1
Protected areas for nature – review
Report to Scottish Natural Heritage
This is the report of an independent Panel to Scottish Natural Heritage.
If you have any questions or views about the Panel’s report please contact Stewart Pritchard,
Scottish Natural Heritage, Battleby, Redgorton, Perth PH1 3EW [email protected]
2
Protected areas for nature – review
Report from the Panel 27-28 May 2014
Contents Preface ....................................................................................................................................................... 3
Summary.................................................................................................................................................... 4
1. Introduction ........................................................................................................................................ 6
2. Background – reviewing the wider context...................................................................................... 6
3. Protected areas for the 21st Century – a sense of purpose refreshed ......................................... 8
4. Making Protected Areas ‘fit for purpose’ in the 21st Century ........................................................ 9
Site selection ......................................................................................................................................... 9
Site condition ....................................................................................................................................... 10
The surrounding matrix ....................................................................................................................... 11
5 What needs to change? .................................................................................................................. 12
Vision .................................................................................................................................................... 12
A supportive and coherent policy framework .................................................................................... 13
A focus on outcomes .......................................................................................................................... 14
Delivery ................................................................................................................................................ 15
Engaging with people ......................................................................................................................... 16
A New Consensus ............................................................................................................................... 17
6 Conclusions ..................................................................................................................................... 19
Annex A - agenda including names of interviewees and questions to structure the discussions .... 20
Annex B - Panel members biographies ................................................................................................ 22
3
Preface This report presents the findings of a panel set up by SNH to discuss aspects of protected areas
for nature in Scotland with a range of interested parties (Annex B gives short biographies of the
panel members). We are immensely grateful to all of the people who generously gave their time
and contributed to a very rich set of discussions and views. This report draws on that superb
resource together with our own views. We have not attributed comments to individuals; many
points were made by different interviewees in slightly different ways. The report, its
recommendations and any errors are the responsibility of the panel alone.
In setting about our work we were accompanied by Andrew Bachell (SNH Director of Operations)
and very ably assisted by a small secretariat comprising Clive Mitchell and Stewart Pritchard from
SNH. Fiona Menzies assisted with administrative tasks. Many thanks to all of them for their
support.
This is the panel’s report, not SNH’s. It explores the question ‘what are protected areas for?’ in a
broad sense – looking into the future and well beyond protected areas into the systems of which
they are a part. It makes a number of recommendations, some of which are relevant to SNH but
are really intended for consideration by all interested parties. Of course, we hope that SNH does
act on the relevant recommendations but even if it does their impact will be muted unless they are
accepted as part of a wider consensus and complementary actions by others.
This report is the product of a model of ‘critical friend’ review which is short timescale, using
external experts, based on a focussed suite of interviews of leading figures in their fields, and
designed to offer fresh perspectives to stimulate debate and challenge conventional thinking. It is
based on two days of discussions and our collective experience of working with protected areas,
ecological systems and landscapes in various ways. It provides SNH with an external view on
protected areas, although there are certainly others out there and we were not able to talk to
everyone that we might have wished to in the two days. Although we have not undertaken an in-
depth review, we hope the report is well-informed and shines a light on some of the issues that
require further investigation.
We see our job as being about asking the questions and providing some pointers on how they
might be answered, but without having to provide the answers. We acknowledge that is a
fortunate position to be in.
Our objective here is not to take anything away from what protected areas already do for the
conservation of nature, but to consider ways that their contribution could be strengthened.
We hope that our report opens up, and creates the space for, a discussion leading to a better use
of protected areas in efforts to help achieve a number of high level aims. The simple fact is that,
despite the many successes that can be attributed to protected areas and all of the hard work that
goes into them, biodiversity is still being lost – even on these high priority sites - and the Scottish
Government target of ‘halting the loss of biodiversity by 2020’ will not be met by more of the same.
Something has to change.
Simon Pepper (Chair), Tim Benton, Kirsty Park, Paul Selman, John Thomson and Hamish
Trench
July, 2014
4
Summary Protected areas have contributed significantly to the safeguarding of nature. Without them nature
would be in a much worse state than it is.
However, overall biodiversity is still declining. Although protected areas for nature are a necessary
part of the solution, they are not in themselves a sufficient response to the widening and increasing
pressures bearing on the natural environment and its contribution to Scotland’s prosperity, health
and wellbeing.
Effective conservation requires a balance of effort on several axes: a network of protected areas
that functions at the landscape scale; measures for the protection of highly mobile species; and
policies ensuring that the rest of the environment is managed sympathetically. The more we know
about ecosystems and their needs, the more this holds true. The ongoing loss of biodiversity
signals that the amount and balance of effort need to be adjusted.
A number of factors have led to a loss of this balance, with protected areas becoming increasingly
isolated – from each other, from wider land use, and from society – distorting and weakening their
role in the strategy overall (para 5-16). As natural resource use has intensified, more reliance has
been placed on protected areas to carry the burden of nature conservation.
In the process, protected areas have tended to focus more on rarity and perpetuating the status
quo than responding to a changing environment and the dynamic character of natural systems.
And for their part, other policies have taken an insufficient share of their responsibility to respect
the integrity of the natural world on which we all rely.
The Scottish Biodiversity Strategy states that “biodiversity - nature to most people - underpins our
lives, our prosperity and the very essence of our world. The wildlife, habitats and other forms of
nature with which we share planet Earth are valuable in their own right quite apart from the
pleasure we take from their existence and the ways in which they support us”.
We see this as confirming three strands of rationale for looking after nature – use, delight and duty.
In support of this cause in a changing world, we suggest that protected areas should have a new
purpose which is more forward looking, people-oriented and adaptive (paras 17-20):
To maintain good examples of habitat types as core components of a wider pattern of healthy
functioning landscapes that are resilient to change, and meet the needs of people now and in the
future.
This purpose, consistent with the internationally agreed Aichi targets for biodiversity, has some
demanding implications, both for protected areas (including selection criteria and principles for
assessing site condition (paras 21-32)), and for higher level strategies where future challenges,
including those related to climate change and food security, will place a major premium on better
integration of policies to meet human needs whilst also supporting the healthy functioning of
ecosystems (paras 33-37).
