Integrating Soil, Water and Biodiversity Policies: A Case Study from Scotland

Abstract

Since the publication of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA 2005), the way in which natural resources are viewed in policy has changed. The MEA introduced a new conceptual framework that linked ecosystem services and human well-being. The MEA framework has not only influenced scientific communities but also policy and practice communities. Efforts are now made to more holistically consider ecosystems services, and their benefits and effect on human well-being.

Appendices

Appendix A

Criteria and key questions suggested by Mickwitz et al. (2009) to assess climate change policy integration.

Criterion	Key question
Inclusion	To what extent are direct as well as indirect climate change mitigation and adaptation impacts covered?
Consistency	Have the contradictions between the aims related to climate change mitigation and adaptation and other policy goals been assessed and have there been efforts to minimise revealed contradictions?
Weighting	Have the relative priorities of climate change mitigation and adaptation impacts compared to other policy aims been decided and are there procedures for determining the relative priorities?
Reporting	Are there clearly stated evaluation and reporting requirements for climate change mitigation and adaptation impacts (including deadlines) ex ante and have such evaluations and reporting happened ex post? Have indicators been defined, followed up and used?
Resources	Is internal as well as external know-how about climate change mitigation and adaptation impacts available and used and are resources provided?

Appendix B

Template for assessing the characteristics of policy instruments relating to biodiversity, soil and water.

Information sources:

Please note here the website(s) or document reference(s) used to fill in this sheet. Where necessary, mark if having to speculate or if there is insufficient information to enter anything under the headings below. Where possible, reference page numbers to go back for more information. There may be questions that can not be answered. Please ensure there is documentary evidence for the entries. When using web documents, note both the web address and the date downloaded/accessed as they change a lot. If possible, cut and paste from the website rather than just providing the link.

Name of Instrument

Formal name of this instrument. If it is usually referred to by another name, also state here.

Category of instrument & how it works

Is the instrument about provision of information/ education, voluntary action, regulatory control, incentives? Describe what the instrument does.

Goal or objectives of instrument

Formal objectives or goal of this instrument. Are the objectives clear and consistent? (remember to note that this is your speculation unless there is a document stating this).

Is the protection of natural assets (water/soil/biodiversity) the target of this instrument?

Which natural assets (water/ soil/biodiversity) are supposed to benefit from this instrument? If the instrument is not primarily targeted at their protection, how does the instrument affect the asset(s)? (distinguishing those designed to protect assets from those that influence them but without having natural assets as the primary aim)

Problem to be tackled by instrument

Describe the problem(s) situation that this instrument is supposed to tackle according to the texts you are analysing. Is this presented in these texts as a simple uncontested problem for which technical fixes are available, or as a more complicated and/or contested challenge that would require behavioural change from many groups?

Rationale for using this instrument

What is the rationale or “logic of intervention” for this instrument-why is this instrument thought useful for managing natural assets? Is there a certain and shared understanding of the expected impacts of the instrument? How is uncertainty acknowledged and handled?

Name of “parent” policies and legislation

What legislation creates, enables and specifies this instrument? If the legislation creating the instrument is secondary legislation, also list the primary legislation/parent policies.

Goal or Objectives of “parent” policy

What are the formal objectives of the parent policy? Are the objectives clear and consistent? (remember to note that this is your speculation unless there is a document stating this)

Where does this instrument apply?

Does this instrument apply to all land types / land uses, or does it only affect agricultural holdings, less favoured areas etc. Is it a national (universal) instrument or is it targeted? If not national, how does it fit with administrative boundaries? Has the area to which the instrument applies altered (if so, how and when?)

Over what time period does the instrument apply?

Is this an annual, 5 year, 10 year, 50 year instrument? If longer term, are there any quality assurance or compliance checks during the period? Is the instrument adaptable?

How long has the instrument been available/in-use? (i.e. when was the instrument first used in Scotland) Has the instrument been changed (if so, how and when?).

Does the instrument make any explicit reference to other policy instruments?

There may be instances where there is reference made to other types of instruments (e.g. education) or specific instruments (e.g. Controlled Activity Regulations within a measure in RBMPs).

Who is the owner and initiator of this instrument?

In most cases, this will be the Scottish Government, but it is useful to note if there is another agency or body who is the responsible authority, and if there are other named ‘authorities’ involved in implementation. Are these owners formally accountable/responsible for the instrument?

