Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform Committee

Meeting date: Tuesday, June 19, 2018

Official Report 863KB pdf

---

Biodiversity Targets

Agenda item 3 is evidence on Scotland’s biodiversity targets. We are joined by Bridget Campbell, director of environment and forestry at the Scottish Government, and Sally Thomas, director of people and nature at Scottish Natural Heritage. I welcome you both and advise you, in case you were not here at the start of the meeting, that I will suspend the meeting for a minute’s silence at 12 noon.

I have a question about the international context for progress towards achieving biodiversity targets. I am asking the question not because I am looking for any wriggle room for Scotland, but because I want to know about the context. How are we performing on our biodiversity targets compared with the rest of the globe?

The big thing internationally is about looking forward and thinking about the next United Nations framework convention on climate change conference of parties in Beijing in 2020, which will probably set even stronger targets. The most recent overview report, which was published in 2014, gave a global progress report against the targets. To be honest, it showed a very mixed picture across the world. If I was going to summarise, I would say that Scotland is further ahead on a few more targets than the global overview or average. For example, Scotland is really ahead in terms of reporting. We are the only country that has produced a full report on the Aichi biodiversity targets. However, that does not make us at all complacent. I take on board what you said, convener, because everybody is struggling with the matter.

To give a bit more context, recently I attended a meeting of officials who deal with nature and biodiversity across the European Union; I went specifically to get an answer to the question that you asked, convener, because I did not have a good sense of it. From that meeting, it was clear to me that the challenges that we are working on in Scotland are similar to those that are being faced in every other EU country. The main theme of the meeting was the challenge that all countries face in raising public awareness of the issue; no country seems to have succeeded completely in convincing the public in general of the importance of biodiversity and the impact of its loss. We have just listened to the evidence session on climate change, and I would say that the state of consciousness on that issue is quite different. For me, that is the central theme that all countries are struggling with.

The two things are related: climate change feeds into the loss of biodiversity. The question that flows from that is whether Governments take the issue seriously enough.

Yes, but I think that the big thing that comes out of the report that was published earlier this year on progress against the Aichi targets—the progress was quite mixed, even for Scotland—is that we need to take it more seriously. The reaction that we had within the Scottish Government and from the public bodies that have responsibilities in this area was that we should try to do a bit more about it. Sally Thomas can say a bit more about that.

In terms of what we are going to do next?

Yes. At the end of last year, we had a meeting with all the immediately relevant public bodies—lots of public bodies have a biodiversity reporting responsibility, but we wanted to talk to the most local ones, such as the Scottish Environment Protection Agency, Scottish Natural Heritage and so on—to examine each of the areas in which we are not doing as well as we should be with regard to the Aichi projections. We came up with some specific things that we need to do. We are seized of the fact that more effort is required.

Finlay Carson wants to make a point on that issue, so I will let him in now.

Who is taking responsibility for the implementation of the biodiversity strategy—the Scottish Government or SNH? It is not entirely clear.

Ultimately, it is the responsibility of Scottish ministers and, therefore, the Scottish Government, to deliver the biodiversity strategy, and the Scottish Government is accountable to the Scottish Parliament in that regard. SNH is accountable to Scottish ministers, as a non-departmental public body. Obviously, SNH is the Government’s statutory nature conservation adviser, and biodiversity is at the core of much of what it does.

The Government has asked SNH to do a piece of work to lead and co-ordinate all the partners in the public, private and third sector on the delivery of the 2020 strategy and the route map. SNH was closely involved in the development of the strategy and the route map, and it is now leading groups that are co-ordinating delivery. It produces the progress reports on the route map and the statutory three-year report on meeting the Aichi targets. However, it does all that at the request of ministers. There is no doubt that this is the Scottish Government’s responsibility.

You talked about the additional indicators and the improvements in reporting. However, does what you say not suggest that the strategy is too focused on process and not focused on where the action needs to be taken in order to deliver better outcomes?

I think that it must have both elements in it. Of course it would be better if we were doing brilliantly across all the different components, and it is true that, in some cases, we are doing better on the more mechanical things. However, I think that the strategy contains lots of ambition and high-level commitments to real progress on biodiversity.

The route map is, essentially, a programme of practical projects that deliver real improvement in biodiversity. There are really good examples in relation to peatland, but there are others, too.

