Nature Network themed workshops

What makes up a Nature Network? What is their purpose, how and where are will they be implemented and by whom? Are they uniform across the country, or do some have different priorities-based dependant circumstances? 

1. What is a nature network? Definitions and terminology 
2. What is their purpose? To protect, conserve, restore, regenerate, delivery multiple benefits? 
3. Who and how do we select where they go and ensure a diverse array of habitats? 
4. How flexible will it be? Will sites come and go? Will they have hard line or blurred? How to build ecological resilience to pressures? 
5. Does a Nature Network set priority actions? Will there be criteria or restrictions? 
6. How will they work at different scales? Local, regional, national, international? 
7. What does success look like? How to build system clarity and resilience? 
8. Does offsetting have a role to play, and if so, what? 

Themes and challenges from the Discovery Workshop

Group 8 – Network scale and design

• Need to recognise that Nature Networks need to work at a variety of scales: a network that works for sea eagles is largely irrelevant to bumblebees (Challenge 6)
• How do we maintain/protect our nature network in the longer term. (Moved to theme: Governance)
• Presumably the nature network can remain fluid (with sites coming and going) as long as the network remains functional (?), but what do we have to do to make sure it is not eroded and connectivity lost over the longer term. (Challenge 4)
• How much nature network is enough? How do we set goals for the area, connectivity habitat types & quality etc... of our nature networks (Challenge 7)
• How will we work at regional scales to ensure nature networks in different local areas (e.g. local authority areas) link together? (Moved to theme: Governance)
• How do you ensure Nature Networks are made of a diverse array of habitats and blue and green infrastructure (Challenge 3)
• How large does a nature network have to be meaningful? (Challenge 7)
• Funding for new monitoring, curating existing datasets and bringing them together
  Countrywide view of nature networks- (Moved to theme: Finance and resources) how do we ensure we have a good balance of different habitats and networks at a country wide scale? (Moved to theme: Data, mapping, monitoring)

Group 10 – working at scale

• We need to work at scale across multiple landownerships - who may not have common objectives (7 votes) (Moved to theme: Land Management and Ownership)
• Lack of Funding for landholdings to work together at scale so they are incentivised to find areas of agreement to collaborate to create connectivity between landholdings (6 votes) (Moved to theme: Land Management and Ownership)
• The temptation to go for the "low hanging fruit" - if we are to restore nature, we need to tackle some of the more challenging areas (5 votes). (Challenge 7)
• Working on a big enough scale to have a real impact - across defined geographical areas e.g. catchments - can be complex and take time (1 vote) (2 votes for, 1 vote minus) (Challenge 6)

Group 12 – Framework structure

• Existing pattern of land use designations is complex (i.e. confusing arrangement of different protected area types. Need to form a network which people understand and is fit for purpose (Challenge 7)
• Lack of understanding of need for NN & biodiversity (Move to theme: Education and Skills)
• Ability to scale up to nature needed i.e. Existing land use designations do not work at nature's scale - too small? (Challenge 6)
• Identifying the scale of change needed to reconnect ecological processes - needs to be at scale to be effective. (Challenge 6)

Comments that have been relocated to this theme:

From theme: Land management and ownership

• Understanding which habitat should go where. We have national tree planting strategy but no national grassland strategy, despite the latter potentially providing more for biodiversity and carbon sequestration. (Challenge 3)
• Planting vs regeneration - former often preferred due to funding availability and immediate effect but latter often better for biodiversity. How is this managed - what about undesirable species (e.g. invasive species)? Availability of suitable plants including native/local tree stock & native/local seeds. (Challenge 2)
• Designated sites create hard boundaries whereas we are looking for more connectivity. We are seeking an environment with blurred lines. Need to move away from circumscribed areas. (Challenge 4)
• Designating Nature Networks and new protected areas is relatively simple on paper.  Making it meaningful and delivering change on the ground are a completely different and a much more complex challenge. (Challenge 5)
• Need clarity on the purpose of designation of network and the aim i.e.  Are we conserving what's there or trying to restore it? (Challenge 2)
• Perception that land designations parcel land off into 'nature' and 'not nature' - when in reality we need to leverage everything we've got to tackle e.g. biodiversity loss. (Challenge 7)
• Competing land uses, where will Nature Networks go or how can you integrate Nature networks into existing land uses. (Challenge 4)

From theme: Data, mapping and monitoring

• Are we seeking to enhance the existing resource or restore to former condition (Challenge 2)
• Are we clear on what success looks like for Nature Networks? How many? What size? Where? Which habitats? (8 votes). (Challenge 3, 4, 7)
• Does the Nature Network identify priorities for action? (Challenge 5)

From theme: Finance and resources

• Who decides what and where are nature network is? (Challenge 3)
• Identifying where the nature networks should be at a local, regional and national scale - i.e. network design or planning. (Challenge 3)
• In relation to the above, what the nature networks will be intended to deliver - am guessing multi-benefits of ecosystem services, access to nature, home for biodiversity (1 vote). (Challenge 5 and 7)
• Offsetting - what role does this play in either opportunities or challenges to this agenda? (Challenge 8)
• Resilience needed in system through which nature network is delivered/ maintained (Challenge 7)
• Need to deliver multiple benefits from the network rather than single purpose (Challenge 7)
• EU Exit has also obstructed the development of wider international networks (Challenge 6)

From theme: Knowledge and skills

• The understanding of what a nature network - lots of different interpretation (challenge 1)
• Understand the outcomes that you want for Nature networks use a tool like https://co-impact.app  (Challenge 5 and 7)
• Definitions - what exactly is a Nature Network? What counts as part of a Nature Network? (Challenge 1 and 2)

From theme: Policy

• How do we define 'conserve' in context of 30x30 especially as environment is changing.  Also how do we define a 'network'.  I think there is a working definition somewhere...?  (Challenge 1 and 2)
• How do we agree what a nature network needs to deliver and at what scales - locally in urban areas it might need to deliver for community needs as well as natural heritage, it might need to deliver for a wide range of habitats and species at different scales. (Challenge 6)

From theme: people

• Offsetting - Land purchasing (1 vote) (Challenge 8)

From theme: governance

• Confusion over terminology being used - need clarity over what different terms mean in particular where used in policies such as in NPF4 (Challenge 1)

Creating a Nature Network can lead to conflicts on how the land is managed. How can these multiple demands be balanced? Early identification and engagement with target landowners will be essential, as will agreeing on long term land management strategies and conflict resolution. How will this be accomplished on a large scale, with many stakeholders, and continue to be locally lead if possible? 

1. How can we help balance conflicting land uses and tension between economic, environment and social priorities? 
2. What role does peri-urban environments have? And how can the framework help prevent development breaking up networks (particularly in urban areas)? 
3. How do we first identify all landowners in a target area, also engaging those landowners that are not interested, and foster joined up working between landowners building a sense of stewardship? 
4. How do we balance multiple demands on land, reducing overly complex and/or misaligned management? 
5. What clarity is needed regarding roles and responsibilities for land owners/manager (eg. who is responsible for monitoring?)? 
6. How can land owner support be maintained over the suitably long periods needed for a Nature Network to serve its purpose (i.e. indefinitely)? 
7. How do we ensure Nature Networks are successful under the pressures of deer management? 