A number of initiatives are required:
a new vision for protected areas, to explain, inspire, engage and galvanise action - and to
position the role of protected areas in a wider strategic context (paras 38-43);
a high level commitment to continue and extend current efforts to make the wider policy
framework more supportive and coherent, with an emphasis on adaptive management in
5
response to emerging challenges, and eliminating the competing effects of policy silos
(paras 44-49);
a fresh focus on outcomes for protected areas, highlighting their role in the bigger picture of
halting the loss of biodiversity, securing sustainable use and multiple benefits from use of
the land and adapting to a changing environment (paras 50-56);
promotion of an integrated vision for natural resource use which guides the application of
‘sticks and carrots’ more appropriately to achieve these wider goals and avoid conflicting
incentives (paras 57-60);
exploring all opportunities to involve people in decisions about the establishment and
management of protected areas and natural resource management more generally,
encouraging their innate support for nature and enlisting them in its stewardship (paras 61-
65).
Perhaps most challenging of all is our proposal for developing a new consensus in response to
mounting pressures on the natural environment on which people depend. This will require a better
use of existing policies to make land use more sustainable and capable of delivering the full range
of ecosystem services into the future. There are challenges here for conventional thinking across
the board – no sector can be excused – but we believe open negotiation can deliver better
outcomes for the public good than current trajectories (paras 66-75).
Finally, all of this requires strong leadership (paras 76-79).
6
1. Introduction
1. On 27-28 May 2014, SNH convened a panel to review aspects of protected areas for nature
from a range of different viewpoints. See Annex A for the agenda that we used including a list
of our interviewees and a set of questions used to structure the discussions.
2. We were asked to focus our discussions on terrestrial protected areas for (biological) nature,
namely Sites of Special Scientific Interest, sites comprising the Natura 2000 network under the
EU Birds and Habitats Directives (Special Protection Areas and Special Areas of
Conservation) and National Nature Reserves. This excludes a range of other protected areas,
including marine ones. It may be appropriate to extend the review to include these other
designations at some stage in the future.
3. Through our discussions we wanted to look at different ‘framings’ of protected areas and
nature – how these have changed over time, and which is most valid for the challenges ahead.
There are several different ways of looking at nature conservation (e.g. as protecting priority
species and habitats or patterns of natural processes; features of interest or habitats
connected across landscapes). The loss of biodiversity may also be seen as relating to e.g.
improving access to nature for people, or species and habitats of ‘conservation concern’1.
4. Part 2 of the report considers the historical and policy context; Part 3 explores what protected
areas should be for; Part 4 assesses their fitness for this refreshed purpose; Part 5 makes
some proposals for change in order to strengthen the effectiveness of protected areas; Part 6
concludes.
2. Background – reviewing the wider context
5. Any piece of land is part of a natural system that does not respect the artificial boundaries
imposed by people, and protected areas cannot be considered in isolation of the land that
surrounds them. Attention must be on both the protected areas and the matrix in which they
sit.
6. Connectivity. The matrix in which protected areas sit is often referred to as the ‘wider
countryside’2. Together with the protection of key species this formed the three-pronged
strategy for nature conservation that emerged in the 1940s. At the heart of this strategy was
an understanding about the importance of connectivity in ecological systems. But the
coherence of this strategy - fundamentally still valid in theory – has been lost over the years,
as agricultural production and other natural resource use has intensified and policies have
placed more reliance on protected areas to carry the burden of nature conservation. In the
process, nature conservation has concentrated on some very particular aspects of biodiversity
(primarily rare, scarce and threatened species and habitats of ‘conservation concern’) on
increasingly isolated sites which remain relatively unmodified by human actions. An emphasis
on description and classification, to describe what we have, has tended to obscure the
question of why it matters.
1 These (and other) viewpoints reflect different concepts, theoretical perspectives and world views – they are
‘framings’. We all use framings all of the time, but usually without realising it. Each framing has its own internal logic within which decisions seem entirely sensible, but they can sometimes appear a bit strange when viewed from other framings. Being clear about framings helps to better understand the intended, and more importantly the unintended, consequences of acting within them. 2 now more properly wider environment – including e.g. urban and peri-urban green infrastructure as well as other
urban influences, atmosphere and climate
7
7. Why it matters. The case for conservation embraces:
the use of nature (natural resource management - food, water, shelter and energy);
delight in it (including the powerful emotions it excites, the wonder, meanings and
memories associated with our amazing natural world); and
a sense of duty to others for its stewardship for the long term.
We need to realign our approach to match these motivations and to respond to the factors
causing the loss of biodiversity.
8. Pressures. The main direct drivers of environmental change in Scotland are3:
changing land use and land management practices leading to varying degrees of
fragmentation and habitat loss;
pollution (including agro-chemicals and nitrogen deposition from the atmosphere that
“fertilises” the land);
climate change, influencing the functioning of ecosystems; and
trade in plants and animals and globalisation of transport leading to the spread of invasive
non-native species, pests and disease
Underlying these are drivers which include population growth, rising incomes, lifestyle and
changing consumption patterns.
9. The role of Protected Areas for Nature. Protected areas have contributed significantly to
the safeguarding of nature. Without them nature would be in a much worse state than it is.
The fact that protected areas are used all over the world and have been for centuries can be
taken as some measure of their effectiveness. Scotland has a good series of sites. If we
didn’t have them we’d need to re-invent something closely resembling them.
10. However, the problem is that despite areas protected for nature, biodiversity is - overall - still
declining in the UK4 and Scotland5. ‘Halting the loss of biodiversity by 2020’ by means of
protected areas would require an enormous shift of priorities to address both the direct and
underlying drivers. So what role can protected areas for nature play? On their own they
would have no chance of doing more than slightly stemming the tide. After all, their
distribution reflects their selection as representatives of high quality habitats, not as a
response to particular impacts. Some measures of protection have been applied against
some of the more direct drivers listed above, and there is room for more effective
implementation of these measures. But it would be wrong to put too much faith in the current
suite as a defence against all these pressures, most of which continue to increase.
11. So nature conservation can only be effective if protected areas are complemented by other
measures that add up to a wider strategy – and a wider deployment of efforts - to address both
the direct and the underlying drivers listed in para 8 above.