I agree that it is important that we have process and governance underpinning what we do. SNH has a comprehensive monitoring process and a series of indicators, and we have a range of governance groups that work with a number of partners across the public sector and the non-governmental organisation community. That is all good and proper, and we need to be able to do that—we have reporting requirements and we need to be able to feed in at the UK level and so on. However, none of us would understate the fact that what we are really trying to do is make progress on the ground. That is our ultimate goal.

There are some excellent examples of work on the ground. Yesterday, we launched the Scottish invasive species initiative, which is a community-based project, jointly funded by the Heritage Lottery Fund and SNH; the project covers around 29,000km² and engages communities with regard to riparian invasives. That is a high priority area, in which we realise that there is a lot of work to be done. We also have peatland action, for which SNH receives money from the Government. We have restored more than 10,000 hectares and there is a commitment to restoring a further 8,000 hectares.

All that is really important work on the ground, on which we need to report. We need to be able to show what we have done and how we have spent the money. A lot of good work is being done across Scotland.

Is one of the criticisms that is made not a legitimate criticism? It is said that we pat ourselves on the back for getting more people out to enjoy nature when what matters is ensuring that we have the species for future generations to enjoy. Are we doing the easy stuff while struggling with the difficult stuff?

There is a balance. The more that people appreciate and enjoy nature, the more that the societal change that we have seen across the climate change agenda is likely to come into play. A lot of time and effort is going into individual species projects. For example, I am sure that most of you will have seen the wonderful photographs that Edinburgh Zoo released yesterday of the Scottish wildcat kittens taking their first steps into the outside world. Resource-intensive projects such as the Scottish wildcat project are important to help to bolster populations of rare or endangered species across Scotland.

I want to focus on some of the particular problems that we have with a number of the targets. You will be aware that the headline says that only seven targets out of 20 are on track. Can we drill down a bit into those?

Target B5 is about habitat loss, so let us start there. What is the gap? What needs to happen, particularly with land use management, to turn that target around?

Habitat loss is a particularly complex issue, as I am sure you will appreciate. The target is not just related to counting up the number of hectares of habitat that have been lost. There is the relative proportion of habitat that has been restored or, indeed, created. We have a range of restoration works under way that contribute to the target. We are doing a lot of work to more accurately map and assess different habitats and the extent to which they are declining or increasing.

It is fair to say that the work is not without challenges. We recognise those and, through the route map, we recognise woodland restoration and expansion as an area in which there are challenges for us, certainly on the native woodland target. Increased grants for planting rates have been put in place through Forestry Commission Scotland to increase the incentive for landowners to help with woodland planting, which will help us with those targets.

A number of habitats are showing a decrease in their condition rather than their extent. Woodland is another example in which, while the extent of some woodland areas might be maintained, the condition of the habitat is at issue and there is a slightly different range of issues that we need to tackle.

There have also been some real successes. In the freshwater environment, under the pearls in peril project, we have restored freshwater function across 19 rivers in Scotland. Specific projects such as that can do a lot to help us with the habitat restoration target.

However, we are not meeting that target so it is clear that we need a step change. You did not mention agriculture. What work is being done to consider using a future agricultural subsidy system to reverse some of the catastrophic habitat loss that we have seen since the second world war?

We are starting to think about that. The agriculture champions who are working for Mr Ewing issued their final report recently and they acknowledge that there is a real need to think about how any future funding can contribute to the outcomes that we want. We are in the foothills of doing that. The thinking is just starting now.

When do you think that there will be an outcome to that thinking process?

I think that Mr Ewing has said that he will respond to the agriculture champions later in the year with the Government’s position. They have set a good framework of issues that need to be addressed, and the Government should come up with some response to that later in the year.

11:45  

Okay. I turn to target B9, which is on the control of invasive species. Sally Thomas touched on that, but is there a disconnect given the scale of the problem? My understanding is that we have one-year challenge funding going into supporting the work. About £2 million is being put into control of rhododendron, for example, yet the potential demand to tackle the problem would be nearer £400 million. Are we running to stand still? What sense is there that we can actually get a grip on some of the long-standing invasive species problems over the next five to 10 years, before they become very costly problems?

You make a good point. It is important to get a grip on these problems before they become a huge financial burden. We recognise that early identification and rapid response is perhaps one of the most important things that we need to do. We are developing new information systems that will help us to underpin and inform that rapid response so that we can identify and deal with invasive species before they become larger and more resource-intensive problems.