Themes and challenges from the Discovery Workshop

Group 6 – Land value and land use (prioritised)

• Conflicting land use, development, e.g. commercial use, forestry, energy such as windfarms etc. (Challenge 1 and 4)
  • Regular disturbance e.g. fire, strimming, cutting, people
  • Lack of understanding of the importance of space for biodiversity
  • Finance
  • Expectations of what it should look like
  • Confidence in progressive management options
• Understanding which habitat should go where. We have national tree planting strategy but no national grassland strategy, despite the latter potentially providing more for biodiversity and carbon sequestration. (Moved to theme: What are nature networks)
• Resolving the tension between economic, environmental and social priorities where we increase land under conservation (Challenge 1)
• Differing priorities for land owners/managers (Challenge 1)
• In cities the amount of new development is breaking up networks and lower designation Local Nature Conservation Sites (LNCS) become more important (Challenge 2)
• Development needs coming into conflict with nature protection e.g. infrastructure, food production (Challenge 2)
• Deciding what the land should be used for. What are the priorities and how do we manage issues such as pests and diseases (e.g. ash die back) (Challenge 1)
• Different landowners, some may be in favour of improving land for nature networks and some may not be interested (Challenge 3)

Group 8 – Competing land use

• How do we balance multiple demands on land - e.g. land for carbon sequestration, land for recreation, land for development, land for nature etc.... The land use demands will vary between rural and local areas. (Challenge 1 and 4)
• Competing land uses, where will Nature Networks go or how can you integrate Nature networks into existing land uses. (Challenge 1)
• Reconciling the economic, social and environmental aspects of land management (Challenge 1)
• Planting vs regeneration - former often preferred due to funding availability and immediate effect but latter often better for biodiversity. How is this managed - what about undesirable species (e.g. invasive species)? Availability of suitable plants including native/local tree stock & native/local seeds. (Moved to theme: What are nature networks)
• Competing land uses - what if the optimum area for creating a nature network has a land use that cannot be adapted or moved? (Challenge 1)
• Designated sites create hard boundaries whereas we are looking for more connectivity. We are seeking an environment with blurred lines. Need to move away from circumscribed areas. (Moved to theme: What are nature networks)
• Fashion/ changing visions - lack of consistency over time. Today's wisdom tomorrow's folly. (Challenge 6)

Group 8 – Land management

• How do we make sure that all elements of a nature network remain in good condition? Who monitors this? (Challenge 5)
• Timescales - when will this be delivered, how long will they be maintained for. What happens if an area is reprioritised for other land use e.g. development (Challenge 6)
• Attitudes to changes to land management - particularly in urban areas (e.g. amenity grass to more natural areas (Challenge 2)
• Co-ordination of land management strategies across adjoining land owners. (Challenge 3)
• Statutory protection? (Moved to theme: policy)
• Management of nature networks in a changing climate (Moved to theme: data, mapping and monitoring)

Group 9 – land use and land ownership (prioritised)

• The challenge of delivery with complex partnerships that are required for landscape scale activity - multiple local authorities, landowners, community orgs and national bodies (Moved to theme: Governance)
• Issue when land use conflicts with habitat protection and connectivity to nature network (Challenge 4)
• Establishing ownership of land – number of absent landowners (Challenge 3)
• Lack of co-ordination mechanism between adjacent landowners (Challenge 3,5 and 6)
• Scaling up activity – e.g small urban nature rich sites and nature reserves, connecting can be challenging (see first point above) (Moved to theme: Governance)
• Need incentives for landowners - initial capital costs and maintenance -that are simple to obtain (Moved to theme: Funding)

Group 11 - Delivery on the ground/ land ownership (prioritised)

• Varying/conflicting interests - how do we marry landowner interests across land ownership, e.g. farm vs forest vs park vs solar farm. (Challenge 1 and 4)
• Scales - what scale to work at, community, city, region, etc... (Moved to theme: Governance)
• Designating Nature Networks and new protected areas is relatively simple on paper.  Making it meaningful and delivering change on the ground are a completely different and a much more complex challenge. (Move to theme: Policy)
• Private land that breaks connectivity. (Challenge 3)
• Landowner engagement / desire in areas required for connections. (Challenge 3)
• Need to know who owns what and where. (Challenge 3)

Group 11 – wider impacts (prioritised)

1. With 80% of land farmed, how will 30% of land impact on food security? Care needs to be taken that we don't reduce production and risk increased offshoring. Importance of integration (Moved to 30x30)
2. Think about knock-on effects for ecosystems worldwide if agricultural land becomes less productive (Challenge 1)

Group 12 – Sense of ownership and stewardship of land

• Need to create sense of custodianship for parts of land (Challenge 3)
• Need to establish sense of shared responsibility for network across land parcels e.g. through management (Challenge 3)
• Need clarity on the purpose of designation of network and the aim i.e.  Are we conserving what's there or trying to restore it? (Moved to theme: What are nature networks)

Group 12 – Land ownership and management priorities

• Balancing competing priorities across use of land - what is the best use of finite land uses in different parts of Scotland. In Fife we have land which is good for food production and generation of energy - need to balance priorities (Challenge 1)
• Complexity of riparian ownership - Rivers provide a natural basis for a network and potential to provide multiple benefit through riparian restoration (Challenge 3)
• Perception that land designations parcel land off into 'nature' and 'not nature' - when in reality we need to leverage everything we've got to tackle e.g. biodiversity loss (Moved to theme: What are nature networks)
• Competing land use objectives tend be all or nothing, we need more scope for land to deliver multiple objectives (Challenge 1 and 4)
• Deer management needed to enable tree establishment and wider habitat restoration (Challenge 7)
• Agri-environment schemes apply to the land holding, need coordination to enable networks to develop (Challenge 3 and also included in theme: Funding)
• Difficult to get adjacent landowners to cooperate especially if they have different views (Challenge 3)

Youth group (separate event with YoungScot)

• There's already a housing shortage and more greenspace allocation may make problem worse (Challenge 1)
• Companies buying large areas of land to negate their carbon footprint (Challenge 1)

Comments that have been relocated to this theme:

From theme: people

• Deer management will be a key issue. Need to ensure supply chain and routes to market for venison are considered. (2 votes). (Challenge 7)
• Working across boundaries. (Challenge 3)
• Encourage land-manager led landscape-scale conservation (bottom-up) (Challenge 3)
• How do we incentivise or encourage land managers to place areas into conservation (Challenge 4)
• Lines on maps can be contentious and may not go down well with landowners (Covered in theme: what are nature networks, and challenge 6)
• urban to rural connectivity: the role of peri-urban areas can be underestimated in introducing people to the wider countryside and could compromise the movement of species by limited connectivity (Challenge 2)
• How do we address recreational pressure on biodiversity? Hugely important for people to be able to access nature, particularly in a peri-urban and rural setting however increased presence of people can be detrimental to biodiversity and prevent movement of species (Challenge 1 and 2)

From theme: Governance

• The extent to which urban areas interrupt land set aside for nature/habitats/corridors is an issue (Challenge 2)

From theme: what are nature networks

• Lack of Funding for landholdings to work together at scale so they are incentivised to find areas of agreement to collaborate to create connectivity between landholdings (6 votes) (Challenge 6)
• We need to work at scale across multiple landownerships - who may not have common objectives (7 votes) (Challenge 3)

To take forward Nature Networks, rapid access to and confidence in available data will be essential. How will we use existing and new technology to plan and monitor these networks in light of current and future challenges?  With the increasing cost of monitoring, how will data be collected and stored?  

1. Lack of data at various scales (national, regional, ecosystem, species, individual) leading to complexity in establishing a baseline, mapping where Nature Networks are, where they could be, and how to monitor. What does this mean for balancing between evidence based decision-making and the need for urgent action? How can we get the information required but act with urgency? 
2. How can we support and utilise a centralised, open, accessible and easy to use platform for accessing, displaying and analysing data to help with opportunity mapping and site identification? 
3. What would a common approach to monitoring and evaluating processes of connectivity and nature network success, bearing in mind data availability and long-term need, look like? 
4. How can we help build understanding and evidence of the impact of climate change on nature networks to inform management? 
5. How to collect new data to enhance existing databases? Who is responsible? What role can technology play? 
6. How do we determine the trade-off with possible negative implications such as disease and enhancing a network for one species at the expense of another?

