conservation issues. For example, the avian flu and DEFRA unable to respond to the volume and tackle on the ground. (Challenge 5)
• Biological recording relies on volunteers (Challenge 4)

Group 4 – Resourcing outcomes

• There is a lack of a clear, robust biodiversity baseline across Scotland. We have the Farming with Nature project in development but it needs to be rolled out more widely, more quickly (5) (Moved to theme: what’s included)
• Who pays for this? Solutions like carbon credits will only deliver so much. (5) (Challenge 1)
• How do we support/ encourage communities to take part when there's a cost-of-living crisis? Greater priorities at the moment- how do we convince them to invest? (3) (Moved to theme: people)
• Ensuring we define customers better to encourage new business models to support economic regeneration (1) (Challenge 1)

Group 5 – Resourcing

• How can you ensure that the framework you develop to consider whether sites / areas will contribute to 30x30 is investable - will this be a mainly public funded model or combination of public / private investment? (Challenge 1)

Group 13 – resources

• Local Authority resources and expertise to properly engage (Challenge 6)
• How do we resource not only the establishment of the 30x30 network, but also the effective management of area? (Challenge 4)
• How are disparate resources feeding in to sustaining/improving/maintaining the 30x30 network co-ordinated to ensure it is most effective? (Challenge 5)
• Increased area will need increased ‘policing’ – where does this resource come from? (Challenge 3)
• How can additional funding from ‘new’ sources be secured and used to sustain the 30x30 network? (Challenge 1)

Comments that have been relocated to this theme:

From theme: what’s included in 30x30

• Pockets of Nature (eg Cairngorm National Park Authority areas) get large government investments, and other important areas are starved of management for nature resources (1) (Challenge 3)

From theme: monitoring and data

• Access to ongoing funding for management of areas identified for biodiversity.  Needs to be certainty in this and constantly changing funding streams is a barrier to long-term effective management  (Challenge 3)
• How to obtain long term funding that can lead to effective improvement/management/change (Challenge 3)
• Lack of expertise in large land owners / managers on how to manage land more effectively. Can we improve access to expertise? Is there potential to have it clearly defined what is expected or minimum standards of managing certain types of land? (Move to Funding & Resources) (Challenge 6 – note this also crosses over with agricultural payment reform work going on outside this project)
• How do we finance monitoring and management?  (Challenge 4)
• More advice may need to be available on the conservation management of land...this needs resourcing (Challenge 6)
• Current lack of resources for monitoring success and maintenance of protected areas (Move to Funding & Resources) (Challenge 4)

From theme: policy & legislation

• Incentives and regulations aligned to objectives of Protected Areas (Challenge 2)
• Resources have been a challenge over the past decade - need to have discussions about how to ensure an expanded network is effectively resourced over the long term (Challenge 3)

Accomplishing 30x30 will require significant shifts in how land is managed, potentially leading to conflicts.  How can these multiple challenges be balanced? How can we translate a national target into local, on the ground actions, taken by land managers? How to ensure adaptive management, based on up-to-date evidence, is taken at local, regional and national level, for the long term, while bending the curve. Decision makers, roles and responsibilities should be clear and the correct roles and responsibilities assigned and monitored if necessary. 

1. In what way should existing or new groups (e.g., RLUPs) play a role in the governance/management of 30x30 sites? 
2. How can the 30x30 framework help change the perception of protected areas and 30x30 target amongst landowners, including providing clarity on how they’re contributing to the 30x30 target (e.g., through use of bottom-up approach)? 
3. How do we address the issue of competition for land with other uses/sectors and other priorities? 
4. How do we ensure that protected, and other ‘nature friendly’ area based conservation, areas are actually delivering for nature and doing so in the long-term? 
5. How can the 30x30 framework ensure management at landscape scale considering both connectivity between sites and sustainable integration and interactions with other land uses? 
6. How do we ensure that management of specific protected areas contribute to the wider landscape priorities as well as area specific targets? 
7. Solutions need to be place-based. How do we balance the need for consistent, high standards of management for protected areas across Scotland with the need for adaptive management?  
8. How should management address global scale pressures at a protected area level, e.g., pollution, climate change mitigation (shifting ranges/distributions & coastal erosion)?