For example, there is a new plant tracker app that provides for rapid notification across Great Britain, which means that, for the high-alert species—the ones that we know are on the boundaries trying to come in, I suppose, or which are particularly invasive—we can have rapid identification and alerts and work across the country to take action before they take hold.

Are those action plans actually happening at a catchment level? For example, in the Allan Water catchment, the local fisheries trust has been doing a lot of work, but there has not been money for co-ordination. It has been getting a little bit of cash from the local Tesco supermarket to do the work. That does not really seem to address the need for catchment-wide action. I understand what you say about apps, reporting and all of that, but what happens then? What are the interim targets, if you like, to tackle the problems of invasive species?

I do not have the detail of where we are taking catchment-scale approaches, but I will be happy to provide more information on that. SEPA will be very much to the fore in that work, so we can get some further information from it, if that would be helpful.

Okay. My final question is about target C12, which is on preventing species extinction. We have seen some horrific figures on seabirds in relation to climate change, fishing and a range of other pressures, and on other species including waders, upland birds and specialist butterflies. What should the Government be doing to make a step change in those areas? Can we bring some of those species back from the brink?

There have been no recorded extinctions in Scotland, but we recognise that some of our species are under threat and there is targeted action for specific species. I mentioned wildcat, but red squirrel is another, and a range of bird species are included. We are developing a priority species indicator so that we can get a better handle on all this.

We need to work with different species in different ways. That is the bottom line, because what is needed for one species will not necessarily work for another. We also need to understand that, for some species, the action that we put in place now will take some time to work through at a population level, so we should not always expect to see swift results. Wildcat is a good example. Focused and targeted action is under way and there is a lot of interest and a lot of volunteers involved in that, but it is a long-term project that will take a number of years to come to fruition.

Some of those actions relate to the management of the land. We very often have to work with individual land managers to look at how we can work through different types of land management that might favour particular species, such as butterflies or other invertebrates.

The picture is mixed, but we are developing a priority species indicator, and we will use it to prioritise which species need targeted action.

Is the voluntary approach working for species that are absolutely dependent on land management in order to bring them back from the brink of extinction?

We have a lot of good work under way through the agri-environment climate scheme and its incentives. We have advisers who work directly with land managers on their holdings to identify where specific bits of habitat, connectivity or ecological coherence can benefit specific species on their land. What do you mean by “the voluntary approach”?

I presume that you rely on land managers coming forward to self-identify that they are interested in protecting a certain species or whatever. For those who are not interested, what is the compulsion to do anything? I do not know what percentage of land managers come forward.

I see where you are going. I suppose that the flipside of that is targeted and focused projects that SNH or the NGOs might develop in partnership for a particular species or in a particular locality. That is targeted action for a species. If some land managers in the locality choose not to come on board, there is still a project running that will work and that will, we hope, help to persuade the majority in the locality to do that.

How do you get on top of best practice and share it? I have seen terrific examples that involve the Forestry Commission Scotland and wildcats in Glen Isla, and the Game and Wildlife Conservation Trust farm that is operated in Deeside and protecting waders. Both projects are very good. How do you pull that knowledge together and encourage others to roll out such practice?

SNH runs a series of sharing good practice events. The name is on the tin: they are very much aimed at sharing the good practice and experience of practitioners throughout Scotland, and we use them extensively for a whole range of topics.

We also work with and encourage others, such as the Royal Highland Education Trust and the Soil Association, which does a lot of on-farm work with land managers and uses peer-to-peer work so that farmers talk to other farmers, land managers and foresters about the work that they do on their farms in local areas. A lot of work is going on out there that SNH is directly involved in or helps to support.

I want to pick up Mark Ruskell’s point about seabirds, and particularly the horrifying numbers that are coming forward. There are significant problems with birds in Orkney. Global factors are in play and it is clear that climate change is having an impact. What dialogue is SNH or the Scottish Government having with international partners to see what research they have done and what thoughts they have on how we can address that?

We work across the global academic community so that we can better understand what is happening to species when they are outwith Scottish waters. The difficulty is that many seabirds come to Scotland for only part of the year and their wintering or primary feeding grounds are outwith Scottish waters, so it is very important that we have that dialogue and seek to understand. A lot of learning about and understanding of the life cycles of some species and where they go to feed or to overwinter is still required.

