Framework for 30 by 30 in Scotland

Challenges and barriers identified

• Variety of designation types and legislation on protected and conserved areas creates a complex and confusing landscape, with overlapping designation types, and differing objectives and requirements, often across the same areas.
• The protection and regulatory instruments designated sites currently receive often doesn’t reflect or address the pressures.
• Current approach is highly inflexible making changes to sites, to allow them to adapt or perform better for biodiversity, difficult and slow.
• Designation and governance of sites has historically been very top-down in approach with limited ability for local representation both in the identification of sites but also the continued decision making over how they are managed.

Taking on the challenge

To ensure protected areas are able to deliver, we must first be sure the level of protection legally afforded to them is appropriate.  As part of the 30 by 30 implementation process, the key pressures driving decline in protected areas’ health, and the legislative remedies that could be applied to strengthen the existing measures, will be considered. Measures need to be able to address issues such as how we can drive positive management, restoration and how to prevent a lack of appropriate management, or direct mismanagement. Identified obstacles from current protected areas can help inform whether new policies or legislative changes are required to enhance the effectiveness of our approach. This will be done in conjunction with looking at recommendations from existing reviews undertaken at the Scotland, UK and EU levels.

To help tackle the current complicated and layered protected areas system, simplification is proposed to improve accessibility and understanding, while ensuring no reduction to the level of protection that any site is currently afforded. Environmental Standards Scotland have a role to play in ensuring any proposed changes do not diminish levels of protection on sites. This review will also look at how the legislative landscape can better deal with, and where warranted, penalise or remove any incentives to poor or damaging management.

For OECMs, in developing the means of assured long-term delivery of conservation, it will be necessary to build in similar safeguards to that of protected areas. As self-nominated areas that meet eligibility criteria are brought into area-based conservation, there will need to be a clear route for the removal of status from any site where effective management is not being continued in the agreed manner.

This regulation will work together with incentives, such as recognition of good practice and financial support, further explored below.

Community participation in identifying 30 by 30 sites is vital. Given the significance of stakeholder involvement in such a bottom-up approach, adequate resources must be allocated to the site identification and governance process to enable active, transparent, and meaningful engagement from the outset. This will facilitate bottom-up action, resulting in sustainable, resilient, and effective management with long-lasting impacts.

Encouraging and facilitating a bottom-up approach to site selection will be paired with oversight and input from NatureScot to ensure designation is strategic and works at a national and landscape scale. These sites must be ecologically diverse and representative of key habitat types and supporting multiple species. They will encourage natural processes and ecological complexity and function rather than focussing on creating a static environment. This will include traditional nature-friendly land management methods that are responsible for many of Scotland’s semi-natural ecosystems that are important for biodiversity (e.g. species-rich grasslands). Both for new sites and existing, we will have due regard to the bigger, better and more connected principles where appropriate, to reduce fragmentation and help facilitate landscape scale working. There will be a proactive pipeline process of prospective sites, with clear and understandable criteria for consideration, and oversight of progress on what is currently, and what will be in the future, included. This pipeline will be a driver of restoration for land across Scotland.

Having a centralised overview over what the suite of 30 by 30 sites are delivering will guarantee that rare and vulnerable habitats and species are not overlooked. Such an approach will allow for a clearer more strategic approach to land use and management at the site and landscape level. 

To ensure longevity, it is essential to make 30 by 30 sites and our strategies towards them adaptable for the future. This means moving from a default position of preserving each site in its designated state, to exploring ways to optimise their individual and collective contributions for nature and people, amidst change. Ensuring that all sites are contributing to biodiversity is vital, and thus, the ability to assess their importance is vital. The procedure for modifying these sites must be trustworthy, mutually accepted, transparent, strategic and take into consideration the unique needs and objectives of individual sites. This may entail exploring options for legislative modifications that can facilitate this, along with changes in the management of these areas (as discussed below).

• Area-based conservation will provide adequate protection or conservation to the area of importance it covers
• The approach to 30 by 30 sites will be simple, clear, transparent and flexible in governance and application.
• Approaches to the selection and objectives of 30 by 30 sites will be strategic, forward-looking and dynamic.

Next steps

• The governance and pipeline system will be set up in the year following the framework publication.
• The criteria, means of long-term assurance and route for identification and recognition of OECMs in Scotland will be developed collaboratively and published
• Through the proposed Natural Environment Bill, opportunities will be sought to overcome current weaknesses and improve on existing protected area designations or new area-based conservation measures.

