NatureScot position on the acceptability of delivering NPF4 Policy 3 biodiversity measures on protected areas

https://www.nature.scot/doc/naturescot-position-acceptability-delivering-npf4-policy-3-biodiversity-measures-protected-areas

This guidance note sets out NatureScot’s position on the delivery of NPF4 Policy 3 biodiversity offsetting and enhancement measures on protected areas, i.e. Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs) and European sites (Special Areas of Conservation (SACs) and Special Protection Areas (SPAs)), Ramsar sites and World Heritage Sites. 

In summary, we consider Policy 3 biodiversity measures could be delivered on protected areas unless those same measures are already covered by existing legal or contractual obligations, such as an existing management agreement. 

Our position applies equally to both offsetting and enhancement measures, i.e. the offsetting required to reach a level of ‘no net loss’ and any enhancement that will provide a ‘net gain’. 

Background

The fourth National Planning Framework (NPF4) Policy 3 aims to protect biodiversity, reverse biodiversity loss, deliver positive effects from development and strengthen nature networks. Different policy tests apply depending on the type of application (for example whether it is a national, major or local development).

The associated Scottish Government Biodiversity: Draft Planning Guidance on determining suitable enhancement says: 

“Within a plan-led system, ensure enhancement delivered is additional to any measures which would have been likely to happen in the absence of the development.”

Scottish Government’s Biodiversity: Draft Planning Guidance, paragraph 3.15 

The guidance does not go into specifics of what this principle means in relation to Policy 3 delivery on protected areas.  Hence, clarification of our position on the matter. 

The likelihood of positive management for biodiversity happening on a protected area ‘in the absence of a development’ depends partly on management obligations for the area, and also on available funding and resources. 

NatureScot always seeks to enable positive management of protected areas. However, there are no statutory obligations on land managers to carry out measures to improve the condition of the features of protected areas on their land (from unfavourable condition to favourable and/or beyond), or to simply to enhance biodiversity.  Feature condition is a National Indicator within Scotland’s National Performance Framework, which reinforces the importance of positive management of protected areas to help ensure that their natural features remain in good health for all to enjoy. 

Funding for management works on protected areas can come from various sources.  The Agri-Environment Climate Scheme (AECS) provides for positive environmental management of land and can be applied to protected areas.  NatureScot can also offer management agreements to conserve the features of protected areas.  Other funding streams are available that can benefit protected areas, such as Peatland Action, the Nature Restoration Fund, and private investment.

Biodiversity measures delivered through the planning system could increase the effectiveness of some of the landscape-scale restoration needed in Scotland and could also contribute towards the delivery of healthy ecosystems. We recognise that many of the Policy 3 related biodiversity measures that might be provided on protected areas would be unlikely to happen otherwise.

NatureScot’s position

Our position is that proposed NPF4 Policy 3 biodiversity measures could happen on protected areas, unless those same measures are already covered by existing legal or contractual obligations. 

Below is a list of potential legal or contractual obligations affecting protected areas. Proposed Policy 3 biodiversity measures could be acceptable, if they do not cover the same measures encompassed by these obligations. 

  • Work carried out under a management agreement to achieve favourable condition of a protected area feature.  A contractual obligation.
  • Work carried out under an agri-environment scheme, or Forestry Grant Scheme (FGS) contractual agreement, for positive management of a protected area feature.  A contractual obligation.
  • Work required under a Land Management Order.  A legal and contractual obligation.
  • Restoration measures required under a Restoration Notice or Restoration Order. A legal obligation.
  • Actions carried out under a species control agreement or order.  A legal obligation.
  • Management obligations under a private finance contract (for example Peatland Code). A contractual obligation.

To be clear, the following could be considered valid additional measures if they are not already expected to be delivered through an existing legal or contractual obligation:

  • Actions recommended in a SSSI ‘site management statement’ or European site ‘conservation advice package’.  (These documents provide a guide on the types of measures that will benefit a site.)
  • Restoration or enhancement of a protected feature, or non-designated feature, including where this benefits wider landscape-scale restoration.   
  • Restoration or enhancement of land outside a protected area to benefit the protected area.

Our position is set in the following context:

  • Any development work that is proposed to be carried out on, or that may affect, a protected area is subject to the existing regulatory and consenting processes that aim to avoid activities that damage protected features.  Those legislative requirements must be complied with, notwithstanding the objective of complying with Policy 3.  NatureScot will continue to object to inappropriate development proposals that will affect protected features even if this might also potentially deliver Policy 3 biodiversity measures on the protected area.
  • Biodiversity measures on a protected area may include work that contributes towards improvement to the condition of one or more designated features, or it may improve condition for a non-designated habitat or species.  Any work carried out on a protected area should be in line with the management objectives for the site.
  • Scottish Government’s Biodiversity: Draft Planning Guidance includes ‘core principles’ which advise that wherever possible measures for enhancing biodiversity should be provided within the development site. Planning guidance on offsite delivery says that where relevant policy tests cannot be met on-site, off-site provisions may be considered alongside onsite. In these circumstances, offsite delivery should be as close as possible to the development site. Consideration may also be given to alternative high biodiversity sites including Nature30 sites, and connections between them such as Nature Networks.
  • The term ‘enhancement’ refers to measures taken that result in biodiversity being in an overall better state than before intervention (i.e. a net benefit).  It is accepted that to reach this level there is also a need to deliver measures that get to the point where there is a ‘no net loss’, often referred to as ‘offsetting’ in the mitigation hierarchy.  As noted earlier, our position therefore encompasses both offsetting and enhancement.  (A glossary of definitions, which forms an appendix to our Guidance on the use of existing biodiversity metrics in the Scottish planning system, helps explain the distinction between terms.)
  • This statement sets out NatureScot's position in principle.  If a development may affect a protected area or proposes biodiversity measures on a protected area, then discussion should be had with NatureScot on the specifics of the case.  Planning authorities would also need to consider the appropriate mechanism for securing of proposed measures.

NatureScot, September 2025