Biodiversity
Agenda item 3 is to take evidence on the Scottish Government’s 2020 challenge for Scotland’s biodiversity from the Minister for Environment and Climate Change, Paul Wheelhouse. I welcome the minister and his officials, whom he can introduce. I believe that he has a short introductory statement for us.
I thank you for inviting me here today, convener. It is particularly appropriate to have this discussion during the year of natural Scotland. Of course, this is also Scottish environment week, the theme of which is Scotland’s environment revealed.
One of the key aims of the 2020 challenge for Scotland’s biodiversity was to reveal the benefits of biodiversity to policy makers and decision takers. Biodiversity is beautiful and inspiring in its own right, but it is also fundamental to the Scottish Government’s vision of a successful country with opportunities for all to flourish through increasing sustainable economic growth. A healthy environment underpins a healthy society, which is a key message in the refreshed strategy, particularly for sectors such as food and drink.
The strategy recognises that the 2020 challenge for Scotland’s biodiversity is a big one. There has been significant progress since the original strategy was published in 2004, but we must do more if we are to make the step change needed to meet the 2020 targets. The strategy document sets out three clear aims: first, to protect and restore biodiversity on land and in our seas, and to support healthier ecosystems; secondly, to connect people with the natural world for their health and wellbeing and to involve them more in decisions about their environment; and, thirdly, to maximise the benefits for Scotland of a diverse natural environment and the services that it provides, thus contributing to sustainable economic growth.
There was much useful discussion during the debate and the previous committee evidence session, some of it on specific issues concerning ash dieback, Barra and squirrel pox vaccination, and some of it more strategic, on subjects such as mainstreaming and delivery.
The committee’s remit refers to the analysis of responses to the consultation. Those responses highlighted some crucial strategic issues, and I recognise that only by getting our framework and structures right now can we have the confidence to deal with the specific issues that we know of today and those that will emerge in future.
Finally, I will introduce my colleagues. They are Keith Connal, Charles Stewart Roper and Gareth Heavisides.
In analysing what the Government is doing in this area, can you think of particular reasons why we missed the 2010 targets, as well as good examples illustrating why we did not miss them by more?
We have been talking about very stretching targets when it comes to RPP2. In some respects, because it is difficult to define the biodiversity targets and because they are measured in absolute terms—referring to no loss of species and no habitat damage, for instance—they are difficult to monitor. In that respect, all countries in Europe are missing the targets. It is not that Scotland is a stand-out case and the only country that is falling behind. Every country is struggling to achieve the targets.
You have alluded to some of the reasons for that. Clearly, climate change is having a significant impact on the habitats and ecosystems on which a number of key species in Scotland depend. More specifically, in relation to the health of the food supplies for some bird species, the kittiwake is an example of a bird that is suffering through climate change impacts. There are also development pressures on land across Scotland, and that is something that we, as a Government and as a society, are trying to take more account of by seeking more sustainable forms of development.
Turning to invasive non-native species, there are threats to our native species from outside Scotland, and new diseases and pests are affecting our plant life. The most obvious cases are ash dieback, dothistroma and Phytophthora ramorum. Those are key challenges for the forestry sector and for Scotland.
We have had some successes, however. We are investing in peatland restoration, species reintroductions and the protection of key iconic species such as the red squirrel.
We have plenty of questions to cover the detail, and we want to explore the subject, including the Government’s lead, as widely as possible. Jayne Baxter will start, on the biodiversity duties of public bodies.
I had not been aware of this—I am learning every day in this job—but, under the Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act 2004, all public bodies have a duty to further the conservation of biodiversity. At a previous meeting, we heard evidence from David Jamieson of the City of Edinburgh Council and Maggie Keegan of the Scottish Wildlife Trust. They emphasised that public bodies have a huge role to play, particularly local authorities, which are planning authorities and land managers and have responsibility for education and community engagement. They have huge scope to do things. How do you, as minister, incentivise local government to take on those roles—whether using carrots or sticks, or by doing other things? How can you reinforce the messages and get biodiversity back up the agenda in local government?
Encouragingly, the early discussions that I have had with the new environment convener in the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities indicate that there is someone there with whom I can work very closely in this area. COSLA clearly recognises the importance of biodiversity, and Councillor Hagan is looking very constructively at how local government can take forward agendas in RPP2, in climate change and in biodiversity. We have a good working relationship with COSLA, and I am confident that we will develop that.
You are right to indicate that biodiversity is an extremely important issue across the whole public sector. One of the reasons why the biodiversity strategy is being developed in a relatively high-level way—I know that there has been criticism that it does not drill down into a lot of detail, with specific actions—is so that it can apply as broadly as possible to a range of organisations across the public sector, and indeed to the business community.
11:45
We have taken a view on ecosystems and ecosystem services—I know that some individuals are less comfortable with this because they look at biodiversity purely for its intrinsic value—so as to couch the debate in terms that people can recognise and respond to. By talking in terms of understanding the value of nature, we hope that public sector bodies and businesses will see the advantages for them. For example, local health providers and local authorities should be able to see that the health and wellbeing of their communities will be enhanced by enhancing biodiversity and providing sufficient recreational opportunities for people to improve their health. If we can make biodiversity relevant to those organisations, that will incentivise them because they will be able to see the advantages to them. Therefore, rather than needing to go in with a stick, we will be providing a carrot, because people will be able to see the impact on their own outcome agreements, targets and internal priorities.