We certainly have on-going dialogues. That plays into what Bridget Campbell said earlier. We are talking about global targets, and we need to be at the global table and to participate in those discussions, either as part of the UK administrative body that undertakes that work or in a Scottish context. Those conversations are really important.

The convener touched on important concerns to do with seabirds. My question is about the marine environment and coastal areas. Some marine protected areas are active and are being monitored. Is there an assessment of the impact of MPAs?

What impact do you mean?

I am talking about the impact on target 6, which is on sustainable management of the marine environment. Sorry—I should have said that.

You are right that considerable progress has been made on the MPA network, and that is coupled with progress on harvesting at sustainable levels. For a number of key fish species there is, for example, the implementation of an end to discards. A whole range of activity is leading to healthier fish stocks. I am not quite clear why there is insufficient progress on that target, given the progress that we have made with the MPA network. It may be a timing issue. The report was produced for the end of 2017, and we have made further progress since then.

If you are content, we will seek further advice from Marine Scotland on that.

That would be helpful. You highlighted the ways in which the approach has changed because of MPAs, but it would be useful to know whether there has been any assessment of the specific impacts and whether things are improving in those areas.

I will move on to the second part of my exploration with you of the marine environment, which is on the wider issue of further action that is being taken on MPAs and whether it is focusing on ecological coherence and networks.

There is a lot of work across Scotland’s marine environment, including the development of the national marine plan and work on aquaculture, seaweed harvesting and fisheries strategies, and all of that is helping to focus efforts on sustainable marine management. On the more specific action in MPAs—I was going to say “on the ground”, but I suppose it should be “in the water”—we can again seek further advice from Marine Scotland.

Could that include the broader issues, please?

Yes.

I want to go back to invasive species. Clearly, we have invasive species such as rabbits and hares that the Romans brought and that are now regarded as native species. American crayfish are a huge problem. Most recently, beavers were almost certainly released illegally and deliberately in Tayside, and they are now making the transition to being regarded as a native species. What is the overall policy in determining how we make the transition from something being an invasive species to it being regarded as a protected or quasi-native species?

That is an incredibly good philosophical question, to which I am sorry but—

Sorry for intervening. I recognise that there is a philosophical point, but there is a genuine and real impact from that probably illegal action in Tayside that we cannot afford to disregard, because of the message that that might send to people on the policy issue. People might start releasing wolves or lynxes or a variety of other things that would cause me and, I suspect, others considerable concern.

We have been working with the Scottish beaver management forum on the licensing arrangements to provide guidance and advice to land managers who are experiencing problems with beavers. Is that where you are heading?

Sorry, but I am not trying to explore the detail of the beaver issue—that is for another time and place. I am asking whether there is a consistent approach in how we regard that transition. We would eliminate every American crayfish in our rivers and lochs if we could—

I will suspend the meeting to allow us to observe the minute’s silence.

12:00 Meeting suspended.  

12:01 On resuming—  

Thank you.

I would like to move the discussion up a level to the more general.

Just to clarify, we have the Scottish code on reintroductions and translocations of species, and any legitimate proposals that are made, as opposed to illegal releases, will certainly be evaluated in terms of the process and the considerations under that code. We have a process in place for any proposals that are made. Illegal releases are by definition illegal, and that is a very different matter. We need to consider everything on a case-by-case basis.

To go back to Stewart Stevenson’s deep philosophical point, I note that what we regard as illegal or not illegal reflects cultural views in this country. In the meeting that I mentioned earlier—

It is about the law as it stands.

Yes. It was interesting to hear from other countries such as Croatia and Bulgaria. In Bulgaria, they have the bear and the wolf, and in Croatia they have the bear, the wolf and the lynx. They are at a point in their culture where the main issue is not about particular species but about how they pay people for the damage that the animals do. They are in a very different place.

We need to close off this discussion because we have other things to cover. Evidentially, I know that the fiscal could not get the necessary corroboration to prosecute those who were responsible for the beaver release. Nonetheless, it was prima facie not permitted under the law; it was almost certainly prohibited under the law, because the beavers were originally held under licence in a constrained area, from which they were released.

That is my understanding.

Yes.

