Joining up nature in practice –

making ecological coherence a reality

Where would improving habitats provide most value to people and wildlife?

Wednesday 15 June 2016, Battleby Conference Centre

Summary of proceedings

1

Contents

1. Programme 2

2. Presentations 2

3. Posters 2

4. Participants 5

5. Photos 5

6. Workshops 6

6.1 Ecosystem Services Habitat Networks 6

6.2 Habitat Networks 8

6.3 Mapping technology 9

6.4 Involving people 11

6.5 Delivering for biodiversity 12

6.6 Landscape programme management 15

7. Participant feedback 16

8. Annexes 16

Annex 1 – Event Flier 17

Annex 2 – Programme 19

Annex 3 – Participants 21

Annex 4 – Participant feedback 23

7. Programme

The programme was built around the experience of the EcoCoLife project and other projects’ experience in applying landscape scale approaches. Its aim was to give participants the opportunity to;

Develop a better understanding of ecological coherence principles

Learn about how ecological coherence and other methods have been applied in practice

Participate in discussions on the merits of applying different landscape scale and strategic approaches

Discuss and help refine a view on taking these approaches forward for greater practical application

The day was opened and chaired by Eileen Stuart, Head of Policy with Scottish Natural Heritage and keynote talks were provided by Jonathan Porter, Chair of International Association for Landscape Ecology (UK), Brian McDonald, Programme Manager with Natural England and Paul Sizeland EcoCo Project Manager with SNH. The day comprised a mix of presentations, case study poster sessions and workshops. Delegates were able to select case study and workshop sessions according to their interests. A copy of the day’s programme is included in Annex 1

8. Presentations Three main presentations were given in plenary. All presentations are available on the EcoCo Project website through the following weblinks (urls);

Why landscape scale? Jonathan Porter, International Association for Landscape Ecology (UK) (ialeUK)

Natural England’s Nature Improvement Areas; Brian McDonald, Natural England

Ecological coherence in practice - models, maps and matrices; Paul Sizeland, EcoCo Life Project/SNH

9. Posters

Eight different organisations presented posters on case studies on different landscape scale approaches to habitat management to a series of 3 groups each of around ten participants who chose which case studies to attend. High resolution copies are available here. Thumbnails of the posters are in the following pages;

3

The Slamannan Bog Restoration Project in Scotland’s central belt (EcoCo project). Scott Shanks, Buglife

Catchment scale restoration: improving physical condition and delivering natural flood management benefits to 5 catchments of Scotland. Shona McConnell, SEPA

Eddleston Water Restoration Project – implementing natural flood management measures. Hugh Chalmers, Tweed Forum

Targeting Atlantic Woodland Conservation – showcasing how GIS has been used to target conservation and develop projects. Doug Shapley, RSPB & Davie Black, Plantlife

The assessment of peatland integrity and water quality risk using earth observation technologies. Amy Gove, Scottish Water

Edinburgh pollinator pledge - spatially targeted campaign to co-ordinate community action. Ian Mackenzie, Scottish Wildlife Trust

The Carse of Stirling Project - this project demonstrated the application of the ecosystem approach to land use decision making’. Neville Makan, SNH

Modelling and mapping ecological network connectivity, coherence and resilience to inform decision making. (BEETLE/Somerset Ecology Network) Darren Moseley, Forest Research

5

10. Participants

Over eighty participants attended the event comprising practitioners covering ecology, GIS and land management, policy – makers, consultants, academics and local authority officers. The full list of participants is included in Annex 3.

11. Photos

5.1 Opening slide 5.2 Keynote by Jonathan Porter, ialeUK

5.3 Delegates 5.4 Case study by Scott Shanks, Buglife

5.5 Case study by Amy Gove, Scottish Water 5.6 Case Study by Neville Makan, SNH

12. Workshops

Six workshops were held giving each participant the possibility to attend their choice of two each. A mix of SNH and EcoCo partners lead and facilitated the workshops in order to retain knowledge and learning within the EcoCo project team. The workshops addressed themes that the EcoCo project considered pertinent to the EcoCo experience and to landscape scale approaches to habitat management in general. The themes covered were;

Ecosystem Services (The benefits provided to humans by nature)

Habitat Networks (connectivity, addressing fragmentation, migration and dispersal)

Mapping technology (management, data, visualisation, platforms)

Involving people (stakeholders, land managers, user groups, community engagement)

Delivering for biodiversity (above and beyond connectivity)

Landscape programme management – (bringing it all together)

The write up of the workshop sessions is covered in the following sections;

6.1 Ecosystem Services (The benefits provided to humans by nature)

Lead; Professor Chris Spray, Centre for Water Law, Policy and Science, University of Dundee

Facilitator; Neville Makan (SNH) & Elizabeth Hall (SBC)

The overall purpose of the session was to enable participants to gain an understanding of the potential for utilising ecosystem services as a tool to help address issues of ecological coherence and multiple land use, including challenges in their identification, mapping and assessment. We tried to focus on what knowledge and experience attendees already had and what they saw as the main uses for ecosystem services mapping, including:

1. Identifying and engaging with key stakeholders for whom ecosystem coherence and service provision is vital

2. Exploring the potential uses of ecosystem services mapping and the challenges therein

3. Challenges in transferring the ecosystem services concept to policy and practice.

This was explored by discussing a number of key questions, as reported below:

Are you using Ecosystem services (ESS) currently in your work? If so, for what purposes, and what potential uses would you like to see them developed to cover?

15 out of 25 workshop attendees said they are utilising ESS in some form. Everyone said they saw value in their use and would like to use them more in the future.

Current ways ESS are being used to enhance ecological coherence and multiple land use include:

To meet project/programme aims and to further biodiversity (it also helps with funding applications and justifies actions and delivery!) RSPB

To increase capacity of peatlands to deliver biodiversity and as a powerful persuasive tool East Ayrshire Coalfield

To refocus the Local Biodiversity Action Plan to an Ecosystems Approach and for communications Fife Council; Scottish Borders Council

To assess the benefits versus the constraints of a particular management approach SEPA

To deliver multiple benefits and shared outcomes… SNH

In order to get funding by showing the cultural benefits, for example of boglands Plantlife

They are mapped – and they assist with reserve management SWT

For the analysis of ESS projects, such as EcoCoLife SNH

To assess the health benefits of open spaces and present these spatially through GIS Aberdeen City Council Environmental Planning Team

In relation to: EcoCoLife; recreation and access; river restoration, (and to help meet the requirements of the EU Water Framework Directive) and natural flood management SEPA

On the technical side, for GIS mapping Environmental consultancy

And how we would like to use them…

To assist with the new directive for EIA to incorporate ESS assessment Ecology consultancy

To help discussions with landowners and farmers about the benefits of certain types of land management that will provide benefits e.g. natural flood management SNH

For opportunities in relation to SUDS Ecology consultancy

To value derelict land Green Urban Trust

To help get more investment and to get agreement on management action SWT

For education East Ayrshire Coalfield

To add value to existing projects Environmental consultancy

ESS and Stakeholders:

Before consulting, the strategic direction and timetables should be fixed – what is the purpose of the consultation, what are we aiming to get out of it? Are stakeholders providers of information and data? are they a passive audience? Is their role to ‘validate’ findings and ‘approve’ direction of work? Are they providers of a resource? Or a means of communication themselves?