3 Scottish Government (2013) 2020 challenge for Scotland’s biodiversity
(http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/0042/00425276.pdf accessed 09 July 2014) 4 Burns F, Eaton MA, Gregory RD et al (2013) State of nature report. State of Nature Partnership
(www.rspb.org.uk/Images/stateofnature_tcm9-345839.pdf Accessed 09 July 2014) 5 Mackey EC and Mudge GP (2010) Scotland’s wildlife: an assessment of biodiversity in 2010. Scottish Natural
Heritage. Inverness (http://www.snh.gov.uk/docs/B811968.pdf accessed 11 July 2014); SNH (2012) Scotland’s Natural Capital Asset Index. Scottish Natural Heritage, Inverness. (http://www.snh.gov.uk/docs/B814140.pdf accessed 11 July 2014); and, Scotland’s Environment (2014) State of the Environment. Scotland’s Environment Web. (http://www.environment.scotland.gov.uk/get-informed/state-of-the-environment-summary/ accessed 11 July 2014)
8
12. People and nature. The underlying drivers of biodiversity loss relate to a range of behaviours
right across society, so it must be recognised that people are the solution: the strategy must
address the relationship that people have with nature, and protected areas for nature should
have an important role to play in this relationship. However, this is not straightforward. The
scientific origins of the protected area network, together with the location of most of the sites
on private land with limited practical opportunities for public access, has limited their role in
fostering the connection between a predominantly urban population and the natural
environment. Where this access is provided, the enjoyment and sense of wonder in
experiencing the natural world becomes, for many people, one of the main things that makes
life worth living. But for a long time those charged with their management did not recognise
the fundamental importance of this goal. This in part reflects the history of protected areas,
rooted in knowledge elites – mainly scientists – who focused discussion on what is valued in
nature to a narrow range of interests, excluding most people (some early reserves carried an
explicit ‘keep-off’ message). These narrow values are embedded in attitudes and approaches
to conservation through the guidelines for the selection of biological SSSIs (1989 and 2013)
which excludes social, economic and social-historical factors on grounds of objectivity. The
top down process of administration is also a factor here, further narrowing the range of people
involved in decisions about conservation.
13. Terms. Boundaries and language are also problems in terms of public perception.
Boundaries are often artificial and fail to reflect the way in which nature and natural processes
work across them. They also suggest divisions created between people and nature, between
groups of people who have different views about nature, and between policies which should in
fact be closely integrated.
14. Words like protected and threat reflect the philosophy of post-war conservation which Derek
Ratcliffe, writing in 19776 described as “a defensive rear-guard action against the inexorable
advance of overwhelmingly superior forces”. Arguably, the use of these terms perpetuates a
siege mentality, and ‘us and them’ conflicts and divisions.
15. In this context the label ‘Site of Special Scientific Interest’ (originating in the 1940s but
acquiring its current meanings and associations in the 1980s) is clearly outdated. A new name
is needed that captures their purpose in the 21st Century.
16. All these issues need to be considered in the way we frame and name the suite of sites
currently called ‘protected areas for nature’.
3. Protected areas for the 21st Century – a sense of purpose
refreshed
17. Overall objectives. Four high level aims for protected areas can be identified in existing
statute and strategies:
To conserve a representative sample of natural and semi-natural habitat and/or species
assemblages in the UK (the original purpose stemming from the National Parks and Access
to the Countryside Act (1949) and underlying all subsequent related legislation).
To help halt the loss of biodiversity (subject of international targets adopted by the UK and
Scottish Governments, currently to halt the loss of biodiversity by 2020)7.
6 Ratcliffe DA (1977) Nature conservation: aims, methods and achievements. Phil Trans R Soc Lond B 197:11-29
7 We have accordingly used the language of “halting biodiversity loss” in this report, but we do wish to signal concern
that this concept, valid at a global level, is problematic as a way of describing the issue at a Scottish level, and should
9
To contribute to sustainability and multiple benefits of land use (as required by the Land
Use Strategy).
To help people and nature adapt to the impacts of climate change (as outlined in the
Climate Change Adaptation Framework).
18. A balanced response. We believe that all of these are valid and important but, for reasons
outlined above, we have concerns about the scale and style of the current emphasis on the
first, including the perverse impact of this on the others. We think it is important that these
high level aims are aligned to capture a strategy for conservation embracing use, delight and
duty (para 7). There are profound challenges here but ‘sticking to what we know’ presents a
real danger that work on protected areas (and protected species) absorbs resources to feed its
own internal logic, largely isolated from the wider strategy which should give it meaning.
Meanwhile that wider strategy is being neglected because it is assumed that protected areas
are sufficient and everywhere else is ‘fair game’, or because they consume the lion’s share of
conservation effort. This is a problem exacerbated by sectoral and government policy silos
and arbitrary targets – exemplified in the 95% ‘favourable condition’ target forcing prioritisation
of SNH resources.
19. New purpose. In considering a re-casting of the purpose of protected areas for nature, we
start from the excellent positioning of the Scottish Biodiversity Strategy (2020 Challenge)
which states that “biodiversity - nature to most people - underpins our lives, our prosperity and
the very essence of our world. The wildlife, habitats and other forms of nature with which we
share planet Earth are valuable in their own right quite apart from the pleasure we take from
their existence and the ways in which they support us”. It follows that society must care for
nature through a variety of policies and strategies. Protected areas are a vital but not
sufficient part of this. They are a means to an end and we suggest that their purpose is:
To maintain good examples of habitat types as core components of a wider pattern of healthy
functioning landscapes that are resilient to change, and meet the needs of people now and in the
future.
20. This purpose covers all four aims noted above and embraces use, delight and duty as the
basis for a wider conservation strategy. It invites a new name8 to reflect this purpose, at least
for the anachronistically named “Sites of Special Scientific Interest” which could be readily re-
branded. It provides the basis for a re-think of how to go about the task of making them more
effective, including how to allow for the inherent dynamism of nature and natural processes at
a variety of scales. We explore these issues in the following sections.
4. Making Protected Areas ‘fit for purpose’ in the 21st
Century
Site selection
21. Protected areas for nature have helped some species, especially birds (except unsurprisingly
on farmland where production is given priority - see para 10). However, in under-representing
non-vascular plants, invertebrates and soil fauna, it seems they are unlikely to form an
adequate core for the protection of healthy functioning ecosystems.
be reviewed. Although outside the scope of this report, it has real bearing on the way the issue is understood and tackled. 8 Core Nature Areas; Areas Valued for Nature …..?
10
22. There is also a potential mismatch between impact and protection – since designation is
based on representativeness rather than impact (para 12), some species and habitats most in
need of protection may not be covered. (We note that it has become an aspect of formal
policy in the designation of new Marine Protected Areas to select sites which are not subject to
commercial pressure.)
23. The stance taken on protected areas for nature is too rigidly fixed to particular species and
associations rather than natural processes. The flexibility available to change the notified
interests or boundaries, and to de-notify sites, should be used to reflect the dynamism of
natural systems and to make sure that protected areas remain relevant.
24. The role of some smaller single-interest protected areas should be reconsidered. They may
need to be increased in size to attain a degree of ecological functionality, or (better) this could
be achieved through complementary management in the matrix surrounding the sites, as
described elsewhere in this report. Similarly a case could be made for de-designating some
sites and introducing some new/larger sites, with better representation of taxa.