Mandate and resources to deliver/use instrument

If not clear from above, is there a clear mandate (official order giving authority) for the owners of this instrument? Do they have formal resources (e.g. funding, time) to implement the instrument? Does the structure of the political system / policy style favour this instrument?

Capacity to deliver/use instrument

What is the commitment and skill of agencies planning/implementing this instrument? Do they have capacity/competence in organising interactions with stakeholders/actors and/or in conflict management? Do they have capacity in strategic thinking? Do they have capacity for knowledge assimilation and sharing? Is there familiarity in this agency with this general kind of instrument?

What type of actor (beyond the owner) does this instrument apply to?

To whom does this instrument apply/to whom is it available: state/public sector (government, agencies, local authorities); market/private actors (farmers, businesses depending on land/natural resources); civil society e.g. eNGOs, community groups, other NGOs? Some instruments may apply to all types of resource user/land managers, whilst other instruments may apply only to certain types (e.g. CAR regulations apply to everyone, but only farmers applying for CAP need to follow GAECs, statutory duties apply only to public bodies).

Benefits and Costs

Does the instrument make any claims about to whom, and how, the instrument will deliver benefits? And whether there will be costs, and who will bear them [this information might be available in a Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) or Business and Regulatory Impact Assessment of the instrument].

Transaction costs associated with use of instrument

What costs (time, money, other resources) are associated with trying to use the instrument?

Actors capacity and resources to use the instrument

What is the commitment, resources, technology and skill required to implement this instrument? Are the actor groups likely to have familiarity with this kind of instrument? Are intermediaries (consultants etc.) required or often utilised to implement this instrument?

Participation and collaboration in/for instrument

List all actors involved in the (a) design of the instrument and (b) implementation of the instrument and (c) monitoring of the instrument. Was a procedure used to define which actors should be involved? Are the roles and responsibilities of different actors clear? Describe how they are involved. Are these actors used to coordinating/ cooperating? Do these actors have trust in ① the process (i.e. perceived procedural justice)? ② general governance system. How are power asymmetries handled?

To what extent is there awareness/uptake of this instrument?

Note here what we know (if anything) about the extent to which actors are aware of the instrument and choosing to comply with it-mainly applies to voluntary and incentive type instruments; though if we know some types of controls are not being followed, also note it here. Remember to note if it is your speculation or based on documented evidence.

Attitudes to instrument

Who else supports the instrument– media, politicians, target community, others? Do proponents of the instrument or any other group wish to be seen as role models, pushing others to adopt the instrument? Who opposes the instrument– media, politicians, target communities, others. Remember to note if it is your speculation or based on documented evidence.

Knowledge management in/for instrument

What sources of knowledge were/are used in (a) designing, (b) implementing and (c) monitoring the instrument? Are different types of knowledge integrated or kept separate? Who is involved in producing and sharing the knowledge? Are differing interests and ideologies acknowledged?

Context: environment and ecology

Does the policy instrument material make any comment on the state of the asset, how it is defined, limits to its use etc?

Context: economic

Does the policy instrument material make any comment on any economic issues or market factors affecting the instrument, its target resource and/or the actors who are supposed to be adopting the instrument?

Context: nature-human interactions-services provided by resource

Does the policy instrument material list/describe the main ecosystem services (or more generally, benefits to people) provided by the assets/settings targeted by the instrument.

Context: nature-human interactions-attitudes and behaviours to resource

Does the policy instrument material note existing (consumptive) uses of nature by resource users and managers (some of this will provide or affect ESS already listed above). Does it state current attitudes towards the resource? Or what technologies or infrastructure affect environmental management? And/or what is the history/evolution of environmental management and use?

What effects has the instrument achieved?

What impacts, if any, have been reported as arising from this instrument? How does this relate to any targets set for this instrument. Note if formal monitoring and evaluation of the instrument exists and if it matches with the formal goals of the instrument.

What is the ① efficiency (does it cost less to implement that the gains it provides, ② effectiveness (are the goals achieved), and ③ equity of outcomes (how are the benefits distributed and do they flow to those who pay the costs? Are participants held to account and do they conform with “general morality” (do participants trust that rules are enforced and those breaking them are punished?)