Process of consultation with stakeholders is iterative – will need to go back for further discussions, and to see if people understand and appreciate the various project outputs, like maps?

Who are the key stakeholders:

Important to make sure all stakeholders are captured. Consider the fundamental demands people have for land use and ESS, and role of ecological coherence

Use of a simple graphed relationship of providers and beneficiaries of ESS

Need to identify those with power/influence and those with interest in ESS and ecological coherence

Stakeholders can provide an operational opportunity in terms of resources. Partners will also be required for delivery, whether agencies or landowners.

Avoid solely a human-centric focus; what about ‘intrinsic’ stakeholders (the environment itself) and future generations – how do we consider them?

How should we involve stakeholders:

Recognise that ESS mean different things to different people, therefore communication is highly important. There needs to be engagement with a wide variety of people

Early engagement and consultation is vital otherwise people will be or will feel excluded. Need to understand who is for or against certain proposals or actions

Various stakeholders will receive, or perceive different benefits – specific interests may apply to certain groups. Therefore, we need to “do the social science bit before any other science related to ESS” and find common ground amongst people

Engagement method & frequency will vary. Key stakeholders (powerful influencers and those with high interest in a proposed venture) will need regular, 1:1, face-to-face engagement. Others less so and different methods.

Part of the discussion should be about what are the important ESS? and how do they influence and depend on ecological coherence?

But there are always going to be choices, trade-offs – it won’t always be win-win for everyone. People need to know that upfront.

Scale will also be important. What seems unimportant on a large scale may be of vital importance to an individual land manager.

Challenges in transferring the ecosystem services concept to policy and practice.

Barriers to be overcome include:

Lack of a single ‘Overarching Mind’ with power to influence sustainable balance and direction of ESS choice and delivery in a holistic manner a landscape scale.

‘Mindsets’ may be a barrier to transfer of concept to policy and practice, and to stakeholder engagement. For example there is arguably a collective mindset to produce food at the scale of post-war agricultural intensification. We have the capacity to feed enormous numbers of people in and outside of the UK at the scale we are currently working on in modern farming – but this has huge disbenefits for some ESS e.g. water quality or natural flood management.

Language - our inability to explain ESS, Ecological coherence and all its related jargon to policy-makers is as challenging as it is to the average person in the pub!

‘Ownership’ of ESS is also for consideration – which policies (and which actors) are best able to enable and promote delivery of ESS (through incentivisation, regulation or management approaches) and who is benefiting from (or conversely who is hindering and being disadvantaged by) choices on delivery of ESS?

Key part of the message that ESS have the potential to deliver everything we need, but there are conflicting land use demands.

Potentially placing constraints or legal ‘Burdens’ on land to enhance or protect ESS delivery could be very effective, but can affect the value of the land and the scale of ESS delivery.

Highlights need for 1:1 engagement with the most powerful stakeholders with the greatest interest, to secure the changes need for land use – i.e. landowners, politicians, NGOs.

Lack of Funding – both to support Land Use Strategy and ESS policy development itself; and the means (incentivisation, research, stakeholder engagement, etc.) to achieve it

“Analysis paralysis”- gathering too much data or theoretical information before getting started with stakeholder consultation – or later, initialising practice, or policy changes.

6.2 Habitat Networks (connectivity, addressing fragmentation, migration and dispersal)

Lead; Craig Macadam, Buglife

Facilitator; Alistair Whyte (SNH)

6.2.1 What examples of habitat networks are you aware of

Forest Habitat Networks (e.g. Clyde Valley Woodlands)

Pinewoods habitat network (Cairngorms National Park)

Buglife John Muir Way project (bee-lines)

Glasgow Clyde Valley Green Network

Tweed Forum

River Basin Management Plans

6.2.2 How do we measure Ecological Connectivity?

Choose focal/indicator species well

Important to measure fragmentation as well as connectivity, at multiple scales (e.g. dualling A9 impact on wood ant populations and questions over effectiveness of mitigation measures).

Be aware of the cumulative impacts of fragmentation.

Do you measure species or habitats to assess ecological connectivity?

Use technology where appropriate, and local knowledge.

Validation of records (and time this takes) can be a barrier, particularly to the involvement of citizen science.

Do we need more data, or do we need to use the data we have better?

Need to measure the quality of the habitat being created

Choosing the correct indicator species is important – not too specialist

A suite of indicators will give the most accurate results

Need to understand the dispersal characteristics of species

Opportunity to link species monitoring to engagement and volunteering, although this could influence the choice of indicators

Long-term volunteer monitoring needed

6.2.3 How do you know when a network is working?

Be aware that the species you think will benefit may not always be the ones which respond.

Be aware of the time needed to reach your goal.

Need to recognise the negative impacts of connectivity (e.g. facilitating the spread of non-native invasives), although it was noted that these thrive best in fragmented landscapes.

6.3 Mapping technology (management, data, visualisation, platforms)

Lead; Duncan Blake (SNH GIG)

Facilitator; Lachlan Renwick (SNH)

The main points we took from the session were about:

Communication o Maps and spatial data can be great communication tools o They can form an important part of the conversations we have though there

are dangers in swamping people with maps at an inappropriate stage or in the belief they ‘are reality’.

o Making data openly available enables collaborative working, and also improves the quality of data through the provision of feedback

o But we also need communication about them – metadata and other forms of documentation that allow users to find and understand the data they’re using.

Clarity about data o What’s available – particularly in terms of land cover it’s difficult for people to

know where to start – should they use the IHN land cover, the EcoServ land cover, EUNIS Land Cover Scotland, wait for Habitat Map of Scotland or create their own?

o Where it’s from is therefore critical– clarity about source data used and the methodology.

o What it’s for – and what it’s not suited to o Who it’s for

We ended up with a list of issues.

Lowest common denominator (data simplified to combine data from different sources)

Combining data from different sources

National vs regional vs local differences in approach.

Not being held up by data challenges – draw a line and start the conversation (by publishing the data)

Recognising data limitations (because no data is perfect)

Documentation – metadata (the importance of having consistently good metadata – knowing how data has been put together)

Different audiences with different needs (same data won’t fit all needs)

Communication (of critical importance)

Maps form part of a conversation, they are not the solution.

