Nature Networks 'Solutions Workshops' - Output summaries

Summaries to guide principles 

1. Need for long term 'protection' as in assurance/safeguarding 

   • The ‘the intention/objective’ of the network needs to be protected 

2. Underpinned by connectivity

   • Important to communicate the different types/versions of connectivity and the different habitats that involves 

3. Importance of partnership working 

   • Inclusion of current networks 

   • Pulling together lots of different initiatives and enabling them to go further and faster 

4.  Priorities 

   • Biodiversity is the primary priority – additional benefits desirable (“biodiversity plus”) 

   • Protect and restore 

5. Priorities at scale (local vs national) 

   • Top-down national understanding/guidance with bottom-up local decision-making and delivery 

   • Applying the just transition approach 

   • Recognising the importance and role of local people, knowledge and expertise 

   • A nature network ‘core network’ that comes with prescriptive actions with a more locally informed approach through an ‘extended’ network 

6.  Time for action is now 

   • Nature Crisis require a paradigm shift – the framework must lead to swift action  

7. Informed by place-based opportunity mapping including local people, knowledge and expertise 

   • Clarity is needed here to inform what's needs to be in place to equip Local Authorities etc to conduct op mapping. 

8. Nature Networks role in mainstreaming 

9. Nature Networks to be beneficial (eg. a tool to deliver multiple benefits or obligations) 

General discussion points 

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

• Need for long term 'protection' 

  • Overlap with land reform discussion 

  • What level of protection should the networks have? 

• Two-part approach - the framework that informs local nature networks (incl. opportunities and priority mapping, And then the final national wide nature network  

• Opportunity mapping 

  • Need to understand what we have currently to know where gaps need plugging 

  • Identify what we already have, why it was set up, is it achieving what it was set up for? Is it functioning enough to stick with and integrate into the network - or is that not suitable.  

  • Mapping is part of the process - not the goal! 

  • Need to make sure we learn from previous mapping exercises  

  • Use of the ecological coherence protocol 

  • Informed and analysed by local people 

• Could the 'nature networks' project as a whole help funnel large amounts of private finance into Scotland's ecosystem restoration? How can priorities inform funding and vice versa? 

• Focus on connectivity 

  • Needs to be about biodiversity -need to go beyond that it's 'either or' 

  • Needs to be based on the science of connectivity - need to know more about how that works  

  • A core network? That is vital for biodiversity - and then a radiating additional network where flexibility is okay 

  • Needs to focus on the space 'around' protected areas 

• Where does 'standard' or 'quality' come into things? Where does potential come into things? 

  • Incentivising 

• How can we address the enormity of it all - can there be a principle encapsulating the need for complementarity? 

• Priorities - Biodiversity plus desirables 

  • Biodiversity top of priorities, the rest are a list of 'desirables' 

  • Pinning down what the main objective is - what is the priority when it comes down to conflicts? 

  • Need for a clear, concrete 'definition' or vision for Nature networks - currently assumed that people know what they are 

  • Focus is about addressing biodiversity and climate crises 

  • About connecting PAs - parts of Scotland 

• Priorities – local vs national  

  • Focus on 'local priorities' how do these work with other scales - why not landscape scale? 

  • Level of definition or 'certainties' that are needed at different levels of delivery 

  • Different layers of a network with different levels of flexibility 

  • What are the 'musts' in delivering a Nature network and what is flexible/adaptable based on place? 

  • How do we bring together national/regional biodiversity knowledge and then local 

  • 'Core' network (with prescriptive actions) with a more locally informed approach for 'extended' network 

  • 'Reverse biodiversity decline' - Understand that this looks different at different scales 

  • Top-down national understanding with bottom-up local delivery 

  • Broad overall national priorities and help with opportunity mapping tools should come top down- but on the ground delivery and local priorities should be fed in from the bottom up. 

  • Nature networks must be planned at a national scale rather than assigning each local authority to create one so they're not limited by people boundaries 

  • Will the nature networks focus on national priorities in terms of national value or will local value come into play? Eg. - otters are ubiquitous in rural Scotland, but maybe rare in ECC and so gives more importance there? 

  • Introduces the issue of monitoring management

  • Locally designated sites are important, likely forming a major part of the habitat connectivity between nationally/internationally designated sites. Locally designated site information, such as wildlife sites, will be available from Local Authority Planning depts in the form of maps and biological data likely to sit with Local Records Centres, but could also include local projects eg Glasgow’s Green Connectors and also other national initiatives such as Buglife’s BeeLines and landscape scale projects such as Seven Lochs Wetland Park etc. In urban areas locally designated sites form the majority of greenspace that residents experience so to achieve the aim of an equitable spread of sites the inclusion of locally designated sites is required. 

• Importance of partnership working  

  • How do all these slightly different ideas come together? How do different networks feed in or become part of the wider network.  

  • 'Green networks' vs 'nature networks' - Are they different - one about people one about nature. Green networks as a "nature network plus" - about biodiversity but also people.

  • Need for layering of current initiatives and seeing what's there, filling gaps. Scaling up what has happened in the central belt. 