Themes and challenges from the Discovery Workshop

Group 3 – Conflicts of land use

• Perceived conflict between PA and other land uses e.g. food production, food security, need good communication to help ensure that there doesn't have to be a conflict or trade off (Challenge 3)
• Problem getting landowner acceptance of new designated sites ...seen as interfering with legitimate business interests (Challenge 2)
• Concerns that "traditional" land management practices are challenged by biodiversity delivery e.g. cultural landscapes may be viewed as more important than their potential for wildlife. (Moved to Theme: People)
• Conflicts between land uses and land users. (Challenge 3)

Group 4 – conflicting land use

• Tendency to frame other land uses (who produce important resources like food and timber) as the problem rather than part of the solution. Need to avoid outsourcing climate footprint to other countries (4) (Moved to theme: people)
• Large sporting sites not delivering for nature, under the guise of being nature friendly (3) (Challenge 4)
• Solutions to the problem(s) will be different in each area (2)  (Challenge 7)
• The planning system- where development detrimental to the environment will not be permitted unless there are overriding economic benefits. Economic benefits often seem to override natural heritage value (1) (Moved the theme: Policy & legislation)
• Commercial forestry practices have high negative impact on sensitive biodiversity loss areas (1) (Challenge 4)
• Competition for land with other uses/sectors and other priorities (Challenge 3)

Group 2 – ongoing management

• How to achieve long-term management of areas identified as importance for biodiversity so that the biodiversity interest is maintained or enhanced (Challenge 4)
• Generally ensuring connectivity - we've tried this before with Natura 2000, Connectivity e.g., by creating connecting habitats will involve a variety of landowners that will have to commit to management plans. (Challenge 2)
• Poor infrastructure in rural areas.  Areas not designed to deal with volume of visitors. Old visitor's centres, roads etc - will attract lots of people to sites that haven't had adequate investment, which can cause problems. (Moved to theme: people)
• It should not stop in 2030, but there needs to be a future commitment. (Moved to theme: Policy & legislation)
• Access to ongoing funding for management of areas identified for biodiversity.  Needs to be certainty in this and constantly changing funding streams is a barrier to long-term effective management (Move to theme: funding & resources)
• How to make this successful where similar ideas have failed/had issues (e.g., Natura 2000) - what hasn't worked in the past and why? How do we take that knowledge and transfer it into effective, sustainable work in the future? Including things like data management (Moved to theme: Monitoring)
• How to obtain long term funding that can lead to effective improvement/ management/ change (Moved to theme: funding & resources)

Group 13 – competition for land

• How does the 30x30 network integrate/interact with other land uses to create a sustainable balance? (Challenge 5)
• What is the role for sustainable use in the 30x30 network? (Challenge 4)
• How do the provisions for positive effects for biodiversity coming out of National Planning Framework 4 mesh with the requirements for the 30x30 network? (Move to theme: policy & legislation)
• How do we make sure on-site actions contribute to wider actions? (Challenge 6)

Group 13 – need for flexibility

• How does the 30x30 network cope with environmental changes (e.g., coastal erosion or changes in habitat/species ranges) which will occur over time to different parts of the network? (Challenge 9)

Youth group (Separate event with Young Scot)

• Ownership of land (Challenge 2)
• Ensuring SSSI's are managed correctly - many are owned by private land owners (Challenge 2)
• more food production is necessary, and the land is potentially less usable for intensive agriculture (Challenge 3)

Comments that have been relocated to this theme:

From theme: what’s included in 30x30

• Competing land uses and the ability to deliver these as well as protect areas for biodiversity. (Challenge 3)
• Potential clashes with post- EU drive for food independence and security (Challenge 3)
• Golf courses! Example of attempts to use PAN as multi-purpose uses in (Challenge 3)
• Are existing protection mechanisms delivering for biodiversity through equitable management and if not how is this achieved? (Challenge 4)
• Look to integrate delivery mechanisms (eg. Regional Land Use Partnerships) so that duplication of discussions amongst similar groups is eliminated. (Challenge 1)

From theme: funding and resources

• Continued loss of SSSI/PAN quality sites in the wider landscape to development or inappropriate land management approaches. (Challenge 4)

From theme: monitoring and data

• Generally ensuring connectivity - we've tried this before with Natura 2000, Connectivity e.g., by creating connecting habitats will involve a variety of landowners that will have to commit to management plans. (Challenge 5)

From theme: people

• Competing expectations of landowners - will land areas just be for biodiversity, or mixed with other values too (Challenge 2)
• There is talk of RLUPs providing framework for landscape scale nature projects - is there communication between the different initiatives to ensure there is no conflict going forward? (Challenge 1)
• Ensuring that it is not seen as PA versus other land uses, making landowners/policy makers aware that PAs can deliver many things in addition to biodiversity (Challenge 3)
• Making sure the 30 x 30 is really reached not just an on paper target met with nothing really changing on the ground (challenge 4)
• Is this being done already, just under a different name? E.g. through farmer clusters, Regional Land Use Partnerships (RLUPs), deer management groups, national parks etc. (Challenge 1)
• Agreeing objectives and aims for how to reach goals within Protected Areas (Important point but too fine detail for the framework but will need to be looked at in the next stages)