25. However, in all these cases we caution against a pre-occupation with protected areas for
nature when the cause may be better served by a more coherent strategic approach.
Site condition
26. Past or future? A recurring theme of our discussions was whether protected areas preserve
the past or create the potential for the future: for what they might become rather than what
they might have been. We think both are important, but the current operation of Site Condition
Monitoring is strongly weighted to preservation of a particular state (often, in practice, when
the site was designated, mainly in the 1980s or 1990s). This poorly reflects the dynamic
behaviour of natural systems in a changing world. Given the accelerating pace of wider
environmental change, it is likely that preserving the past, at least in the same space, will be
increasingly challenging. So we believe more emphasis is needed on looking forwards and
encouraging the kind of change which will for example increase resilience (see paras 29-31).
27. Most of Scotland’s nature results from a range of environmental factors and modifications by
people over many centuries. Looking at historical factors and change over time can inform
whether goals or expectations are valid or perhaps set on the basis of misconceptions
(downplaying some drivers of change or characteristics of the habitat or skewed by current
values).
28. Taking this longer term view often reveals that the present is not always a good model for
future planning of restoration or management. For example, heather dominance is an
outcome of management, not a natural condition of the upland landscape. And pine
dominance in East Glen Affric is not representative of woods that once grew in West Affric
(where pine was a minor and relatively short-lived component of deciduous woods dominated
by birch).
29. New principles. In practice, therefore, setting our objectives for the future is no longer as
simple as it once seemed. If there really is no “ideal” based on habitat descriptions (what still
exists or what we think might have been), or if climate suitability has changed, then there is no
‘right’ answer – only what can emerge through an inclusive process of design guided by the
purpose stated above and a set of clear principles. These principles need to be developed but
they include, for example, public benefits, guiding principles of dynamic ecology and factors
that contribute to resilience.
11
30. At least in more dynamic natural systems, the emphasis for site condition should be on natural
processes and the conditions that underpin healthy functioning natural systems rather than the
species and habitats present now. Further work is required to describe the condition of these
systems so that their management requirements are clear and so that meaningful change can
be monitored. More efforts are needed to understand the historical and other social factors, as
well as environmental ones, that explain the trajectory of change over time.
31. A consequence of this may be that species and habitats are used as indicators to describe
change and inform action but are not necessarily conservation objectives in their own right.
The emphasis would be on creating the conditions for thriving biodiversity and healthy
functioning landscapes. A basket of measures could be used to describe the state and trends
in these areas, similar to those being developed to measure ecosystem health at broader
scales for the Scottish Biodiversity Strategy.
32. In this way we see protected areas as the focus for creative conservation for future nature and
outward diffusion of species to enrich a tapestry of semi-natural systems, rather than as
fortresses devoted to preserving – museum-wise - a selective notion of inherited riches. This
invites a much broader discussion about relationships between people and nature and making
this the basis for the management of natural resources on which society and the economy
depends.
The surrounding matrix
33. Better connected. To counter the adverse effects of intensive farming, forestry and fishing,
Lawton (20109) argued for more protected areas of larger size but noted that size is less
important if protected areas are part of a better connected and integrated environment. The
relative importance of ‘larger protected areas’ and ‘better connected countryside’ would
depend on the context. Both options have their challenges. We do not believe the prospect of
more and larger protected areas based on the same model that has prevailed to date would be
politically realistic. Even if it were, it would only perpetuate the model of protected areas for
nature as a discrete land use in defensive competition with other uses of land, and at best it
would only buy a bit of time. On the other hand, better integration has also been elusive.
Rhetorical commitments to the wider environment have seldom been delivered in practice; it is
only in the control of water and air pollution that wider policies have made much progress.
Meanwhile there is little to show for voluntary attempts to weave a richer tapestry of nature into
the countryside through voluntary and easily reversible agri-environment schemes over the
years, even though they may have made measureable gains in the short term.
34. Larger sites are not problem-free either. For example, it could be argued that the ‘Flow
Country’ in Caithness and Sutherland is a continuous ecological unit. Although it hosts a
number of large protected areas, these are not necessarily the best basis for planning change.
In practice, the gaps between them are being filled-in by developments, including windfarms,
which may not be best located to avoid wider social and even ecological effects. In this sense
the scale of the sites here, while larger than many, does not reflect the integrity of the
ecological systems of which they are a part.
35. Integration. Future challenges will reinforce the case for more integration. The impacts of
climate change are likely to mean that by the 2040s North West Europe becomes increasingly
important as a source of food for a growing global population as agriculture becomes less
productive over large areas at lower latitudes. This will magnify the issues we face today by
creating greater incentives to intensify agricultural production from land. We do not think that
9 Lawton J (2010) Making Space for Nature
12
larger protected areas set in an ever-more intensively managed surrounding countryside will
be viable – ecologically, politically or morally.
36. Food production is not necessarily in conflict with nature conservation; both should be
integrated in the management of natural resources. Farmers and other food producers should
be seen as providers and stewards of a range of ecosystem services from the sustainable
management of landscapes. Food production is only one of these services. There are major
questions here - not only about what we use land for and what we want or need of nature, but
also the volume and type of food we need to consume, bearing in mind associated social and
health issues – i.e. questions about food systems. In short, policies to stem the loss of
biodiversity – and the role of protected areas for nature within these - need to be part of a
debate anticipating major challenges to conventional thinking about land use, food production,
diet, health and population.
37. This isn’t something that can be transformed overnight. But we can improve the role that
protected areas play in creating healthy functioning productive landscapes. Within the existing
framework, we recommend:
steps could be taken to monitor them as natural systems, including a historical perspective
and to manage them as nodes working at a landscape scale;
emphasis should be on natural processes (and species and habitats only as indicators of
these rather than objectives in themselves);
provisions (both sticks and carrots) in the Common Agricultural Policy (including Scottish
Rural Development Programme), and Water Framework Directives should be used more
creatively to enhance the matrix that connects nature within and across landscapes; and
much better connections and communications with land managers should be fostered,
especially on protected areas (for example by putting land managers at the centre of
monitoring and management).
5 What needs to change?
Vision
38. A clear vision for Protected Areas is essential, to explain, inspire, engage and galvanise
action.