  • Inclusion of current networks; 

    • Bee lines 

    • Local Nature Conservation Sites and Local Biodiversity Sites 

    • Forestry - natural reserves 

    • Inner forth integrated habitat network 

    • Central Scotland Green Network 

    • Edinburgh Nature Network 

  • Agree we shouldn't create new initiatives where they already exist 

  • West Lothian currently mapping habitats across the whole of West Lothian, assessing condition and then this info will be used to assess ecosystem services of the habitats too - so we'll be mapping what ecosystem services are provided by the habitats as they are and where demand is as well. This will all inform our Local Biodiversity Action Plans, and hence Local Development Plans. 

• Nature networks can utilise already established mechanisms or desires to drive deployment (eg. Biodiversity Net Gain and agri- subsidy) 

Summaries to guide principles 

1. The importance of Scotland's nature to Scotland's people 

   • At their core, must meet ecological care 

2. Engagement should be founded in framing and values 

   • Natures contribution to people / Ecosystem services (multifunctionality) 

3. Clear, accessible communication 

   • Visual representation of Nature networks (needed for land management and public understanding) 

   • Clear guidance on purpose priorities of wider network and contributions 

4. Trusted and transparent relationship are fundamental 

   • Empower and equip 'trusted messengers' 

   • Blurred, indicative lines/ defused boundaries (flexibility in where Nature networks are) 

     • Mapping aspect should be a tool for discussion and decision-making not a defined goal for the land area 

     • Transparency in leadership (avoiding confusing as to who is responsible for what) 

     • Relationships across land boundaries 

     • Important ecological principle in a changing world/ increasing pressure in surrounding area/ context (buffer zones) 

5. Mechanism to improve communication and coordination 

   • At all levels/ scales of management and between all parties 

6. Landscape approach to the ecological connectivity, alongside, place-based/ local community engagement 

7. Need for coherence across policy – Nature Networks as deliverable outputs in already existing policy and funding mechanisms 

General discussion points 

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

• Principles of influence - training in framing and values when engaging various groups 

  • Robert Cialdini – 6 Principles of Influence – Based on research and evidence and to be used ethically 

    • 1 – Reciprocity 

    • 2 – Commitment & Consistency 

    • 3 – Social proof 

    • 4 – Liking 

    • 5 – Authority 

    • 6 – Scarcity 

  • Human aspect needs to be a major part 

  • Using what we know about Dasgupta report etc to help frame discover 

  • Opportunity mapping - human aspect needs to be layered in so the needs of the local communities are factored in. Helps get buy in and develop relationships 

  • Need to engage those who what to do good, even if they do not full under a particular designation etc 

• Role of nature networks - Joined up thinking to address biodiversity decline across a landscape - Communication between various bodies 

  • Example of current issue from upland estate; 

    • rough summer cattle graze - waders and RSPB 

    • forestry and planting - Scottish forestry (red deer being pushed down to farmland due to upland planting) 

• Facilitating body. Could this be Regional Land Use Partnerships (RLUPs)? 

  • A lot of overlap between the role of RLUPs and what is needed for nature network in terms of priority management 

  • Use of Scottish Landscape Strategy (principles being refreshed) and Regional Land Use Frameworks 

  • Need for maps to help illustrate and translate to what Nature networks look like on the ground however current data isn't necessarily up to scratch 

• Trusted relations are fundamental (e.g farming and community people) 

  • Local stakeholder engagement is key  

  • Nature Networks can help communities consider any conflicting aims or priorities over pieces of land 

  • Need for blurred lines - needs to be considered when talking to land owners and developing the trusted relationships 

  • Mapping aspect should be a tool for discussion not a defined goal for the land area 

  • Known public good

  • Need for financial support 

  • Trusted messengers on the ground 

• Need to for coherence across policy - NN as deliverable outputs in already existing policy and funding mechanisms 

  • Complex and lots to be considered - There is a lot being thrown at land managers, including what they can do for climate change, need to consider this. 

  • This framework must bring things together and explain how it all works - not adding to the complexity  

  • Land reform - a mechanism to influence owners in land management plans 

  • Nature networks could be one of the deliverables in which owners put in their plans 

  • Land owners are usually on board, but will not go out of pocket - so with the requests must come with funding 

  • Responsible investment in natural capital - How can they be applied to the principles of Nature Networks? 

• NN need to be located in such a place that it works with local priorities 

  • Use of local plans to inform (including local designations) 

• Shouldn't be about adding 'policing' 

• In some areas there are lots of opportunities for communities, others a lack, NN could help identify and coordinate and fill gaps 

• Needs to link to resilience to future climate and land change 

• Funding - needs to be more equitable and accessible between groups (discrepancies between farming and communities) 

• Agreement with biodiversity being the priority with additionality 

  • Needs to be bottom up as well as biodiversity - for some you won't get the biodiversity without the social element 

  • Community buy in need to be able to understand what the public good is - understand the benefit (educate, inform, and sell) (ecosystem services) they'll get from biodiversity being the priority 

  • Tie in the idea of 'what should Scotland look like?' 

• Mechanism to 'bring the rural landscape into the urban' 

  • Use of retrofitting and new build green infrastructure 

  • Green belt review - what benefits are there to green belt to help protect it? 