Bridget, at the outset, you referred to the previous discussion about climate change. The public get climate change—they buy into tackling it—and we achieve our targets. What do we need to do to mainstream biodiversity values in the same way and get that public buy-in? Sitting alongside that, what specific actions do the Scottish Government and SNH have in mind to address failure to hit the targets?

On your second question, when Mr Ruskell asked about specific areas where we are failing, Sally Thomas gave some examples of where action has been upped because it has been clear that, if we carry on the way we are, we will not meet the target.

There is another really good recent example. I think that it has already been mentioned. When it was noticed that the native woodland in a particular part of the Highlands was not flourishing, the Forestry Commission adjusted its grant rate, and that led to more native woodland trees being planted. There are some specific things that we can do.

The environment and economy leaders group, which is the group that brings together all the chief executives of the main relevant bodies, has been trying to think of specific measures in areas in which the targets are failing to be met. That is just one example. We need a programme approach to pin down what the partners could do differently in specific cases.

Coincidentally, a meeting of that group is taking place in Aviemore today, and one of the items on its agenda is how we can do more to get back on track with the Aichi targets that we are not on track to meet. The cabinet secretary has asked SNH to give serious consideration to how it can co-ordinate all those actions. That is work in progress but, in due course, once that has come to the cabinet secretary, I am sure that she will let you know about it, because we are very conscious that we have to do something to make a change in that area.

It might be the case that something like “Blue Planet” is needed. I hear that Sir David Attenborough is planning to make a series of films about biodiversity that will be shown on Netflix, and they are being pushed by WWF. Of course, “Blue Planet” is about biodiversity, too, but there is a great need to gain a shared understanding of the value of biodiversity and the impact of its loss, which has not reached a tipping point.

In a smaller way, we can all play a part in that process. I am sure that the chief executives will be discussing how we can do more on public information, campaigns and so on. We might find that we suddenly reach a tipping point—I really hope that we do. That is what needs to happen. We must reach a point at which not just specialists and experts but the public appreciate why insects matter.

Going back to the nature directors’ meeting, I add that there was a really interesting presentation by the Germans, but they seemed to assume that everyone thought that insects were good whereas, in fact, most people do not know much about most insects. They might mention bumble bees and ladybirds as being important, but not all the insects that are relevant.

It has dawned on me that I should have declared an interest at the start of the discussion. Indeed, every member of the committee might have declared an interest, because I think we are all species champions, with the exception of Mr Stevenson.

No.

He is one, too. That is relevant, because there is a role for parliamentarians to play in championing the cause and raising public awareness of such important issues. I declare an interest in that respect.

On that point, I am the species champion for the narrow-headed ant. Indeed, I was looking at some at the weekend, up in your neck of the woods.

Is there an education programme on biodiversity? Where are the links with schools on that? Surely that is a key aspect of the engagement process. I will use the example of recycling. I give Fife Council great credit for the fact that it started to have eco-schools in Fife. When it did that, children suddenly started talking to their parents about the importance of recycling.

Yes. Among the issues that the chief executives are discussing today is what initiative could be taken on education. I will try to find a precise description of what they are doing.

We know from our work that if we can influence young people, they will go home and seek to influence their parents and their siblings. We do a lot of work through the outdoor learning in nature programme. We work with schools across Scotland to identify how they can use nature to deliver aspects of the curriculum, such as maths and science, and to ensure that they have access to good-quality green space that they can use as part of the school day.

We have a commitment to 100 schools in Scotland’s most disadvantaged communities having easy access to green space. At the moment, we are working through that with local authorities and other partners to ensure that our young people do not just read or learn about interaction with nature, but get out and experience it. If their families are perhaps not able to help them to have that experience, they can do so as part of their formal education.

All the bodies that I mentioned, such as SNH and SEPA, have a part to play in that, as do the national parks. For example, the Cairngorms National Park Authority has been holding the Cairngorms nature big weekend event, which is all about getting lots of local people out into nature, and those from beyond the area. A whole load of different things need to happen, so I am violently agreeing with what Alex Rowley suggested.

A number of members want to come in. I hope that it is not to plug the species for which they are champions.

You may be disappointed, convener.