Themes and challenges from the Discovery Workshop

Group 6 – Data (prioritised)

• Recognise that we don't always have evidence, or only partial evidence for conservation actions. We may therefore need to manage adaptively as we learn more (Challenge 1)
• All data should be collected geographically using GIS - This can capture lived experience, videos, talking heads, photos etc. Stop just counting stuff we need ‘fit for functionality’ data so for trees for instance we not only need to know: Quantity, type, location but also size, age, life space, carbon captured, canopy cover, disease prevalence, growth rate and height. Type of growing conditions. (Challenge 1)
• What can co-locate with trees? (Not taken forward, unclear on challenge)
• Show all of this on dashboards and overlay with other data. (Challenge 2)
• Can we make use of mobile app technology to record real-time data on conservation status (challenge 5)

Group 7 - Data and mapping

• Lack of a national habitat map at the right classification level to map and design networks, identify suitable restoration areas to maximise network connectivity etc. (Challenge 1)
• Poor data on some habitat types on which to form decisions e.g. grassland (Challenge 1)
• Heavy focus on vertebrate and lack of attention to invertebrate in conservation programmes  (including pollinators). (Challenge 1)
• The uncertain future of biological records centres (pending a Scottish Government response on the Scottish Biodiversity Information Forum Review recommendations) is hindering the level of data required by planning departments and developers. Transparency of ecological survey data collected on behalf of developers would add greatly to the coverage and detail of up-to-date biodiversity data across Scotland. (Challenge 2)
• Lack of evidence on multi-species assemblage responses to structural connectivity within the landscape e.g. there is still a lack of consensus on what functional connectivity means for mobile species (e.g. birds or pollinators) (Challenge 1)
• Climate change makes it hard to predict future environmental conditions in protected areas. (Challenge 4)
• Enhancing a network for some habitats species is often at the expense of others. (Challenge 6)
• Different definitions of connectivity and lack of empirical data on how well different species can move between habitat patches (Challenge 3)
• Lack of reliable biodiversity data, including studies on beta- and gamma diversity (Challenge 1)

Group 8 – Data (prioritised)

• Quality and accessibility of current data to inform the Nature Network (challenge 1, 2)
• How do we use existing data and ecological networks, integrated habitat networks etc. to design nature networks. (Challenge 5)
• Lack of understanding of existing biodiversity loss & habitat extent - e.g. grassland (Challenge 1)
• Issues with quality of the datasets available: from non-existent or different metadata or standards of data collection to issues with data flow and biases (Challenge 2)
• Data availability (Challenge 1, 2 and 3)
• Bringing together multiple different data together to monitor the status of the network as a whole (Challenge 2)
• Collecting new monitoring data that add value to existing datasets (Challenge 5)
• What is the baseline for the Nature Network - how has this changed over the last 10/20/50 years? (Challenge 1) Are we seeking to enhance the existing resource or restore to former condition (Moved to theme: What are nature networks)

Group 8 – Monitoring (prioritised)

• Monitoring biodiversity to understand the impact of the network and any other conservation implementation. Separating the impacts of local action vs network scale interventions or national and global scale drivers of change. (Challenge 3)
• Lack of long-term monitoring and reporting (Challenge 3)
• Measuring connectivity in a meaningful way while taking into account data availability (Challenge 3)

Group 9 – Data (prioritised)

• Lack of a central collection of data on areas of habitat on area of specific habitats lost and gained (through development including compensatory restoration & biodiversity net gain) on an annual basis (Challenge 2)
• Lack of consistency across and within Local Authorities, needs co-ordination between departments – No real urgency for this to be addressed due to a lack of funding and or knowledge of the potential benefits (Challenge 3)
• Need for better data sharing and a resource allocated for doing this (Challenge 2)

Group 10 – Data (prioritised)

• Expect that recording of the network is a challenge, requiring an integrated database, administration and monitoring - long term. (8 votes). (Challenge 2)
• Are we clear on what success looks like for Nature Networks? How many? What size? Where? Which habitats? (8 votes). (Moved to theme: What are nature networks)
• A balance between the information and data needed and the urgency to take action. How can get the info required but act with urgency? (3 votes). (Challenge 1)

Group 11 – data and knowledge (prioritised)

• From an ecological perspective land that connects one habitat (e.g. woodland) may simultaneously disconnect another (e.g. species rich grassland). How do you prioritise which habitat? (Challenge 6)
• Does the Nature Network identify priorities for action? (Moved to theme: What are nature networks)
• There is a lack of ecological knowledge and understanding within government at all levels. Knowing what habitats should be connected and how - and when connectivity might be problematic. Expertise and capacity are often lacking in organisations to understand what needs to happen where and how. (Moved to theme: Knowledge and skills)
• At what scale to undertake the mapping? (Challenge 1)
• Habitat cannot always be created in the area which optimises connectivity. Barriers could be physical (e.g. you cannot create wetlands if underlying geology/hydrology is not there), social (e.g. land has a more viable priority), and/or legal (e.g. land ownership). (Challenge 1)
• Evidence base - what evidence do we need to define what outcomes are required and where. Data can be lacking / disparate and often complex / expensive to gather and spans long-timelines sometimes. (Challenge 1)
• Partnerships with universities / knowledge centres should be considered to provide local expertise in ecology and technological solutions for assessing biodiversity levels. (Moved to theme: Knowledge and skills)
• Lack of understanding of habitat value by farmers (e.g. core native woodland) (Moved to theme: Knowledge and skills)
• Difference in dispersal distances between species (Challenge 3)
• Data availability (Challenge 1 and 2)
• Consider negative impacts of connectivity in the context of disease spreading, particularly as climate change is allowing new species to move north. (Challenge 6)

Group 12 - Data

• Gaps in information about how land is currently used (Challenge 1)
• Data accessibility and availability (Challenge 2)
  Defining a common approach to measuring connectivity and prioritising opportunities (Challenge 3)
• Development of understandable/ accurate measure of success (Challenge 3)
• Data to report on process and effectiveness of network (Challenge 3)

Comments that have been relocated to this theme:

From theme: policy

• Connectivity within larger landscapes can be limited to tree planting, other wildlife avenues/corridors are important to achieve habitat mosaics e.g You can't see the view for the trees! (Challenge 3)
• Recommended standardised methodologies for 'heat mapping'/'opportunity mapping' for optimising use of resources for increasing habitat connectivity for different species groups e.g. pollinators B-Line (Challenge 2)

From theme: land management and ownership

• Management of nature networks in a changing climate (Challenge 4)

From theme: finance and resourcing

• Monitoring and evaluation processes to support future projects. Accessible data storage. (Challenges 5)

From theme: governance

• Need to define a common approach to measuring connectivity and prioritising opportunities (Challenge 3)

From theme: what are nature networks

how do we ensure we have a good balance of different habitats and networks at a country wide scale? (Challenge 1)

People need to be at the centre of Nature Networks, but ensuring we engage and stay engaged with all delivery partners, including currently underutilised and seldom heard voices, will prove challenging. How will we identify these groups, deal with potential issues of conflict, and duplication of effort, and ensure the longevity and sustainability of partnership working. 

1. How can we combat issues of siloed working and issues arising from competing and/or overlapping objectives on land? Difficulty in not duplicating work due to non-joined up working? 
2. How do we address damaged relationships and/or lack of trust causing conflicts (e.g. historical poor relationships /competing demands) and build trust across sectors where people can see opportunities from their engagement? 
3. How to address the difficulty in selling benefits of nature networks, especially aspects that may take a long time to be realised and those that are strictly biodiversity positive rather than also tackling climate change? 
4. How do we engage all delivery partners and users, including those at a high/corporate level, seldom heard from groups, local communities? 
5. How can nature networks help address the lack of public understanding and engagement in wider biodiversity issues, hindered by inaccessible language, which lead to nature network insufficiencies (in design and use of nature networks)? 
6. Consultation fatigue 
7. How do we tap into currently underutilised influences (sectors/organisations who could be trend setters or are already respected in their communities)? 
8. How can we ensure longevity and sustainability of the joined up, partnership working that is needed to create the sustainable and long-lasting network? 
9. How do we ensure nature networks contribute to the just transition, ensuring they are implemented and managed fairly (eg. Across SIMD areas without contributing to gentrification)? 