  • Look at how the rural affects the urban (eg. pentland run off flooding water of leith in Edinburgh). Showing the social and economic benefits (returns on investment) 

  • New 'nature network' designation for long term protection from development? 

• Clarity in roles and responsibilities 

  • Use of agreements between land owners, communities/projects and contracts 

  • Could use management plans to identify where roles/ responsibilities sit however there was a consensus on this as the quality and use of management plans doesn't seem to be the same everywhere and doesn't necessarily include biodiversity 

• Role of a particular body (eg. NS) on monitoring to ensure standardisation 

  • Body to team up with trusted partners to engage particular stakeholders 

• Deer management  

  • Deer management groups have a major role here, on practical basis, they are better equipped to manage deer numbers  

  • Engagement with DMGs (looking at the balance of who's on those groups, eg. lack of farmers in them) 

  • Needs tie in with Scottish Forestry offering of deer fencing 

• Public interest - coordinating role for Nature networks? 

• How to maintain land owners support over into the future? 

  • Funding needed to maintain land owner support over the long periods. There needs to be a financial benefit. 

  • SG needs to guaranteed financial support to show the longevity of the project 

  • Difficulty in getting farmers to commit to 'long term' (eg. 10 years for wildflower meadows) 

  • Information about what environmental projects are happening in the local area to help sites join up 

Summaries to guide principles 

1. Collaboration 

   • Identify key stakeholders. 

   • Formalised gap analysis amongst organisations 

   • Ability to tap into different sources for targeted issues e.g. funded research for grassland mapping 

   • Encourage collaboration between universities and colleges 

2. Access to existing/consistent data 

   • Set up a national data repository, likely controlled by NatureScot.  

   • Data collected must match data needs of users 

   • Ensure consistent data and a common approach to monitoring 

   • Must be able to show the connections between multiple habitats and land units 

   • Data collection should not be for just one purpose 

   • Make data more accessible to users at all levels of data literacy 

   • Need to make maps/data held in various databases in local authorities, government (RPID) etc. available. 

   • Data should have an indication of its quality attached 

   • Identify gaps in habitat data (grassland and other hard to obtain habitats) 

3. Monitoring for success 

   • Need to decide what success looks like for Nature Networks – climate change mitigation, biodiversity gains, habitat connectivity, reduced fragmentation? 

   • Maximise use of existing data to inform monitoring and to identify the gaps going forward 

4. Data collection 

   • Data collection should not be for just one purpose 

   • Economy of scale for data collation, where possible. Will still need ground trothing. 

   • Essential to collect data beyond the ‘hard’ borders of designated sites, national parks etc. 

   • Collect enough data to ensure we’re making a difference 

   • Increase use of innovative data sources 

General discussion points 

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

• Communication 

  • Essential that we involve communities and other local groups  

• Unclogging the process 

  • What do we need to collect and why?  

  • long lists of data sets confusing - Planners want a clear list of ''useful; data sets  

  • Efficiency of collecting data at different scales (local > National). 

  • Set up a forum for collectors, funders and users of data  

• Least cost modelling to determine how connected habitats are 

• Who has the capacity to deliver the vast amount of monitored data available? 

• Data will aid reversing habitat fragmentation 

• Planning Depts could facilitate the process but probably not lead. 

• Different users may prioritise different data needs – one size does not fit all purposes. 

• Nature Networks need to focus on biodiversity outcomes 

• Must be aware that climate change will impinge on and be mitigated by nature networks. Carbon codes currently only for woodland/peatland – could they be extended to other habitats? 

• Funding 

  • Need to focus on people as well as biodiversity to increase interest/funding options  

  • Local Record Centres could act as a point of access but need funding. 

  • Overlap with funding as data will be important for informing nature corridors and grant applications 

• Communication 

  • Sell the vision “in 5 years we will have made ‘x’ progress” possibly a good starting point 

• Data storage 

  • Audit existing databases. Which is the most popular and which sectors use the most? 

• Planning applications contain a huge amount of underutilised biological data, but data ownership is an issue. Understanding is that to unlock this data source SG Planning Policies need to align and make data transfer a requirement, because currently it is not possible for LA Planning Depts to do this with the current policy wording.  

  • Make it mandatory that data collected for planning purposes is able to be uploaded and made available through an open access system – use EPlanning? 

• Nature Networks are habitat based. We must also look at the species which inhabit these habitats and aid where possible. 

Summaries to guide principles 

1. Creating a sense of guardianship - connecting people with nature 

   • Just transition (Addressing environmental and social issues together) 

   • A place-based, iterative approach to engagement 

2. Engagement must be meaningful and transparent 

   • Be wary of assumptions of different groups (who's interested) and how that shapes engagement and communications 

   • Ensuring clarity on next steps and timeline - follow up 

3. The time, resources, people needed for building long lasting, trusted relationships must feature in any plans in designing/ implementing a nature network  

4. Open working - actively sharing 

   • Iterative working also ties into open working i.e. being open and honest that it won't be a perfect process from the start 

   • Learn through doing - do not let mistakes be seen as failure and prevent action moving forward 

5. Opportunity mapping co-produced with local people and communities 

   • Using established approaches. eg. ecological coherence protocol 

   • Addressing duplication/siloed working 

6. Partnership/ community driven 

   • Empowering and equipping bottom-up activity 

   • ‘Service recipes’ and people focused, story based, case studies 

General discussion points 

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

• Balance bringing people on board with taking urgent action 

  • Move beyond pilots 

  • Communities need guidance on data, mapping etc on local nature - how do we connect this to wider nature networks (through the local authorities) 

  • Must be done with buy in - Is 'bringing people with us' the right phase - are we catching up with those already doing things on the ground? 

