Scottish Parliament election: what the party manifestos say on the environment
Scotland will vote for its next parliament on 7 May and the five main political parties have released their manifestos in the lead up to election day. Despite the wealth and breadth of the data and public polling evidence that Scottish Environment LINK and others have gathered, nature and climate have received little mention in some party manifestos. Read on for a comparison of party pledges for nature.
Disclaimer: CIEEM is a professional body and does not endorse any political party or candidate. The comparisons in this article are based solely on publicly available manifesto material as at 20 April 2026. They are intended to summarise, in neutral terms, the implications of different policy proposals for nature, biodiversity and ecological practice. References to “ambition”, “detail” or “scale of change” relate only to anticipated environmental outcomes and should not be interpreted as general political judgements or recommendations on how to vote.
Party-by-party
Scottish Greens (2026 manifesto): From an ecological perspective, the Scottish Greens’ manifesto contains the highest volume of quantified nature and climate commitments and is explicitly grounded in ecological concepts, with many proposals closely linked to the Natural Environment Bill and to landscape‑scale restoration. The main practical challenge is feasibility and funding: many of the measures rely on sustained long‑term public investment at a time when the collapse of a £100 million private nature finance deal with NatureScot has highlighted the volatility of private nature markets and raised questions about mixed public‑private funding models for biodiversity delivery.
The Scottish National Party (SNP, 2026 manifesto): The SNP commit to continued peatland restoration and native woodland expansion, with delivery mechanisms embedded in existing government and farm support frameworks. Their approach seeks to balance environmental, economic and community interests, which, in biodiversity terms, is likely to deliver more incremental than transformational change when compared with the most far‑reaching proposals in other manifestos.
The Scottish Labour Party (2026 manifesto): Scottish Labour make a commitment to statutory nature targets and to protecting the natural environment, including through use of the Natural Environment (Scotland) Act and higher‑level land‑ and marine‑use planning frameworks. Their offer is stronger on governance, targets and strategic direction, but provides less detail on large‑scale ecosystem restoration and structural land‑use change. Labour place considerable emphasis on economic growth and efficiency savings in government as the main route to funding environmental programmes, and set out fewer substantial, dedicated new green investment streams.
Scottish Liberal Democrats (2026 manifesto): The Scottish Liberal Democrats focus on governance, planning and “blue‑green” infrastructure, and position nature recovery and food production as mutually reinforcing. They place emphasis on community‑led approaches, particularly in spatial planning on land and at sea. They support biodiversity and resilience through measures such as native woodland targets, rainforest protection, local marine management and pollinator protection, but generally provide few quantified or time‑bound commitments on large‑scale ecosystem restoration and land‑use change.
Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party (2026 manifesto; rural manifesto): The Scottish Conservatives place strong emphasis on agricultural productivity, energy affordability and limiting additional regulatory requirements on land managers and landowners. Their manifesto contains relatively few detailed commitments on large‑scale habitat restoration or land reform and includes proposals to scrap the 2045 net zero target, while placing greater weight on food security, cost‑of‑living concerns and constraining new spatial or regulatory designations.
Reform UK (2026 manifesto): Reform UK are more sceptical still of regulatory and spatial approaches to nature and climate policy, characterising net zero as “ideological” and proposing to remove net zero‑related targets, subsidies and institutions. Their proposals focus on protecting productive agricultural land, simplifying planning, ensuring that “space for nature” can be recognised without reducing the farmed area, and abolishing many public bodies, with associated spending redirected towards tax cuts. This places clear limits on the role envisaged for regulation, public investment and land‑use change in delivering nature recovery.
Issue-by-issue
Peatland restoration
Across the manifestos, only the Scottish National Party (SNP) and the Scottish Greens set out clear, measurable proposals for peatland restoration, while the Scottish Liberal Democrats, Reform UK, the Scottish Conservatives and Scottish Labour make no specific reference to “peat” or “peatland”.
The SNP adopt a more incremental but clearly costed approach, combining a long‑term target to restore over 400,000 hectares of peatland by 2040 with a near‑term pledge to invest £28 million this year to deliver 10,000 hectares of restoration.
By contrast, the Scottish Greens set a more ambitious annual restoration “mission” of at least 45,000 hectares of peatland a year and pair this with wider regulatory and land‑use measures which place a stronger emphasis on systemic change, such as removing commercial conifers from peat bogs, working across the UK to ban peat compost extraction and sales, and restoring degraded moors and peatlands more broadly.
Woodland expansion and regeneration
All parties recognise the importance of woodland and trees, but they differ markedly in the level of detail, ambition and emphasis they place on targets and restoration. The SNP and Scottish Greens set the most specific and quantitative commitments, with the SNP prioritising large‑scale woodland creation (18,000 hectares per year by 2029), minimum proportions of native planting by 2045, completion of the Ancient Woodland Register, ambitious urban canopy targets and explicit measures on deer control and biosecurity, signalling a blend of expansion, protection and urban greening.