From theme: policy & legislation

• Create a Scottish Major Landowners Group - a forum for working together to tackle pressures on protected areas at larger scales, more collaborative working, collective funding bids? Is there adequate funding sources to be tapped into here? Does it need to involve private and blended finance? (Challenge 1)
• Ensuring an integrated land management systems to support wider ecosystem services (Challenge 6)
• Do we need more protection of the spaces that link conservation sites or important sites that aren't designated so the sites don't become isolated? Can't forget about the other 70%. (Challenge 5)
• How do we avoid protected area isolation in the context of land ownership by multiple stakeholders? (Challenge 5)
• Existing designation mechanisms are quite poor for protecting rivers and lochs from wider pressures, such as what's happening in the upstream catchment. There is no provision for designating buffer areas around sites. Perhaps we need additional wider area mechanisms to tackle catchment pressures on protected areas, similar to those we use to tackle nitrogen, where Nitrate Vulnerable Zones can be designated to reduce the loss of nitrogen into receiving waters, groundwaters, the Ythan Estuary, etc. (Challenge 5)
• Challenge to ensure that 30x30 delivers for wider priorities and isn't too focused on area targets (Challenge 6)

From theme: data and monitoring

• How do we ensure that PA are protected from more global pressures such as pollution or managed to mitigate climate change where possible (Challenge 9)

People and nature are at the centre of 30x30 but finding a balance between competing needs will prove challenge. There is greater need to continually engage currently underutilised, seldom heard voices, in delivery. How will we identify and communicate with these groups, dealing with potential issues of conflict, complex language and long term aims, and ensure the longevity and sustainability of partnership working. 

1. How can 30x30 be an opportunity to better include a wide range of stakeholders, seldom heard voices and minority groups and increase the relevance of PAs to the public as a whole, improving buy in and understanding of conservation management (include access and education)? 
2. How to ensure that 30x30 does not suffer from the nature and people dichotomy but instead help build nature connectedness, breakdown preconceived notions and instead highlight the importance of natural and cultural landscapes especially when people and communities may have other immediate priorities (e.g., cost of living crisis) 
3. How can 30x30 deal with competing needs, real or perceived (i.e., local needs vs national needs, economic vs nature or climate vs biodiversity) and clearly articulate why a decision has been made? 
4. How can 30x30 help overcome shifting baseline syndrome and communicate to public and wider society the long-term vision for Scotland and what they may look like in the short term, both within and without the 30%? 
5. In what ways can the 30x30 framework ensure better relationships are built and address the (perceived) lack of trust between partners? 
6. How to better simplify, in language and other methods, the seemingly complex and confusing ‘tier system’ for protected areas with multiple designation types, particularly when engaging those not traditionally included? Who has a role in this? 
7. How can different sectors, voluntary, public and private, be brought together to deliver 30x30, clearly articulating their role and contribution, and become ‘trusted messengers’? 
8. How can 30x30 and its framework encourage political leadership including how to ensure Scottish Government are strong advocates of policy they (or predecessors) pass? 

Themes and challenges from the Discovery Workshop

Group 1 - partnership working

• Need to include wide range of stakeholders to champion the ecosystem services that nature provides (Challenge 1)
• Agreeing objectives and aims for how to reach goals within Protected Areas (Moved to theme: Management)
• Clarity on how land owners contribute to the 30x30 target (Moved to theme: Management)
• Agreeing on the contributions to OECM's (Moved to Theme: What’s included in 30x30)
• Including seldom heard voices in the conversations (challenge 1)

Group 1 – communication

• There is a lack of understanding/disconnect with (at a national level) people's relationship with nature and the benefits it provides in Scotland which presents a barrier to support and successful implementation of more protected areas; (Challenge 2)
• Similarly, there is a lack of understanding of the degree to which our landscape is degraded/altered and so the need for area-based conservation efforts is not understood (Challenge 4)
• At a sectoral level knowledge within the land management community of the importance of biodiversity and how it can benefit humans more broadly but also their own agricultural objectives. (Challenge 2)
• Involving the whole of society including reaching 'left behind' and minority groups (Challenge 1)
• Balancing climate v biodiversity benefits or balancing economic v nature benefits (Challenge 3)

Group 2 – communication

• Expectation is a challenge - public appetite for environmental improvement but any work that you do is long term which is hard to communicate - e.g. planting trees for in 7 years time. If we do achieve 30x30 it may not look like people expect, e.g. success may be having trees that are only head height. Important to manage expectations around this. (Challenge 4)
• Competing expectations of landowners - will land areas just be for biodiversity, or mixed with other values too (Moved to theme: Management)
• Shifting baseline syndrome - how to communicate with audiences who don't have accurate ideas of how the landscape could look (Challenge 4)
• Challenges of communicating different tiers/types of protected areas to the public - can be very confusing/unclear to people not experienced in it (Challenge 6)
• There is talk of RLUPs providing framework for landscape scale nature projects - is there communication between the different initiatives to ensure there is no conflict going forward? (Moved to theme: Management)

