Alison Swanson•4 years ago Draft Pollinator Action Plan 2021-2027 Riverside Community Council Response Riverside Community Council is very encouraged by the publication of the draft Pollinator Action Plan. Both this, and the Alive with Nature plan, demonstrate Stirling Council’s recognition of the climate emergency, the biodiversity crisis, and represents a willingness to act. There are many extremely positive aspects to the pollinator strategy. It is rich in quality aims and objectives regarding increasing pollinator plants, increasing the environmental value of greenspace, promoting biodiversity corridors and building knowledge and understanding across communities of various types. A key theme of involving Stirling people at all levels from the grassroots upwards is also commendable and necessary. Riverside Community Council would like to hold onto all these positive aspects but we have noted some areas where the plan requires more detail.ResourcesThe pan will require resources to effect but there is no detail on this, what funding will be available and how much funding is needed. For example, what funding will be allocated for community engagement, re-wilding, for extra tree planting, education, and awareness etc. For the plan to be effective wider and different levels of engagement, including with grassroots organisations, non-governmental organisations and businesses will be required. There is no mention of resources for this crosscutting engagement work or any incentives to participants.VoluntarismRelated to the above, the plan relies heavily on volunteers carrying out some of the work, including monitoring. More detail on how this can be organised and a conception of how sustainable this can be is needed. Voluntarism is always limited. What contingencies are there to keep the momentum going? What resources, training, oversight, incentives etc are needed. There are also some further questions around relying on voluntary effort to achieve key and/or statutory goals.Advice and leadershipThe council as a locus for expertise and its capacity to offer advice and leadership to local communities and businesses in the current climate is limited. The food growing strategy which is a statutory requirement is an example of how potential to develop a truly innovative and progressive approach in an environmental area was not fully exploited due to limits in council personnel etc. Are there any plans to outsource or commission support from environmental organisations and the third sector?Public Private interface and auditing:The strategy will require both public and private landowner support and for these to work together – especially to establish habitat and pollinator corridors across the district. The council has a clear remit to manage and to lead on council owned and managed land, including with its lease holders. However, there is no acknowledgement of any limitations regarding working with private landowners and auditing private land? This is an area of work that could be critical to the plan’s success. There is very little detail on this.The Working group:The working group should include grassroots and community organisations and recognise that to achieve the plan on the ground, which needs community buy in, requires representation. Community councils cover all areas of land within Stirling and have a constituency and the ear on those who are not directly involved in environmental organisations – yet community councils are not mentioned. There is no point preaching only to the already converted.Stalled spaces dilemmaIn Glasgow and other areas in Scotland stalled spaces were criticised for their impermanence – the idea that the land was of value for pollination and food growing yet could also be taken for development at any point. There is no real discussion in the plan about levels or permanent and temporary land use for pollination. This is relevant to any incentives or investment or resources that are made available. Resources must be directed towards real and lasting changes.Private GardensPrivate gardens across Stirling are a valuable resource for pollinators. The plan does not address this or offer any ways to capture that value. Previous environmentally directed policies and initiatives, for example the master composter scheme, managed successfully to engage citizens in environmental actions in their own private gardens and spaces. There is precedent possibilities. Education and awarenessThe plan only refers to “appropriate” use of pesticides and does not extrapolate on any conditions where pesticides are necessary for protecting biodiversity. Economic outcomes.The plan is vague in terms of the economic benefits of increasing pollinators, and this will be required to engage those who prioritise economic benefits. PlanningThe predisposition towards development in planning policies could be an issue, the plan does not address how it will dovetail with planning policies and how, if at all, it will be amended when NPF4 is completed. In its talk of objectives, it does not really concretise some of the barriers there will be regarding land use.Targets, scope, size, measurements, time….. The plan is very short on concrete measurable targets, numbers, sizes of land and timescale etc. It will be difficult to monitor and effect the plan without that. For example, there is no size of scope attached to the aim of increasing the area of land owned and managed for the benefit of pollinators. Also, does the council intend to purchase more land and how will it incentivise the management of land to increase pollinators which is not within council ownership. How will it determine any progress without measurable outcomes and benchmarks? EmbeddedIt is commendable that the council intend to embed the strategy across the ‘breadth’ of work but there is no detail of how this will be effected, transmitted and evaluated across so many different departments.ResistanceThere is no mention of how the council will deal with any resistance to the plan. Mowing regimes are a possible source of local resistance.Baseline data is lackingThe plan notes that baseline data will be gathered. It seems strange that a plan has been issued without reference to baseline data. ConsultationIt is stated that “The Stirling Pollinator Action Plan will be informally reviewed annually through discussion with stakeholders.” This is vague. Who are the stakeholders, and why is there an emphasis on ‘informal’ annual reviews? Whilst informal consultation is very valuable in many ways there needs to be a formal strategy for consulting stakeholders, including grassroots to ensure engagement and support and to avoid the plan slipping away.
57 participants