Challenges and barriers identified

• Potential tensions over conflicting land uses depending on land managers’ economic, environmental and social priorities that will need to be considered and balanced.
• Pressures on sites do not respect designation boundaries making isolated site management difficult and less effective.
• Management that contributes to the landscape scale is often difficult and resource heavy to organise as it crosses land boundaries and owners.

Taking on the challenge

Effective management of 30 by 30 sites is crucial for achieving their objective and providing the maximum contribution towards nature recovery and is highlighted as a critical component in delivering the 30 by 30 target in the GBF text. 

To achieve greater biodiversity benefits, we must adopt forward-looking and holistic approaches to management of sites that promote the delivery of ecological health and complexity. By considering the changing nature of our environment, including the effects of climate change, we can determine when to resist change, accept it or facilitate it. With the right management in place, sites both individually and collectively, can better adapt and continue to effectively deliver for biodiversity in the long term, while also benefiting rare and vulnerable species.

Similarly, for management to be effective it must not be viewed in isolation, but as part of an adaptive management cycle, clearly linked to desired outcomes and monitoring for an area. Broadly such management will fall within one of three categories; enhance, restore or maintain depending on the current state of the area.

The outcomes for an area must also be clearly defined in collaboration with, and clearly understood by, those individuals, communities, or businesses identified as having the primary role in managing the land to deliver these outcomes. This collaboration may be at the regional scale covering a suite of sites facing similar pressures. Communication must be tailored to those groups responsible for enacting them.

Effective management requires operating at the appropriate scales, informed by the pressures being felt. Key pressures, such as grazing and invasive non-native species (INNS), often demand landscape-scale management. To tackle these challenges, management strategies should involve cross-boundary collaboration and long-term management approaches, with funding streams that align with the necessary timescales and access to the adequate expert advice and information.

In our rapidly changing environment, some management interventions will have uncertain outcomes. Therefore, it is crucial to have robust monitoring systems in place that can provide valuable feedback for making informed management decisions. This approach ensures a better understanding of cause and effect, improving the effectiveness of management strategies.

Effective management also requires that the biodiversity crisis, and the role protected and conserved areas play in combatting it, is recognised across policy areas and sectors. This will be achieved through policy alignment where government funded policies with the potential to fund damaging management, as well as ‘loopholes’ in policies, are eliminated. To achieve this will require adequate understanding/training of government staff. Replacement of the Common Agricultural Policy with a bespoke model for Scotland and reform of the Forestry Grant Schemes in Scotland being aligned with the goals of 30 by 30 is key given their significant impacts on landscapes and biodiversity.

Where protected area legislation, policy, or other mechanisms such as conservation burdens, do not address the negative impacts on biodiversity from a lack of management or fails to satisfactorily address poor or damaging management then this must be addressed to put adequate provisions are in place.

The transformational change required in land management requires there is adequate training, awareness raising and clear guidance for practitioners, government regulatory and advisory bodies plus financial resources to support. This should be twinned with a recognition/ accreditation system to encourage a ‘pull through’ approach to changes in management whereby individuals or organisations leading the way on good management are recognised, rewarded and are able to act as champions within their own sectors to drive positive change. Wherever possible, delivery of 30 by 30 should actively support efforts to fulfil this principle.

• Management must be adaptive, dynamic, and responsive, operating at the necessary scales (spatially and temporally).
• The policy and legislative landscape which shapes management in Scotland will be integrated and coherent and better reflect the value of biodiversity to all of Scotland.
• Those responsible for the management of Scotland’s land will be empowered to work collaboratively and equipped with skills needed to champion good management within their own sectors

Next steps

• NatureScot to identify and work with land owners/managers interested in managing their land, to the benefit of biodiversity, in innovative ways.
• Continue work on improving management effectiveness taking into consideration an Ecosystem Health approach to site monitoring and possibilities to better utilise management agreements.
• Where required, seek to use the Natural Environment Bill to close gaps or improve on management of important areas for biodiversity in Scotland.  