The Scottish Greens commit to 9,000 hectares of new native woodland annually, ring‑fencing of most public forestry grants for native woods on public and community land, and providing dedicated funding for Scotland’s rainforest, while also integrating access to trees and greenspace into the planning system, and linking woodland policy with strategic deer management.
The Scottish Liberal Democrats are less quantified but similarly emphasise biodiversity and native species, with at least 50% native content in new woodland, protection and connection of Scotland’s rainforest, and urban planting. They also highlight invasive species control and the role of sustainable, homegrown timber in rural economies.
Labour’s commitments stress ongoing expansion of native woodlands alongside a “mixed seed” approach intended to balance ecological goals with the needs of the timber industry, including developing homegrown timber supply chains and supporting sustainable deer management.
Reform UK adopt a more critical stance on current forestry and rewilding schemes, proposing instead a long‑term plan for extensive native woodland and measures to integrate trees into farmed landscapes via hedges and tree lines.
The Scottish Conservatives place their emphasis on governance and land‑manager consent, particularly in relation to rewilding projects and deer population control, rather than setting explicit planting or restoration targets.
Protected areas and landscape recovery
Parties diverge sharply in their approaches to protected areas and landscape‑scale recovery, from the Scottish Greens’ expansive “30×30” vision to Scottish Conservative and Reform UK resistance to further government‑backed “rewilding”.
The Scottish Greens propose an extensive landscape recovery and protection programme, combining a commitment to protect 30% of Scotland’s land, freshwater and seas by 2030 with proposals for “wildways” to link protected sites, large‑scale rewilding of hills and glens, potential reintroduction of keystone species like lynx. This would be supported by a significantly expanded Nature Restoration Fund, stronger marine protection, and direct support for biosphere reserves and regional river‑catchment restoration. They also highlight deer management as a critical element of landscape recovery, calling for strategic, incentivised reduction of an “out‑of‑control” population to minimise environmental damage from overgrazing.
The SNP focus more on restoration of specific habitats, including peatland distinctive habitats such as the machair, and legislative renewal, including completion of the National Register of Ancient Woodland, and directing farm support towards nature‑friendly land management. Within this framework, they back firm deer control incentives and a national deer management and venison strategy to protect native woodlands and support a more sustainable venison market.
Labour emphasises setting clear targets and using new funding models for nature recovery, aiming to use the Natural Environment (Scotland) Act to set restoration targets, create a Marine Recovery Fund financed by developers, develop a new National Land Use Plan, and promote nature‑based measures to restore freshwater habitats. They also commit to delivering sustainable deer management in partnership with land managers, including continuation of existing incentive pilots and support for community initiatives that supply venison to local markets.
The Scottish Liberal Democrats emphasise protecting and connecting existing wild places, particularly Scotland’s rainforest, alongside wider habitat enhancement. They favour local‑partnership models for marine management instead of centrally imposed HPMAs, and invasive species control as a route to landscape recovery. They also explicitly link deer management to woodland regeneration and the rural economy, working with partners to tackle damaging overgrazing so that young trees can establish and highlighting the potential of a low‑carbon wild venison market to support rural employment.
By contrast, the Scottish Conservatives and Reform UK both prioritise protecting the current landscape from what they view as top‑down rewilding and restrictive designations. The Conservatives seek to constrain new government‑backed projects and Highly Protected Marine Areas (HPMAs) and give communities greater veto power over infrastructure they see as damaging to landscapes. On deer specifically, they emphasise developing wildlife management policy in consultation with land managers and gamekeepers, stressing better management of existing wildlife rather than further rewilding.
Reform UK argue for ending “poorly managed” rewilding and forestry schemes in favour of long‑term plans for extensive native woodlands and more tightly framed “space for nature” that does not, in their view, undermine productive farmland. They do not set out specific additional commitments on deer management in their manifesto.
Planning and nature
Again, on this the parties set out quite different visions for the planning system.
The Scottish Greens propose a planning system where nature protection is mandatory, seeking to fully implement changes to the National Planning Framework so that all developments must have a positive effect on biodiversity. They would also seek to ingrain access to trees, greenspace, and environmental rights and justice checks into planning decisions, whilst also requiring new homes to meet net zero standards and be linked to zero‑carbon transport.
The Scottish Liberal Democrats similarly see planning as a key lever for climate resilience and quality of place, prioritising blue‑green infrastructure (such as permeable surfaces, living roofs and SuDS),. They would modernise the planning system to align economic, community and nature objectives, developing “Net Zero New Towns”, and involving communities in marine spatial planning to ease “spatial squeeze” at sea.