Purpose + audience (purpose of the data and needs of the audience need to be considered together)

Communicating assumptions

What does it mean? (Clarity about the point you’re trying to make through your map/data)

Is red on the map bad?! (Care needed when creating maps – e.g. red can indicate danger/bad, so be careful how you use it)

Keep it simple BUT sometimes need detail

Overwhelmed with data (volume of data can cause important data to be lost in the crowd)

Better to focus on key issues

Appropriate presentation of data (often that will mean simple presentation, but not always)

How reliable is underlying data? Easy to assume that a map is right

Knowing where to go for appropriate data (currently uncertainty about this)

Publicity about available data

Combining habitat and technical expertise

Sometimes detail, sometimes not appropriate

Spending money because we don’t know what’s there (e.g. repeat surveys because we don’t know data already exists for survey area)

Online opportunity maps would be useful

Open data should be first choice, if fit for purpose, so it can be widely used (open formats, open licences)

Web Map Services for sharing data have many advantages.

Online tools, including analysis tools (would make it easier for many people to be using the same analysis tools)

Using different data to do similar work at different scales

Availability of data of publicly owned land was questioned as this can focus restoration efforts.

Transferability of methods – not easy. Data and metadata issues

6.4 Involving people (stakeholders, land managers, user groups, community engagement)

Lead; Zoe Clelland, RSPB

Facilitator; Martin Faulkner (SNH)

6.4.1 How should stakeholders expectations be managed?

- Collective / shared vision - Expectations need to be agreed in an open, honest way. - Be clear about the objectives of the project from the beginning. - Close consultation with focused guidance. - Find common ground - Be realistic about raising aspirations – avoid a failed legacy - Explain from the outset that the project will take time to develop. There may be

features you could highlight for the people to look out for over time. - Clearly describe the scope of the project and possible outcomes. Don’t stifle

questions that may emerge though. - Engage rather than consult. - There’s consultation fatigue. - Improve listening - Don’t forget to manage the expectations of your stakeholders - Carefully - Always remember the key objective - Be honest of (sic) your intentions. - Explain funding is limited so the person so the person who they meet may not be in

post next year. - Manage expectations.

6.4.2 How can we communicate ‘Ecological Coherence’

- Get people on the ground - Do, or show doing. - Take your time to talk to people - Learn first what related concepts mean for the people you want to communicate with.

Start from there. - By making it relevant to your stakeholders - Proper outreach and promotion of the term (education) - Take our time and convince our employers to take time. - Use plain English and avoid ‘jargon’. - Finding out what audience knows and use their understanding. - Send the ‘right’ people to engage with stakeholders. - Build trust - Keep it simple and clear - Through delivery. Show stuff - With reference to historical landscape change – how has it changed in the past and

how could it change in the future. - Tell a story – real life experiences - Real examples – good and bad.

6.4.3 In what ways can people be involved in delivering Ecological Coherence?

- Through workshops, volunteering and education. - Link ecological and other interests. - Species monitoring - By allowing them to impart their knowledge. - Find out what people value about the area - By being aware of how it impacts on their personal lives – and then invite them to

engage in the process. - Horses for courses. Start early and simple. - In ways that spark their interest and maybe long-term relationship. - Does it have to really be ‘Landscape scale’ as the project? Or can it be a network of

smaller, easily manageable projects, all linked? - Start by focussing on the special qualities of the landscape and the tangible and

intangible heritage. - More public involvement and events? - Key stakeholders (of the landowners) willing to undertake work. - Think of co-benefits. - Encouragement - Facilitate community engagement which will offer / provide a sense of ownership,

e.g. community mapping.

6.5 Delivering for biodiversity (above and beyond connectivity)

Lead; Debbie Bassett (SNH)

Facilitator; Louise Bond (SEPA)

Delivering for Biodiversity - Workshop write-up

Session 1: identify large-scale conservation projects

Using post-it-notes participants were asked to identify large-scale conservation projects they were involved or knew about. These were posted on a flip charts for all to see

Session 2: Identify drivers and biodiversity outcomes

Each post-it-note was removed from the flipchart in turn and questions were asked about the driver/ reason for the project and the biodiversity outcome. These were captured on a flip chart – see table 2.

Session 3: Ingredients for a successful landscape scale project

Participants were asked to share the ‘ingredients’ that in their experience they thought were important to ensure landscape scale projects reached their outcomes. The list below is not ranked.

Opportunity

Shared vision

Event

Legislation

Partnership

Communication

Multiple benefits

FUNDING o Funding for collaboration o Funding for data collation o Funding for mapping o Funding for agency time

Advocacy

Neutrality / independent chair (funding may be needed)

Adaptive management

Building relationships takes time

Continuity of officers very important

Willingness to co-operate

Networking

Champions

One key partner/ officer to drive project forward

Project management

LBAPs to include landscape scale projects

Clear understanding of benefits

Knowing when to say yes and no

Table 1. Results from session 2

Project Reason Biodiversity outcome

Kingshill peatland restoration (CFST)

Local nature reserve – improve quality

Peatland biodiversity improved and public access gained

West Sands dune restoration project (St Andrews Links golf course and Fife Council)

Storm surge in 2010 inundated car park for golf course

Sand dune restoration

Meadows Pilot Project – (North Ayrshire Council)

Local Authority looking at reducing management costs – running 2 Pilot Projects

Nectar network and meadow improvements – wildflowers, grasses and invertebrates improved. Probably benefits to small mammals too.

East Tullos Burn Wetland Restoration

(Aberdeen City Council)

Local development plan and diffuse pollution

More natural stream and associated functional floodplain – benefits to in-channel species and wetland species/ habitat

http://www.cbecoeng.co.uk/projects-easttullosburn.php

Glen Finglas - native woodland restoration (Woodland Trust)

Increase native woodland cover and restore existing woodland

Improved biodiversity for woodland habitat and the many species it supports

http://www.woodlandtrust.org.uk/woodfile/362/management-plan.pdf?cb=728cc8254ee

Inner Forth Futurescape and Inner Forth Landscape Initiative

Threat to SPA and CSGN driver

Wider biodiversity and cultural heritage outcomes.

Dwarf Birch restoration – Ben Wyvis (Plantlife)

Volunteer interest – developed the project

Dwarf birch conservation plus associated alpine flora

Glazart Water – River Basin Management Plan project (SEPA)

River basin catchment management

Habitat networks

Modified river

Freshwater and riparian biodiversity

http://www.sepa.org.uk/media/38155/glazert-water-summary-report.pdf

Salamannan Bog Restoration (Buglife) core 150ha – new area 240ha

Habitat targets

Designated sites

Peatland restoration and invertebrate conservation

https://www.buglife.org.uk/slamannan-bog-restoration

Project Reason Biodiversity outcome

The Great Trossachs Forest (Scottish Forest Alliance)

Carbon target by British Petroleum so provides funding

3 landowners – Forestry Commission Scotland, RSPB Scotland and Woodland Trust Scotland – focus on woodland creation plan to plant more than 16,500ha per year

Woodland creation

http://www.thegreattrossachsforest.co.uk/great-forest-restored/our-work/

Fife Green networks (Fife Council)

Planning policy – regional scale

Opportunity to enhance wider biodiversity through planning policy

Scapa Link road SUDS pond (Orkney Council)

Sustainable Urban Drainage – new road so needed to develop flood and surface water management

Pond and wetland creation

Clyde Valley wader initiative (RSPB)

Wader conservation and land owner liaison

Focus on lapwing, curlew, snipe, redshank and oystercatcher

http://www.rspb.org.uk/whatwedo/projects/details.aspx?id=311967

Great crested newt?