Challenges and barriers identified

• Existing funding streams are short lived and often inaccessible
• Funding is too short-term and targeted to implementation and does not support the lifetime of projects (from inception to ongoing management and monitoring)
• There is a significant finance gap that needs filling 

Taking on the challenge

Although new technologies and improved work methods can enhance efficiency, managing a minimum of 30% of Scotland for nature effectively will require considerable resources. These can be broken down into three broad elements, with individual sites requiring two or more aspect to be resourced; restoration work, ongoing management and monitoring. To meet these resource needs will involve a combination of public and private funding, integrating with other Policy drivers, and capitalising on the link to nature-based solutions and natural capital revenue streams.

To achieve 30 by 30, it is crucial to establish a funding mechanism that effectively delivers the necessary resources. A harmonious integration of public and private financing can facilitate the injection of additional funds while preventing duplicate payments for the same activities and outcomes, thus ensuring cost-effectiveness. As the most important areas for biodiversity, current and potential 30 by 30 sites will be recognised as a priority and attract a premium with regards to investment and support. It is hoped that increased commitment of financial support, will encourage landowners and managers to propose their sites for 30 by 30 consideration.

As part of the developing Biodiversity Investment Plan as outlined in the SBS Delivery Plan, we will work with the emerging markets to facilitate the adoption of this. The development of further private finance for 30 by 30 sites, as core elements of Scotland’s Nature Networks, will be based on the principles for responsible investment in natural capital.

We must not look to simply increase funds available, but also ensure that money is spent efficiently and effectively. Funding models must be designed to ensure better accessibility and spread, including fairness and equitability, and so supporting a just transition within the approach, notably:

• Regional fairness – throughout the process of identifying sites right through to funding any management needed for these sites, it is important to acknowledge that to reverse the decline in biodiversity across Scotland relies on effort and funds being put in to each geographic area of Scotland, islands and mainland, rural and urban in a manner proportionate to the ecological need within the respective area. Links to restoration work, such as landscape restoration areas through the SBS Delivery Plan being utilised.             
• Habitat/species fairness – it is important that funding is not disproportionately directed towards particular habitats, such as those with more obvious carbon offsetting benefits, but benefits all biodiversity and drives the greatest level of biodiversity recovery.
• A fair application process – care must be taken to not exclude from funds those people who are best placed to action change (e.g. tenant farmers) or produce a higher burden on those operating in protected areas. 

This will be achieved through participation of stakeholders in the design of future fund processes, including those who are end users and have historically experienced difficulty in accessing funding, and the recognition that decisions on funding need to be made at the appropriate level. Funding will also need to facilitate, and actively reward, working collaboratively and across boundaries fashion to achieve the landscape scale interventions and connectivity needed.

Existing or new funds (e.g. Agri-Environment Climate Scheme, Infrastructure Fund, Forestry Grant) with clear potential to impact on 30 by 30 sites or the landscape they sit within, must be developed and adapted to complement and work with, and not operate in isolation of, or in conflict to, 30 by 30. Creating better coherence across departments and sectors will ensure the most value for money spent and prevent unintended perverse consequences.

• Established and prospective 30 by 30 sites will be considered as priorities for funding and investment.
• Public and private funding and finance will be delivered through properly resourced, clearly directed, long-term, simple and accessible means. 
• Funding and finance will based on the principles of fairness, trust and transparency through collaborative working.
• Build and maintain coherence in statutory and public funding.

Next steps

• The Scottish Government promote such coherence as the head of such bodies and the administrator of funds to them, so ensuring NatureScot can work with other funders to create complementary approaches.
• NatureScot will look to those funds we administer, as well as funds that we provide via management agreements, to ensure they are compatible with the principles in this framework.
• NatureScot will seek to influence new funding streams linked to areas of work where we have a remit, such as the new rural support mechanisms, to encourage them to have the flexibility to support 30 by 30 management.

Challenges and barriers identified

• Current protected area system too complex with inaccessible language and tier systems making it difficult to engage with unless you work in the sector
• Perceptions are currently centred on restrictions and what you can’t do on protected sites, rather than what their purpose and benefits are.

Taking on the challenge

To ensure that the public, landowners and managers understand the purpose and value of 30 by 30 sites, a simple and unified message is needed that makes clear the benefits they deliver. Through a wider national campaign on Nature Networks, a positive narrative will be built around 30 by 30 sites, with accessible and inclusive language and terminology, raising awareness of the benefits these areas provide, and building a sense of guardianship between people and their local areas.

30 by 30 sites will make up the core areas of Scotland’s wider Nature Network. Partners involved in the management and ownership of 30 by 30 sites will be supported through the Nature Network Toolbox to develop clear, common messaging. This will allow those visiting or using the sites to understand the purpose, value and role of such sites in Scotland’s wider Nature Network and for Scotland's biodiversity, climate and people.