39. The vision should place protected areas in the context of a more comprehensive vision
showing what people living in harmony with nature means, so that nature can continue both to
delight us and support our lives down the generations. This should emphasise:
i. a new awareness/articulation of the many dimensions of the value of nature and what
we risk losing;
ii. a shared responsibility with the rest of the world, because nature itself is interconnected
globally, many of the pressures on it are global, and many of our impacts affect others
later or elsewhere;
iii. how this needs to be applied at different scales, from individual lifestyles right through
to Scotland’s place in the world; and
iv. the role of protected areas – along with other policies - in this wider vision.
Like any vision it should provide a direction of travel. It should not be regarded as a blueprint
for the future.
13
40. The vision should show what protected areas are trying to achieve – what is the nature of the
future? At present decisions are guided by site management objectives that focus on features
of interest that sit in isolation within sites, without reference to how these might work at a
landscape scale in a matrix of surrounding countryside. Such a vision is needed to provide a
framework to guide the new consensus which we advocate below (para 66-75).
41. It should describe the place of protected areas, as biodiversity hotspots or sources in a varied
and increasingly connected landscape (which is a key determinant of ecological health).
Within each scale, habitat patches need to be of suitable quality and connected. One way to
imagine it is using Google Earth starting at a large scale with a habitat map, with colours for
different habitat types, and then zooming in, and asking at each level of zoom: do the colours
form a network? Are patches varying in size to allow source populations to repeatedly seed
populations in more intensively managed areas? Extinction, especially for relatively small
populations, is a natural process but it is mitigated by re-colonisation as individuals disperse
from other patches10. Patches therefore need to be close enough to allow colonisation to
repair the dynamics of natural extinction.
42. In short, to function efficiently, each level needs to have a range of different habitat types, in a
range of differently-sized patches that are close enough to each other to allow the sorts of
organisms that inhabit them to disperse from one to another, and therefore recolonize extinct
patches or habitat newly created by sensitive management or by climate change making old
habitat newly suitable.
43. Such a vision should be used not to prescribe absurd levels of micro-management in the
landscape, but to guide a diversity of management choices and experimentation so that the
desired patterns emerge.
A supportive and coherent policy framework
44. Currently, policy silos mean that most conservation effort is crowded into the same space
focussing on protected areas and priority species, drawing resources into them indefinitely,
and giving less attention to the question of how protected areas respond to new imperatives of
wider strategies. True, there is always more to do (classification, lists, citations etc), but this
leaves a deficit on other important aspects - the surrounding matrix and relationships between
people, nature and natural resource management.
45. The need to work on these wider issues is well known. But over the last 60 years the major
emphasis on protected areas and priority species has helped to create a polarised view of
conservation. There’s always something pulling back to that agenda, e.g. the re-notification of
SSSIs in the 1980s, the implementation of the Natura 2000 network in the 1990s, Marine
Protected Areas underway and more marine Special Protection Areas to come. And still there
are quite justifiable pressures to extend citations to include poorly represented features such
as non-vascular plants, soil fauna and some woodlands. However, resources for SNH are
finite or declining and – when decisions are made in a zero-sum game - more effort on one
part of the strategy means less on others.
46. There is a significant opportunity cost with decisions about where to allocate resources for
conservation. In the absence of a coherent high-level strategy with well-balanced effort across
it, there is a risk that effort on particular components (protected areas and priority species)
becomes a displacement activity – immediately satisfying a need but strategically mis-directed.
10
This is known as meta-population dynamics.
14
We need to be sure that our conservation efforts are doing much more than ‘rearranging the
deckchairs’.
47. An adaptive approach. So the strategy, and the management of protected areas within it,
needs to be adaptive; changing to ensure that they remain relevant and responsive to
prevailing circumstances and challenges. And they need to be properly integrated with other
policies. Many of the components of this strategy are already in place, but are not yet pulling
together to produce the results that are needed. The Scottish Biodiversity Strategy, Land Use
Strategy, National Planning Framework, Scottish Planning Policy and Climate Change
Adaptation Framework need to work together with key policies such as the Common
Agricultural Policy (both direct payments and the Scottish Rural Development Programme),
Water Framework Directive, and the Birds and Habitats Directives to halt the loss of
biodiversity, secure multiple benefits and adapt to a changing climate.
48. The negotiated consensus that we discuss below (para 66 - 75) would ease the severity of the
zero-sum game by spreading the conservation message from a smaller specialist interest to a
much broader range of interests. Whilst some in-depth expertise will always be vital, one of
the benefits of the sort of geographically more inclusive shared agenda that we are proposing
is that other subscribers to the vision could and should spread the simpler and more generic
messages, and refer people to relevant documentation or specialists if need be.
49. These changes would position protected areas and priority species as parts of a coherent and
well-balanced strategy that works across the whole landscape, with people and behaviours as
well as the natural systems sides of the problem. This would integrate nature with other land
uses.
A focus on outcomes
50. A number of problems result from attempts to manage natural systems for administrative
convenience through managerialist11 frameworks which, through supposedly objective
processes, target-driven performance measures and centralised judgements, tends to obscure
the really important purposes and outcomes in favour of auditable outputs with no obvious
rationale to the layperson. This weakens the public service ethos and devalues the qualities of
wonder and passion as motivations for people working with nature. But it also stifles
adaptiveness and flexibility – essential considerations in managing diverse and dynamic
natural systems.
51. Enlisting support. One example of this is the increasing emphasis on statutory requirements
and quantitative evidence over the last 30 years. Compulsory compliance doesn’t win hearts
and minds: alternative approaches should be sought which inspire people to collaborate in
long term stewardship of nature, capitalising on the passion for nature shared by many people
(and displayed also by our interviewees). This emotional response - although difficult to
quantify – is qualitative evidence that nature matters to people.
11
Managerialism is the tendency to view management as the most essential and desirable element of good
administration and government. It emphasises how things are done rather than why. It solves problems through a
rational assessment involving gathering and collating information, listing the options, calculating costs of each,
evaluating consequences and choosing the best course of action. Unless the assumptions and value judgements that
underpin these techniques are clearly stated then essentially subjective decisions made under a cloak of objectivity
will result. Another feature of managerialism is performance management through targets which often leads to a
single-minded pursuit of them regardless of the often perverse outcomes of doing so.
15
52. Local decision-making. Decision making that reflects local history, culture, social and
economic contexts will create and sustain more diversity – and engender more support. This
links decision-making for nature to wider discussions about the type and scale of local
governance in Scotland (in which the separation of nature from social and economic decision-
making is highly problematic). We propose a more local basis for the fine detail of protected
area management, based on both scientific and non-scientific evidence, in contrast to a top-
down approach in which experts define the interests without reference to stakeholders, the
public and their interests. The regional land use pilots offer a good model in which to develop
this approach. Much of the public service reform agenda in recent years has centred on these
issues.
