I will try to keep my remarks brief—I want to speak to one or two other amendments in addition to my own. I will speak to my colleague David Stewart’s probing amendment 140, as he is unable to be here because he is at a funeral.
Amendment 140 seeks to put in the bill a target to tackle transport emissions by banning fossil fuel cars and vans from city centres by 2030. That sounds like a radical idea, but it is well established in individual cities around the world. It could be a significant intervention to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and improve air quality, and it would go further than the Transport (Scotland) Bill’s LEZ section. As we know, transport emissions are on the increase, and road transport is the biggest source of emissions. Poor air quality hits the most vulnerable—the oldest, the youngest, and those with various co-morbid health conditions—the hardest. There is also the issue of socioeconomic bias; I will not go into more detail on that just now. I know that David Stewart would welcome comments from the cabinet secretary on how road transport emissions are being considered in the bill and in the plan.
I move on to Mark Ruskell’s amendment 136, which I will support today. As members may know, I have for some time had an interest in bettering our understanding, protection and enhancement of blue carbon. Our environment’s ability to sequester carbon is a key requirement in achieving net zero by 2045, and blue carbon should be receiving much more focus given its significant potential impact on our emissions targets if there is appropriate and sustainable management.
In 2011, a report that was commissioned by Scottish Natural Heritage—I would not have highlighted it if Mark Ruskell had spoken before me, but I think that it is important—found that marine sediments alone equate to 52 per cent of Scotland’s 2011 carbon emissions. Unlike many other marine and terrestrial habitats, marine sediments can lock up carbon for many thousands of years. There were two info boxes that referred to blue carbon possibilities in the two most recent climate change plans—the first was supported in particular by the then Minister for Environment and Climate Change, Paul Wheelhouse. We have abundant sea grass and kelp beds around our coasts. The time for action is in the next plan and in successive plans, in the same way that peat research was developed and action then followed. That would send a clear signal of the importance of blue carbon, and I ask members to support amendment 136 today.
I lodged amendment 133, on land use, to establish a new duty on ministers to set out, within one year of the bill receiving royal assent, policies and proposals for the creation of regional land use partnerships and frameworks. The amendment seeks to strengthen the mandate of the land use strategy and facilitate its delivery on the ground. When the land use strategy was first published in 2011, it was world leading in its recognition of the important role that land can play in climate mitigation and adaptation. However, since the strategy was revised in 2016, little progress has been made. Although there have been two pilot schemes, there has been no roll-out of regional land use frameworks.
One of the challenges with the current legislation is that no duty to deliver the policies and proposals exists in the land use strategy; there is only a duty to produce and revise the strategy itself. As a result, the strategy has been sidelined and overlooked, despite the crucial role that it could play in addressing the climate emergency and shaping future rural policy. The CCC has highlighted the key role that land use will play in greenhouse gas removal, and regional frameworks could provide a mechanism to deliver that. They would also aid the targeting of future rural support to activities and areas that contribute most to our climate ambitions. Regional land use frameworks should identify opportunities to prioritise land use and management practices that optimise greenhouse gas removal. The Scottish Government’s plan for the rural funding transition, “Stability and Simplicity: proposals for a rural funding transition period”, runs to 2024, and I feel that the amendment’s provisions fit well with it. We need to act fast in order to contribute meaningfully and usefully to that transition.
I have listened to Maurice Golden’s comments and I will not—although I could—go into detail on those because of time.
Members well know that there is a strong mandate for Mark Ruskell’s amendment 135 on fracking, as the Parliament has agreed to prohibit fracking in Scotland. I have been joining campaigners across Scotland for a number of years now, pushing the Government and considering all pathways to block those damaging techniques and give peace of mind to communities once and for all.
I urge the cabinet secretary to clear up her Government’s intentions and be crystal clear, given that we are currently on the third Government public consultation on fracking—the fourth if we include my member’s bill. Agreeing to Mark Ruskell’s amendment would further indicate the Scottish Government’s determination to prohibit onshore fracking in Scotland by enshrining the commitment to address it in each climate change plan as we progress. Fracking is not a transition fuel and we should take every opportunity to say no to it for the sustainable future of our communities, our industries and the jobs that they will bring without that inappropriate destructive distraction, and, of course, for the future of our very planet.
I support amendment 49 but, again, I will not go into the details as Mark Ruskell will highlight those himself. I have lodged amendments 49A and 49B.
Amendment 49A is on carbon sequestration. The Climate Change (Emissions Reduction Targets) (Scotland) Bill legislated for a target of net zero greenhouse gas emissions, and the “net” part of that is fundamental if we are to reach that target. In its advice on net zero targets, the UK Committee on Climate Change states that it is confident that Scotland could feasibly achieve the higher target than the rest of the UK because of its greater sequestration capabilities. With increasing global recognition of the need for carbon reductions from land use activities, this addition to Mark Ruskell’s amendment 49 offers a relatively straightforward and cost-effective opportunity to address the issue in the public interest. The process of carbon sequestration will also contribute significantly to our biodiversity targets and to the tackling of flood mitigation.
The committee has often discussed the complexities of reducing farming sector emissions at a greater speed, with only a 1.9 per cent decrease between 2016 and 2017. Such a holistic approach is right. Sequestration of carbon is a very important part of the role of farmers as the custodians of our land, and I am aware that farmers can feel as though their hard work in sequestration often goes unrecognised. It is essential that that is rectified, and that we all understand the significant contributions that can be made.
Agroforestry, which is the subject of amendment 49B, is proven to make a significant contribution to addressing the challenges of climate change. Agroforestry can be implemented in a number of ways. However, it is important to note that approaches can be designed in a way that avoids a trade-off between food provision and other ecosystem services. Trees can be planted along riverbanks and the edges of fields, and rows can be planted among arable crops, on separate parcels of land, and integrated with livestock and woodland pasture systems.
Among co-benefits, beyond the sequestration of carbon, is shelter from more extreme temperatures. Trees can be sun shades in summer and wind, rain or snow breaks in winter, which is valuable for our beasts. Browsing the low branches and the overhangs of tall native hedges can provide them with a range of nutrients and minerals.
Last week, I visited Whitmuir Organic Farm near Lamancha to see an inspiring and successful range of methods for myself, accompanied by owner Pete Ritchie and supported by the Woodland Trust. Adding agroforestry to Mark Ruskell’s amendment 49 will focus minds on the value of that method of farming.
Support is need for percentage capital payments, design advice, planting advice and at least partial funding through a scheme. In the climate and environment emergency, we all have a responsibility to contribute as best we can.