Group 3 – buy in and consensus

• This will need buy in of wider population / wide range of stakeholders etc.. How do we get buy in? How can this concept be better "sold" to ensure better cooperation / working towards common goals? (Challenge 4)
•  Competing national and local interests - local need / existing land use / economic considerations v's national strategy and achieving wider biodiversity goals (Challenge 3)
• Ensuring that it is not seen as PA versus other landuses, making landowners/policy makers aware that PAs can deliver many things in addition to biodiversity (Moved to theme: Management)
• Making sure the 30 x 30 is really reached not just an on paper target met with nothing really changing on the ground (Moved to theme: Management)
• Potential that 30 x 30 vision for landscapes doesn't overlap with public sentiment for use of their surrounding countryside, etc. (Challenge 4)
• we are not incentivising the giving of nature priority in creative ways. Carrots work better than sticks. Peer influence works better than policing. (Challenge 7)

Group 4 – effective collaboration and engagement

• There is a lack of cross sectorial engagement, working together and trust - often different land users think other sectors don't listen to them or are opposed to them (Challenge 5)
• entrenched positions and preconceptions (4) (Challenge 2)
• How do we get agencies to work collaboratively? (2) (Challenge 5)
• Fragmented land management would be make it more challenging to achieve 30x30. E.g. trying to engage several hundred land managers to operate at the landscape scale vs having to reach a few larger land managers (2) (Challenge 5 and 6)
• Many local crofting communities have lack of trust in environmental movement and there has been a culling of community rangers over the last 10 years, which weakens those local ties - so policy seen as a top-down exercise. More work needs to be done in linking the cultural aspects of linking communities living alongside nature (Challenge 5)
• Is this being done already, just under a different name? E.g. through farmer clusters, Regional Land Use Partnerships (RLUPs), deer management groups, national parks etc. (Moved to theme: Management)
• Need to identify who the main actors are (which will be different in different areas) & how we empower them to deliver action (Challenge 7)

Group 13 – effective communication

• How do we best communicate between stakeholders and wider public get broad understanding of the goals of 30x30 and support for its delivery? (Challenge 1)

Group 13 – building the partnership to deliver

• How can different sectors be brought together to deliver 30x30? (Challenge 7)
• How do we effectively engage sectors with limited involvement to date (eg. elements of the private sector) to embrace the vision for 30x30 and help drive its delivery? (Challenge 1)

Youth group (Separate event with Young Scot)

• Not having access to protected areas (Challenge 1)
• Protected areas are often very sensitive and remote, therefore difficult to visit. How can we promote understanding and connection to these landscapes? (Challenge 1)
• Not having enough information on protected areas and why they are there. makes it difficult (Challenge 1)
• eg, peatlands are AMAZING, but often tricky to access, but ALSO understanding all the processes at work. Finding ways to transcribe information to young people about these special places (Challenge 1)
• Green spaces - to mitigate health inequalities. Protected for rewilding purposes but how people use for health (walking etc) - they are no longer able to (Challenge 1)
• People with disabilities, or not feeling comfy if familiar with different species (Challenge 1)
• Knowing why - why is it protected?  (Challenge 1)
• Restricted/protected meaning they can't go there (Challenge 1)
• An understanding as to why they are protected areas (Challenge 1)
• They might not be accessible to everyone (Challenge 1)
• Restricting people on where they can go/walk their dog (Challenge 1)
• Getting young people's opinions involved as the future generation (Challenge 1)

Comments that have been relocated to this theme:

From theme: funding and resources

• How do we support/ encourage communities to take part when there's a cost-of-living crisis? Greater priorities at the moment- how do we convince them to invest? (3) (Challenge 2)

From theme: what’s in 30x30

• Not go back to nature - people dichotomy. People are part of nature, so need to be careful that management for nature (only) is not excluding the people within those areas. Bottom-up approach is increasingly advocated at international level. (Challenge 2)
• Balancing conservation with continued land use, access and possible repeopling. (Challenge 3)
• Overly complex language is a barrier (Challenge 7)

From theme: Management

• Tendency to frame other land uses (who produce important resources like food and timber) as the problem rather than part of the solution. Need to avoid outsourcing climate footprint to other countries (4) (Challenge 3)
• Concerns that "traditional" land management practices are challenged by biodiversity delivery e.g. cultural landscapes may be viewed as more important than their potential for wildlife. (Challenge 2)
• Poor infrastructure in rural areas.  Areas not designed to deal with volume of visitors. Old visitor's centres, roads etc - will attract lots of people to sites that haven't had adequate investment, which can cause problems. (Challenge 1)
• Deer management or the lack of sustainable deer management is impinging on a lot of upland designated sites. This nettle needs to be grasped by firm regulation and the political will to reduce deer numbers (Challenge 8)