A unified message, with shared framing and language, across sites will help address partisans between organisations’ brands and image, and help link the local to the national to the international. Sites will utilise opportunities to build in cultural participation and ownership, defining peoples’ role in that, and explore how sites can be valuable educational resources to build nature connection with people.

Across the board, collaboration is vital to the success of 30 by 30. This includes between landowners and managers to ensure landscape scale partnership and change, but also in community engagement and support. Therefore, proactive, meaningful and inclusive communication and engagement will be built into all 30 by 30 site management. Although management outcomes may be predefined, the method or approach to achieving the desired outcome should be flexible and adaptable in response to engagement, balancing top-down targets and definitions with genuine participation fostering a sense of responsibility and ownership over a space.

We will work with local communities, sectors, and landowners and managers to ensure that those people able to make the most impact understand the importance of their contribution and their responsibilities

As part of their Biodiversity Duty and recognising the benefits of biodiversity from protected and conserved areas are considered a public good, it is expected that all public bodies will assess their land ownership and current management practices to identify potential areas that can aid in achieving the 30 by 30 target.

• The value of 30 by 30 sites for nature and people is clear.
• Collaboration is key.
• Land owning public bodies will manage their land to contribute towards 30 by 30.

Next steps

• NatureScot to develop a positive, simple and engaging narrative for 30 by 30 through the wider national campaign on Nature Networks.
• NatureScot to work with other public bodies to review their land holdings, in line with their Biodiversity Duty, to review their landholdings and contribution towards both 30 by 30 and Nature Networks as well as measures necessary to ensure public body participation.

Challenges and barriers identified

• Current monitoring approach is under-resourced and suffers from inefficiencies, often lacking the necessary focus and frequency with existing information and data sources, for multiple reasons, underutilised.
• Monitoring data is not well designed for providing sufficient information for effective land management decisions with the relationship between monitoring, management, and outcomes often not clear enough. 
• Focus on features does not provide a comprehensive picture of an area’s overall health and benefits.
• Landscape-scale pressures are poorly captured through the inward-looking approach to monitoring.

Taking on the challenge

A clear monitoring strategy will be developed that identifies Scotland’s data needs ensuring data sources, existing or new, are well integrated, incorporated and fully utilised allowing for gaps to be identified. Monitoring will shift from purely feature focussed monitoring of sites, to one that considers ecosystem health alongside data on species and habitats.

In response to the increased area to be monitored, and in the interest of using resources efficiently, new and existing technologies for monitoring will be fully exploited. A blended approach using active (e.g. ecological surveys carried out by people) and passive (e.g. the use of technological solutions) monitoring sources will increase the efficacy of protected and conserved area monitoring.

The purpose and use of data collected from monitoring will be clear, and ensure that it informs actions necessary to improve ecological health and complexity, such as dealing with pressures and drivers of change, thereby closing the loop between monitoring, management and outcomes.

To ensure effectiveness and efficiency, where new monitoring methodology is required, this will be designed with the target groups who will be responsible for data collection and/or carrying out action on the ground informed by the data collected. Recognising the importance of monitoring data being used to inform management decisions, it is important data collected is communicated back out to all relevant groups in a manner that is accessible for the end user.

Any reporting requirements needed will add value and contribute towards the objectives of 30 by 30 sites.

• Monitoring should prioritise the identification and assessment of the most important factors for maintaining the health and resilience of 30 by 30 sites, while also taking into account gaps in knowledge.
• Monitoring will be designed with stakeholders, and for stakeholders, to ensure it iterative and informs ongoing and adaptive land management decisions.
• Monitoring will use a combination of traditional methods and emerging technologies, with a focus on maximising the efficiency and effectiveness of data collection and analysis, while also ensuring that data quality and accuracy are maintained.
• Monitoring must meet national and international reporting obligations.

Next steps

• NatureScot will collaboratively develop an Ecosystem Health approach to area-conservation monitoring with an aim for such an approach to be in place by 2025/26.
• The 30 by 30 project to take advantage of, and support, the Better Biodiversity Data project.