Berwickshire Arable wildlife Project (RSPB)

Arable birds http://www.rspb.org.uk/whatwedo/projects/details.aspx?id=402761

Deer management plans (multi agency and land managers)

Legislation, flood, Water framework directive and nature conservation

Upland habitats, freshwater ecology and riparian woodland

Knapdale Beaver trial (SWT, RZSS)

Species restoration Reintroduction of species to Scotland and wider benefits to riparian habitats and species

Community re-wildling (TCV and GCVGNP)

Re-wilding greenspace – GCVGN, community and health, climate change

Wider biodiversity benefits and community engagement/ involvement http://blogs.tcv.org.uk

Beauly to Denny Over Head Line

Power supply secured and upgraded

Compound site restoration cover a number of different habitats

South Scotland Golden Eagle project (RSPB, SLE, Buccleuch Estates, Scottish Land & Estates, RSPB Scotland, Scottish Natural Heritage, Forestry Commission Scotland and The Langholm Initiative)

Expansion of Golden Eagle range in South Scotland

Iconic/ flagship species expansion of range

https://www.goldeneaglessouthofscotland.co.uk/

River south Esk – INNS control project (River South Esk Catchment Partnership)

Invasive species control and angler access to River South Esk

Re-colonisation of native species and aquatic improvements

http://theriversouthesk.org/

Aberdeenshire Land Use Strategy Pilot (Aberdeenshire Council)

Climate Change Act

Land Use Strategy

Regional Framework

Biodiversity targets and implications for trade-offs tested.

https://www.aberdeenshire.gov.uk/environment/energy-conservation/aberdeenshire-land-use-strategy-pilot/

Lowland Deer Network Scotland (FCS, SNH and Transport Scotland)

Legislation - Wildlife and Natural Environment (Scotland) Act has placed an obligation on ALL who have deer on their ground to manage them responsibly.

Co-ordinating existing effort and representation. Many habitats and species will benefit from greater control of deer in lowland Scotland.

http://www.ldns.org.uk/

15

6.6 Landscape programme management – (bringing it all together)

Lead; Brian McDonald (NE)

Facilitator; Paul Sizeland (SNH)

This session that was largely discussion-based resulted in the following key points for

successful landscape scale approaches;

Be aware of the scope for exercising opportunism versus the ideal as taking an ideal

approach does not always work out.

Take time to plan, convene stakeholders, prepare bids etc. don’t rush into things!

Fruitful collaborations are based on "natural collaborations" where there is true

synergy – avoid forcing collaborations where it just won’t work.

Allowing proper lead in time – including the time it takes for gaining consents,

permissions etc.

pre-testing innovative approaches if possible through pilots or learning from others.

Be aware of and build in resource for dealing with monitoring and reporting

requirements of funders and stakeholders.

If possible make use of facilitation funds e.g. ECAF (Environmental cooperation

Action Fund) to get partners together and to draw up preliminary plans

Make sure to make a record of lessons learned and prepare for leaving a legacy by

thinking through the sustainability of the results post project funding.

Make adequate arrangements for effective communication methods between

partners

Where partners, funders and other stakeholders are dispersed maintain methods of

communication that addresses fragmentation – both ideas and geography

Use multi-partnership approach to achieve the widest possible adoption of ideas

As far as possible adhere to a bottom - up approach for same success in adoption

and support as above

Timeframe constraint in applying for funding will affect project phasing, be so time

actions accordingly.

Make clear the project objectives – make sure thee run through everything the

project is delivering.

Try to be efficient in reporting (avoiding duplication across funders)

Prepare business plans that properly give a translation and articulation of ideas in

resource terms.

Ensure that the entire partnership contributes to and is bought into a shared vision

Incorporate existing support e.g. SRDP agri-environment alongside new project

ideas.

Promotion to land management sector using their language and arguments where

there might be conflicts – build this into communications strategy.

Use intermediaries to conduct communications and supportive engagement where

necessary where there might be challenge from lobbies (e.g. Country Landowners

Association)

In practice, build on what's already there

Build in slippage time – as invariably there will be hold –ups for all sorts of reasons.

Key learning - build in development time

16

9. Participant feedback

Participant feedback was high at 44%. Feedback was gained using a post event online evaluation system. A few key points are as follows;

Participants judged the event to be enjoyable, useful and well organised

Presentations and poster sessions were well delivered and well received

Greater time should have been allowed for discussion

A wide range of suggested follow up topics was suggested consistent with this event’s main theme.

The full report of participant feedback is at Annex 4.

10. Annexes

The annexes are in the following pages;

Annex 1 Flier

Annex 2 Programme

Annex 3 Participant list

Annex 4 Participant feedback

Annex 1 Event Flier

Scottish Natural Heritage

Sharing Good Practice Sharing knowledge, skills and experience

17

Joining up nature in practice – making ecological coherence a reality

Where would improving habitats provide most value to people and wildlife?

Wednesday 15 June 2016, Battleby Conference Centre

Who is it for? Government agencies, NGO’s, consultancies, academic institutions and local authorities with an interest in landscape ecology including:

Habitat / land use managers and planners (designated and non-designated sites)

Ecologists (specialist and general)

Spatial/biodiversity Data/GIS practitioners with interests in ecology

What is it about?

The event is about exploring different landscape scale ecological management approaches that have been tried in practice. The EcoCo Project has been applying an 'ecological coherence' concept to identifying and delivering habitat improvement works on sites across central Scotland. The approach considers habitat connectivity, species dispersal and migration, habitat and species resilience, species diversity and ecosystem function. EcoCo is using habitat networks and ecosystem services (Ecoserv-GIS) modelling in its approach to identify the best places to work to provide greatest value for people and wildlife. Other landscape scale projects have applied different methods and models to enable habitat connectivity and ecological improvements.

18

What will you gain from attending?