Themes and challenges from the Discovery Workshop

Group 6 - Engagement (prioritised)

• Encourage land-manager led landscape-scale conservation (bottom-up) (Moved to theme: Land Management)
• Silo working e.g. delivering on paths separate from flood alleviations separate from recreational spaces etc (Challenge 1)
• Busy context i.e. 3 lots of frameworks, legislation, targets etc - harder for people to engage and not feel overwhelmed (Moved to theme: policy)
• General political buy in for nature in the same way there is an understanding and political support for climate crisis (Moved to theme: governance)
• Historical conflicts/tensions locally (challenge 2)
• How do we incentivise or encourage land managers to place areas into conservation (Moved to theme: Land management and ownership)
• long-term (which are more common) benefits can be harder to get buy-in (challenge 3)
• Sufficient engagement across diverse resource users (challenge 4)
• Creating a safe space in which conflicting priorities can be resolved (Challenge 2)
• Rallying public engagement. e.g. changes to grassland management ('rewilding' projects) not well received. (challenge 5)
• Consultation fatigue felt by community members/residents in similar projects (Challenge 6)
• Contractors working in land management. A good target audience to get buy in, standard setting, understanding etc. (challenge 7)

Group 7  - Culture/Behaviour Change

• Multi-stakeholder management might be problematic and not sustainable in long term. (challenge 8)
• Intransigence of individual landowners to change. Partly lack of incentivisation, partly cultural change e.g. grouse moors, sheep farmers (Challenge 3 and 5)
  • Linked with the above: This also extends to public sector e.g. the way local authorities manage parks or road verges
  • Also linked to the above: Individual households. We lose a lot of greenspace through "urban creep" - house extensions, front gardens being paved over, home offices in back gardens, the dreaded plastic grass! All reducing valuable habitat and flood mitigation (Challenge 5 and covered in land management and ownership
• Lines on maps can be contenscious and may not go down well with landowners (Moved to theme: Land management and ownership)
• Biodiversity is still often referred to as a 'soft' subject, which is optional or not 'real world' enough to stand on a par with subjects like the economy, housing, defence etc. This image and understanding needs to change quickly. Biodiversity as a science-based field which affects everyone very directly through eco-system services must be communicated. Public opinions as to whether or not biodiversity work should be carried out should be balanced against the society-wide benefits of biodiversity gain. (Challenge 3,4,5)
• urban to rural connectivity: the role of peri-urban areas can be underestimated in introducing people to the wider countryside and could compromise the movement of species by limited connectivity (Moved to theme: Land management and ownership)
• Ensuring that there is corporate support and understanding of the ambition to achieve 30by30 and Nature Networks. (Challenge 4)

Group 8 - People (prioritised)

• Ensuring nature networks are accessible to all communities, not just those with the existing resources to create their own. (Challenge 9)
• Community buy-in - changing & challenging perceptions on what nature networks are (Challenge 3)
• How do we address recreational pressure on biodiversity? Hugely important for people to be able to access nature, particularly in a peri-urban and rural setting however increased presence of people can be detrimental to biodiversity and prevent movement of species (Moved to theme: Land management and ownership)
• How will we get potential key delivery partners to get involved. E.g. what will we do to ensure local authorities embrace the idea and help deliver nature networks? (Challenge 4)

Group 9 - Community engagement and communications, and Just transition (prioritised)

• Helping people ( eg local community) understand, value and engage with Nature Networks (Challenge 5)
  •  Communicate in an easily understood way
  • Encourage dialogue ‘between viewpoints’
  • Encourage participation
• Demands on available land in Urban areas and local community priorities may lead to a focus on green space for recreation rather than nature (Challenge 1 and 3)
• Needs to be a focus on better understanding of the benefits of nature for e.g health and wellbeing and downstream impacts (peatland rewetting reducing flooding for example, stop using fake grass and paving gardens) (Challenge 3)
• Use of language may create issues e.g ‘rewilding’ (Challenge 5)
• Use trusted intermediaries to help positive engagement e.g Tweed Forum example (Challenge 2)
• Lack of a forum for agreeing local priorities (Challenge 2)
• There is a disconnect between academia and public sector/industry (challenge 1)
• Social justice considerations when creating the network such as equality, access, social deprivation. (Challenge 9)
• Ensuring that multifunctional green spaces are good for biodiversity, not just people, particularly within the frame of development pressure & community buy-in. (Challenge 3)
  • Making sure that nature-based solutions are biodiversity-rich and support species that don’t necessarily support climate adaptation

Group 10 - Relationship building (prioritised)

•  Building trust across sectors to ensure that different types of land users/owners/managers can see the opportunity from their engagement with the process. (7 votes). (Challenge 2)
• Public support for a significant change to our landscapes need to be achieved (5 votes) (Challenge 5)
•  Deer management will be a key issue. Need to ensure supply chain and routes to market for venison are considered. (2 votes). (Moved to theme: Land management and ownership)
• How do we prevent these nature networks being top-down? How can organisations/community groups on the ground be enabled to get the work done, rather than be directed to do it? (2 votes).  (Moved to theme: Governance)
• We need to be bold and mange resistance to innovative ideas for connectivity even in highly sensitive areas (2 votes). (Challenge 3)
• Offsetting - Land purchasing (1 vote) (Move to theme: What are nature networks)
• Project development - cluttered space (1 vote) (Challenge 1)
• Meaningful community/people engagement (NC) (0 votes) (Challenge 5)
• Having a robust method to enable contribution/buy in/leadership from local communities - being clear what "local community" means (0 votes) (challenge 4)
• As a non-landowning organisation, landowner engagement adds a lengthy element of project delivery, and pre-app preparation (0 votes) (challenge 4)

Group 11 - Communication and collaboration (prioritised)

• We need the right organisations involved who can lead/influence/implement as needed.  Planning is only one part of the jigsaw and has limitations in terms of nature because we deal with development/change (challenge 7)
• Perceptions of land use / management - nature is often perceived as 'messy' and uncared for, rather than complex and interesting (Challenge 3)
• Partnership - work at this scale requires partnership. That requires engagement, time, knowledge, money, capacity. policy, etc (Challenge 8)
• Definitions - what exactly is a Nature Network? What counts as part of a Nature Network? (Moved to theme: what are nature networks)
• How do Nature Networks fit with 30x30? (Moved to theme: policy)
• Working across boundaries. (Moved to theme: Land management and ownership)

Group 12 - Trust and credibility

• Lack of longevity of coordination role causes problems (Challenge 8)
• Need to support people through change (just transition) (Challenge 9)
• Need for coordination of management between land managers to create a network (Challenge 8)
• Responsibility for management of urban nature networks needed if it is created as part of a development (Moved to theme: policy)

Youth group (Separate event with Young Scot)

• Feeling CONNECTED to nature, lots of peers feel separated and from the natural world (Covered in 30x30 People)
• Accessing green spaces - hard to get public transport to these areas without relying on others (challenge 9)
• I think educational systems and the education curriculum aren't very well favoured for outdoor education and make it difficult for young people to really explore if they are spending it within school lessons (challenge 9)
• Young people having access to nature networks - especially in areas with poorer transport links (challenge 9)
• Sometimes people don't feel like nature areas/ green spaces are 'for them'. (challenge 9)
• There could be more information boards about local nature and what is being done to connect areas for young people to read (Challenge 5)
• Perceptions of the wilderness - it's a trope in horror films, particularly since there's isolation
• Difficulties for YP to get in to nature - safety concerns, if out on their own. If no buses, how do they get there? (challenge 9)
• I do support but do wonder about how young people can move about if more green belt - infrastructure roads and trains (challenge 9)
• Safety concerns (Challenge 5)
• Currently not easy to access (challenge 9)
• Some places aren't accessible to people with disabilities (challenge 9)
• Depending on area not always accessible (disabilities/wheelchairs) (challenge 9)
• People not sticking to/ adhering to rules (Challenge 5)
• Increase cost of homes in the area and yp living there will need to relocate (challenge 9)

There is a perceived lack of knowledge and scales across partners, including Local Authorities, national government, and delivery groups. There are also many areas of misunderstanding around management techniques. How are these to be addressed? Working together in partnership will be essential, how can we use this opportunity to share skills and knowledge?  

1. How do we increase and improve experience and knowledge of biodiversity in LAs and government (due to lack of prioritising and investment in this area)? 
2. How do we increase and improve understanding and skills in different management techniques and issues such as rewilding, green infrastructure, INNS and herbivore management? 
3. How do we increase and improve knowledge and skills in engaging community and public in nature-based interventions? 
4. How to increase and improve knowledge and skills in those actively delivery on the groups such as contractors and/or communities? 
5. How do we increase and improve knowledge and skill in valuing nature and balancing nature and economics, particularly amongst farmers and landowners? 
6. How can we utilise partnership working and knowledge exchange to increase and improve skills in data collection, usage and analysis to inform delivery? 

