Scottish Biodiversity Strategy 2022

Yes, there is a long term biodiversity crisis in Scotland. It is made worse by intensive and uses in the past century but the damage started many centuries ago.

Scotland would have a very extensive forest cover if human actions had not depleted it so thoroughly. To respond to the climate and biodiversity crises, the priority must be forest restoration and peatland restoration.

It is too general and can mean whatever an optimist might take it to mean.

Yes but given the vagueness identified above, it is open to debate.

Restoring the full suite of lost biodiversity caused by human activity is a firmer vision for the future.

We need large scale change of land use to achieve the ambitious vision - i.e. large parts of the marginal upland agriculture need to be taken out of agriculture altogether with food production focused on the more productive areas. This major change in land use needs to be identified.

The devil is always in the detail. To actually achieve a realistic outcome that gives a meaningful response to climate change and a vibrant biodiversity we need to:
- take marginal farmland, grouse moor etc. out of production and restore woodland cover in those areas and peatland where appropriate.
- restore woodland cover by natural regeneration as far as possible. This requires the restoration of missing carnivores to manage herbivore populations down to 'natural' levels. Hunting reform is also required but deer and other herbivore management is best and most efficiently achieved by native predators especially lynx, and wolf.
- accept that introduced species are here to stay. Attempting to weed out all the so called 'non-native' species is both pointless and unachievable. A few 'non native' species are a significant problem e.g. rhododendron as are some native species e.g. bracken but targeted control of significant problems is the answer not blanket discrimination against INNS based on historical origins of different species.

Intensive agriculture and use of pesticides and fertilisers are widely recognised as damaging to biodiversity. What is much less understood is the long-term damage caused by elevated levels of grazing and browsing caused by too many herbivores both wild and domestic over many centuries. This has caused our deforestation and shaped our landscape to such an extent that it is doubtful that the natural forest cover will ever return without further human intervention e.g. in the form of deer, hare, rabbit control and protective fencing - ask any forester!

A clearer understanding of the underlying causes of historic deforestation can lead to more appropriate responses.

For government, there is a role to provide compensation for those who need to loose out to achieve the wider aims. This means compensating farmers and others who may loose their livelihood in some upland areas because of changes in land use. (That does not mean an overall loss of economic activity however as other uses of the land will generate their own economic out comes such as wildlife tourism.)

There are so many vested interests in maintaining the status quo in land use that it is going to be very challenging to do the right thing. The recent consultation on lynx restoration is a case in point.

As above, the devil is in the detail and measuring the health of the marine ecosystem is very challenging.

Given the likely levels of resource extraction through fishing, it seems very unlikely that populations of marine mammals can remain unaffected because humans are taking a significant proportion of their food resource.

Resource extraction through fishing, especially habitat damaging activities like scallop dredging, put a strain on the marine ecosystem. A related area is the problem of control where different boats from different countries tend to adopt a winner takes all mentality and there is no sense of stewardship of the sea.

Pollution from fish farms, especially in the form of sea lice infestation, is a particular and important problem on Scotland's west coast.

Noise from marine engines disturbs whales and dolphins.

Pollution by PCBs is damaging top food chain species such as orca.

Lots more monitoring and sustained and effective regulation of extraction by all coastal states.

Changes in the methods of fish farming - salmon ranching instead perhaps?

Control of pollution on land that ends up in the sea.

Agreement of what constitutes a sustainable yield for marine resources.

Conflict between individual interests and wider public interest. As with farming there will need to be a role for government to compensate some local community interests where fishing needs to cease e.g. Newfoundland cod fishery had to close because of over fishing.

As above, the detail of what this means is important.

No. The overall aims are fine but there needs to be a more targeted approach.

Poor land management through loss of vegetation cover and drainage of wetland causes 'spatey' runoff leading to more severe flooding and lower summer flows.

Diffuse pollution by agricultural runoff and septic tanks, poaching by livestock on stream sides all damage water quality.

Dams and weirs impede migratory species.

Over fishing by angling interests can also deplete populations.

There seem to be an increasing awareness of issues in the freshwater ecosystem perhaps because it is relatively visible.

Changes in land use, control of pollution, removal of obstacles and active spread of beavers will all assist the improvement wanted.

Removing non native species from water bodies is particularly challenging and frankly impractical. As with terrestrial species, it needs to be recognised that 'non native' species such as crayfish are here to stay. Attempts at control usually cause more damage than the problem being addressed. Management should purely be based on essential damage control. Damage caused by non-natives is often exaggerated and after an initial 'flourish', non-natives often settle into the existing ecosystem (e.g. mink numbers decline when otters are present, grey squirrels decline when pine martens are present.)

As above, the detail is important.

No. The aim is fine but there should be more specific quantified targets.

Sea level rise is likely to become the most challenging issue of all.

Coastal areas are subject to intense development pressures.

Getting the terrestrial and marine ecosystems better managed should also help to resolve the issues in coastal areas.

Sensitive development management is required.

Continuing intensive human use including settlement and recreation.

Resource extraction, pollution and sea level rise are all major challenges.

As above the answer is yes but. In each case there need to be more detailed understanding of what these very general aims actually mean in practice.

A missing element is identification of the importance of transport infrastructure to the urban environment. Good public transport including rail-based systems and housing densities related to access to stations can free up space for the green environment.

What we currently have is most housing development based on individual car access which means lots of space is taken up with roads and parking. This puts pressure on urban environments and takes away green space.

Poorly designed development as outlined above.

Inappropriate management of green spaces e.g. by too much corporate grass cutting.

Where green space is available in urban areas, the biodiversity value is often quite high.

A specific issue that is not mentioned is habitat severance caused by roads in particular.

Better designed urban environments coordinated with transport infrastructure will lead to richer and more appreciated green space.

Urban greenspaces that are connected e.g. along water courses and joined up to adjoining rural areas will provide better habitat connectivity.

There needs to be consideration for wildlife bridges to allow migration of wildlife across busy motorways. These are now a feature on modern routes in Europe.

Continuing development pressure leads to loss of open space so effective planning and open space protection is required.

At this higher overarching level, the strategic aims are good. I particularly agree about the complex relationships between ecosystems meaning that progress is required in all areas. Everything is inter-related.

I do think that restoration of missing terrestrial species, especially the larger native carnivores, is a key issue that needs to be addressed and identified specifically. They cannot return by themselves, and we cannot control overabundance of herbivores by wishing it away or pretending that directed hunting will be sufficient. A properly functioning ecosystem has predators at the top of the food chain. Our native herbivores evolved with predation. This needs to be understood by all and spelt out.

I feel that I have already covered this in earlier sections.

As per 33 above.

As per 33 above.

Attention to all the areas mentioned previously will deliver the vision as far as that is possible on a national scale. Climate change and biodiversity loss are global issues and action is required by all countries to enable a full delivery of the overall vision.

There is a need for widespread monitoring of species and habitats in all areas. However, this should not be used as an excuse for inaction and monitoring needs to be proportional to the element of risk involved.

The health of indicator species is a good way of quickly monitoring ecosystem health e.g. recovery of wild sea trout stocks on the west coast will indicate that management of fish farm problems is being effective.

Yes, but I'm not convinced that levels of public understanding are sufficient to support what is actually needed. There is too much self-interest and powerful lobbying of politicians. Fine words are not sufficient.

I'm not aware of anything to add.

Discrimination and equal opportunity are important. Biodiversity quality affects us all so perhaps equal opportunity can be used to counter self-interest lobbies? I hope so.