Challenges and barriers identified

• Protected areas are currently not well integrated across other sectors and their policies, this results in them being overlooked or unable to have their needs taken into consideration.
• Existing policy and legislation does not always promote fairness nor is it implemented consistently.
• Existing policy and legislation can both lack the strength/power required but also be inflexible and act as a barrier to taking action to achieve biodiversity objectives

Taking on the challenge and next steps

As discussed at various points throughout this framework the success of 30 by 30 relies on the 30 by 30 sites being able to deliver on their goals. How easy or difficult this will be is, in large, dictated by how well integrated these areas are into the landscapes within which they sit and the way this land is used and managed.

Outputs from this theme have been incorporated into the preceding themes with policy and mainstreaming requirements embedded into the specific areas of work where they logically fit. When considering policy, legislation, and mainstreaming development the outputs of the workshops on this theme will be a valuable resource to inform further discussions with stakeholders.

A detailed list of the policy landscape 30 by 30 sits within, and requires integration to, can be found in Annex 2. With 30 by 30 sites making up the core areas of Nature Networks, as Nature Networks are mainstreamed within policy so too shall 30 by 30 (see the Nature Networks Framework for more on policy).

The 30x30 and Nature Networks frameworks sought to follow a co-design approach in their design and development. This highly collaborative process saw stakeholders from across Scotland work together to design the frameworks that will lead to us reaching 30% of land protected for nature by 2030 and the roll out of Nature Networks. Due to their interlinked nature, the two frameworks were co-designed in tandem. Overall, the co-design process engaged 316 people from 130 organisations and groups. 

 What is a co-design approach?

Co-design is a design-led process that uses creative and participatory methods. In this context, it is when an organisation and stakeholders work together to design or rethink a service, policy or project.  

Co-design is often mistakenly used as an umbrella term for all forms of user involvement. However, while consultation and feedback mechanisms seek advice and opinions from users, co-design allows us to design services in close collaboration. 

By using a co-design approach, NatureScot looks to identify and address challenges collaboratively, by working with one or more stakeholders in the private, public and voluntary sector, and citizens. The core objective of co-design is to move away from consulting with stakeholders to co-creating services and policies with them. Co-design principles and methods can be applied throughout the whole project or programme cycle. This can include collaboration in terms of the design, production, planning, implementation, delivery, and evaluation of services and policies. The process is iterative, meaning the output, whether a service, project or policy remains representative of those involved in the co-design process. 

Co-design principles

There are many ways in which co-design can be delivered and it is not one size fits all. There are, however, a number of key principles that need to be followed to ensure co-design is enacted.  

Some key principles include;  

• Openness through inclusion, transparency, and use of shared language  
• Equal value is given to expertise by lived experience and expertise by profession or education  

• Respect and trust between all participants with shared decision-making power 

Co-design model

The 30x30 and Nature Network projects used the Double Diamond design model to inform the co-design approach. The Double Diamond is a visual representation of the design and innovation process, dividing the process into four phases;  

Discover: explore the problem or challenge, building understanding amongst participants  

Define: clearly define the challenge  

Develop: explore and develop multiple potential solutions  

Deliver: select a single solution(s) and prepare for implementation 

Launch event 

The Discover phase was launched in June 2022 with a 30x30 and Nature Networks webinar. This first phase helps people understand, rather than simply assume, what the problem is that we are looking to address. This event set the scene by introducing the challenge, context, and parameters we were working within.  The event asked interested parties who attended to start thinking creatively and ambitiously about what 30x30 and Nature Networks could look like. The launch event was attended by 131 stakeholders from 45 organisations with speakers from across the nature-based sector. 

When asked in the initial opening event, the majority of stakeholders expressed interest in contributing to the project through workshops, therefore the primary method for this co-design process was through a series of workshops, hosted online to ensure the best level of accessibility.  

Discovery workshop

It was important to apply a participatory approach not only to problem-solving or idea-generating but also when defining the challenge to ensure we are uncovering and solving the “right” problem and true needs.  The closing of the Discover phase and beginning of the Define phase was achieved through the Discovery Workshop. This workshop brought together 98 participants from 78 organisations, this time delving deeper into the two projects separately to identify present challenges. After an introduction, participants, or co-creators, worked in either a 30x30 or Nature Networks breakout group of eight to 10 members and two NatureScot facilitators. Co-creators explored the issues and challenges they face in relation to 30x30 and Nature Networks and defined them down into key challenge themes. These themes formed the based for the next iteration of solution-based workshops. 