Themes and challenges from the Discovery Workshop

Group 6 – skills and capacity gaps (prioritised)

• Ensuring advice is available to balance economic with biodiversity requirements (e.g. farmers producing efficiently but also with care for the environment - appropriate skill sets of advisers (Challenge 5)
• Lack of capacity to lead / poor leadership (Moved to theme: Governance)
• The understanding of what a nature network - lots of different interpretation (Moved to theme: what are nature networks)
• Ineffective biodiversity net gain type projects which do not restore nature lost from development (Moved to theme: Policy)
• Understand the outcomes that you want for Nature networks use a tool like https://co-impact.app (Moved to theme: what are nature networks)
• Lack of expertise within local authorities.to deliver for nature (Challenge 1)

Group 7 – education, skills and knowledge

• In many local authorities there is a lack of experience and knowledge about biodiversity, ecology etc. This can be due to lack of investment and resourcing recently in these areas. Hopefully the recent Scottish Government support of the climate and ecological crises will see this policy area being better supported.  (Challenge 1)
• Biological Records Centres are key to nurturing and training the current and future generations of biological recorders. (Challenge 6)
• Misunderstanding of the concept of re-wilding. The message needs to be clear in terms of aims and objectives, after all it is a management decision and not a catch it all for doing nothing e.g., Over- run with briars allowing for very little movement of species and people. (Challenge 2)
• Skills to introduce Green Infrastructure into hard landscapes. Street trees for example. This is a growing sector with improving technologies, however many areas don't have the resources or skills to get this right - to provide well established and long-lasting green features in hard landscapes which last until maturity (Challenge 2)
• Especially in the context of urban connectivity, community engagement will be a vital aspect. Interventions need to be acceptable. This will require staff resources and expertise in this field. (Challenge 3)
• Ensure that we are funding/carrying out community regeneration alongside ecological restoration. The long-term efficacy of restoration activities hinges on communities, building capacity and initiating legacy projects. (Moved to theme: funding and resources)

Group 9 – education and skills (prioritised)

• Lack of skills in contractors, community groups and land management operatives on landscape for nature networks and habitats (Challenge 4)
• Lack of understanding about NN’s and consistency of approach in LA Planning departments combined with a lack of resource and understanding of what may be required leading to lack of protection/restoration/creation (challenge 1)
• A need to understand that success, related to the tourism sector for example, is measured by more than just the ‘tourist dollar’ (Challenge 5)
• A need to understand invasive species and deer management as part of NN management (Challenge 2)

Youth group (Separate event with Young Scot)

• A barrier may be a (perceived) lack of knowledge – they [young people] may be worried to be involved (Challenge 6)
• How? Volunteer with org/charity involved on nature networks? (Challenge 6)

Comments that have been relocated to this theme:

From theme: data and monitoring

• There is a lack of ecological knowledge and understanding within government at all levels. Knowing what habitats should be connected and how - and when connectivity might be problematic. Expertise and capacity are often lacking in organisations to understand what needs to happen where and how. (Challenge 1)
• Partnerships with universities / knowledge centres should be considered to provide local expertise in ecology and technological solutions for assessing biodiversity levels. (Challenge 6)
• Lack of understanding of habitat value by farmers (e.g. core native woodland) (Challenge 5)

From theme: finance and resourcing

• Lack of expertise/skills and resources to utilize the datasets that are available (usually opportunistic records) to derive robust metrics of biodiversity change (Challenge 6)
• Concept of natural capital not understood by land owners (Challenge 5)
• Lack of expertise at Local Authorities (Challenge 1)

From theme: governance

• Lack of understanding of need for NN & biodiversity (Covered by all challenges)

From theme: what are Nature Networks?

• Lack of understanding of need for NN & biodiversity (Challenge 1)

From theme: policy

• Partnerships with universities should be considered to provide local expertise in ecology and technological solutions for assessing biodiversity levels. (Challenge 6)

Many policies that will impact upon the success of Nature Networks. How will we ensure that current varied policies are implemented consistently and will work to forward the development of these networks into the future. Stakeholders involved with policy must be provided with sufficient guidance for implementing these policies and associated resources. 

1. What role will Local Nature Conservation Sites play, including issues of evidence and resources, effective management and protection? 
2. How do we ensure there is integration and alignment with existing policies and plans as well as making the policy landscape simpler to engage with (eg. 30x30, Local Development Plans, Forest & Woodland Strategies, Open Space Strategies, Local Biodiversity Action Plans deer management, land reform, agricultural reform, INNS, Infrastructure (including renewables) as well as wider policy around health, wellbeing and social cohesion)? 
3. How do we ensure that LAs are provided with useful guidance and tools for identifying areas of opportunities, and to manage and protect nature networks, in order to direct resources? 
4. How to ensure consistency of policy implementation within, and across, Local Authorities (eg. where green infrastructure interventions (as part of active travel measures) have had to be reversed as they were not appropriate to conservation (built heritage) areas.)? 
5. How can the national and local planning policy, and delivery of positive effects for biodiversity (net gain) support Nature networks? 
6. How do we ensure that there is enough flexibility and adaptably in policy to ensure nature and climate are seen as one and need to evolve together? 
7. How do we ensure policy supports the sustainability and longevity of nature networks when only Protected Areas have legal protection? How do we ensure that nature networks aren’t replaced down the line with prioritised development? 

Themes and challenges from the Discovery Workshop

Group 7 – policy coherence

• Who's responsible for developing networks? Local authorities? Regional plans? Statutory Nature Conservation Bodies? (Moved to theme: Governance)
• Local Nature Conservation Sites’ importance varies based on very little or no information e.g. Not all sites have an information profile- circles in fields are difficult to protect! (Challenge 1)
• Networks should maybe be incorporated into Local Development Plans to gain traction. This could take years. (Challenge 2)
• Expectation in National Planning Framework for local authorities to identify and protect nature networks but next to no guidance on how to do that or tools on which to assess whether development is positive or negative for biodiversity. (Challenge 3)
• How do we define 'conserve' in context of 30x30 especially as environment is changing.  Also how do we define a 'network'.  I think there is a working definition somewhere...? (Moved to theme: what are nature networks)
• Connectivity within larger landscapes can be limited to tree planting, other wildlife avenues/corridors are important to achieve habitat mosaics e.g You can't see the view for the trees! (Move to theme: Data, Mapping and Monitoring)
• With biodiversity net gain yet to be mandated in Scotland, ensuring that progress made on site-based enhancements are not un-done when unprotected areas are re-prioritised for development. (Challenge 5)
• Ensure that we are funding/carrying out community regeneration alongside ecological restoration. The long-term efficacy of restoration activities hinges on communities, building capacity and initiating legacy projects. (Moved to theme: Funding)
• I don’t think there's never been a stronger policy landscape and although it isn’t perfect, I don’t think this is up there with the big barriers to delivery (Not a challenge)
• Again, from a planning policy perspective - ensuring that there is a consistent implementation of policies to ensure that networks are retained and improved. (Challenge 5)
• Enforcement of conditions on planning applications may not be undertaken fully due to current lack of staff resources etc. (challenge 5)
• Connectivity, changes in land management and use, old allocations in development opportunity areas which do not reflect current thinking. (Challenge 5)
• Policy coherence/compatibility: we've come across cases (Leith in Edinburgh) where green infrastructure interventions (as part of active travel measures) have had to be reversed as they were not appropriate to conservation (built heritage) areas. (Challenge 2 and 4)
• Invasive Non-Native Species. in danger of over-running and compromising our biodiversity e.g., funding and reduced grazing regimes (Challenge 2)

Group 7 - Infrastructure

• Renewable energy: hydro-schemes, type and size.re. Scale: new access to hill areas and associated infrastructure can break up wildlife corridors and interfere in the natural hydrology e,g  peatlands and associated water courses. (Challenge 5)
• Man-made barriers - roads, hard infrastructure. (Challenge 5)

Group 8 – policy

• Availability of national guidance for local authorities and local communities (Challenge 3)
• How do we agree what a nature network needs to deliver and at what scales - locally in urban areas it might need to deliver for community needs as well as natural heritage, it might need to deliver for a wide range of habitats and species at different scales. (Move to theme: what are nature networks)
• Interaction between and incorporation of nature networks into other policies and strategies at a local and national level incl. Local Development Plan, Forest & Woodland Strategies, Open Space Strategies, Local Biodiversity Action Plans so that they are supported and maintained in a meaningful way (challenge 2)
• Planning and land use policy - ensuring nature networks are supported by national and local planning policy (Challenge 5)
• Interaction with existing green networks - e.g. CSGN Integrated Habitat Network in the central belt/Local Authority Green Network Strategies (Challenge 2)
• Lack of guidance for local authorities (Challenge 3)
• Interaction between Nature Networks & delivering positive effects for biodiversity (biodiversity net gain) - how do we prevent conflict and ensure that measures delivered through BNG are not undermined (challenge 5)