Labour’s proposals emphasise high-level land and marine management plans, with a focus on a new National Land Use Plan, a spatial Marine Plan that balances offshore wind and fisheries with environmental protection, and would reintroduce a “presumption in favour of sustainable development” into the planning framework.
The SNP focus on rural reform and climate‑friendly community design, proposing a Rural Renewal Bill that would adjust rural planning rules to support small‑scale renewables and diversification, using the “More Homes Scotland” agency to deliver liveable, climate‑friendly communities, and streamlining consent for public EV charging.
The Scottish Conservatives’ focus is on constraining certain forms of development, promising local veto powers over energy infrastructure, establishing a commission to scrutinise the cumulative impact of major renewables, making pylons an “option of last resort”, and scrapping the national planning framework in favour of locally set strategies.
Reform, meanwhile, argue for a simplified system that speeds up permissions for some energy projects (including hydro, geothermal and open‑cast coal) and supports rural self‑build, while stressing that aesthetic protections for Scotland’s “natural beauty” should be retained.
Climate change and net zero
The starkly different approaches to climate policy and net zero range from accelerated action and legal enforcement to outright abandonment of the 2045 target; there’s also a notable divergence over the question of nuclear power.
The Scottish Greens propose the most detailed and extensive programme, aiming to get Scotland back on track for net zero by 2045 while treating climate as a “justice emergency”. They would back an international Fossil Fuel Non‑Proliferation Treaty and oppose all new oil and gas projects, such as Rosebank and Peterhead. They would also decarbonise all buildings by 2045, invest heavily in renewables while rejecting nuclear, and introduce accountability mechanisms including a Scottish Environmental Court and a right for citizens to sue government if targets are missed.
The SNP likewise commit to ending Scotland’s contribution to climate change by 2045, but frame this through a “Just Transition” lens that balances climate action with livelihoods. They prioritise offshore wind, solar and pumped storage, remain firmly against new nuclear, and advocate for the UK government to take a case‑by‑case approach to North Sea projects based on “climate compatibility”. They would also pair a Heat in Buildings Bill with funds such as ScotWind and the Just Transition Fund.
The Scottish Liberal Democrats too support a 2045 net zero date but emphasise a “stable roadmap” and practical measures for households, combining an emergency insulation push and a Fairer Heating Bill. They express support for Small Modular Reactors (SMRs), a major expansion of solar, green hydrogen and a fully electrified rail network.
Scottish Labour would also retains the 2045 target while placing emphasis on energy security and industrial strategy, seeking to make Scotland a “clean energy superpower”. They would do so by lifting the block on new nuclear (particularly SMRs), expanding community renewables, rolling out a national warm homes programme, partnering with UK‑level investment vehicles, and supporting low‑carbon transport including rail electrification and sustainable aviation fuels.
In sharp contrast, the Scottish Conservatives argue for “realism” and affordability, pledging to scrap the 2045 net zero target, fully exploit North Sea oil and gas, abolish the Energy Profits Levy. Like Scottish Labour and the Lib Dems, they would back new nuclear and some hydrogen, albeit they do not support heavy subsidisation. They would also reorient funding away from international climate action and existing Just Transition mechanisms toward an “Affordable Transition” focused on domestic cost‑of‑living concerns.
Reform go further still in opposition to net zero, characterising it as an “ideological” policy. They would remove all net zero‑related targets, subsidies and institutions, re‑prioritise North Sea gas and open‑cast coal, while also accelerating approvals for hydro and geothermal. They would redirect around £1 billion from climate projects into tax cuts, and introduce “Energy Price Impact Statements” so that affordability becomes the dominant test for new policies.
Funding of statutory nature conservation bodies
Not every manifesto outlines party intentions for the funding and role of statutory nature conservation bodies and environmental agencies, but what they say about provision for public bodies more generally is worth noting.
The Scottish Greens are the only party to make an explicit positive funding pledge, arguing that Scotland’s public environment agencies need increased investment so they can carry out their full duties. They point to their track record in securing the £65 million Nature Restoration Fund, which they would raise to £200 million for community‑ and landscape‑scale projects.
Scottish Labour, by contrast, prioritise refocusing and rationalising existing resources. They propose reviewing the roles and remits of environmental agencies to reduce duplication and bureaucracy, with the stated aim of ensuring that funding and policy development are tightly focused on protecting natural resources, alongside a broader plan to reduce the overall number of external public bodies and quangos by at least a third.
The SNP likewise emphasise structural reform, rather than committing to increased budgets. They pledge to cut the number of public bodies to integrate services and reduce bureaucracy, flagging specific reviews of Historic Environment Scotland and the Marine Directorate to improve accountability and efficiency.