53. Flexibility. We accept that this sits awkwardly with the rigidity of EU legislation, notably the
Birds (1979, 2009) and Habitats (1992) Directives, written for a command-and-control rather
than collaborative frame, and not necessarily reflecting the complexity and dynamism of socio-
ecological systems over time. However, the boundaries of flexibility should be tested with the
EU; some of the rigidity may be a function of the way in which the Directives have been
adopted and interpreted by the UK and Scotland. There is more flexibility available in the
SSSI system, although this has not necessarily been deployed effectively to date.
54. Natural processes. On sites, features of interest are surrogates for patterns of natural
processes: they are a way to simplify and describe complex natural systems. Species and
habitats should be used as indicators of site condition to inform management of the site and
surrounding areas that have the potential to impact upon it, but they should not be used as
targets for management. Their use as targets has led to micro-management for features of
interest, which generates difficulties where interests have competing management
requirements, especially features that were in succession or transition at the time of
designation now held in a state of suspended animation. Focusing on assemblages of species
and habitats over a wider area (site and beyond) rather than individual features of interest
would reflect better how nature works.
55. Landscape scale. The problems of using features of interest as the basis for monitoring,
evaluation and management are magnified for sites within sites (such as a range of SSSI, SPA
and SAC within a National Park) where objectives between sites may not align. Decision-
making in these situations can be agonisingly slow. Objectives for sites need to be brought up
to the landscape scale informed by connectivity and dynamism at various scales. This
emphasis on natural processes at the landscape scale would allow the inherent dynamism of
natural systems to thrive – including succession and transition - and allow species and
habitats to emerge accordingly.
56. Site condition could perhaps include a status of ‘unrecoverable’ to acknowledge change which
cannot be reversed, and allow succession and transition to something new as part of healthy
functioning landscapes of the future.
Delivery
57. Integration. A more integrated vision, endorsed and adopted across Scottish Government
and its agencies, is required not only for protected areas, but also to guide the allocation of
resources in instruments such as the Scottish Rural Development Programme and River Basin
Management Plans and their successors. This would for example reduce the conflicts in the
administration of the Common Agricultural Policy’s Pillar 1 (currently weak requirements to
protect and enhance the environment associated with direct payments to farmers) and Pillar 2
(voluntary agri-environment measures) funds and the degree to which they set competing
requirements.
16
58. Local relevance. The vision could help to inform the spatial frameworks through which rural
resources are administered, to allow more local decision-making that more closely reflects
local conditions and context. This would encourage the level of participation in agri-
environment (Pillar 2) measures by smaller farms which, through their varied management,
tend to create the habitat mosaics that contribute most to the diversity and resilience that we
need to see across landscapes. There are echoes here of the Environmentally Sensitive
Areas scheme – now scrapped – which illustrated the potential for incentives that are tailored
to specific landscapes creating diversity without the necessity for a formal protected area.
59. Public goods. The separation of land management advice between Pillars 1 and 2 (and
beyond that into administrative silos for nature and protected areas, the water environment,
forestry and fisheries) further amplifies the likelihood of conflicting advice based on more
narrowly defined managerial objectives for particular sectors of interest. In such a competitive
environment there is a high risk that what gets done simply reflects the distribution of power
and resources within the rural sector rather than any longer term public goods. Importantly,
stronger local governance and properly integrated advice is required at more local geographic
scales, including place-based teams comprising the Scottish Government’s environment and
forestry (ENFOR) bodies (SNH, SEPA, FCS, National Parks), agriculture (Rural Payments and
Inspectorate Division) and local government, consistent with the vision for biodiversity.
60. Leadership. These points simply emphasise the point that ultimately biodiversity loss is a
symptom of an imbalance between the proper care of nature and other objectives driven by
much more powerful and short term interests. Strong political leadership is needed to correct
this imbalance.
Engaging with people
61. A vital part of the purpose of protected areas for nature (paras 19) is to encourage a conscious
bond with nature that people should feel, especially when making everyday choices about
food, water, shelter and energy. As a society, it is our consumption and lifestyles that exert
the largest pressures on our planet. They shape all of the issues discussed in this report.
Developing a positive relationship between people and nature is therefore critically important.
62. Bottom-up. The vast majority of people are fundamentally in favour of nature. However, there
is an unfortunate history of top-down decisions on protected areas antagonising local people,
especially the users of natural resources. Decisions over the designation and use of local
assets should presume community involvement and where possible some role (at least) in
management especially where public goods and benefits arise. With the input of local
knowledge and commitment, there will usually be benefits to all concerned, including a sense
of shared responsibility for the outcome. This is a principle of the Land Use Strategy, and
should apply also to protected areas for nature. ‘Community’ here could be anyone who has a
direct interest in the relevant ecosystem services. This approach could help to close the gap
between those incurring the costs of taking action for biodiversity and those enjoying the
benefits.
63. Access. Once designated, protected areas for nature can have an important role in
stimulating interest and awareness of nature in a relatively unmodified state. This is a specific
purpose of National Nature Reserves where access and interpretation arrangements are
provided. But many SSSIs must also have some potential in this regard, worth exploring
further. Given the provisions in the Land Reform (Scotland) Act for rights of responsible
access, there is an opportunity here to secure a wider range of public benefits, and help to
change the image of SSSIs as the preserve of land owners and knowledge elites. Where
there are demonstrable problems with access this should be appropriately managed, but most
17
SSSIs could accommodate much more public access without significant risk of damage. One
example would be the million or so visits to Arthur’s Seat Volcano SSSI each year.
64. This would also help to address the risk that protected areas – as currently conceived - appear
far removed from everyday nature and could alienate many people from concerns about
nature. Blackmore and others (201312) even suggest that ‘protected areas’ could become
associated with a ‘superhero’ frame which can stimulate passive behaviours. For example,
highly skilled professionals ‘take care’ of the complicated issue of loss of biodiversity ‘over
there’ in protected places that are physically and metaphorically far away from where most
people live out their lives. This could present a barrier to engaging people over the underlying
drivers of the loss of biodiversity, especially those connected with consumption and lifestyle.
65. Local sites. More work is needed on providing everyday access to nature for people,
emphasising the many ways in which people and nature are connected. Some existing
protected areas could play a role here, but overall it may be quite a limited one. Activities on
protected areas should not displace other initiatives that could have a bigger impact for more
people. However, there must be potential for more local nature areas to be identified and
managed by local people in response to their own priorities. Gardens, allotments and the
green spaces in and around where people live are usually their most immediate contact with
nature.