Develop a better understanding of ecological coherence principles

Learn about how ecological coherence and other methods have been applied in practice

Participate in discussions on the merits of applying different landscape scale and strategic approaches

Discuss and help refine a view on taking these approaches forward for greater practical application

Content:

Keynote speaker describing current thinking and approaches in landscape scale ecology and practice

Case studies from a range of tried and tested practices

Workshops to discuss and develop possible future approaches

Times: 10:00 start (coffee and registration at 09:30) 15:30 finish

Venue: Battleby Conference Centre Battleby Redgorton PERTH PH1 3EW Tel: 01738 458551

Organisers: Scottish Natural Heritage and the EcoCo Life project

Cost: Free but booking is essential. Lunch & refreshments will be provided.

Booking: To book a place, please download the booking form from the SNH website and return it to sgp@snh.gov.uk as soon as possible, and no later than Wednesday 11th May 2016. Thank you.

For more on EcoCoLife:

www.EcoCoLife.org.uk

Annex 2 – Programme

19

PROGRAMME

Joining up nature in practice – making ecological coherence a reality

Wednesday, 15 June 2016 - Battleby Conference Centre

To tweet about this event please use hashtag #ecocolife

0930-1000 Registration and refreshments

1000-1005 Welcome and Introduction Eileen Stuart, Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH)

1005-1030 Why landscape scale? Jonathan Porter, International Association for Landscape Ecology (UK) (ialeUK)

1030-1055 Natural England’s Nature Improvement Areas Brian McDonald, Natural England

1055-1105 Q & A Eileen Stuart, SNH

1105-1110 Introduction to case study session Paul Sizeland, EcoCo SNH

1110-1130 Coffee

Case study sessions - you will have already selected 3 case studies as indicated on your badge. Please see location overleaf.

1130-1150 Case study session 1

1150-1210 Case study session 2

1210-1230 Case study session 3

1230-1245 Case Study feedback Eileen Stuart, SNH

1245-1330 Lunch

1330-1350 Ecological coherence in practice - models, maps and matrices

Paul Sizeland, EcoCo Life Project/SNH

Workshop sessions - you will have already selected 2 workshops as indicated on your badge. Please see location overleaf.

1355-1430 Workshop session 1

1435-1510 Workshop session 2

1515-1530 Workshop feedback Eileen Stuart, SNH

1530-1540 Round up Jonathan Porter, ialeUK

1540 Close Eileen Stuart, SNH

1540-1630 Invitation to network over coffee if you wish

20

Case Study descriptions

Please go to the 3 case studies as indicated on your badge in the location listed below:

1 Auditorium The Carse of Stirling Project - this project demonstrated the application of the ecosystem approach to land use decision making’.

Neville Makan, SNH

2 Cherry Room Modelling and mapping ecological network connectivity, coherence and resilience to inform decision making. (BEETLE/Somerset Ecology Network)

Darren Moseley, Forest Research

3 Holly Room Edinburgh pollinator pledge - spatially targeted campaign to co-ordinate community action.

Ian Mackenzie, Scottish Wildlife Trust

4 Oak Room

Catchment scale restoration: improving physical condition and delivering natural flood management benefits to 5

catchments of Scotland.

Shona McConnell, SEPA

5 Auditorium The Slamannan Bog Restoration Project in Scotland’s central belt (EcoCo project).

Scott Shanks, Buglife

6 North Foyer (beside Holy Room)

The assessment of peatland integrity and water quality risk using earth observation technologies.

Amy Gove, Scottish Water

7 North Foyer (Reception end)

Targeting Atlantic Woodland Conservation – showcasing how GIS has been used to target conservation and develop projects.

Doug Shapley, RSPB Davie Black, Plantlife

8 Pine Room Eddleston Water Restoration Project – implementing natural flood management measures.

Hugh Chalmers, Tweed Forum

Workshop descriptions

Please go to the 2 workshops as indicated on your badge in the location listed below:

Room Workshop Speaker Facilitator

A Cherry Room Ecosystem Services (The benefits provided to humans by nature)

Professor Chris Spray, Centre for Water Law, Policy and Science, University of Dundee

Neville Makan (SNH)

B Willow A/B Room

Habitat Networks (connectivity, addressing fragmentation, migration and dispersal)

Craig Macadam, Buglife Alistair Whyte (SNH)

C Holly Room Mapping technology (management, data, visualisation, platforms)

Duncan Blake (SNH GIG) Lachlan Renwick (SNH)

D Oak Room Involving people (stakeholders, land managers, user groups, community engagement)

Zoe Clelland, RSPB Martin Faulkner (SNH)

E Pine Room Delivering for biodiversity (above and beyond connectivity)

Debbie Bassett (SNH) Louise Bond (SEPA)

F Juniper Room Landscape programme management – (bringing it all together)

Brian McDonald (NE) Paul Sizeland (SNH)

The second session of each workshop will build on the first.

Annex 3 – Participants

21

PARTICIPANT LIST for Joining up nature in practice - making ecological coherence a reality, 15 June 2016,