Group 9 – policy (prioritised)

• National Planning Framework 4 and development in general has a ‘development first’ mindset, trying to build around important habitats. Planning needs to have skeleton network/corridors first. (Challenge 5)
  • Debates about how to allow for community choice, and benefits connectivity. E.g.  communities not wanting long grass in the development of wildflower meadows & pollinator corridors (Challenge 5)
  • Future proofing the nature network with climate change in mind and predicting how people will use it in the future (challenge 6)
• Nature recovery & action for climate change is seen as separate which they are not and must work together. E.g., not just tree planting, but the right tree in the right area. (Challenge 6)
• Biodiversity Net Gain driving certain behaviours in England and how starting to be considered by developers in Scotland (Challenge 5)

Group 10 – policy/plan alignment (prioritised)

• We need to align local priorities and regional/national priorities and consider if these are attractive to funding (5 votes) (Moved to theme: Finance and resourcing)
• We need better working across different systems e.g. planning, agriculture, forestry etc. (4 votes) (Challenge 2)
• Gaps and challenges to integrated land use decision-making. There is a need to join up the layers of mapping and decision-making that happen at all levels in a given area. The current pilot of Regional Land Use Partnerships could create some opportunities to bridge some of these gaps and better integrate this thinking.  For example, how can the gathering of local priorities for nature be shared with public and private bodies involved in land use decision-making. There is also scope for existing tools for layering these processes to be extended to link pools of information. (3 votes) (Moved to theme: Data and Monitoring)
• We need a long-term strategy to tackle the long-term issues (3 votes). (Challenge 7)
• Aligning with other political agendas - changes in deer management policy, land reform, agricultural reform etc. How do we join up sensibly? (2 votes) (Challenge 2)
• Expect hydro schemes could affect connectivity of the freshwater environment/fish passage upstream (0 votes) (Challenge 2)
• Integration with other plans and policies, e.g. what is likely to come out of COP15 and could affect the biodiversity strategy (0 votes) (Challenge 2)
• Health and wellbeing, outdoor learning, skills and training - should be integrated into long term plans for nature and green spaces and not each element considered in isolation (0 votes). (Challenge 2)

Group 10 – Statutory protection (prioritised)

• Catchment wide approach required with a tighter grip on pollutants e,g. pesticide and fertilizer on farm land or else the good work done in one place is undermined by bad practice elsewhere. (This is a combination of two similar issue which combined generated 8 votes). (Challenge 7)
• Need for regulation to deliver nature networks? Might future -agri support help with this (6 votes). (Challenge 7)
• Habitats that do not have statutory protection are more at risk of loss thus resulting in fragmentation of the network (4 votes). (Challenge 7)
• Statutory protection for ancient woodland would help (1 vote). (Challenge 7)

Group 11 – consistency and guidance (prioritised)

1. Disconnect between policy areas e.g. planning, agri-environment, different local authorities. Nature doesn't perceive these policy boundaries. (Challenge 2)
2. NatureScot needs to produce guidance - opportunity mapping, plus how to do it. (Challenge 3)
3. Guidance on how to deliver Nature Networks. (Challenge 3)
4. Coherent approach that delivers desired outcomes. (Challenge 2)
5. Difficulty in collaboration with stakeholders across a region when these people have different priorities. (Moved to theme: People)

Group 11 – planning (prioritised)

• Definition of what a Nature Network is and its protection level given within the planning system. (Challenge 5)
• Role of the planning system – what can it contribute, beyond the red line of a development site. (Challenge 5)
• Partnerships with universities should be considered to provide local expertise in ecology and technological solutions for assessing biodiversity levels. (Moved to theme: Knowledge and skills)

Group 12 – Adaptability of policy

• Challenge of a rigid system reacting to a rapidly changing climate as species move and habitats change (Challenge 6)

Comments that have been relocated to this theme:

From theme: knowledge and skills

• Ineffective biodiversity net gain type projects which do not restore nature lost from development (Challenge 5)

From theme: finance and resourcing

• Until now, biodiversity improvements associated with development were often considered to be more of a luxury than a necessity outwith designated areas/habitats. (challenge 5)
• How do you ensure the longevity of Nature Networks when only one component of them protected sites might have automatic legal protection? Will there be a way to ensure Nature Networks are retained once instated and not lost to things like development (Moved to Theme: Policy, challenge 7)
• Longevity of habitats- how do we ensure the networks are long term and protected (Moved to theme: Policy, Challenge 7)
• What expectations do we have for local authority areas to have Local Nature Conservation Sites systems to act as a core/backbone for nature networks - significant capacity and resource issues associated with this. (Challenge 1)

From theme: governance

• Key statutory documents lead to confusion and duplication of effort - Nobody is doing any logic mapping on any of this and real risk that actions fall into gaps (Moved to theme: Policy) (Challenge 2)
  • Local Development Plan
  • Open Space Strategy
  • Forest and Woodland strategy
  • Local Biodiversity Action Plan
  • Climate Plan
  • Climate adaption plan
  • Local Place Plans
  • Management plans
  • Corporate plans
  • Councils’ plans

• Links to and understanding of outcomes for social cohesion, Health& Wellbeing, Economic, Environment and biodiversity all at the same time and how they link together (Challenge 2)
• Disconnect between agricultural and fishing policy and Scottish Biodiversity Strategy (SBS) (Challenge 2)
• Integration - how best to fit this approach into existing 'systems', e.g. Development Plans, Regional Land Use Partnerships Pilots, nature partnerships. Climate Change policy, etc... (Challenge 2)
• Needs to inform policies across the board (including e.g. agriculture, fisheries, forestry) (Challenge 2)
• NPF4 failures in terms of this agenda, including lack of movement / clarity on Biodiversity Net Gain (Challenge 5)
• Recognition of NN needed in the planning process. Even when green networks are identified by local authorities they do not have recognition in the planning process so can be broken up. Only the protected site network is recognised (Challenge 5)
• Consistency in approach and compatibility/alignment with other areas of policy needed (Challenge 2)
• Lack of coherence from planning to agri-environmental schemes (from NI perspective) (Challenge 2)

From theme: people

• Busy context i.e. 3 lots of frameworks, legislation, targets etc - harder for people to engage and not feel overwhelmed (Challenge 2)
• How do Nature Networks fit with 30x30? (Challenge 2)
• Responsibility for management of urban nature networks needed if it is created as part of a development (Challenge 5)

From theme: land management and ownership

• Designating Nature Networks and new protected areas is relatively simple on paper.  Making it meaningful and delivering change on the ground are a completely different and a much more complex challenge. (Challenge 7)
• Statutory protection? Challenge 7)

Ensuring adequate and targeted funding, at the correct time, is essential for the effectiveness and success of Nature Networks. How do we guarantee, as much as possible, this when sources of funding are limited and often concentrated in certain sectors. 

1. How do we ensure that delivery of Nature Network funding isn’t last minute, sporadic and short-term funding cycles causing misalignment with project delivery timings? 
2. Currently, funding is focused on planning, delivery and capital spending. How do ensure there is funding for stewardship (including community capacity building and resilience), staff and monitoring? 
3. How do we ensure nature networks can be delivered when there is a general lack of funds, resources, staff and flexibility (particularly in sharing) particularly in LAs? 
4. How do we ensure resilience of Nature Network delivery in view of sectors reliance on short term staff contracts, which lead to difficulty in recruitment, causing delays and lack of expertise's? 
5. Some habitats better funded than others (eg. Peatland verse wetlands), while others (such as urban) are more expensive to deliver interventions within. How do we ensure there is wide spread and diverse funding? 
6. Who is paying? Lack of understanding and skills in ecosystem services payments to both sell benefits while avoiding greenwashing. How can we leverage funding and sell the quantitative benefits to private investors?  
7. How can (current) incentives be utilised to help develop and effectively management Nature Networks? 
8. Currently, there are issues of finance and incentives always changing, being too complicated, and often too ridged. How do we ensure that finance is accessible and therefore taken up? 

