Enabling powers for Scotland's Environmental Impact Assessment regimes & Habitats Regulations

We agree that Scottish policy should not be frozen in time and needs to have the flexibility to respond to changing circumstances. We also agree that it makes sense to update administrative arrangements to enable EIA processes to run more smoothly, for instance lodging key documentation by e-mail and other electronic means. There do however need to be rational checks and balances to such powers.

There should be limitations to enabling powers to recognise a separate function for periodic and independent review of EIA information requirements, particularly to adapt to changing circumstances wrought by climate change and biodiversity loss.

Establishing an independent review body to regularly review the adequacy of information for EIA purposes, particularly in light of current climate change developments and the state of key biodiversity indicators. This should assist to adjudicate on balance between appropriate development capable of delivering net biodiversity gain, and circumstances where there would be clear environmental loss.

We agree with the rationale that there should be enabling powers to improve on future amendments to the 1994 Habitat Regulations. However, it is also essential that the drivers for any specific adaptation are based on relevant evidence.

We are particularly concerned that monitoring of existing designated sites needs to be improved to ensure that information on site conditions is as up to date as possible to inform decision-making for land use and land management purposes. With budget restrictions likely to impact further on monitoring resources, there is a need for creative solutions to ensure the timeliness of information gathering. This might be achieved for instance by use of third parties working to defined assessment standards, or even by accredited land managers compiling and returning information to NatureScot under 'Trusted Operator' status. NS could undertake sample audits to check on accuracy.

There must be distinction between enabling powers that provide the framework for amendments to regulations, and the evidence base that may determine the need for adaptation of site prescriptions.

Enabling powers should facilitate update of frameworks to ensure that habitat regulations provide timely, objective information on site conditions, but there should also be limitations to ensure that expert advice and opinion forms a key part of an objective review process to assist any necessary decision-making.

The importance of contemporary information is essential for adequate assessment of any land management prescriptions. This should lead to better response in light of emerging climate change and biodiversity loss, whilst also allowing for scope to consider whether there is a balance of economic, social and biodiversity net gain from any development proposals in relation to sites.

There should also be flexibility within enabling powers to recognise the potential for future nature finance developments to assist site condition management alongside potential initiatives that offer social, economic and biodiversity net gain opportunities.

Defining enabling powers might not impose any direct or immediate costs and burdens in isolation, but without careful consideration, might commit stakeholders to future requirements that do involve additional work. As the consultation suggests, it is imperative that there is full review in advance of the powers being taken.

As with EIAs, enabling powers for HRAs might not of themselves impose any direct or immediate costs and burdens, but without careful consideration, might commit stakeholders to future requirements that do involve additional work. For instance, we are looking to expand protected areas in Scotland through 30 x 30 and OECM initiatives. If there isn't parallel consideration of how these sites are promptly monitored to ensure delivery of required outcomes, there is a danger that the protection is in name only. There will be necessary evidence burdens to avoid such circumstances. We need to give full attention to evolving a monitoring structure that provides information for timely site management. At present, some designated sites have not been adequately reviewed for years. We believe it would be sensible to consider how third parties can contribute to monitoring so that the cost and resource burden is not falling solely on NatureScot.

There may be circumstances specific to Island Communities by virtue of transport, infrastructure and local resources that need to be fully considered.

There may be circumstances specific to Island Communities by virtue of transport, infrastructure and local resources that need to be fully considered.

We agree that it will be appropriate to re-visit a future SEA in good time to consider the working relationship between EIAs, HRAs, the prospective Environment Bill, Agriculture Bill, biodiversity metrics and future private nature finance developments. Such review should aim to provide a framework against which opportunities for sustainable economic output are balanced with delivering net biodiversity gain.