The Scottish Government

_____ _____

STRATEGIC REVIEW OF SNH

I am attaching to this letter the Scottish Executive's full response to the Report of the Strategic Review. I am grateful to David Bills and his team for their thorough investigation and analysis and for their constructive recommendations.

It was also helpful for me to have the Board's prompt response to the Report and the opportunity to discuss some of the issues with you, Keith Geddes and Ian Jardine when we met at the end of August.

The Report provides a valuable and timely input on some of the important strategic issues affecting SNH's future operation, the nature of its relationship with the Scottish Executive and the wider public policy context.

The Review has underlined the important role which SNH plays as the lead body in providing advice on the natural heritage and in the implementation of natural heritage programmes in Scotland and it gives credit for SNH's considerable achievements. This is an analysis which coincides with the views held by Scottish Ministers. In taking forward the recommendations in the Review the main thrust must therefore be to maximise the effectiveness of SNH in contributing to that central natural heritage purpose.

The Report of the Review contains a large number of recommendations which are directed both at SNH and at the Executive. Subject to a few minor reservations and qualifications (as detailed in the Annex), we propose to accept the Report and its recommendations in their entirety.

The Review provides an agenda for SNH and the Executive to re-shape the way in which we work jointly over the next few years to deliver our natural heritage objectives. I am determined that we should take this opportunity by ensuring that the arrangements we have in place are efficient and well-focussed and that they will deliver the best outcomes for Scotland's natural heritage.

To help clarify that agenda I want to highlight the key themes which I expect to be pursued in implementing the Review recommendations.

First, we need to ensure that SNH is able to provide effective and well-focussed support for the delivery of Scottish Ministers' priorities and polices for the natural heritage.

SNH already has in place highly developed systems for managing and monitoring its operations and activities which are generally very effective in supporting accountability and good governance. This theme is not about further elaboration of those systems rather about a stronger focus on identifying and targeting the real outcomes which SNH is working to deliver and how its programmes will contribute.

Alongside that we need to work on strengthening connections, communication and understanding between the Executive and SNH so that SNH can be as clear as possible about priorities and is consequently able to achieve its full potential for contributing to the formulation and delivery of natural heritage policy.

Second, this an opportunity for SNH to address the organisational issues identified by the Review and to emphasise its credentials as an effective and outward facing public body.

The context within which SNH operates has changed significantly over the years since it was first established. It is important that SNH's organisation as well as its methods of working and its communication adapt to equip it for working effectively and efficiently with other public sector bodies (as well as with the Executive) to deliver shared objectives; and to enable it to engage successfully with local communities.

It is widely acknowledged that SNH's Area Boards have achieved a great deal to improve local engagement with, and understanding of, SNH. However I share the view of the Review Team that it would now be right to introduce a less formal mechanism for SNH to keep in touch with and respond to the views of local communities. Looking further ahead I am keen that we should work towards establishing local advisory groups which can inform and interact with a wider range of SEERAD activity including, for example, forestry and agricultural land management as well as SNH operations.

The Review also made a number of recommendations for improving practical co-ordination at local level between SNH and other SEERAD bodies. We have now launched the SEERAD "On The Ground" initiative which is actively taking forward those issues. I welcome SNH's participation and the leadership it has shown in developing joint working with other bodies.

The Review also identified the need for SNH's structure to reflect a clearer and more easily understood organisation of responsibilities. In the first instance this is a matter for the SNH Board and will require your careful assessment and consideration. Nonetheless because it is of such potential significance for the way in which SNH takes forward its responsibilities, Ministers are bound to take an interest in your proposals for addressing these organisational issues. The arrangements for overseeing the implementation process should, I hope, provide a means for me to keep in touch with this aspect.

I recognise that the relocation of SNH's HQ functions to Inverness next year is bound to result in some difficult management challenges but I would encourage you and the Board to see that as a watershed for the organisation and an opportunity to develop fresh approaches.

Third, we want to follow through on the recommendations in the review for clarifying responsibilities with the principal aim of strengthening the coherence of SNH's remit.

The Review notes that there is potential for some realignment of responsibility between the Executive and SNH; it also suggests some functions which SNH could or should seek to transfer to other bodies.

While the lead responsibility for policy and for the legislative framework must clearly remain with the Executive, I am persuaded that there is likely to be some scope for transferring to SNH some responsibilities currently carried out within the Executive. This is consistent with our view that SNH should have the lead responsibility for implementing natural heritage policy and should also eliminate any risk that there might be duplication of effort.

Two areas for early examination will be: the Biodiversity Strategy where I would expect SNH to take on a much more significant role in leading implementation and delivery; and the administration of species licensing. I propose that we should initiate a review of the current arrangements for species licensing which involve several different parts of this Department as well as SNH. This would enable us to identify whether there would be scope for some of the work currently carried out in the Executive to transfer to SNH.

We also support the proposals in the Review for SNH to transfer some of its current responsibilities to local authorities and other partner bodies. SNH has been particularly successful in developing these kinds of partnership initiatives but their ultimate success must depend on others being willing to take them forward, and therefore allowing SNH to restore its capacity to focus on delivering its core natural heritage objectives and developing new initiatives.

There may need to be further work before some of this can be achieved but we should be able to make reasonably rapid progress with arrangements for the Forestry Commission Scotland to take on the sponsorship of the Central Scotland Forest Trust. Historic Scotland will be able to take on full responsibility for the inventory of historic gardens and designed landscapes reasonably quickly although it will take a little longer to sort out some of the related responsibilities .

Implementation

The vision presented here is of a refreshed and invigorated SNH benefiting from improved mutual understanding and closer cooperation with the Executive. I hope that the implementation of the Review can itself be a model for this.

I know that there is already agreement to a joint Scottish Executive/SNH Progress Group to steer and monitor the implementation process. The inclusion of an external change expert, to provide input on best practice drawing from experience elsewhere, is also commendable.

The Strategic Review of SNH had a broader remit than for most Policy & Financial Management Reviews. The recommendations are a mixture of those which fall to SNH, those that fall to ERAD and those which can only be delivered by working together. The Annex to this letter provides a working list of actions arising from the Review, and an indication of priorities and timescale, as a basis for development of a more detailed action plan.

I look forward to discussing the progress achieved in implementing the actions flowing from the Review when we next meet.

RHONA BRANKIN