Themes and challenges from the Discovery Workshop

Group 6 – Sustainable financing (prioritised)

• Funding which supports survey of land to understand the habitat and its condition (Challenge 2)
• Funding is way too short term and even the statutory agencies don't seem to take into account how the seasons/time of year affect project delivery e.g. Funding release in November to be spent by March!! (Challenge 1)
• Funding available for planning and delivery but not for stewardship (Challenge 2)
• Funding for new projects is very short term. (Challenge 1)

Group 6 – Impact assessment (prioritised)

• Long term stewardship and community resilience and ability to be resilient not taken account of in funding streams and grant awards or council budgets. (Challenge 2)
• More biological background data often required but monitoring and survey work is often not included in funding. More site management plans are needed to have a proper plan in place for future work (Challenge 2)
• Monitoring and evaluation processes to support future projects. Accessible data storage. (Moved to theme: Data, mapping and monitoring)

Group 7 - Resourcing

• I realise it seems very obvious to say we don't have enough money or people but frankly we're facing a massive crisis and we can't tackle it without many more people and money. (Challenge 3)
• The ambition is to be applauded however the reality is there aren't currently anywhere enough staff or resources to realise that ambition.  There's a real difficulty in filling what posts are available, short-term contracts and low wage scales being factors.  (Challenge 4) Also, some habitats are better funded than others e.g. lots for peat and trees, not much for grassland and wetland. (Challenge 5)
• Funding will obviously be a major challenge. Nature Networks will clearly bring ecosystem service benefits but we're still struggling to identify who is willing to pay for these. Payment for carbon sequestration is advanced but for other ecosystem services it's hard to find who is willing to pay. (Challenge 6)
• An increased lead-in period for funding which needs to be spent within one financial year would be helpful to ensure that seasonal work can be undertaken without wasted seasons.  Nature Restoration Fund is very welcome but often not easy to apply, project plan and implement within the time-frame. Also rules out important work which require more than 1 year of implementation and monitoring. (Challenge 1)
• Until now, biodiversity improvements associated with development were often considered to be more of a luxury than a necessity outwith designated areas/habitats. (Moved to theme: Policy)
• Similarly urban interventions are likely to be more expensive given the challenges of creating green infrastructure in an urban context. (Challenge 5)
• Hard to provide quantitative benefits to private investors. Carbon does not always beget biodiversity. (Challenge 6)
• Ensure that we are funding/carrying out community regeneration alongside ecological restoration. The long-term efficacy if restoration activities hinge on communities, building capacity and initiating legacy projects. (Challenge 2)

Group 8 – Finance and Governance

• Sufficient funding for delivery of nature networks (urban and rural) and for management to ensure the sites/network remain in good condition. (challenge 2)
• Long term management of nature networks - how is this secured? Who is responsible - Landowner, Local Authority, Community? (Moved to theme: Governance)
• Short term funding agenda currently significantly limits the ability to support meaningful and functional nature enhancement and restoration. (Challenge 1)
• Risk of a lack of funding for Nature Networks, without proper funding they may become tokenistic and there is a risk of failure (Challenge 3 and 4)
• How do we ensure buy in and support of landowners - financial input? How does this interact with existing funding arrangements e.g. Agri Environment Climate Scheme (Challenge 7)
• How do you ensure the longevity of Nature Networks when only one component of them protected sites might have automatic legal protection. Will there be a way to ensure Nature Networks are retained once instated and not lost to things like development (Moved to theme: Policy)
• Can government fund this or does it require other streams of funding, if this is the case how do you attract funders (Challenge 6)
• Monetary and other incentives for changing land management strategies. (Challenge 7)
• Longevity of habitats- how do we ensure the networks are long term and and protected (Moved to theme: Policy)
• Buy in at a high level - MSPs, Councillors, Senior Management (Moved to theme: Governance)
• Lack of coherence between national, regional, and local Nature Networks (Moved to theme: Governance)
• Who decides what and where are nature network is? (Moved to theme: what are nature networks)
• Identifying where the nature networks should be at a local, regional and national  scale - i.e. network design or planning. (Moved to theme: what are nature networks)

Group 8 – Capacity of organisations

• Limited capacity of delivery organisations (e.g. Local authorities) to deliver nature networks - particularly a limited staff resource at present. (Challenge 3)
• Lack of resources within local authorities to deliver Nature Networks effectively, whilst the pressures and requirements on local authorities are increasing. (Challenge 3)
• Collaboration across Local Authority Boundaries where Staff capacity, expertise and knowledge may vary significantly (Challenge 3)
• What expectations do we have for local authority areas to have Local Nature Conservation Sites systems to act as a core/backbone for nature networks - significant capacity and resource issues associated with this. (Moved to Theme: Policy)
• Who delivers? Lack of resource and capacity within Local Authorities to deliver, support and maintain (Challenge 3)
• Lack of expertise/skills and resources to utilize the datasets that are available (usually opportunistic records) to derive robust metrics of biodiversity change (Moved to Theme: Knowledge and skills, challenge 6)

Group 9 – Funding (prioritised)

• Accessibility (too complex for land owners/managers) (Challenge 8)
  • Differing timescales
  • Changing priorities
  • New areas created at the expense of previous ones (ref Edinburgh Living Landscapes)
• Cost of maintenance and monitoring of NN sites – long term funding and resources e.g when developers pass this on to public ownership (Challenge 2)
• Amount of funding available – reduced by EU Exit( ie European funding has gone, not yet replaced) (Challenge 1)
• EU Exit has also obstructed the development of wider international networks (Moved to theme: what are nature networks)

Group 10 – Funding (prioritised)

• Short term (max 3 years) funding approach that we work to (e.g. NS grants) but proper restoration can take decades (5 votes). (Challenge 1)
• We need to be wise about private finance to ensure projects are not used as greenwashing. (4 votes). (Challenge 6)
• Three issues related to applying for funding each with 2 votes each:
  • Too much process based thinking around funding rather than outcome based. Land managers seen not as "trusted operators" working in partnership but more as adversaries. (Challenge 8)
  • Funding often is focused on capital spending, not allowing funding for staff to manage the project - stretches resources and can threaten the success of the project. (Challenge 2)
  • Counter to point a. above - Requirement for a rigid set of outcomes in funding applications - there needs to be room for flexibility so you can evolve as you learn or as circumstances change during a project lifetime. (Challenge 8)
• Subsidies focussed on farming rather than habitat restoration outcomes (1 vote). (Challenge 7)
• Some of the existing funding available to private landowners is loaded with risks and responsibilities to the extent that it is often not taken up. (1 vote) (Challenge 8)
• In relation to the above, what the nature networks will be intended to deliver - am guessing multi-benefits of ecosystem services, access to nature, home for biodiversity (1 vote). (Moved to theme: what are nature networks)
• Local Authority Funding - Re above note - See CIEEM survey work re the resourcing of Scottish LPAs for more information (1 vote). (Challenge 6 )
• Securing funding for facilitation and landowner engagement (0 votes) (Challenge 2)
• Being able to resource nature restoration that requires significant investment - e.g. rhododendron removal (0 votes). (Challenge 2)
• There are already projects out there that may count as nature networks that are struggling to get funding - how do we make the use of existing opportunities rather than re-invent wheels? (0 votes) (Challenge 2)

Group 11 – Funding and resourcing (prioritised)

• Funding - it costs money to define what needs to happen and then to do it. Where's this coming from? (Challenge 6)
• Lack of expertise at Local Authorities (Moved to theme: knowledge and data)
• NatureScot defunding nature partnerships is a critical failure in sustaining organisational capacity to address the challenges / opportunities. (Challenge 2 and 3)
• Lack of time to get this done. (Challenge 3)

Group 12 – Finance mechanisms

• Lack of a framework or mechanism for leveraging finance into nature conservation (Challenge 6)
• Getting green finance to play its part requires clearly identified approach (Challenge 6)
• Concept of natural capital not understood by land owners (Move to theme: Knowledge and skills)
• Immature markets capable of delivering benefits for nature and people through investment (Challenge 6)
• Lack of financial incentive for stakeholders to engage (Challenge 7)

Youth Group (Separate event with YoungScot)

• Cost can be an issue - can we afford it? (Challenge 3)

Comments that have been relocated to this theme:

From theme: policy

• We need to align local priorities and regional/national priorities and consider if these are attractive to funding (5 votes) (Challenge 6)
• Important for subsidies to reflect and balance different land use priorities. Existing subsidies system for environment and climate change is quite unwieldy. Subsidies could be more accessible and balanced with sustainable food production. (1 vote) (Challenge 7)

From theme: land management and ownership

• Need incentives for landowners - initial capital costs and maintenance -that are simple to obtain (Challenge 7)
• Agri-environment schemes apply to the land holding, need coordination to enable networks to develop (Challenge 7)

From theme: data and monitoring

• Funding for new monitoring, curating existing datasets and bringing them together
  Countrywide view of nature networks- (Challenge 2)

From theme: knowledge and skills

• Ensure that we are funding/carrying out community regeneration alongside ecological restoration. The long-term efficacy of restoration activities hinges on communities, building capacity and initiating legacy projects. (Challenge 2)

To achieve a successful Nature Network, national support will be required but how would this work across Local Government, land management and the other involved sectors? How to ensure a consistent approach is taken at local and national level for the long term. Decision makers, roles and responsibilities should be clear and the correct roles and responsibilities assigned and monitored if necessary. 