From theme: policy and legislation

• Is 30x30/NN an opportunity to get greater understanding/buy in from the public in conservation mgt? (Challenge 2)
• How do public bodies better articulate their commitment to 30x30 though their plans/policies/strategies? (Challenge 7)
• Societal issues may be more focussed on immediate issues, such as cost of living and fuel prices etc. (Challenge 2)

There is a noisy and complex policy and legislation landscape which will impact upon the success of 30x30. How will we ensure that current policies are implemented consistently/ correctly and will not hinder protected areas objectives in the future? Stakeholders involved with policy must be provided with sufficient guidance for implementing these policies and associated resources. How do we ensure a balance between too much policy and legislation and too little to ensure the 30x30 is reached efficiently and effectively?

1. Policy/legislation harmony – how can the 30x30 framework ensure that it is clear how policy and legislation work with, not against, each other particularly when determining priorities over a piece of land with simultaneous and/or overlapping regulations?  (e.g., land reform) 
2. How to make sure policy and legislation work fairly, and is implemented consistently, across all forms of land ownership/tenure and truly matches the drivers of [negative] change? 
3. In what way should legislation be stronger (e.g., existing protected areas allow damage/loss in some situations, this would erode the 30%, and what role should enforcement play?) 
4. In what way should legislation be more flexible? How can legislation be made more proactive than reactive? 
5. What do ambitious but realistic targets in policy or legislation look like? How do we make sure that it isn’t lost if some components of 30x30 targets aren’t being achieved? 
6. How can the goals of 30x30, and similar conservation work, be embedded across all relevant policy areas? Eg. How can 30x30 help policy protecting biodiversity becoming as important as climate change mitigation? 
7. What role is there for local policy (e.g., LDPs/LBAPs) and councils, as well as national policy (e.g., NPF4), especially with regards to development. How strong does this need to be? 
8. How can policy and legislation tools be streamlined so perceived bureaucracy and ‘red tape’ is not seen as a barrier to taking action to achieve biodiversity objectives? 
9. In what way can pre-existing strategies/commitments (e.g., agreed LDPs) be updated to bring them into line with current thinking? 

Themes and challenges from the Discovery Workshop

Group 1 – governance

• Managing/prioritising competing Scottish Government policies and targets over the same land (Challenge 1)
• Current schemes are overly selective and exclude many land managers (Challenge 2)
• Scottish Government do not provide a strong enough leadership role to agencies and other partners. (Challenge 3)
• Ensuring an integrated land management systems to support wider ecosystem services (Moved to theme: Management)

Group 1 – legislative

• Stronger but flexible regulatory landscape (Challenge 4)
• Incentives and regulations aligned to objectives of Protected Areas (Part taken forward in Challenge 1, and theme: funding and resources)

Group 2 – policy coherence/ links

• Lots of different strategies affecting land such as Scottish Biodiversity Strategy, Forestry Strategies, NPF4 etc, need to ensure they all address this issue of protecting land for biodiversity (Challenge 1)
• Policy development work needs to define appropriate targets which are viable, feasible, desirable, socially robust, deliver value for money and are resilient and future proofed. In line with targets within indicators and any monitoring framework (Challenge 5)
• Linking up with related policies (e.g. sustainable food production, housing and other land uses); conservation needs to be inbuild in all future policy and legislation. Public funding (e.g. agricultural payments) should only be provided if actions are in line with conservation targets - ideally for 100% of the area (not only 30%). (Challenge 6)
• Competition between different land interests/uses - including how to prioritise (Challenge 1)

Group 3 – process

• Is there enough protection of green space from development? Land currently in the 18% could be lost to development so as well as identifying more land to bring this up to 30% we also need to further protect what we have? (Challenge 3)
• Do we need more protection of the spaces that link conservation sites or important sites that aren't designated so the sites don't become isolated? Can't forget about the other 70%. (Moved to Theme: Management)
• What role for LBAPs? In many LAs these have withered due to no policy or legal incentive and no resources allocated (though they are hanging on in a few LAs. This is a huge missed opportunity and would be a good way of getting/ growing local support and engagement. (Challenge 7)
• Not enough in planning policy to stop green space from being lost. Need more protection? (Challenge 3)
• Already struggling to get designated areas into favourable condition (Moved to ‘What’s included in 30x30)
• Do we need to expand the types and categories of protected sites to be broader and cover more areas? (Moved to Theme: What’s Included in 30x30)
• LNCS If were to be included there would be a notable increase in area. However, these are not protected sites. It would be helpful if these could be elevated and resourced such that they have a statutory footing (obvs would all need reviewed to see if still appropriate) (Moved to Theme: What’s Included in 30x30)
• Are new areas either designated or OECM going to be targeted to buffer existing areas (Moved to Theme: What’s Included in 30x30)