A New Consensus
66. Notwithstanding the successes of protected areas, it would be unwise to ignore changes that
have taken place since they became a primary instrument of conservation policy – the
tendency to rely too heavily on them at the expense of the wider environment; their increasing
isolation in the context of intensified production methods; the difficulty of maintaining
favourable conservation status on a large proportion of all designated sites due to factors
affecting them from outside their boundaries; the capacity of such designations to antagonise
and alienate the very stakeholders whose cooperation is most needed; and the onset of
climate change and other systemic environmental problems which will further erode their
effectiveness as reservoirs of healthy biodiverse nature.
67. In this context, we argue, a review of protected areas on their own would be destined to miss
the point. If the purpose of protected areas for nature is as we suggest in para 19, the critical
need is to address the wider strategy, rethinking all land use to make it more sustainable and
capable of delivering the full range of ecosystem services – and in that context accept that
gains for nature in the wider countryside could justify a less dogmatic defence of protected
areas. The next negotiations on CAP reform must adopt this wider agenda more effectively
than the partisan battles have achieved in 2014.
68. So land use policy must be based on a much broader consensus than has been achieved to
date. Negotiations will be difficult but are essential to inform decisions confronting what land,
and nature, is for in the future. They will take time and will challenge traditions and cultures
that have developed in all sectors, including conservation. But doing the same as we’ve
always done will undoubtedly lock us into the same pattern of decline – perhaps faster as
environmental change accelerates - which we all know to be unacceptable.
12
Blackmore, E., Underhill, R., McQuilkin, J., Leach, R., & Holmes, T. 2013 Common Cause for Nature. Available at http://valuesandframes.org/initiative/nature/ (see ‘practitioners guide’, p, 62)
18
69. Advocates of rigid rules on protected areas for nature need to recognise that the adoption of a
‘non-negotiable’ stance may reduce the potential for negotiated options elsewhere, which
could be of much greater benefit for biodiversity. On the other hand, those who in the past
have used their economic muscle and political influence to ride rough-shod over environmental
concerns need to recognise the need to give space to nature, because the quality of life and
health for our children and grandchildren depends on it. Everyone must do better to seek out,
through open-minded negotiation, the required consensus. Changes in attitudes and
behaviours are required by all to respond to the scale of challenges that lie ahead from
population growth, increasing affluence, climate change and more dynamic natural systems.
70. This involves everyone looking forward, in the light of the best available scientific and other
knowledge, to work out the best attainable reconciliation of environmental and other goals,
bearing in mind that unless we can sustain fully functional ecosystems the long-term prospects
are very bleak indeed. The concept of natural capital is an example of fresh thinking about the
way that conservation of nature relates to society’s other goals.
71. The debate needs to cover:
What we need (for functioning ecosystems, the continued supply of ecosystem
services etc).
What we want (informed by wider social engagement).
What we can have (what is realistically achievable, given what we currently know about
likely changes in climate, technology, labour inputs and costs etc).
The consequences (intended and unintended) of our decisions, and opportunity costs –
what we can’t have.
The process should also guard against distortions arising from incomplete or irrelevant data or
from the uneven distribution of power among the interested parties – or worse, the refusal of
powerful interests to engage at all.
72. This proposal for seeking a new consensus to carry all of this forward is therefore the most
challenging of our recommendations. It needs to reflect the new realities of environmental
change, new understanding of the importance of nature to Scotland’s long-term prosperity,
health and wellbeing, new awareness of the intensifying pressures on the natural environment,
and new commitments to halting biodiversity loss, as well as the reality that this cannot be
achieved on protected areas alone. Flexibility and a willingness to negotiate will be required
across the board - on protected areas for nature, in the wider land use matrix and between
different (often competing) interest groups with varying amounts of power – to allow for
different solutions in different places.
73. Leadership. Persuading all parties to release their iron grip on their own aspects of the status
quo – in search of a better bargain for the public good – will require strong leadership,
engendering trust and a willingness to give and take. This will need to come ultimately from
Ministers, who have committed Scotland to halting the loss of biodiversity by 2020 – an
ambition which we regard as unachievable without the sort of bold initiatives we are proposing
here. Engaging with people affected by decisions will lead to a broader constituency of
support for the decision and its defence. This wider support will be strengthened if there have
been obvious attempts to be reasonable from all sides.
74. We think this is worth the effort because the status quo really is not an alternative. A more
open approach rooted in consensus rather than command-and-control is likely to yield more
legitimacy for action than wrong answers (although significant cultural barriers will need to be
overcome for those who feel that the approach is unworkable until it is tried, tested and
19
proven). It could help to build the wider political currency that has been so weak for so long on
the environment.
75. We believe lessons could be learned from the Nature Improvement Areas in England, the
landscape-scale initiatives of RSPB, SWT and the Landscape Partnership Scheme
programme of the Heritage Lottery Fund as frameworks for engagement, negotiation and
collaboration to restore nature relevant to society.
6 Conclusions
76. Much conservation activity has become dominated by process and procedure and has lost its
fundamental link with a clear and up-to-date strategic vision. It is important that things are
done in the right way, but more important that the right things get done. It has also
underplayed its strongest hand, namely the wonder and amazement of nature. Very few
people are ‘against nature’.
77. We think that protected areas have a vital role to play in halting the loss of biodiversity,
achieving multiple benefits from land use and adapting to a changing climate. But to do this in
a changing world, they need a clearer purpose within a more coherent strategy for natural
resource use and management.
78. To be fit for the future, this strategy will need to challenge conventional thinking in all relevant
areas.
79. A fresh consensus will be required, and a willingness of all parties to negotiate. This won’t
happen without strong leadership.
20
Annex A - agenda including names of interviewees and
questions to structure the discussions
Review of Protected Areas for Nature
Panel interviews –timetable – 27-28 May 2014
In attendance throughout: Andrew Bachell, Clive Mitchell, Stewart Pritchard (all SNH)
Tues 27 May: SNH (Battleby, Perth)
08:30 Preparation
What are protected areas for? If to conserve a representative sample of natural and semi natural habitats and species across Scotland (and the UK), then to what extent can they do this in isolation or is the ‘best’ of what we have dependent on the ‘rest’ of what we have? If to contribute to halting the loss of biodiversity by 2020, then what is a proportionate role for protected areas in the mix of measures required to achieve this? To what extent is a re-balancing of resources required to achieve the biodiversity target (a) within SNH and (b) across Scotland? Is the administration of protected areas and deployment of resources across SNH optimal?
