'Scotland is moving from 'minimise harm' to 'demonstrate positive outcomes''

Former Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA) official and aquaculture sector executive Anne Anderson has written a series of five articles exploring why some of the most contested debates around salmon farming remain unresolved despite extensive evidence and policy intent. Ahead of the May 7 election that will decide who controls the next Scottish Government, she focuses today on an Act that became law without fanfare in March but which she describes as nothing short of a structural reset of Scotland’s environmental governance.

The Natural Environment (Scotland) Act 2026 - what it signals for Scotland’s next parliamentary term (And no, you probably didn’t miss it. It really did land quietly.)

As Scotland heads toward next week's election, very few pieces of recent legislation carry the same long‑term implications as the Natural Environment (Scotland) Act 2026.

Passed in January and granted Royal Assent on March 12, 2026, the Act establishes a statutory architecture that the next government – whatever its political composition – must now deliver. This is not a short‑term policy signal. It is a structural reset of Scotland’s environmental governance.

From working on regulatory implementation across multiple sectors, I’ve seen how major framework laws alter expectations years before their details are finalised. The 2026 Act feels like one of those moments: understated in its passage, but far‑reaching in effect.

A turning point in environmental governance

At a practical level, the Act creates legally binding biodiversity targets, requiring Ministers to set, monitor, and report on progress across habitat condition, species trends, ecological resilience, and nature recovery programmes. These targets must be established through statutory instruments within 12 months of commencement, giving the next Parliament almost no room to delay.

Independent commentators, including legal analysts and environmental organisations, have emphasised that these targets create for the first time a durable statutory framework for nature recovery comparable to Scotland’s climate targets. In other words, nature recovery has moved from aspiration to obligation.

What was removed - and why it matters

One of the most striking political decisions was the removal of powers that would have allowed Ministers to modify the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and Habitats Regulations. Cross‑party concern that such powers could weaken environmental protections confirmed a new baseline in Scotland’s politics. That matters more than most realised at the time. Environmental protections are now baseline expectations rather than open political bargaining.

A wider shift in directors’ duties

The Act also aligns with a broader UK‑wide shift in corporate governance. A major 2024 legal opinion by the Commonwealth Climate and Law Initiative established that nature‑related risks – including biodiversity loss, ecosystem degradation, and transition risk – fall within directors’ statutory duties under the Companies Act 2006.

Boards in nature‑dependent sectors must now demonstrate that they can identify, assess, and respond to material nature‑related risks, or face regulatory, legal, or shareholder challenge. Environmental stewardship has become a core fiduciary responsibility.

Implications for Scotland’s nature‑dependent economy

Rural sectors – agriculture, land management, forestry, tourism, and renewables – will feel the effects first. A strengthened statutory basis for deer management gives NatureScot greater intervention powers, and National Park authorities can now issue fixed penalty notices. This marks a shift toward directly enforceable conservation standards in high‑pressure landscapes.

While the Act does not target aquaculture directly, it reinforces the trend toward evidence‑based, nature‑positive regulatory expectations. Coupled with SEPA’s updated sea lice framework and wider marine strategies, it signals continued scrutiny of interactions between farmed and wild fish populations. Through the National Planning Framework 4, development must now deliver significant biodiversity enhancement, not just mitigation.

Sustainable development as a practical organising principle

Across all these changes, a coherent theme emerges: Scotland is moving from “minimise harm” to “demonstrate positive outcomes”. This will reshape investment strategies, planning and consenting, land management decisions, corporate governance expectations, and community involvement in nature recovery.

Businesses that succeed will be those that see biodiversity requirements not as constraints but as design parameters for innovation.

A pre‑election landscape defined by long‑term commitments

The next Scottish Government inherits obligations that cannot be paused or deprioritised, including legally binding biodiversity targets, mandatory reporting duties, strengthened enforcement powers, and planning policies requiring measurable enhancement. For policymakers, the direction of travel is fixed; for businesses and communities, nature, climate, and rural development must be treated as interdependent.

Political debate may shape the tone of the next Parliament, but the 2026 Act has already set the structural agenda. The question is not whether to deliver nature recovery, but how, and how quickly.

Tomorrow: Nowhere will the 2026 Act’s new obligations be tested more visibly than in wild salmon conservation. The next Parliament cannot meet its statutory duties if it continues to view the salmon debate through a narrow lens. Real recovery requires confronting every pressure – freshwater, coastal, marine, climatic, and human - not just those that dominate headlines. The next article takes up that challenge by examining what Scotland must finally face with honesty if wild salmon are to survive.