Name Organisation

Lina-Elvira Back Aberdeen City Council

Deb Munro Aberdeen City Council

Irina Birnie Aberdeenshire Council

Kirsten Campbell BEAR Scotland Ltd

Marta Ibanez Garcia BEAR Scotland Ltd

Craig Macadam Buglife Scotland

Scott Shanks Buglife Scotland

Helen Dickinson Bumblebee Conservation Trust

Mike Batley Central Scotland Green Network Trust

Emilie Wadsworth Central Scotland Green Network Trust

Jeske van der Velden Central Scotland Green Network Trust

Jennifer Dunn Coalfield Environment Initiative

Daisy Whytock Coalfield Environment Initiative

Jonathan Porter International Association for Landscape Ecology

Eilidh McNab Direct Ecology Ltd

Paul Gill ESS Ecology Ltd

Stephanie Little Fife Council

Johanna Willi Fife Council

Colin Edwards Forestry Commission Scotland

Darren Moseley Forest Research

Emma Straughan Glasgow and Clyde Valley Green Network Partnership

Alexandra Turner Heilo Ecology

Kim McLaren Ironside Farrar Ltd

Rebecca Johnson JK Ecology

Caroline McParland Jacobs UK

Julie Gray Loch Lomond and the Trossachs National Park Authority

David Delargy Lothian and Fife Greenspace Network Partnership

Brian Forsyth Midlothian Council

Adrian Davis NAIAD Environmental Consultancy

Amy Davidson National Trust for Scotland

Brian McDonald Natural England

Lucy Arnold Nevis Environmental Ltd

Graeme Walla North Ayrshire Council

Alexandra Krause North Ayrshire Ranger Service

Eileen Summers Orkney Islands Council

Paul Timms Paul Timms Select

Shirley Paterson Tay Landscape Partnership

Davie Black Plantlife

David Anderson Royal Society for the Protection of Birds

Yvonne Boles Royal Society for the Protection of Birds

Dan Brown Royal Society for the Protection of Birds

Zoe Clelland Royal Society for the Protection of Birds

Doug Shapley Royal Society for the Protection of Birds

Adrian Southern Royal Society for the Protection of Birds

Sian Williams Royal Society for the Protection of Birds

Claudia Gebhardt SLR Consulting Ltd

Elizabeth Hall Scottish Borders Council

Louise Bond Scottish Environment Protection Agency

Claire Campbell Scottish Environment Protection Agency

Scot Mathieson Scottish Environment Protection Agency

Annex 3 – Participants

22

Shona McConnell Scottish Environment Protection Agency

Carla Ward Scottish Environment Protection Agency

Lorraine Gormley Scottish Government

Gareth Heavisides Scottish Government

Sally Thomas Scottish Government

Phil Baarda Scottish Natural Heritage

Debbie Bassett Scottish Natural Heritage

Duncan Blake Scottish Natural Heritage

Martin Faulkner Scottish Natural Heritage

Theresa Kewell Scottish Natural Heritage

Neville Makan Scottish Natural Heritage

David Pickett Scottish Natural Heritage

Stewart Pritchard Scottish Natural Heritage

Iain Rennick Scottish Natural Heritage

Lachlan Renwick Scottish Natural Heritage

Paul Sizeland Scottish Natural Heritage

Eileen Stuart Scottish Natural Heritage

Maddie Taylor Scottish Natural Heritage

Michael Thornton Scottish Natural Heritage

Viktoria Valenta Scottish Natural Heritage

Alistair Whyte Scottish Natural Heritage

Amy Gove Scottish Water

Kirsty Windle Scottish Water

Gill Dowse Scottish Wildlife Trust

Ian Mackenzie Scottish Wildlife Trust

May Shirkhorshidi Scottish Wildlife Trust

Catriona Davies Tay Landscape Partnership

Sue Morris The Great Trossachs Forest

Hugh Chalmers Tweed Forum

Chris Spray University of Dundee

Karen Findlay Independent Consultant

Annex 4 – Participant feedback

23

Q1 Your experience of the event:What attracted you to this event?(e.g. to develop a skill in x, to connect with y, to reflect on z.etc) Answered: 36 Skipped: 0

Responses

1 To learn from other organisations experiences. To gain helpful knowledge on ecological coherence.

2 To learn what work others are doing on ecological coherence at a landscape scale and what tools and methods are helping.

3 to learn more about the subject through other organisations and projects.

4 To learn more about work the wider team is involved in.

5 learn about modelling

6 To connect with others in the same area, to see how other organisations are taking landscape scale work forward, and to see which mapping methods are being used.

7 Very relevant topic. To meet other ecologists.

8 To find out what has been done in habitat connectivity work

9 Links with CSGN, Land Use Strategy and biodiversity

10 To discuss and share approaches taken to target conservation.

11 I was a contributor at this event. Interested to see what other organisations were achieving in this space.

12 develop understanding of ecological coherence, networking

13 An opportunity to network and the topic of the conference

14 To allow me to assess whether there is more that I could be doing in my job role to improve ecological coherence

15 Looking to learn about an exceptional project and how I can apply learning to others

16 To learn what's new in landscape scale habitat restoration conservation

17 I was keen to learn from the experiences of people who are working on landscape scale ecological enhancement projects in other areas.

18 asked to participate to share our experience in organising collaborative projects

19 To help maintain knowledge base.

20 Help shape SNH and others' application of ecological coherence, landscape scale assessment and actions, ecosystem services and related disciplines, networking, and developing own skills.

21 Subject is relevant to current work

22 See how GIS is used by similar organisations. I usually go to more technical events, focussed on software, and wanted to exchange ideas on how to actually apply that technical knowledge and use the software in our field of work.

23 to increase knowledge of ES assessment

24 Invited to contribute (poster presentation)

25 Useful hearing about other landscape scale projects during the poster session and workshops.

26 Topic and cross-sectional approach

27 to learn more about EcoCo and ecosystem services

28 Invited speaker (my feedback on the presentations relates to the other speakers!)

29 Topic relates to projects I'm currently working on.

30 To see how ecologists and environmentalists were using

31 to discover better practice on making links between surveys and practical habitat management

Annex 4 – Participant feedback

24

32 It was very relevant to my current role and we have a project requirement to promote ecological coherence as a concept.

33 Sharing best practice - concepts, methods and tools

34 update on some of the case studies, the Eco Co life protocol and networking

35 To get a better understanding of how different people view ecological coherence, and how it is understood in a wider audience.

36 To reflect on ecological connectivity between protected areas.

Q2 What key learning/s related to landscape scale ecological improvements did you take from this event? Answered: 32 Skipped: 4

Responses Date

1 There are a lot more projects going on than I expected.

2 What modelling and data is useful and what other organisations have expertise in applying this approach.

3 examples of projects the need for community engagement

4 It confirmed the importance of map-based data. I was interested to see the range of scales at which spatial data was being used. It was also helpful to see what stage different participants were at in their use of spatial data

5 that lots of people are doing ecological modellling

6 Whole range of mapping tools, all only a starting point to the conversation with stakeholders. Pulling the projects together and working with partners is key.

7 The mapping aspects were new to me.

8 Importance of the balance in time spent developing mapping/GIS tools and engaging with landowners.

9 No matter how good the GIS modelling there is always a requirement for individual site level assessments.

10 How to effectively liaise with stakeholders and communities.

11 describing landscape character, mapping/modelling ecological coherence - need for ground-truthing and monitoring, very important to communicate aspirational projects to other stakeholders (map this spatially).

12 More is needed, the development of a best practise/standard would be good to permit comparison of projects and guide future work

13 The relationships between disciplines that are required to make improvements a reality

14 We are constantly reinventing the wheel and asking the same questions, we need to properly learn from each other an apply it (and lots of useful little things to that add up to a very worthwhile event)

15 General update and any new ideas or developments

16 Careful analysis of existing habitats and land uses are key to the success of identifying the best locations for landscape scale ecological improvements. Effective communication with stakeholder groups is also vital in gaining support for projects.

17 its complicated, it takes time, it needs a simple vision

18 Various

19 Good case studies, reinforcement of own understanding, acquisition of new perspectives

20 We can make good use of a lot of existing data

21 big interest in working with stakeholders and in getting work done on the ground

22 That there are lots of models checking on coherence, surely we only need one. It also highlighted that experienced people on the ground can usually recognize where it is best to make the connections.

Annex 4 – Participant feedback

25

23 need multi-disciplinary approach BUT be clear what and why you are addressing ecological coherence.

24 use the appropriate language to engage your target audience and don't insist on technical jargon

25 A deeper understanding of the ecological coherence concept as applied by the EcoCoLife project and how it relates to other landscape-scale conservation initiatives.

26 Planning and engagement early on a key to success

27 mapping tools are available from partner organisations

28 Involving people in making decisions is key, but the degree of involvement can vary. That in itself can cause conflict.