• Be wary of assumptions of different groups (who's interested) and how that shapes engagement and communications 

  • Unseen or unintended barriers  

  • Parallels between different protected groups 

  • Difference in cultures 

  • People don't see 'themselves' in the work  

  • Speaking to grassroot groups who are already doing amazing work on the ground 

• Need to ensure that whatever is in the framework/ toolkit/ funding etc is applicable to both urban and rural locations (taking into account the distinct issues faced by each) 

• Empower the communities to engage and equip them with the data/knowledge of biodiversity in the area 

• The people element of opportunity mapping and data sharing 

  • Mapping needs to be co-designed/co-produced with local people, communities, Local Authorities, organisations 

  • NN plan - highlighting opportunities (for comms, funders, investors) - move to delivery (guidance to Local Authorities) 

  • Ecological coherence protocol involves bringing people in 

  • Storymaps and boards used to engage people and allow them to suggest sites (eg. Glasgow Green Connectors) 

• Addressing conflict, lack of trust, and damaged relationships 

  • The role of perceptions, archetypes and stereotypes 

  • Need for getting people into community spaces, break down stereotypes and remedy conflict 

  • Ranger services provide a key role in negotiation of land conflict and access - they know they local communities and are part of the community - key for relationship building 

  • Relationship building can’t happen over night – needs a long lead in time 

  • Identifying the key folk in a community to help address land conflict and build trusted relationships 

  • Use lessons learnt about climate crisis- use climate café, citizen assemblies 

• Consultation fatigue 

  • Coordinating what projects/organisations are already doing with help prevent repeat asks on particular groups 

  • Need quality engagement - incentivise (food!) 

  • Don't consult for the sake of consulting 

  • Being super clear on what the point is of the consultations, how it will be used and fed back, and what is actually going to happen post-consultation 

  • Follow up on how their input has impacted work - people can see a clear plan about how their engagement will be deliver 

  • Timelines (particularly with funding) causing fatigue 

• Make the links to other issues and policies to tap into underutilised influences. Following how the climate movement has made it relevant to everyone. 

• People delivering partnerships are vital for longevity 

  • They need to feel valued and empowered to continue, helping address burnout 

• Just transition approach- must acknowledge that there is a lot of 'transition' to do 

  • A just transition is both the outcome – a fairer, greener future for all – and the process that must be undertaken in partnership with those impacted by the transition to net zero. It is how we get to a net zero and climate resilient economy in a way that delivers fairness and tackles inequality and injustice. 

  • Skills and employment angle 

  • Acknowledging the link between social justice issues and environmental justice and that solutions should either address both or at least not cause more harm 

  • Addressing that bio and climate crisis without widening the gaps that exist in society 

  • Using Nature networks to funnel funding coincides with the JTs as it ensures funders are investing responsibility 

• Avoiding siloed working 

  • Coordination role (signposting funders, partnership organisations etc)  

  • Presenting people with what work is already happening, what the opportunity mapping shows, will avoid duplication, and well as give people concrete options, and save time too 

  • Could Nature networks act as a way to coordinate and prevent repeating work, 'network' of those working on Nature networks? 

Summaries to guide principles 

1. Utilising Local knowledge 

   • Within the framework of co-created community-based projects, training and learning can develop organically through partnerships (LBAPs etc.) 

   • Identify and harness existing resources at the community level 

2. Partnership working  

   • Increase partnership/engagement between bodies - Local Authorities, universities, private sector etc. 

   • Partnerships need to be stable and well resourced 

   • Need to distinguish the knowledge ecological professionals need from the more basic knowledge land managers need to unlock and take advantage of the money/ grant / agricultural support out there. 

3. Ensure proper training and guidance 

   • Increase awareness of available skills/knowledge, especially at local level – no one co-ordinating workshops/training in the different sectors. 

   • Training needs to be bottom up as well as top down 

   • Ensure that other training types (engineering, planning etc.) have biodiversity aspect to build a ‘basic’ knowledge into the system.  

   • Training needs to be able to evolve to respond quicker to changes in the policy and support landscape. 

   • Long term stability of funding for posts and training 

• Knowledge and skills gap

  • Local Authorities and government should be able to access extra resource from both private sector (e.g. consultants, existing land managers) or elsewhere within the public sector.  

  • Local Authorities should facilitate local organisations at grass roots level 

  • Volunteers can help with awareness raising, skills, training and some provision of knowledge but are no substitute for properly resourced professional teams. 

General discussion points 

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

• Utilise local knowledge 

  • Communities must be involved in co-designing nature networks - perhaps involved in direct mapping of nature  

  • Community mapping of nature & ecological services is a good way of identifying skills & knowledge already existing 

  • Encourage farmers 'open days' like ‘Open Farm Sunday’- local & community based this will raise awareness of farming and enable sharing of knowledge. 