There is an issue about public confidence, particularly in the agencies. I hope that that will be discussed today. I am the species champion for the sea eagle, of which there have been a number of illegal disappearances in Scotland. We all know that those are probably linked to wildlife crime—the evidence points in that direction. SNH’s decision to issue a licence for a raven cull in an area in which there have been a number of disappearances of raptors over the years has generated an enormous amount of public concern. People want to know the rationale for that decision, and there are concerns that those who might have been involved in the disappearance of the raptors might also be involved in the licence regime and the trial project. My inbox has been overflowing with messages of concern about that, and it has touched a nerve for many people.

How can agencies maintain public confidence when people have big issues—of which wildlife crime is one—that resonate in their minds and become a central issue in how they define whether Scotland is protecting its biodiversity?

I do not think that anyone in this room would do other than abhor the wildlife crime that unfortunately still exists in some parts of the country. In the partnership for action against wildlife crime Scotland, SNH works very closely with Police Scotland to do everything that we can both to bring perpetrators to justice and to seek to educate those who might have different views. I do not want to go into the detail of specific cases, on which a lot has already been said on the public record. However, SNH certainly feels that we need to have a conversation about wildlife management in Scotland. There are big questions—that we perhaps need to unpack collectively—about our environment, our species and how we can co-exist within the land mass of Scotland.

Are we getting the balance right? I am concerned that while we spend all our time getting the public on board we might be losing species that are not the sexy species of the month. There has been no progress on 11 targets, and levels are getting worse on five. Public awareness of the sea eagle or Leisler’s bat, for which I am the species champion, might be improving, but is the balance shifting from protecting biodiversity to justifying expenditure on it? I am concerned that, while we get the public on board and we open up green spaces around cities and so on, some dung beetle in Sutherland might become extinct because the Government finds it difficult to justify the expenditure that would be required to protect it.

We think that it is the right balance. We are trying to strike a balance between, on the one hand, education, cultural change and all the awareness raising projects that we have been talking about and, on the other, doing real things with species that are at risk. Earlier, Sally Thomas described some quite sophisticated ways of making sure that we are alerted to such things and are able to take action.

12:15  

We work closely with various special interest groups and NGOs, which alert us when there are issues with species that are perhaps lesser known—the small species and the ones that we do not see every day. Such groups get involved through our contacts with Scottish Environment LINK, and many are involved in the working groups for the biodiversity strategy. There are many specialist societies for particular species, such as butterflies, which work with us routinely, and we have our antennae out so that we can work with them.

We think that we have got the balance right; I hope that the committee thinks so, too.

We have a lot of ground to cover. I will bring in Richard Lyle.

Let us turn to the real world and funds for tackling biodiversity loss and conservation. The environmental funders network said in a report that, compared with the rest of the UK, Scotland is at a considerable disadvantage in attracting funding for conservation projects. The network said:

“From 2012 to 2015, private foundation funding for environmental causes in England and Wales amounted to 20 times as much as that available in Scotland. The total amounts were the equivalent of ... £768 per square kilometre in England and Wales versus £70 per square kilometre in Scotland.”

We have talked about targets. To what extent is meeting targets reliant on increasing financial resources? Have a decline in public funding and staff capacity on biodiversity in the Scottish Government and SNH had an impact?

You have covered a great deal of ground. Let me start with your final question. It is quite difficult to say exactly how much public funding is spent on biodiversity; we have not disaggregated that. SNH is doing work at the moment to try to get a better indicator, because that was an Aichi target that we were going away from. We are not clear enough even about how much public money is being spent on biodiversity, and the public sector ought to be able to account—

Are you clear about how much private money is being spent?

Well, as you said, the report—it was “Where the Green Grants Went—Scotland: An Analysis of Grants from UK Sources for Environmental Work in Scotland”—is telling us something that we need to do something about.

On the money that goes to SNH, which is one of the main bodies that work on biodiversity in Scotland, I think that SNH thought that it had a good grant and a positive settlement for the current year. In the Scottish Government there have been a number of changes, but we are recruiting new people, to increase the resource on the issue.

The issue that has been pointed out to us about private sector money is a challenge, and we need to think about whether the Government can do something about it. Currently, action is going on in two main areas. First, SNH is working with Heritage Lottery Fund to secure a more strategic approach to giving priority to environmental projects. HLF is a good source of funding. Secondly, SNH and the Scottish Government have pretty good links with businesses, through the Scottish forum on natural capital, which might be a place to which we can take such questions.