Group 3 – bureaucracy

• Red tape and bureaucracy may need to be streamlined, PDO consent etc. (Challenge 8)
• Commitments in Local Development Plans and strategies that pre-date current biodiversity drives. (Challenge 9)
• Bureaucracy and red tape - unnecessary paperwork / processes / barriers to achieving targets (Challenge 8)

Group 4 – policy and priorities

• National Parks - they are not necessarily delivering for nature (Moved to Theme: What’s Included in 30x30)
• Conflicting Policies (Challenge 1)
• Policy development thus far has heavily focused on carbon sequestration (only, e.g. planting targets), leaving behind other land use policy (Challenge 7)
• Perception/quality challenge - could be a temptation to designate very large areas to meet the target with perception of lower standards (Moved to Theme: What’s Included in 30x30)
• This is linked to delivering outcomes at scale, however it could be argued that this is in conflict with some of the Land Reform language, which is looking to place additional requirements and restrictions on scale (amongst other things) (Challenge 1)
• Challenge to ensure that 30x30 delivers for wider priorities and isn't too focused on area targets (Moved to Theme: Management)
• Trade-offs and policy maturity (Challenge 1)
• Is legislation fit for purpose to achieve 30x30 and NN? (Challenge 4)
• What drives land use change and how can it be influenced (Challenge 2)
• Is 30x30/NN an opportunity to get greater understanding/buy in from the public in conservation management? (Moved to Theme: People)
• Why 30%? This is the global ambition, but is this most appropriate for Scotland? Do we have the evidence to support this? Is it current and relevant? (Challenge 5)
• How do we avoid protected area isolation in the context of land ownership by multiple stakeholders? (Moved to Theme: Management)
• Societal issues may be more focussed on immediate issues, such as cost of living and fuel prices etc. (Moved to Theme: people)
• Barriers - physical and organisational (Each theme will look at their respective barriers)

Group 4 – regulation

• Inconsistent approach to regulation  - 6 votes (Challenge 2)
• Lack of regulatory power and enforcement - 4 votes (Challenge 3)
• Is there enough emphasis on proactive land management within protected areas to benefit ecosystems? - 3 votes (Challenge 5)
• In some areas there may be over-regulation e.g. agriculture has a lot - 2 votes (Challenge 8)

Group 5 – relationship to health, wellbeing, socio-economics

• Consider benefits of aligning 30x30 and nature networks visibly with nature-based solutions to the climate crisis. May help make selling 30x30 easier in political, economic, social terms (Challenge 6)
• What's does the Council's role in 30x30? (Challenge 7))
  • Staff Upskilling/training
  • Funding/resource challenges
  • House building vs area managed for nature?
  • Challenges around requiring developers to increase areas for nature.
  • How to give Council's more power (legislation not there yet)
• How to incorporate Climate Plans and 30x30 - goals go hand in hand (Challenge 6)
• How to manage Council's conflicting agendas that may conflict with 30x30 - danger of becoming people vs nature (Challenge 7)

Group 5 – effectiveness

• Existing designation mechanisms are quite poor for protecting rivers and lochs from wider pressures, such as what's happening in the upstream catchment. There is no provision for designating buffer areas around sites. Perhaps we need additional wider area mechanisms to tackle catchment pressures on protected areas, similar to those we use to tackle nitrogen, where Nitrate Vulnerable Zones can be designated to reduce the loss of nitrogen into receiving waters, groundwaters, the Ythan Estuary, etc. (Moved to Theme: Management)
• Enforcement - what are barriers to use of existing legal powers (e.g. LMOs etc) are these fit for purpose or do they need to be changed? do there need to be more responsibilities on land managers to deliver protected site management e.g through the land reform bill - but would need to be backed up through transformation of rural subsidies to ensure land managers could be paid for certain activities (Challenge 3)
• Create a Scottish Major Landowners Group - a forum for working together to tackle pressures on protected areas at larger scales, more collaborative working, collective funding bids? Is there adequate funding sources to be tapped into here? Does it need to involve private and blended finance? (Moved to theme: Management)
• How will you define effective management and ensure that benefits are equitable? Moved to theme: what’s included in 30x30)
  • How will you integrate longevity?
  • Need to consider how rewilding will be considered within the target
• Ensure that 30x30 and nature networks frameworks are coherent with each other as nature networks will be key to improving our existing designated sites network - buffering and connecting (Two parallel co-design approaches are ensuring that the frameworks are coherent and align)
• Ensure that the focus is on how the 30% can best deliver nature's recovery and protection, not on getting to the % target (Moved to Theme: What’s included in 30x30)
• Effective management key - about quality of sites not just quantity (Moved to Theme: What’s included in 30x30)
• Get what we've got into good condition first and maintain that (Moved to theme: what’s included in 30x30)
• Resources have been a challenge over the past decade - need to have discussions about how to ensure an expanded network is effectively resourced over the long term (Moved to Theme: Funding and Resources)
• Need to tie in with other policy and legal reform, such as ongoing agricultural subsidy reform (and discussions on enhanced conditionality). (Challenge 1)