Themed solution-based workshops

Moving into the second stage of the Double Diamond, the solution-based workshops looked to again explore the potential ‘solutions’ possible, and together, defined and decided the solutions to feature in the frameworks. These solutions were in the form of high-level principles that would need to feature in the frameworks in order to combat the current challenges and ensure we reach our 30x30 and Nature Networks ambitions. A total of 87 participants, from 59 organisations, formed 14 workshops.

NatureScot also facilitated bespoke discussions with organisations or communities who reached out. This included a youth-focused event run in partnership with YoungScot, and events with Planning Aid Scotland and The Heather Trust. 

In the interest of transparency and openness, all workshop details and outputs feature on the NatureScot website along with a method for those who weren’t able to attend to input. As the Develop phase moved to Deliver, the core 30x30 and Nature Network team within NatureScot drafted the framework based on the workshop outputs. An iterative process took place, reviewing and refining the framework before it went out to public consultation. Both frameworks also benefited from a ‘sense-check group’ of key stakeholders. The role of the group was to have those who have an overview of the policy and practice landscape, flag if there were any issues resulting from the workshops.  

The purpose of OECMs is the same as that of protected areas; to provide long-term and effective conservation of biodiversity in the areas they cover. OECMs look to conserve areas of equal importance for biodiversity, but in a different way. The use of OECMs is complementary to traditional protected areas, providing another tool in the conservation tool box.

OECMs are an effective mechanism to diversify management and governance of conservation areas, providing an opportunity to bring in new models of underrepresented governance structures. They look to bring more areas under long term conservation, in a bottom-up approach, by distributing and sharing the responsibility for protecting biodiversity amongst a broader coalition of stakeholders.

Rather than long term protection and conservation brought about through legislation and formal designation, like traditional protected areas (PA) in Scotland (such as SSSIs and SPAs), for OECMs, this long term assurance instead comes through legal or contractual agreements. This can be thought of as Protected Areas achieving biodiversity conservation through intent, while OECMs achieve it through outcome, but ultimate resulting in the same goal.

An OECM cannot be recognised and reported on by Scottish Government or NatureScot without the free, prior, and informed consent of the governing body/ies of the area it would cover.

Defining an OECM

The definition of an OECM, to be used in Scotland, will follow that from the IUCN WCPA guidance as summarised below;

• The area must be clearly geographically defined with a mapped (GIS) boundary that will be made available to be hosted on the national protected and conserved areas public database. For Scotland this is SiteLink.
• Like Protected Areas, at least 75% of the area covered by the OECM will, at the time of recognition, be important for biodiversity* and therefore contribute to Scotland achieving the 30 by 30 target.
• The area must not already be recognised and reported as a protected area. In Scotland this is taken to mean; a SSSI, European site, Ramsar site or NNR.
• There must be a clear governance entity in place for the proposed OECM, this could fall within one of three main categories (in practice there may often be mixed governance);
  1. Government at various levels (e.g. public bodies such as Scottish Water, SEPA, Forest and Land Scotland, Scottish Government Rural Payments and Inspections Directorate, Ministry of Defence or Local Authorities)
  2. Private individuals, organisations, or companies
  3. Local communities

• The area to be included must be managed in such a way that achieves positive and sustained long-term biodiversity conservation outcomes. The purpose of the management does not have to be specifically for the biodiversity, for who the benefit may be ancillary or secondary, but must result in positive, sustained outcomes for biodiversity.
• There must be a long-term guarantee provided by the OECM. For Scotland, we look for this to be no less than 30 years. Agreements of significantly longer periods, or in perpetuity, are encouraged and favoured.
• The area to be included should be of a sufficient size to achieve long-term conservation of ecosystems, habitats, and species’ communities on site.
• Whilst there is no explicit requirement for monitoring of OECMs in the IUCN guidance, the requirement for them to be effective (achieving conservation outcomes) and adaptive (in management) will necessitate an appropriate and proportionate level of monitoring.

*Important for biodiversity means areas that are identified as Key Biodiversity Areas (KBAs) or some combination of Important Plant Area (IPA), Important Bird Area (IBA), Important Insect Area (IIA), Gene Conservation Units (GCUs). (See 30 by 30 framework or IUCN guidance box 4 for further break down).

What an OECM isn't

The most frequent confusion over what could qualify as an OECM is in regards to areas that are being sustainably used (e.g. areas under agriculture, aquaculture, fisheries, and forestry) and practicing biodiversity friendly practices.