• Partnership working (Better, clearer, more connections between practitioners and schools and universities) 

  • Increase partnership/engagement between bodies - Local Authorities, universities, private sector etc. 

  • Building relationship with farmers, school children - more engagement early. 

  • Peer to peer learning 

  • Must be carried out for the long term to cement relationships  

  • Improve coordination of the pathways to nature linked careers 

  • Bring students straight from further education into a training package for an employer – probably 2 years. 

  • Most universities don’t do ‘vocational’ training e.g. habitat surveys. Develop new SQA verified courses which could be included as modules. 

  • Partnerships need to be stable and well resourced 

  • Need to distinguish the knowledge ecological professionals need from the more basic knowledge land managers need to unlock and take advantage of the money/ grant / agricultural support out there.  

• We need clearer more coordinated pathways across all providers to provide a recognised route to green jobs 

  • Create a national Green Corps training and job program as a central component of a green economy, connecting education, research, community-based organisations and local/regional and national levels of government. 

  • More use of modern apprenticeships in nature and biodiversity. To include targeted skills that will be used. 

  • Not enough planners etc. in the system to deliver these nature networks.  

• Farmers value biodiversity, but that isn't how its perceived - need to switch the language 

• Farmers/Landowners should receive the same level of income from biodiversity/nature management as they do for food growing. 

• Nature needs to be a core concern of every single industry and sector  

  • Presentations to team members / councillors on importance of biodiversity to raise awareness of its importance and where these skills are required. 

• Funding 

  • Enterprise Boards (eg. Scottish Nature Finance Pioneers) 

  • Local Authorities are already getting some funding through developer obligations - can this be expanded to result in a 'bigger pot’ 

  • Poor level of pay, short term contracts for LBAPs and the need to train staff in the wide range of skill sets. Nature jobs need to be rated in parity with LA engineers and historic environment staff to encourage graduates to take up nature posts. 

  • Scottish Nature Finance Pioneers - look to Enterprise Boards to help leverage finance. 

  • Green Finance - insurance companies looking for a pipeline of things to support. Can we use some of that to fundi long term training courses so they're on a stable footing? 

  • Should be support for professional bodies to deliver relevant courses 

  • Local Authorities to work together with training resources rather than competing for them 

• Simplify regulation and make priorities very clear  

  • Clarity and consistency in wording policy documents and associated publicity material is vital.  

  • Need more farm advisers and the process of applying for farm support for biodiversity needs to be much simpler 

• How we employ people 

  • Employers to pay into the professional organisations and make the material accessible to everyone. 

  • Public sector has mandatory training on e.g. health and safety, child protection – this should be extended to include climate and nature literacy. Could also be extended to private sector. 

  • Increase access to external expertise e.g. James Hutton Institute 

  • Standardise training videos as an 'onboarding training package and make them mandatory. Led by COSLA

  • Place biodiversity posts in each Local Authority department to learn skills and inform their work.  

• Ensure proper training and guidance 

  • Increase awareness of available skills/knowledge, especially at local level – no one co-ordinating workshops/training in the different sectors. A new body? 

  • Training needs to be bottom up as well as top down 

  • Ensure that other training types (engineering, planning etc.) have biodiversity aspect to build a ‘basic’ knowledge into the system.  

  • Organisations should be encouraged to send staff on training 

  • Some eNGO’s previously ran courses in field skill training. With proper funding these could be restarted. 

  • Involve LANTRA and CIEEM to deliver guidance and training 

  • Training needs to be able to evolve to respond quicker to changes in the policy and support landscape. 

  • Long term stability of funding for posts and training 

Summaries to guide principles 

1. Integration - Governance needs to not just sit in planning - must extend across sectors 

2. Effective partnership and collaboration 

   • Decision-making and partnerships mapping exercise 

   • Centralised, national coordination of implementation of nature networks (eg. NatureScot), empowering and equipping local delivery (eg. Local Authorities) 

     • Oversight, guidance and support (expertise, vision, national priorities) 

3. Inclusive and diverse representation in governance in the groups involved 

   • Along with the support/ resources to enable their involvement 

   • Community-focused (bottom-up approach) with a national steer. Nature community is currently not particularly diverse, with some demographics and communities more engaged than others, this needs to be considered in governance structure 

4. Adaptable and scalable to place-based demands, needs and timescales 

   • Nature Networks are an evolving piece and therefore the governance will evolve 

   • Longevity 

     • Well-resourced and supported governance to ensure longevity 

   • Balance between consistency of outcome across Scotland with the flexibility of approach 

5. Transparent, democratic, accountable 

   • Clear hierarchical structure (with defined roles, responsibilities and expectation) 

6. Evidence driven/informed decision-making 

   • Conditionality for public payment 

   • Reporting 

General discussion points 

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

• While Nature Networks will feature in NPF4, governance needs to not just sit in planning - must extend across sectors  

• Partnership, integration, collaboration  

  • Partnership approach - including communities, land ownership, RLUPs, voluntary catchment agreements etc. To be effective it can't just be a top-down approach. 

