Scottish Biodiversity Strategy 2022

The evidence of decline in diversity of wildlife and number of wildlife is clear. And in my lifetime of visiting rural scotland there is a marked and obvious decline in insect life, in particular. Anyone who can remember driving rural scottish roads in the 80s will know that windscreens had to be regularly cleaned of large numbers of dead insects. No more. Anyone who remembers having outside lights will remember the huge numbers of moths and other nocturnal insects that would cluster around them (often to great irritation). No more.

The climate crisis is global and the biodiversity one is local. Climate is an existential threat to humanity as a whole and therefore tends to be the main focus of media attention and debate but is difficult for a small country like Scotland to significantly impact acting alone.
Biodiversity feels less urgent as it mostly involves unglamorous species and the risks associated are nebulous and unclear to the public. BUT it is the issue that we can most profoundly effect within our country, and within our lifetimes.
So the challenge is to shift some of our focus from Climate Change (largely a matter for international bodies in my opinion) to Biodiversity at a national level. And the associated opportunity is that we could make a significant impact on this issue in a 5-10 year window if there is sufficient will and funding.

The vision is too vague on biodiversity metrics. It is not specific and measurable. I would like to see this framed in a more concrete manner i.e. by 2045 species diversity (as an index) will be increasing across land, freshwater and seas.

The vision is unrealistic in terms of the communication goal "everyone will understand the benefits from and importance of biodiversity" - there is no issue on which "everyone" shares the same views and has a complete understanding. Furthermore the idea that "everyone" will play a role in stewardship of nature is also highly improbable. By defining the vision in these unachievable terms we make it harder to act on and less credible to its critics.

I would prefer to see (as with the biodiversity measures) this articulated in a quantifiable and relative fashion e.g. "we will see a doubling in the number of people who see biodiversity as an urgent issue, in the number who feel they have a good understanding of the benefits of biodiversity and in the number who are actively participating in the stewardship of nature in Scotland for future generations".

It is too ambitious with respect to the communication / attitudes goals within. We will never get "everyone" to be aligned behind one point of view on biodiversity, this can only ever be wishful thinking.

On biodiversity itself, it sounds ambitious, but because the goal is not quantifiable or measurable there is too much wiggle room around what "substantially" could mean. This needs to be pinned down so that there is a concrete and ambitious goal to work towards.

A living landscape

New Life

New Life for Scotland

Fill Scotland with life

This grand show (referencing John Muir)

Pesticide use on arable land is a key driver of biodiversity loss that is not adequately represented here.

For the strategy to be successful we must be able to rely on data gathered by multiple entities including landowners, farmers and businesses. This data will inevitably be compromised unless there is a mechanism to ensure that it is consistent, accurate and in good faith. We need government investment in environmental auditing to check that land users are accurately representing their impacts on the land. We cannot blindly rely on self-reporting.