Group 13 – mainstreaming and aligning policy

• In the same way as action for climate is mainstreamed across Scottish Government and other organisations policies, so should biodiversity loss.  How can this be achieved? (Challenge 6)
• How do we ensure that provisions for 30x30 do not act as blockers to wider environmental policies (e.g., Net Zero)? (Challenge 1)
• How do public bodies better articulate their commitment to 30x30 though their plans/policies/strategies? (Moved to Theme: People)

Group 13 - quality of areas for nature

• How do we set ambitious targets for 30x30 to deliver, but which are achievable on the ground and can demonstrate progress? (Challenge 5)
• Are there implications in wider UK and internationally for any standards set in Scotland for the 30x30 network? (Not specifically taken forward as the simple answer is ‘no’. Good question when it comes to our ‘vision’ and the role we want Scotland to play within the rest of UK and Internationally however).
• How do we ensure site with 30x30 network are connected and function more like a network than a collection of individual ‘island’ sites (Moved to theme: What's included in 30x30)

Youth group (Separate event with Young Scot)

• Inflexible - we don't know what will happen in the future, and maybe we need the land for something particular, but can't if it's protected  (Challenge 4)
• If you can't build a house in an area, might impact housing (Challenge 1)
• Makes it trickier for good transport infrastructure (Challenge 1)

Comments that have been relocated to this theme:

From theme: what’s included in 30x30

• Level of protection for species and habitats (and entire protected areas) e.g. from developments of different types. How will planning and development be managed (e.g. putting wind turbines in a bat migration route). (Challenge 7)
• Ability to protect areas from development, forestry, lack of management, invasive species etc once identified (Challenge 7)
• Difficulty of protecting biodiversity within urban areas due to pressures on land. Development pressure is high within these areas and there can be a tendency to suggest they can be replaced by newly created habitats.  Also attitudes to less neat and tidy areas - areas protected for biodiversity don't fit with this. (Challenge 7)
• Need to maximise protection for nature at landscape scale and in rural and urban areas - there will be a varying need for biodiversity across landscapes. (Challenge 7)
• Planning systems needs to incorporate protected areas but still allow for development where appropriate (Challenge 7)

From theme: Monitoring

• It should not stop in 2030, but there needs to be a future commitment. (Challenge 5)
• How can we set targets which promote action, but are also meaningful for delivery of the 30x30 Vision? (Move to Legislation, Policy & Governance) (Challenge 5)
• How do we make sure that momentum isn’t lost if some components of 30x30 targets aren’t being achieved (i.e., a hole or two in the hull shouldn’t sink the ship)? (Challenge 5)
• Concerned that climate and tree planting targets will eclipse aspirations, or that attempts will be made to deliver for BOTH wildlife and climate on all sites, with wildlife an afterthought overall or just tacked on to carbon projects. (Challenge 6)

From theme: management and governance

• The planning system- where development detrimental to the environment will not be permitted unless there are overriding economic benefits. Economic benefits often seem to override natural heritage value (1) (Challenge 3)
• How do the provisions for positive effects for biodiversity coming out of National Planning Framework 4 mesh with the requirements for the 30x30 network? (Challenge 1)

Possessing accurate, easily accessible, and up to date data is essential for ensuring we understand the effectiveness of protection, in a changing environment, and that the 30x30 target is contributing to bending the curve on biodiversity decline. We must learn from the past to ensure successful data management in the future. How will this succeed when similar projects have failed in the past? What forms of monitoring are required to measure success and the changing environment? 

1. What form does monitoring need to take (species, features, ecosystem health, ecosystem services, Climate change indicators) to ensure it is truly measuring success and is able to be carried out at such a rate to continue to inform management in a changing environment? 
2. Current monitoring doesn’t keep up to requirements, being carried out too infrequently to inform management and arguably not always measuring the correct things. How do we ensure that the 30x30 target and framework helps, rather than hinders, this with the ambitious expansion proposed by 30x30? 
3. How, at what scale, and by whom, should 30x30 progress be monitored, ensuring results of actions are fed back into management in a timely manner? 
4. How can the framework address additional burden on landowner & managers if the standard of monitoring and management have to satisfy international scrutiny? 
5. Positive behavioural change will underpin much of the action that is needed, how can the social sciences be used to measure and record the effectiveness of measures taken? (Question taken from the Protected Areas review) 
6. How can we ensure there is accurate baseline data, both for identifying new sites quickly and at scale, but also in assessing the suitability of existing contributors towards the 17% (is biodiversity actually benefiting from what we’re currently including and planning to add)? 
7. How can the framework help address lack of access to adequate and up-to-date data for areas of importance, migration routes, connectivity? 
8. How can better use be made of existing data sets to be able to compare the status of nature within and outwith protected areas? (from SAC review)