  • Inclusive/diverse in groups represented 

  • Need to move reliance away from volunteers if we are to achieve what is needed 

• Decision-making/ partnership mapping exercise would be helpful 

  • Would highlight current projects/ partnerships and where there are gaps and a specific 'nature network' partnership is needed 

  • Built with the input of Local Authorities/ LBAPS etc 

  • Help facilitate private investment 

• Structure - Bottom-up approach but with a national steer 

  • Need a higher-level governance that sits outside of the various policy levers that then brings them all together  

  • Grassroot voice is central/ Communities central to the identification of NN needs 

  • LA need to be supportive of local community priorities 

  • How do we govern/manage a network when different species will have different networks (an ant vs squirrel vs eagle)? 

• There is hope that RLUPs or similar can play a role in governance 

  • In terms of mapping partnerships, the RLUP report says "potential blind spots within an RLUP board may be avoided through purposive stakeholder mapping and engagement to determine who the relevant regional parties are, building these partnerships from the ground up rather than co-opting structures that exist already". So some of this may have started already. 

  • In addition to RLUPs there will also be opportunities for the delivery of Nature Networks through the development Regional Spatial Strategies. 

• Non-compliance 

  • Monitoring and enhancement model (eg. BNG) needed for non-compliance 

  • Lack of legal status of Nature networks will impact compliance 

  • Agricultural subsidies, and similar, have a short enforceable lifespan 

• The additional benefits of Nature networks (eg. health and wellbeing) could inform the governance and public buy in  

  • The benefits need to be felt by all those involved 

  • What can Nature networks provide that other current designations or networks don't? 

  • These additional benefits can be used as a lever for action across different sectors 

  • Particularly relevant to the urban environment 

  • Policy, guidance, and evidence needed to equip Local Authorities and others to balance nature and people issues 

  • Feeds into public access 

• Ensuring longevity of governance of Nature networks – need to be well resourced and supported 

  • Community led plans/ partnerships reliant on LA committed funding (and volunteer time) 

  • Issues around project based, and therefore short term, funding regarding funding the governance 

  • Geographical differences - organisations that are usually involved in the governance of projects (eg. SWT) are not based across the whole of scotland (eg. Aberdeen) 

  • Turn over causing loss of knowledge and changing of priorities - we have seen commitment to the LBAP wax and wane with political terms and senior staff changes 

  • A national commitment to supporting community-based capacity for leadership/engagement in NN governance would support long-term sustainability. The experience of how the Coastal Communities Network developed can be instructive. Over an 8 year period, it began first from isolated communities focused on their defined marine conservation goals, building capacity overtime with external support and now working together through the CCN to develop unified voice to inform government policy.  

  • Other current examples; 

    • Cairngorms Connect has a 200year vision 

    • Bee line and 10-year agreements 

• How does the potential of funding streams impact governance? 

• Consider how the different elements of Nature Networks, that may need governance/management, do/don't come together? eg. monitoring, management, community engagement, funding etc. 

• Need timescale (from top) to ensure urgency (alongside support/ guidance)  

  • Consider timescales and differences across authorities. 

• Projects to learn from; 

  • Living Landscapes approach, in Edinburgh and elsewhere, it is a good way of getting lots of people involved and work in partnerships with different organisations - maybe this should be expanded as a way to help create the nature networks 

  • ClydePlan/ Glasgow and Clyde Valley Green network, keen to work with RLUPs - however there are currently no pilots in the area. With significant experience of collaborative working and seeing the benefits of regional working - RLUPs could allow us to engage with and support strategic rural land use issues that planning does not always have the opportunity to get involved with. 

  • Can anything be learned from https://revere.eco/ a partnership of National Parks and Paladium to catalyse natural capital investment 

  • Local Heat and Energy Efficiency strategies (LHEES) - we'd then all be at a similar stage with similar levels of quality network - urgency for action would be met 

Summaries to guide principles 

1. Funding models must be structured to ensure fairness 

   • Regional fairness 

   • Habitat/species fairness 

   • A fair application process 

2. A clear, long term, strategy and business case is needed to facilitate the long term funding required for Nature Networks 

3. Existing funding sources need to be reviewed to ensure they are delivering most efficiently 

4. The establishment of a centralised fund should be examined 

5. Clarity over network components, goals as well as accessibility to the necessary tools are needed at the national level to efficiently and strategically allocate resources 

General discussion points 

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

• Knowledge 

  • This work is multi-disciplinary (what kind of graduate schemes, uni courses etc would be helpful in better equipping new staff) 

  • Proper training regime for those already in decision making roles.  

  • Resources for training those regional governance groups (formalised so they ‘get something’ CPD wise for themselves also) 

  • Move public understanding past simple carbon accounting habitats 

  • For greater impact/efficiency work with trade associations rather than individual businesses to bring knowledge levels up 

  • Investors need a story - 30x30 and NN a great story to sell. 