1. There is currently difficulty in nature connectivity at regional and national scale due to varying differences across local authorities (such as resources, knowledge and working environment). How can national support in governance help achieve consistency across LAs?  (Note this is referring to governance and oversight, as opposed to funding, resources or guidance) 
2. How can governance of Nature Networks help tackle the lack of coherence across different departments and sectors within land and nature management? 
3. How can the Nature Networks framework help address politicisation or lack of political buy in for nature crisis compared to climate crisis resulting in lack of urgency, and therefore resource and prioritisation issues? 
4. How can the framework clarify roles and responsibilities, at each level, in implementing and managing Nature Networks, ensuring they are clear and inclusive? 
5. How can current levels of governance be improved so non-compliance or damaging practices are both identified and properly dealt with, but also good management imposed allowing a Nature Network to be maintained? 
6. What governance – and by who - is needed to ensure effective management of components of a Nature Network to ensure it delivers at each level (local, landscape, national)? What role could geographically mapping decision-making have in governance and decision-making? 
7. How do we ensure sustainable, long-term governance? 

Themes and challenges from the Discovery Workshop

Group 6 – Communication and governance (prioritised)

• Key statutory documents lead to confusion and duplication of effort - Nobody is doing any logic mapping on any of this and real risk that actions fall into gaps (Moved to theme: Policy)
  • Local Development Plan
  • Open Space Strategy
  • Forest and Woodland strategy
  • Local Biodiversity Action Plan
  • Climate Plan
  • Climate adaption plan
  • Local Place Plans
  • Management plans
  • Corporate plans
  • Councils’ plans
• Links to and understanding of outcomes for social cohesion, Health& Wellbeing, Economic, Environment and biodiversity all at the same time and how they link together (Moved to Theme: Policy)
• Strategies to link up across LA boundaries (Challenge 1)

Group 9 – governance (prioritised)

• Competing priorities & lack of coherence
  • Carbon sequestration schemes & biodiversity. E.g., tree planting is not always appropriate but is often heralded and seen as a win-win by decision makers.
  • Need coherence in approach across and within departments.  (Challenge 1)
  • Lack of coherence from planning to agri-environmental schemes (from NI perspective) (Moved to theme: policy)
  • Lack of forum for agreeing local priorities (Challenge 6)
• No checks or governance after licenses/consents are issued - I.e., felling licenses, abstraction licenses etc. (Challenge 5)
• Lack of or ineffective protected for natural spaces and the protected area network is not comprehensive. How would the Nature Network be protected? (Challenge 5)
• Inconsistencies between planning conditions across local authorities which developers can exploit. It is difficult to create a network that will work at a regional & national scale when local authorities vary so much in terms of resources/pressures (challenge 1)

Group 11 - Long term management and status (prioritised)

• What status will Nature networks have? How can we get consistency of delivery across Planning Authorities with very different conditions/resources/knowledge? (challenge 2)
• How do we protect the sites and manage them, rather than just mark them on a map? (Challenge 6)
• Local Nature Conservation Sites (LNCS) should be getting more certainty and protection through Nature Networks and/or or 30x30. (Moved to theme: what are nature networks)
• Offsetting - what role does this play in either opportunities or challenges to this agenda? (Moved to theme: what are nature networks)

Group 11 – Leadership (prioritised)

• Disconnect between agricultural and fishing policy and Scottish Biodiversity Strategy (SBS) (Moved to theme: Policy)
• Integration - how best to fit this approach into existing 'systems', e.g. Development Plans, Regional Land Use Partnerships Pilots, nature partnerships. Climate Change policy, etc...
• Needs to inform policies across the board (including e.g. agriculture, fisheries, forestry) (Moved to theme: Policy)
• No progress been made for years, need to up the urgency - not resourced properly.  Paradigm shift needed. Programme for Government has ambitious targets, use it better. (Challenge 3)
• Political buy in - how do we ensure that local Members are engaged and agreed to deliver on the agenda (Challenge 3)
• NPF4 failures in terms of this agenda, including lack of movement / clarity on Biodiversity Net Gain (Moved to theme: Policy)
• Lack of national support and commitment (Challenge 1)

Group 12 – Clear and consistent policy and governance

• Regional land use planning needed to coordinate action and bring stakeholders together to work on opportunities (Challenge 6)
• Confusion over terminology being used - need clarity over what different terms mean, in particular, where used in policies such as in NPF4 (Moved to Theme: what are nature networks)
• Need to enable and support application of policies and action of others (Not specifically taken forward as unclear on meaning)
• Recognition of NN needed in the planning process. Even when green networks are identified by local authorities they do not have recognition in the planning process so can be broken up. Only the protected site network is recognised (Moved to Theme: Policy)
• Difficulty compelling land owners to do work within network e.g. from planning authorities (Challenge 5)
• Need a framework which works in parts (local/regional) and as a whole (at national level). (Challenge 1)
• The extent to which urban areas interrupt land set aside for nature/habitats/corridors is an issue (Move to Theme: land management and ownership)
• Need to define a common approach to measuring connectivity and prioritising opportunities (Move to Data and Monitoring)
• Consistency in approach and compatibility/alignment with other areas of policy needed (Move to Theme: Policy)

Group 12 – Top down vs bottom up

• Resilience needed in system through which nature network is delivered/ maintained
• Need to deliver multiple benefits from the network rather than single purpose (Moved to theme: what are nature networks)
• Need to coordinate action and bring stakeholders together to work towards opportunities e.g. through effective Regional land use planning (Challenge 4)
• Need to involve local people and community councils so that ordinary people get a say in where and how these are managed (Challenge 4)

Youth group (Separate event with Young Scot)

• [How do young people get] Involved in discussions, decision making (Challenge 4)
• Clarity in what a young person's role is in Nature Networks? How do they get involved in their design, where they get put? (Challenge 4)

Comments that have been relocated to this theme

From theme: people

• How do we prevent these nature networks being top-down? How can organisations/community groups on the ground be enabled to get the work done, rather than be directed to do it? (2 votes). (Challenge 4 and 6)
• General political buy in for nature in the same way there is an understanding and political support for climate crisis (Challenge 3)

From theme: land management and ownership

• The challenge of delivery with complex partnerships that are required for landscape scale activity - multiple local authorities, landowners, community orgs and national bodies (Challenge 6)  
• Scaling up activity – e.g small urban nature rich sites and nature reserves, connecting can be challenging. Scales - what scale to work at, community, city, region, etc... (Challenge 1)

From theme: knowledge and skills  

• Lack of capacity to lead / poor leadership (Challenge 3)

From theme: what are nature networks

• How do we maintain/protect our nature network in the longer term. (Challenge 7)
• How will we work at regional scales to ensure nature networks in different local areas (e.g. local authority areas) link together? (Challenge 1 and 6)

From theme: finance and resourcing

• Long term management of nature networks - how is this secured? Who is responsible - Landowner, Local Authority, Community? (Challenge 7)
• Lack of coherence between national, regional, and local Nature Networks (Challenge 6)
• Buy in at a high level - MSPs, Councillors, Senior Management (Challenge 3)

From theme: policy

• Gaps and challenges to integrated land use decision-making. There is a need to join up the layers of mapping and decision-making that happen at all levels in a given area. The current pilot of Regional Land Use Partnerships could create some opportunities to bridge some of these gaps and better integrate this thinking.  For example, how can the gathering of local priorities for nature be shared with public and private bodies involved in land use decision-making. There is also scope for existing tools for layering these processes to be extended to link pools of information. (3 votes) (Challenge 6)