The Scottish Liberal Democrats also focus on streamlining, proposing a review of the “cluttered quango landscape” to improve value for money, cut bureaucracy and reduce duplication, but without specifying the scale of reduction or bodies for reform or removal.
The Scottish Conservatives and Reform UK both set out proposals for more substantial reductions in the public body landscape. The Conservatives would introduce a Taxpayer Savings Act, create a new efficiency agency to find £500 million in savings, cut the number of quangos by at least a quarter, and reduce spending on government and its quangos by £1.5 billion a year. They have already identified bodies such as the Scottish Land Commission for abolition. Reform go further still, promising to “shut down the quangos” altogether, transfer their powers back to ministers, and reallocate the £6.5 billion they say is spent on 132 “unaccountable quangos” to priorities income tax cuts.
Marine conservation
Parties have markedly different ambitions for marine conservation, particularly around statutory targets, gear restrictions, and the future of HPMAs.
The Scottish Greens align closely to 30×30 and seek to use the Natural Environment (Scotland) Act to set legally binding targets to protect 30% of Scotland’s seas by 2030, designate 30% of inshore waters as low‑impact fishing zones free from bottom trawling and scallop dredging, and support “marine rewilding” through initiatives such as native oyster reefs and seagrass restoration. They also propose a pause on salmon farm expansion until stricter standards are met, a national marine litter clean‑up under a robust polluter‑pays regime, and governance reforms including an independent review of the Marine Directorate and greater community influence over marine spatial planning.
Scottish Labour places more emphasis on planning and finance; they would prioritise a new spatial Marine Plan to give clarity to offshore wind, fisheries and coastal communities, create a Marine Recovery Fund financed by developer contributions, roll out remote electronic monitoring and consult on inshore management to protect stocks and habitats, and use the Natural Environment (Scotland) Act to set restoration targets.
The Scottish Liberal Democrats focus on local management, rejecting centrally imposed HPMAs, favouring instead locally designed management in partnership with fishing and coastal communities, and a shift towards decentralised regional marine planning in place of the current Marine Directorate. They would also put in place more species‑ and pressure‑specific measures such as a national plan to reduce whale and dolphin bycatch and underwater noise, and action on industrial‑scale gill‑net fishing by foreign vessels.
The SNP’s offer is less detailed and focuses on balancing industry needs with improving the marine environment, including delivery of actions in their existing plan to support wild salmon populations.
The Scottish Conservatives and Reform UK are primarily concerned with shielding the fishing industry from what they view as over‑restrictive measures. The Conservatives commit to working with aquaculture to manage impacts rather than tightening controls unilaterally, and back industry opposition to earlier HPMA proposals, pledging not to revive them.
Reform UK focus on preventing offshore wind development where they believe it would harm fishing grounds or migratory birds. They characterise the fisheries sector as one of ten economic “clusters” into which they would focus resources for education, skills and training.
Agricultural reform
Parties take notably different approaches to how agriculture should contribute to nature recovery, from redirecting farm subsidies towards regenerative practices to perceiving “rewilding” and climate targets as threats to food production that should be resisted.
The Scottish Greens propose a fundamental shift in agricultural funding to prioritise the environment by replacing existing subsidies with a Transition Insurance Fund. This would reward nature‑friendly food production, accelerate a move to high‑welfare, nature‑positive livestock systems,. They would also introduce licensing pf gamebird releases to curb disease risks to wild birds, and restore funding to agricultural research institutes to help producers adapt to climate change.
The SNP say they would embed nature restoration within emerging farm support structures, using a four‑tier framework and whole‑farm plans to increase support for climate‑ and nature‑friendly farming while protecting distinctive landscapes such as the machair. Labour emphasise “public money for public goods”, pledging that farm support will back food production, biodiversity and thriving rural communities, reward nature‑friendly practices and align changes for smaller farmers with net zero goals.
The Lib Dems stress that nature recovery and food production should be treated as mutually reinforcing, committing to funding principles that promote environmental sustainability alongside active farming, co‑designed river catchment plans with farmers and landowners, and specific measures to protect pollinators.
Finally, the Scottish Conservatives and Reform UK are most concerned about the economic impact of environmental policy on farmers. The Conservatives promise no further government‑backed rewilding without farmers’ consent, oppose the 2045 net zero target on the grounds that it would force emissions cuts in livestock, and commit to protecting meat and dairy production in the name of food security.
Reform UK’s focus is on ensuring “space for nature” on Integrated Administration and Control System (IACS) maps without reducing productive land, while reviving fence and hedge grants for tree lines and hedges, and stopping what they describe as “poorly managed” rewilding and forestry schemes.
Further coverage
We will publish an overview of the results of the election after 7 May and the potential implications for nature policy in Scotland. If you have any views on this topic that you would like to share, please get in touch via policy@CIEEM.net