  • Worry less about greenwashing (the public can see through it if a company is doing this, the money however is needed) 

• Difficult in applying  

  • Create one fund for Nature Networks (mix public and private), with one body operating this, decision making on spending Not too centralised however (to ensure well targeted local application) 

  • The need to highlight good work to facilitate faster uptake (tool box) 

• Scale and Stages (e.g. Project Development vs Set-up vs Maintenance) 

  • Surge of funding might be needed at the beginning however this is often hard to come by 

  • The current model for applying for funding for developing a project in particular is very onerous and not proportionate (especially a block to community/bottom-up approach) 

  • On ‘maintenance’: twin carbon unit with a ‘biodiversity unit’ (part of this biodiversity unit could be maintenance costs) 

  • Build maintenance into funding pot applications (your bid needing to show plan – or at least costings - for year-on-year maintenance) 

  • Agri-support potentially very good avenue for long term (i.e. maintenance) costs so it is key this is well thought out 

• National to Regional relationship 

  • National to highlight potential areas - bottom up and local vital in choosing those individual sites / trade-offs that might be needed. 

  • National body has a role in maybe setting a certain amount of tagets (e.g in this region this is needed) 

  • National to highlight potential areas - bottom up and local vital in choosing those individual sites / trade-offs that might be needed. 

• Multi-year/Long(er) term funding 

  • Lack of multiyear funding is problematic 

  • 3-5 years much more helpful 

  • Potential to use a ‘Trusted operator’ (either the landowner or, the organisation they’re working with) sort of scheme as a form of guarantee to give 'funders' certainty of their investment allowing for long term funding 

• Fairness in funding 

  • There needs to be rules out there so 'good developers' (working in a way that protects or enhances connectivity for biodiversity) aren’t effectively penalised against their 'bad' competition 

  • Don’t set up systems that rely heavily on volunteers - it needs to be properly financed. 

  • Likewise, local authorities if taking a role need to have properly resourced team 

  • In whatever funding model should ‘ring fence’ funds for different habitat types (less well-known ones, less carbon focussed ones) 

  • Funding needs to target biodiversity as well as ecosystem services and carbon capture. All need to be mapped to ensure built in from the off. 

• Clear direction for (private) finances 

  • Biodiversity and community groups good source of knowledge/resource to help direct funds 

  • A clear business model for Nature Networks needs to be drawn up - this will inform the finance model 

  • Long term strategy needed to allow for more stability 

  • Companies (e.g. National Grid) know their projects for the next few years, would like to be given direction on where their money would give most bang for their buck (biodiversity wise) 

  • Local authorities having clearer direction on how close (or not) developer offset is to their development so all parties know it’s having most positive impact 

  • Legislate to facilitate - Incentivise by building into consenting regime (e.g  planning) 

• Co-ordinating resources 
  • Look at existing funds (e.g. infrastructure fund) to make sure they are working with Nature Networks (or 30x30) and not in isolation of them (or against them) 
  • Likewise look to use existing partnerships (RLUPs, SoSE, SE, HIE) also make sure to look to links between Nature Networks and existing projects e.g., ‘Border Lands’ 

• To attract private investors, it is important that the objectives/outcomes of nature network projects chime with business. 

  • How would their investment help to meet a business’ needs and drivers? Could be around i) Reputational drivers, ii) Sustainability requirements, iii) Business operational drivers, iv) Financial returns on investments. This is related to being able to ‘sell’ the benefits to investors and telling a great story – make it applicable to business and explore two-benefits for both nature and business. 

  • Businesses like to showcase what good things they’re involved in and fund – it’s good for their shareholders, stakeholders, customers and attracting/retaining staff.  Consider some kind of badging / kite mark certification scheme, eg. An ‘Investors in Nature’ badge or similar could be a great marketing angle, and help to tell a great story.      

• Develop a ‘project catalogue’ – a database (preferably digital, not a spreadsheet) with a range of projects to showcase (with information including what, where, intended objectives & outcomes etc) – a tool to match projects with investors. Regional/local businesses are more likely to have reasons to invest in local communities and nature recovery projects – a greater vested interest, than a national/global organisation looking to fulfil its wider net zero agenda, for example. And perhaps this goes for longer term funding and investment too (beyond an initial capital offer). 

• ‘Investment’ can take many forms.  

  • Beyond finance, businesses could provide land, advice/expertise, equipment, tech, voluntary time etc. Increasingly, corporates are needing to demonstrate social value when work-winning and in project delivery. This can take many forms including community benefits, volunteering time and resources, STEM etc, and there is a large opportunity here to tap into around nature focused activities. 

Summaries to guide principles 

1. Nature Networks as a public good 

   • Ensure messaging communicates what 'public goods' comes from biodiversity 

2. Policy development must happen alongside quick actionable delivery 

3. Mainstreaming Nature Networks, and wider biodiversity targets, in every policy of sector 

   • To ensure this goes beyond political terms by building into economic policy and galvanising public support, similar to that of mainstreaming of climate action 

4. Centralised, national coordination of implementation of Nature networks (eg. NatureScot), empowering and equipping local delivery (eg. LA) 

   • Scalable management and investment solutions 

5. Need for policy coherence  

   • Note where there is conflict and provide clarity/ guidance on how to do it (use of infographic)  

6. Use policy and planning levers to ‘protect’ Nature Networks as a plan going forward, and safeguard NN sites once established 

   • Eg. Local Development Plans will enshrine Nature Networks through ensuring they are protected through the LDP constraints mapping process for the LDP (Sensitive to how this differs between urban and rural landscapes) 

   • Use of SBS and delivery plan and other land/nature-based levers 

7. Iterative policy, reflective of the flexible nature of Nature networks and their purpose, to ensure long term resilience to change 

General discussion points 

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

• Definition discussion 

  • Agree that priority should be biodiversity  

  • If another definition created - could create confusion. Needs to align with NPF4 definition. 