The work with HLF has been extremely positive. It is about prioritising the bids to the fund that come forward year on year, so that people do not waste resources by bidding against each other, and it is about trying to increase environmental awareness within HLF. We can then seek to work with other major funders, some of which are identified in the report that Richard Lyle mentioned.

It is important to recognise that success is not always just a reflection of the amount of money that is spent. Certainly, some of the work that we have done shows clearly that it is possible to do more for biodiversity in a local context, even with a reduced resource. That might involve, for example, local authorities changing their mowing regimes or the public sector or local authorities changing the composition of planting that is used; that is, rather than plant bedding plants, they could plant pollinator-attractive species or other species of plants. Those seem quite small-scale examples, but they add up and do not necessarily cost additional resource. For many, it is a different way of thinking about the same problem.

What can the Scottish Government do to improve links with private funders of environmental work in Scotland? If Scottish Government funding is provided, should it be given for a three to five-year budget rather than a yearly one in order to ensure long-term stability for staff and the agencies that work on projects that we feel are worth while?

Just to add another question, do the witnesses think that there is a role for environmental NGOs in attracting non-governmental funding? Surely they have a message to send out to possible funders. Do you see a job for them in trying to attract that type of finance?

I think that there is a role for them. In a number of the major conservation projects in Scotland, the lead partner will be one of the NGOs because they are often best placed to play that role. We certainly do not think that the public sector or SNH needs to be in the lead, and we are happy to be a partner. It often makes sense—for financial and tax reasons, I understand—for an NGO that is a charity to lead financially. We are happy for that to be the case.

Again, should those bodies have extended budget periods rather than a yearly one? Should they have three to five-year budget periods in order to give people long-term stability?

I am not sure how far that works at the moment. Sally, do you know?

No. We try to give such stability, but SNH is on a one-year settlement and that makes it difficult for us to make that commitment. We obviously cannot commit funds that we are not confident that we have to commit. Project funding is a different matter, because it is often over three to five years and is given for the lifetime of the project.

So we should be looking at having extended budget periods. I will leave it there and will not ask you to commit to that, but I am sure that you will go back and tell somebody.

Has any assessment been made of the effect on biodiversity projects of the potential loss of EU funding after the dreaded Brexit?

Yes, at a very high level, but it is not specific to biodiversity. It is clear that the loss of EU funding for all sorts of land uses will potentially have an impact on biodiversity. The level that we are at is that of trying to assess the scale of that rather than pinning down the impacts on biodiversity per se.

Thank you. We will move on to John Scott.

Biodiversity duty reporting appears not to be in the best place. What action have the Scottish Government and SNH taken since the last round of duty reporting to engage public bodies of all sizes and functions in the duty and in specific actions to improve biodiversity?

I believe that the cabinet secretary gave evidence on that issue to the Public Audit and Post-legislative Scrutiny Committee recently. Sally Thomas might be able to tell you what has been done since the last round.

Since the 2015 round, the Scottish Government commissioned an evaluation of the reporting process, public bodies’ activities and the content of the reports on what public bodies are actually doing. That revealed a wealth of useful information. As a result, further work to make the process easier for public bodies was undertaken, partly by the contractor, which produced a reporting template, and partly by SNH, which produced a series of detailed guidance using the template and case studies. The guidance aims to help public bodies assess the level of reporting that they need to engage in. It is aimed at small, medium and large public bodies and gives guidance and advice on the activities that they might consider undertaking and reporting on. It aims to put in place a proportionate approach so that, for example, a small public body that has no land holding and which, on the face of it, has very little to do with biodiversity will not be expected to produce a large report.

The other interesting finding of the evaluation of the 2015 round is that the work that public bodies are undertaking and reporting on is meeting all the targets that we are discussing today, with the exception of the financial target. The work that public bodies are undertaking and reporting on is contributing across the board.

What bearing do the reduced financial targets have on that reporting capability? I am referring to the E20 target on financial resources.

Ms Cunningham was clear at the Public Audit and Post-legislative Scrutiny Committee last week that the Government does not view the reporting itself to be an onerous task. There is an option for public bodies to include that reporting in their current corporate reporting, if they wish to do so. Public bodies are not required to produce a separate report if they do not think that that would be beneficial; for example, they could include it in one of their annual reports.