09:00 Interview - Ian Jardine
10:00 Tea/coffee
10:30 Review and preparation
Are we maximizing the public benefit from protected areas? How well do they contribute to better places for people to work, live and visit, the Scottish economy and enable people to experience, enjoy and value nature? How do they fit with other measures that contribute wider objectives of sustainable communities including engaging communities in the planning and management of their environment? How well do protected areas for nature conservation align with ecosystem services, the land use strategy and what others are doing? In terms of wider behaviours, if nature conservation is mainly framed through protected areas (and priority habitats and species) to what extent does this engage or disengage people generally in matters to do with loss of biodiversity? Do any perverse behaviours arise from the deployment and management of protected areas?
11:00 Interviews – public benefits
Stephen Yearley (Edinburgh University –social perspectives)
Bill Adams (Cambridge University – by skype/conferencecall?)
12:00 Review and preparation
13:00 Lunch (with the Land Use Strategy meeting)
14:15 Preparation
How do we use protected areas? How well do they cope with environmental change (including climate change) and changes in the political/policy landscape? How can they help us to deliver our objectives (or hinder delivery of them) in the context of the Scottish Biodiversity Strategy, Land Use Strategy and Climate Change Adaptation Framework? What is the role of protected areas in ‘landscape scale’ approaches?
14:15 Interviews – environmental change
Stuart Housden (RSPB Scotland)
Deborah Long (Plantlife, Chair Scottish Environment Link) 15:15 Tea/coffee
15:35 Preparation
Are we asking too much or too little of protected areas? What is the relative importance of protected areas and other measures in delivering multiple benefits including nature conservation and ecosystem services? At what scale should those multiple benefits be realised (e.g. field, landscape, regional or Scotland)? Have we got the balance right?
16:30 Interviews – multiple benefits
George Watson (LLT National Park)
Thomas MacDonell (land management interests)
Andrew Barbour (land management interests)
17:30 Review
18:00 End of day 1
…\PTO
21
Wed 28 May (Royal George Hotel, Perth)
Are protected areas for nature in the right places to address the threats to the loss of biodiversity? What is the role of protected areas in conservation strategies?
08:00 Interview – Bob Pressey (by skype – Townsville, Queensland Australia)
09:00 Review and preparation
Are the assumptions and philosophy underpinning the current approach to protected areas for nature (including both on- and off-site effects) fit for purpose now and in the future? What factors could make protected areas for nature more effective? Do we need a vision for protected areas? A statement to show how and why we see them working towards public policy outcomes?
10:00 Interviews – protected areas (approach – general)
Paul Rose (JNCC, review of protected areas)
Althea Davies (St Andrews University - historic environment and historic ecology)
11:00 Review and preparation
Are the assumptions and philosophy underpinning the current approach to protected areas for nature (including both on- and off-site effects) fit for purpose now and in the future? Is the administration of protected areas and deployment of resources optimal? How can they help us to deliver our objectives (or hinder delivery of them) in the context of the Scottish Biodiversity Strategy, Land Use Strategy and Climate Change Adaptation Framework? What would the relevant measures of success look like?
12:00 Interviews – protected areas (selection and monitoring)
Colin Galbraith (Independent consultant, Chair RSPB Scotland)
Robin Pakeman (James Hutton Institute)
Rob McMorran (SRUC, Edinburgh – wilding)
13:00 Lunch
14:00 Review and write-up of key points and any follow-up required
17:00 End
22
Annex B - Panel members biographies
(Chair) Simon Pepper OBE - Simon was the founding director of WWF Scotland, and awarded an
OBE for services to sustainable development. He was appointed as an external member of the
Cabinet sub-committee on Sustainable Scotland and was a member of the National Committee of
Forestry Commission Scotland. Currently, he’s Chairman of the Scottish Government’s Climate
Challenge Fund Panel, a Heritage Lottery Fund Scottish Committee member, an independent
environmental policy adviser, and a Board member of Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH).
Tim Benton (University of Leeds) - BA (Oxford), PhD (Cambridge) FSB, FLS
Tim’s research interests are in food security, population, evolutionary and conservation ecology
and he has focused on links between organisms and environmental changes, and how farming
drives ecological dynamics at different scales. Formerly, he held positions at Cambridge University
Press (science editor), Stirling University (senior lecturer), Aberdeen University (senior lecturer)
and Leeds (Professor, Director of the Institute of Integrative & Comparative Biology , Pro-Dean for
Research). Currently, he is UK Champion for Global Food Security, acting as ambassador and
spokesperson for matters to do with food and food security, and coordinating work across this area
between research councils and government departments.
John Thomson – After studying history (Cambridge) and economics (Bristol), John’s early career
was in HM Treasury, Department of the Environment Planning Inspectorate and the Countryside
Commission (England & Wales). Following a spell as Head of the (then) Scottish Office’s Town &
Country Planning Policy Division, he was a Director in SNH, leading its work on landscape, land &
freshwater use, planning & development, recreation & access, and SNH’s operations in the west of
Scotland. Formerly, John chaired the UK Countryside Recreation Network and the UK
environmental agencies’ Land Use Policy Group; and was a council member of Europarc.
Currently, he is convenor of the National Access Forum and the Southern Uplands Partnership, a
trustee of the Field Studies Council, and a Fellow of the Royal Society of Arts.
Kirsty Park (University of Stirling) - BSc (Leeds), DPhil (Bristol) - Currently, a reader in
conservation science in the School of Natural Sciences, University of Stirling. Kirsty’s research
interests are broadly concerned with the effects of anthropogenic change on biodiversity and how
to manage this, focusing primarily on animal ecology and conservation in heavily managed
environments such as agricultural and urban landscapes and forestry.
Hamish Trench (Cairngorms National Park Authority) - Hamish is Director of Conservation and
Visitor Experience and leads work on land management and conservation, outdoor access and
visitor services. Previously he was responsible for developing the first Cairngorms National Park
Plan and was seconded to the Deer Commission for Scotland for a year to lead development of a
joint agency strategy for wild deer management. Prior to joining the National Park Authority he
worked for Bidwells Property Consultants on estate management and land-use consultancy.
Paul Selman (independent) - Paul studied environmental science and town planning and
developed a strong interest in the interplay between development and ecosystems. As Head of
Sheffield University’s Department of Landscape he focused on re-embedding green infrastructures
in urban areas and the drivers of landscape change in the countryside. Paul, now Emeritus
Professor, has published extensively on landscape, environmental management and sustainable
development and undertaken research for government agencies and research councils.