  • Fundamental is connectivity; does this mean we need to remove "stepping stones"? Move more fully into the bigger, better, more joined up, by actual networks? 

  • Nodes is a stronger approach than stepping stones as it infers continuous connection 

  • Already a number of other ‘networks’ out there - Green networks, ecological networks, habitat networks 

  • Clarity on what it means from a national point of view, one for local authorities, what the statutory responsibilities are (if any) 

• This is not a 'new start' but a chance to bring coherence to what's been done before  

  • Need to catch everyone up quickly so action can be taken quickly  

  • Need a bold statement from SG on what NN are and what they bring - this is the last 'new thing' bringing together everything that has been tried before 

  • Look at what hasn't worked in the past 

• Need for coherence - note where there is conflict and provide clarity/guidance on how to do it  

  • Need regular training to help with organisations turn over  

  • What protection is afforded to Nature Networks? 

  • Issues regarding policies being high-level with implementations plans taking 3-4 years to produce 

  • local record centre and mapping and data behind decision making - not all areas of Scotland have record centre provision 

  • Keep it to a short time frame for the initial implementation (eg. restrictions) and then review after 5 years? In the review see if there opportunities to reduce restrictions etc 

• Planning 

  • How does it feed into NPF and local policy relationship? 

  • Need to know what we've got at the moment, where the gaps are, what we want to do with those gaps. LDP can help do this and protect sites 

  • Quickest way for LA to act is through the community plan and climate change strategy 

  • Opportunity maps would help planners make demands on development  

  • The sites that aren't protected - the 'nice habitats' - need to know what is there to protect it. 

• Local Nature Conservation Sites 

  • Putting protection on the Nature networks would help stop erosion of Local Nature Conservation Sites 

  • Putting local biodiversity sites in Local Development Plans gives them the weight as it's a statutory document 

  • For some Local Authorities, the baseline of nature networks for Local Authorities is the beelines, and looking to link these to the Local Nature Conservation Sites 

  • Local Nature Conservation Sites pinpoint local biodiversity sinks and connectivity options so would bring the local aspect to Nature Networks (and possibly 30x30) 

• Policy landscape considerations and mainstreaming 

  • Use of infographics/ visual tool for how Nature networks overlaps or brings together different policies - Where will Nature networks fit in the environmental strategy 

  • The term needs lifted out nationally and be mentioned everywhere (eg. Net zero, economic, just transition, quality of life, health and wellbeing, transport), but have a central source of what it is on NatureScot website for all the mentions to filter back to. 

  • It helps if policies, and their interpretational guidance, recognises explicitly that there are inherently trade-offs and synergies in any new targets and decisions do not exist in isolation. So while NN's are primarily about biodiversity, they can also deliver for other outcomes like climate, wellbeing, access, etc, as can those policies and integrated decisions deliver better outcomes for local people than disparate ones. 

  • Policy implications for Nature networks need to be revisited over coming years to ensure they are resilient to change and are fit for the future 

• Central resource 

  • Wish for NatureScot to have the coordination role. A national steer is wanted – NatureScot looked to for consistency and expertises.  

  • Central agency would help with the sustainability and maintained of the data Biodiversity doesn't respect our boundaries and borders, we need it be national. Also feeds into economy of scale. 

  • Identification of nature networks should not be a statutory duty for local authorities - don't have the expertise. 

  • A central resource would assist difference across Local Authorities 

• The role of positive effects for biodiversity and biodiversity net gain 

  • The opportunity mapping could have a role where offsetting can't happen on site 

  • Tying to net gain, would funnel private investment into Nature networks 

  • Opportunity to bring in appropriate developments involved 

  • Would have to have caveats as to what we'd expect to see for the input 

  • Nature networks can't just be on a voluntary only basis 

  • Difficult to say how PEfB and Nature Networks would come together when there isn't a solid, unified approach 

• ‘Protecting Nature Networks’ without statutory protection 

  • Using meaningful legal binding targets 

  • Mainstream Nature networks in decision-making and policy in other areas 

  • Ensure there aren't adverse effects for those who are implementing them 

  • Need for community and relationship building 

  • Nature Networks delivered through Local Development Plans has with timings and cross border issues  

    • Example: ie one LA’s new Local Development Plans will be adopted next year as a 10yr plan which means Nature Networks would not be in it for at least 10yrs and our neighbouring LA is a year into theirs, and not sure what their time scale is. 

    • Example: Midlothian Local Development Plan 2017 - Newbattle Strategic Greenspace Safeguard policy ENV3 - development will not be permitted within the safeguarded Newbattle Strategic Greenspace with the exception of ancillary development relevant to existing uses, and/or other development for the furtherance of agriculture, horticulture, forestry, countryside recreation or tourism