Rather than reporting, is the issue not one of action and mainstreaming across the public bodies? Let me give you a brief example from a local authority. Concerns about the cutting down of trees in an amenity woodland were drawn to the attention of Angus Council—its own rangers were concerned about where that was headed. The council’s planning officers came out and determined that because no planning application was in place, the council had no locus. The council walked away and the woodland was decimated—that is not an exaggeration; the woodland was destroyed, and the situation is the subject of action by Forestry Commission Scotland. The local authority has an important duty, but across its various departments does not seem to understand its responsibilities around biodiversity. I guarantee that that lack of understanding is replicated across Scotland. We have a very long way to go to get to the point where all public bodies understand their role in biodiversity.

SNH is currently working with public bodies to develop delivery statements. A delivery statement is a detailed commitment by each organisation that sets out what it plans to do to protect, maintain and enhance biodiversity. The statements flow from the biodiversity strategy. That process helps to embed the thinking into the way in which the organisations conduct their business. The result is a range of hard commitments that the organisation will sign up to in relation to its day-to-day work and how that relates to biodiversity.

Delivery statements are quite resource intensive. We have a number of statements to complete and a larger number that are under way with different public bodies. As yet, we have only one local authority that is interested in completing a delivery statement. As time and resource permit, we would hope to roll those out much further across Scotland.

That backs up my point: we have a very long way to go to reach where we need to be in relation to such important issues.

12:30  

I have a follow-up question to the convener’s question on public bodies. Having been somewhat involved in the development of the climate change reporting duties for the public sector, I wonder whether there has been a similar discussion of the need for, or the value of, a similar mechanism in relation to biodiversity. In that regard, of course, it is important to bear in mind delivery in relation to the Scottish Government, SNH and the appropriate bodies.

I do not think that we have had that discussion yet, but it seems like a good idea to see what can be derived from the progress that we have made with regard to climate change and to try to find ways in which that can be pursued with regard to biodiversity.

There are wider ways of thinking about lessons that can be learned from what has been going on with regard to climate change. One of them concerns the experience of being on the receiving end of the climate change plan. The fact that that plan was in place made me, as the director responsible, ensure that we were spending money on peatland, on planting trees, on reducing waste and so on. Another broader lesson is that there is value in being absolutely clear about what each player is required to do.

I have a similar question. I am interested in how the two issues can be brought together. It seems that, when they are engaged in place making, councils consider climate and biodiversity together. Therefore, with regard to the adaptation agenda, there might be some benefit in reporting the two issues together.

That is a fair point, and we should consider it.

The only note of caution that I sound is that, as Roseanna Cunningham observed two weeks ago, the climate change duty has an annual reporting cycle. If we are identifying resource as an issue in relation to having a three-year reporting cycle for biodiversity, we must weigh up the pros and cons of increasing that requirement.

Can you give us an update on where we are with regard to the consideration of a biodiversity strategy for the period after 2020?

We are just starting to think about that—it is starting to be thought about internationally. The 15th meeting of the conference of the parties will take place in Beijing in 2020, and we have asked SNH to think strategically about how we should approach that. That is part of what SNH will be talking about with the other public bodies in Aviemore today. The action to meet the Aichi targets is relevant to the action that is required to meet any more stringent targets. The question is, how do you increase the effort to a suitable point?

Last year, Parliament voted on a cross-party basis to support the establishment of a national ecological network in Scotland. What progress has been made on that?

As you are probably aware, last September, a stakeholder event was held to consider what a national ecological network for Scotland might entail. SNH has been asked by the Scottish Government to lead on that and, since then, we have been working with the Government and a number of the NGOs to consider how that might be played out.

We are looking at an approach that seeks to enable opportunities to improve biodiversity and connectivity and which considers the role of the existing network of protected areas, such as our Natura sites.

At present, we are seeking to develop a range of principles and are testing them against a number of established projects that already deal with connectivity, such as the EcoCo LIFE project, and work is also under way in the central Scotland green network. We plan to do some more work on testing and to come back to the Scottish Government soon with further proposals.

It would be useful if the committee could be kept informed of that.

Will there be action in there in relation to the national planning framework, with regard to the way in which the CSGN is embedded?

That is one of the issues that we are working through at the moment.

Thank you for your time this morning—it has been useful in informing the committee’s thinking. The Public Audit and Post-legislative Scrutiny Committee is also reviewing the role of local government and public bodies with regard to biodiversity.