Whilst contributing towards Target 10 of the Global Biodiversity Framework, these areas will often not qualify as OECMs as the balance of land use will remain too heavily skewed towards human activities – for example intensively farmed areas with low levels of pesticide use and small set aside areas or, forestry which retains a large proportion of non-native species and a large scale felling schedule. As such they are unlikely to meet the criteria of being important for biodiversity. Conversely, as suggested by the IUCN, an area of native grassland, dominated by native plants, and having healthy populations of a large variety of native birds and mammals, may constitute becoming an OECM if a lower-intensity management and governance regime ensures these outcomes over the long-term.

A simplified potential process for recognising OECMs

Identifying and recognising OECMs in Scotland

Step 1) Ensuring transparency and integrity of OECMs

Establish an OECM working group, with representation of relevant stakeholder groups likely to be involved in the governance of such sites (government bodies, land owners and managers, NGOs, academia), to explore and agree the details of the process.

Step 2) Identifying potential OECMs

NatureScot will carry out an initial exercise in identifying potential OECM approaches (see box 1) in Scotland. This will be;

1. an assessment of existing land management and ownership styles where there is a clear legal, managerial, or contractual route in place that could lead to assured governance,
2. an assessment of proposed areas which currently do not have a governance system in place, where a bespoke governance structure would be allowed and is needed.

Step 3) Identifying potential sites

NatureScot, with help from the OECM working group, will identify potential sites for OECMs by mapping areas important for biodiversity over land identified as having potential governance as an OECM from Step 2.

Step 4) Consent

Work with the land owners and/or managers to obtain consent to further look at the viability of their land. Particularly in the early stages, an effort will be made to gain consent for a selection of sites under different ownership, management, and uses.

Step 5) Assessment

Assess the selection of sites against a Site-Level Assessment Tool. This may be the IUCN OECMs Site-Level Assessment Tool or a version adapted for Scotland’s needs. It is unlikely most areas in Scotland will initially meet all the criteria and qualify as OECMs without additional action. This step will involve NatureScot working closely with the governing parties of the potential sites to establish, at each stage within the assessment tool process, any necessary changes, measures, or support that would be needed to meet the criteria.

Working with a variety of stakeholders across multiple sectors will allow NatureScot to understand the common measures and support that are required as well as the specificities that will be needed within individual sectors. By doing so, the basic standards can be identified and clearly defined, allowing more efficient and effective uptake of future OECMs.

Step 6) Verification

For those sites that have passed through the Site-Level Assessment Tool, with agreement they meet the criteria, and the owner and/or manager wishes it to be recognised as such, there will be a verification process of the appropriateness of the site via an ‘external source’. This is most likely to be a sub-panel of the OECM working group.

Initial sites will help to define the Scotland specific standards for individual requirements, with early work informing formalised guidance via the working group. External verification is considered an important step for OECMs to address perception of them being an ‘easy route’ for increasing a countries coverage towards the 30 by 30 target, without contributing to true biodiversity benefits. In cases where, for whatever reason, the land owner/manager does not wish to work extensively with the Government, or its associated bodies, this allows for a large part of the process to be free from their input.

Step 7) Recognition and Reporting

For sites that have been verified as meeting the OCEM criteria, NatureScot will, where asked, formally recognise sites as such. At this stage they will begin to contribute towards Scotland’s obligations under Target 3 of the GBF (30 by 30). They will be entered onto our internal database and the sites’ boundary and summary information be made publically available via SiteLink. This will in turn result in the site being included, for the duration of the agreed period of the OECM, in Scotland’s reporting to international databases such as the World Database of OECMs or World Database on Protected Areas.

Promoting and retaining OECMs in Scotland

Step 8) Promotion

Whilst it will not be a pre-requisite for inclusion in the OECM assessment and recognition process, participants will be actively encouraged to promote the contribution they are making towards nature in Scotland, particularly within their own sectors. If there is an appetite, the use of some form of official accreditation badge can be explored.

Step 9) Monitoring and reporting

Authorities responsible for OECMs should ensure that adequate monitoring is undertaken of the effectiveness of management to ensure long-term conservation outcomes. The working group will explore monitoring and reporting actions to ensure OECMs are successfully achieving their aim. If it is found that the OECM is no longer adhering to the criteria, the recognition will be removed.

Note:  This annex is illustrative and is not an exhaustive list of cross-policy areas which relate to nature restoration.