29 Collaboration across landscapes is key, but things take time and don't get hung up on too much data.

30 Actual experiences of some techniques 3 / 17 Sharing Good Practice - Joining up nature in practice - making ecological coherence a reality, 15 June 2016

31 Must think about lots of aspects, such as cultural heritage - as well as the ecology!

32 That landscape goes beyond what we perceive, and it is an opportunity for environmental coherence achievement.

Annex 4 – Participant feedback

26

Annex 4 – Participant feedback

27

Q5 Please comment on individual sessions (e.g. particularly good or poor experiences? Good mix of content? Opportunities to get involved? Too dry? Over-long? Too short?) Answered: 32 Skipped: 4

Responses

1 I learned a lot about other people’s projects. I did not learn much that would help me with my projects. I learned very little new relevant information.

2 The case studies were good but understandably short. Maybe two but longer would have been better. One of the workshops seemed too short with not enough time or opportunity for discussion.

3 case studies were rather hurried, often no time to ask questions at the end

4 Both opening talks were interesting, but with a big difference in their use of slides. Jonathan Porter's presentation was a good example of putting Powerpoint to good use, using clear supporting imagery, and with minimal text on screen

5 very good

6 Generally very good way on interacting with the other participants and getting more out of the day, but there is always someone wanting to dominate and drive discussion, perhaps not necessarily in the direction we should be going!

7 Good mix of content. Particularly enjoyed being able to go to several case studies and workshops, tailoring to interest.

8 I liked the quick-fire style case studies. Workshops not really applicable for me given my role (that's not a criticism of the workshops)

9 Some of the main presentations had too much text on the slides making it difficult to get the headline points. One workshop was mostly focused on discussion and getting peoples ideas whereas another was mostly focused just on the facilitators point of view with little time to discuss.

10 Contributor

11 All the presentations were good, but initial presentations seemed to focus on landscape rather than ecology. It would have been useful to know by what criteria the Nature Improvement Area projects were selected and monitored. EcoCo LIFE presentation could have had fewer slides/more time to view maps. The case studies and workshops were very useful. In both cases I was able to gain an insight into other projects and picked up useful tips.

12 Timing for poster sessions was excellent for some projects, but others did not have enough time to get to a productive discussion

13 I felt that there wasn't enough time in the case study sessions to cover all content.

14 Great to do interactive sessions, better than a day of just presentations and "death by powerpoint"

15 Second presentation by NE guy could've been a more honest apparaisal of how the project fared. It only achieved 4600 ha or habitat creation. In relation to the whole of England this isn't landscape scale! What were it's failings? What could've been done better?

16 Good mix of content - some sessions were lighter than others; however this was probably due to the subject matter rather than the presentation.

17 good mix, short and sweet, chance to network

18 Good mix of content, Adequate opportunities to get involved, A little too short

19 In one case study - speaker spoke too long and limited time for discussion. In another, was left unsure what we were to discuss when speaker finished. Found both worthwhile though.

20 General presentations by Jonathan Porter and Paul Sizeland were very good. Brian McDonald's presentation had too much detail and didn't have a clear structure. Case studies were great and people presenting were knowledgeable and enthusiastic. Unfortunately also very short, in future would prefer to go to 1 or 2 instead of 3 and get more time for discussion.

Annex 4 – Participant feedback

28

Workshops were perfect, wouldn't change anything. In general was great to see GIS being acknowledged as a tool used and was impressed with the mix of skills of presentors.

21 Chris Spray workshop was really good and generated a lot of useful discussion

22 The latter presentations were particularly poor, too many words and graphs.

23 Case study 4 was just a lecture from SEPA (and incomplete at that) on their version of catchment pilots – poor Case study 2 excellent, but needed more time Case study 8 again needed more time, as excellent, but maybe better focus ALL posters were too small and complex.

24 involving people workshop would have benefited from more detail - e.g. specific techniques ecosystem services workshop - very good to see who uses the approach and why (or why not), too short

25 There was an excellent mix of presentations and discussion. All of the poster and workshop sessions that I attended were very interactive and engaging. I felt that the data workshop was less clearly structured than the others and this would have benefited from an initial presentation - there was still good discussion though.

26 Sessions were too short. Not enough time for person delivering to tell you about their project, and then have a useful discussion.

27 some workshops related to information on posters which couldn't be read from the seats. The SWT Edinburgh Pollinator workshop was extremely engaging. Workshop and presentation lengths were about right.

28 I thought there was a good mix.

29 One case study presentation gave no time for discussion. Having two sessions in the auditorium at the same time was distracting and difficult to hear.

30 I found the NIA presentation hard to follow. The case studies were good - I was expecting them to be rushed and always running over, but that didn't happen.

31 Scott Shanks was an excellent presenter. Particularly enjoyed the delivering for biodiversity discussion session led by Louise Bond and Debbie Bassett - fantastic.

32 They were concise and very enlightening.

Annex 4 – Participant feedback

29

Q7 Any comments on administration, catering, venue:

Answered: 29 Skipped: 7

Responses

1 All great.

2 A good venue as always

3 n/a

4 I'm still not sure about that seating arrangement in the auditorium! Water on the tables can be helpful.

5 All very good as usual

6 All good. SGP events are excellent. Good subjects and very well run.

7 Excellent

8 battleby lunches always good

9 Very good

10 Administration was very well organised and the venue was ideal. The catering was excellent

11 It was quite out of the way, so more challenging to get to..but it was a great venue to be in.

12 All great, thanks to the organisers.

13 It was a well run event with excellent catering.

14 posters were not A0 size as informed they would be. This meant that I was unable to use the poster as intended, as it was only half the size and so text was very small. Disappointing, as I spent a lot of time in compiling and designing it.

Annex 4 – Participant feedback

30

15 Excellent, as usual

16 Keep up the food, herbal tea etc standards

17 Great venue, good organization, plenty food

18 Great communication with admin before event, lovely venue incl good parking, amazing lunch, terrible coffee

19 really helpful admin and catering staff, made everything easy for us.

20 well organised, good information up front, nice catering

21 All good

22 Good food, good location, excellent admin - thanks

23 The event administration was exemplary. Everyone I spoke to was very complimentary about the event and seemed accustomed to such high standards from SGP.

24 All good.

25 always excellent!

26 Excellent - as usual.

27 Battleby is always good, with easy access and excellent catering.

28 Excellent

29 Catering and venues, as always, wonderful.

Q8 Any other comments / recommendations? Answered: 14 Skipped: 22

Responses

1 perhaps allow more time for case studies

2 More events should follow this format.

3 The summary part at end of day was brief. Could have extended to consider what where the key messages and where we go from here.

4 It would be good to have access to case study posters, presentations and workshop outputs

5 The poster sessions had huge potential. Sending abstracts with the conference information to make time for discussion may be an option.