Themes and challenges from the Discovery Workshop

Group 2 – data quality and availability

• Access to adequate and up-to date data to identify those areas that are of importance for biodiversity, especially in remote areas (Challenge 7)
• Knowledge gap (baseline data), e.g., regarding bat migration routes, to inform connectivity & management requirements. (Challenge 7)
• Up to date knowledge of what is actually on sites. e.g. We have SPA designation for hen harriers but no one knows if they are actually on site as we don't have the staff to undertake site surveys. (or potentially Challenge 7)

Group 3 – future proofing

• How do we ensure that PA are protected from more global pressures such as pollution or managed to mitigate climate change where possible (Moved to theme: management)
• if this 30% is going to meet an international commitment, the standards of management and monitoring are going to have to be high enough to be scrutinised and this adds to the burden on land managers and government (Challenge 4)
• Concerned that climate and tree planting targets will eclipse aspirations, or that attempts will be made to deliver for BOTH wildlife and climate on all sites, with wildlife an afterthought overall or just tacked on to carbon projects. (Moved to theme: policy & legislation)

Group 3 – monitoring and knowledge

• Lack of expertise in large land owners / managers on how to manage land more effectively. Can we improve access to expertise? Is there potential to have it clearly defined what is expected or minimum standards of managing certain types of land? (Moved to theme: Funding & Resources)
• What are we actually going to monitor - biodiversity - if so which species or ecosystem health - if so, what do we mean by this? (Challenge 1)
• Current monitoring of sites is ad hoc? How will we know or measure if we are improving? Need to look after / manage current sites more effectively? Shouldn't just focus on more sites but also quality of sites. (Challenge 1)
• How do we finance monitoring and management? (Move to theme: Funding & Resources)
• More advice may need to be available on the conservation management of land...this needs resourcing (Move to theme: Funding & Resources)
• Monitoring / evaluation - How do we determine levels of biodiversity? No roll out of biodiversity net gain approach in Scotland. Would metrics help and if not, how are successful outcomes measured? What else needs to be measured? Carbon sequestration etc... (Challenge 1)
• How do you measure success? i.e., what are the PAs are delivering? Defining what PAs are meant to deliver (Challenge 1)
• Management of protected areas, monitoring and control. (Challenge 1)
• Monitoring not keeping up with current requirements - how are we going to monitor 20% more? (Challenge 2)
• How do you measure ecosystem health? This terminology used a lot in the SBS consultation. (Challenge 2)
• Current monitoring of protected areas not working well, so needs revising as area increases (Challenge 2)
• If carbon and ecosystem services are going to be part of the success criteria it needs a lot of research to pin down metrics for anything other than peat for woodland creation and peat restoration which have been done (Challenge 1)
• Do we have enough baseline data to identify possible new sites? (Moved to theme@ what’s included)
• Current lack of resources for monitoring success and maintenance of protected areas (M Moved to theme: Funding & Resources)

Group 5 – baselines

• need clarity on the baseline - there is no way the current 17% baseline is managed for nature, even if it is subject to protective designation (challenge 6)

Group 13 – monitoring and evaluation

• Who monitors the results of establishing the 30x30 network and ensuring the results of action/progress are fed back in to the process to improve management of the network? (Challenge 3)
• How can we set targets which promote action, but are also meaningful for delivery of the 30x30 Vision? (Move to theme: Policy & legislation)
• How do we make sure that momentum isn’t lost if some components of 30x30 targets aren’t being achieved (i.e., a hole or two in the hull shouldn’t sink the ship)? (Move to theme: Policy & legislation)

Comments that have been relocated to this theme:

From theme: funding and resources

• SSSI monitoring seems to be carried out very infrequently... a better monitoring system seems to be needed...is that going to be properly resourced. (Moved to theme data and monitoring) (Challenge 2)

From theme: Management and governance

• How to make this successful where similar ideas have failed/had issues (e.g., Natura 2000) - what hasn't worked in the past and why? How do we take that knowledge and transfer it into effective, sustainable work in the future? Including things like data management  (Challenge 4)

From theme: what’s included in 30x30

• Ongoing monitoring to check success of sites - e.g., of protective measures (Challenge 1)

From theme: Funding and resources

• There is a lack of a clear, robust biodiversity baseline across Scotland. We have the Farming with Nature project in development but it needs to be rolled out more widely, more quickly (5) (Challenge 7)