6 Great project...great work...keen to stay upto date with how things workout, and contribute if possible

7 Whilst I'm unlikely to be involved in any landscape scale projects, I could see that many of the topics discussed during the event would apply to smaller scale projects as well.

8 Very worthwhile event

9 These sharing events are a great way to share and spread new and emerging ideas. I hope SNH can continue to support them.

10 Great event; really well organised and executed and enjoyed speaking to many knowledgeable and enthusiastic people.

11 More time for the poster/case studies and the workshop sessions. I'd like to have attended a few more of them.

12 Thank you for the opportunity to participate. It would be good to encourage people from other parts of the UK to participate - I think it is so important that we share experience. I realise that the events need a Scottish focus but perhaps you could have a small allocation of places for people from outside Scotland. I would be grateful if SNH could help spread the word about the ialeUK conference http://iale.uk/conference2016 Could you retweet this?...

https://twitter.com/ialeUK/status/722392668903489536

13 no time between poster sessions to move on, bit of a panic therefore.

14 the variety of workshops morning and afternoon was excellent and I would have liked the opportunity to have attended more than 5 throughout the day.

Annex 4 – Participant feedback

31

Q10 Future events:We aim to make our events as relevant as possible to your needs. Please suggest any SGP events you would like to see in the future. Answered: 16 Skipped: 20

Responses

1 green spaces/nature for health

2 The sharing and use of spatial data. (Except that might be giving myself more work to do!)

3 Green networks on a smaller scale - within towns/ a development. Development and protected species

4 How to deal with issues of temporal scale in conservation. Are we too focused on current potential rather than aiming for long term change? Many priority species require transitional habitats, such as successional woodland, how can we create this at appropriate scales under current delivery mechanisms such as agri-environment?

5 Events relating to water quality

6 Peatland restoration and monitoring

7 Focus on delivering biodiversity gains at a landscape scale and how not to miss the importance of well maintained reserves and protected areas within the context of the wider landscape... how to make this work sustainable in the long term, and how to use GIS effectively to communicate to a range of difference audiences

8 Would love an ECoW SGP event as there's so much to learn from others' experience. This is an increasing area of work for many consultants.

Annex 4 – Participant feedback

32

9 I'd hesitate to make any suggestions as I'm unlikely to be able to attend many events at Battleby due to the cost of travel from Orkney. However I'm keen to continue to receive email flyers on future events.

10 Use of social media in promoting NNRs and other nature-places for people to visit - involving Visit Scotland and practitioners like NTS, SWT, HES and SNH.

11 Discuss applications of GIS including problems people are running into (I am very biased of course...)

12 Mapping Ecosystems across the landscape - the how and why and what!

13 ialeUK would be happy to collaborate on future events. We could perhaps consider an event on landscape characterisation presenting the outcomes of the September conference. We have members with a wide range of interests in different aspects of landscape ecology and would be happy to discuss ideas.

14 Ecological coherence in and across cities. Is it just a pipe dream?

15 Some more case studies on Ecological Coherence in practice e.g. restoration works.

16 Environmental Clerk of Works, Good Practice On Site.

Respondents

Q11 Personal Information; Answered: 31 Skipped: 5

Job title: Date

1 urban rewilding community officer 6/22/2016 10:01 AM

2 GIS Services Manager 6/22/2016 8:27 AM

3 project manager 6/21/2016 3:39 PM

4 Knowledge and Evidence Manager 6/21/2016 11:03 AM

5 Environmental Consultant 6/21/2016 10:55 AM

6 Terrestrial ecologist 6/20/2016 4:55 PM

7 CSGN Programme Manager 6/20/2016 12:04 PM

8 Assistant Conservation Officer 6/20/2016 10:40 AM

9 Catchment Liaison Officer 6/20/2016 10:25 AM

10 Project manager 6/20/2016 10:25 AM

11 Senior Ecologist 6/20/2016 9:22 AM

12 Environmental Advisor 6/20/2016 8:18 AM

13 Head of Landscape Scale Conservation 6/18/2016 3:47 PM

14 Ecologist/ornithologist 6/18/2016 9:52 AM

15 Environment Officer (Policy) 6/17/2016 3:50 PM

16 Collaborative Action Coordinator 6/17/2016 3:43 PM

17 Director 6/17/2016 2:20 PM

18 Operations manager 6/17/2016 12:37 PM

19 GIS & Data Officer 6/17/2016 11:57 AM

20 Technical Director 6/17/2016 11:46 AM

21 Spatial ecologist 6/17/2016 11:46 AM

22 Enthusiast academic and practitioner 6/17/2016 11:23 AM

23 President 6/17/2016 10:55 AM

24 Scheme Manager 6/17/2016 10:38 AM

25 Project & Funding Officer 6/17/2016 10:37 AM

26 Biodiversity & Heritage Officer 6/17/2016 10:32 AM

27 Senior Ecological Consultant 6/17/2016 10:28 AM

28 Environmental Advisor 6/17/2016 10:25 AM

Annex 4 – Participant feedback

33

Organisation: Date

1gcvgnp/csgn/tcv 6/22/2016 10:01 AM

2 Scottish Natural Heritage 6/22/2016 8:27 AM

3 Scottish Wildlife Trust 6/21/2016 11:03 AM

4 Self employed 6/21/2016 10:55 AM

5 SEPA 6/20/2016 4:55 PM

6 Scottish Government 6/20/2016 12:04 PM

7 RSPB Scotland 6/20/2016 10:40 AM

8 Scottish Water 6/20/2016 10:25 AM

9 East Ayrshire Coalfield Environment Initiative 6/20/2016 10:25 AM

10 SLR Consulting 6/20/2016 9:22 AM

11 BEAR Scotland Ltd 6/20/2016 8:18 AM

12 RSPB 6/18/2016 3:47 PM

13 JK Ecology 6/18/2016 9:52 AM

14 Orkney Islands Council 6/17/2016 3:50 PM

15 Tweed Forum 6/17/2016 3:43 PM

16 ESS Ecology/Environmentally Sustainable Systems Ltd. 6/17/2016 2:20 PM

17 Scottish Natural Heritage 6/17/2016 12:37 PM

18 Central Scotland Green Network Trust 6/17/2016 11:57 AM

19 Jacobs 6/17/2016 11:46 AM

20 Forest Research 6/17/2016 11:46 AM

21 RSPB 6/17/2016 11:27 AM

22 Various! 6/17/2016 11:23 AM

23 SNH 6/17/2016 11:09 AM

24 ialeUK 6/17/2016 10:55 AM

25 Tay Landscape Partnership 6/17/2016 10:38 AM

26 SNH 6/17/2016 10:37 AM

27 CSGNT 6/17/2016 10:32 AM

28 Direct Ecology Ltd 6/17/2016 10:28 AM

29 BEAR Scotland 6/17/2016 10:25 AM