I hope that that helps to explain where the influence can be. I am very confident that we will have a constructive relationship with COSLA and, indeed, with bodies across the public sector in general.
I look forward to seeing that.
Let me take that point in a slightly different direction, if I may. Much of the written and oral evidence—indeed, this point was also made more than once in the parliamentary debate—argued that it would help if all Government departments were felt to have bought into the biodiversity strategy. Can the minister give us his reaction to that? Will steps be taken to try to bring that about?
Absolutely. I fully recognise that the environmental non-governmental organisations are looking for me—and, more generally, the Government—to champion biodiversity. In my bilaterals with fellow ministers, I see it as part of my responsibility to highlight examples of where investment in nature and biodiversity can have benefits to them.
An interesting point is that it was readily accepted that, as the Minister for Environment and Climate Change, I should be involved with the health inequalities working group that Michael Matheson chairs. That is because the importance of the environment is recognised by people such as the chief medical officer, Harry Burns. As I mentioned to Jayne Baxter, a community’s health and wellbeing can be directly linked to its access to, for example, forestry resources, the natural environment and investment in tree planting in and around towns. Such biodiversity can bring benefits not just to urban Scotland but to society more generally.
There are plenty of reasons to be positive about the importance of biodiversity being recognised. All ministers are equally bound by the Government’s objectives in the biodiversity strategy, as I constantly remind my colleagues.
Good morning, minister.
Regarding the objectives of the strategy, some non-governmental organisations have highlighted the potential conflict between the objective of sustainable economic growth, which the Scottish Government has made its primary purpose, and the objective of halting biodiversity loss. Although we might make strides in increasing resource efficiency and so maximise the benefits from the use of a given quantity of natural resources, some would argue—I hope that I am reflecting the argument correctly—that we cannot continue to grow into the future without increasing consumption of natural resources, one consequence of which is a continued loss of biodiversity.
Does the Government intend that the strategy that will come out of the current process will have a wider purpose than the 2004 strategy? Will the new strategy replace the 2004 strategy? Why did the Government choose the approach that has been adopted? As we all know as MSPs, there are often conflicts between objectives of public policy, such as between increasing the number of renewable energy developments and preserving the biodiversity of uplands. How can those demands be met simultaneously?
That is rather a lot of questions, but the questions are interrelated.
Indeed. Taking the last question first, I think that there is a recognition that there can be conflicts between, for example, farming interests and forestry developers. Indeed, we may end up with similar challenges and tensions between the Government’s expressed desire to restore peatlands and our internal target of achieving 10,000 hectares of tree planting per annum.
We are working with partners such as private land owners and land managers and, indeed, we have the ability through the national forest estate to do things directly. I am confident that we can achieve the correct balance and work with stakeholders to identify sites for forestry, for example, that do not present challenges that could prevent new entrants to farming and the maintenance of our livestock sector, which is obviously very important to Scotland. Although those challenges exist—I would be foolish not to recognise that—I think that they are all manageable.
Equally, there is a perceived tension between renewables development and forestry, where there are renewables projects on the national forest estate, but by developing appropriate procedures and planning to ensure compensatory planting elsewhere, we can overcome that. I recognise that there are challenges, but we are a mature country and mature Parliament and we can work our way through them.
On the balance between sustainable economic growth and biodiversity, I accept that some concern was expressed in consultation responses about terminology—the use of “sustainable economic growth” instead of “sustainable development”—and what that meant about the Government’s intent. As I said earlier to Jayne Baxter, although I am sure that all of us around the table recognise that biodiversity has intrinsic value, we have to couch the approach in the strategy in terms that all parts of the economy, whether altruistic or not, can buy into. We need to present arguments in a way that demonstrates to individuals, businesses and communities that investment in biodiversity has economic benefits, too, pretty much in the same way as, 20 years ago, we talked about the benefits of protecting habitats such as the Amazon rainforest and species in Africa for tourism development. We are getting a bit more nuanced, but we are trying to develop an ecosystem approach so that individuals and communities understand that biodiversity is not just about its intrinsic value; it generates jobs and supports local communities, as well.
Will the strategy replace the 2004 strategy?
We are trying to build on what was there and improve and update our understanding, as our knowledge of specific habitats and species issues is developing all the time. We are trying not to be too constraining with the document or have narrowly defined targets. It has been suggested that we should take that approach, but we are resisting taking that view so that the document can remain relevant.
For example, if we were very specific about pest threats that might affect our forest estate and had developed the document last May rather than this May, ash dieback might not have been specified. Ash dieback has become a major issue for Scotland, as we all know. Because the document is couched in terms that will let it continue to be relevant, I hope that over time it will maintain its currency.
We are building on our knowledge that was developed for the 2004 document, rather than scrapping every element of our understanding. The document is a refreshed document and I hope that it will be relevant for years to come.
I will follow up on the point about conflicts. Environmental impact assessments for developments such as wind farms look at the impact on flight patterns of birds and all those sorts of things. From the evidence that we have from NGOs and others, I would have thought that biodiversity is not hugely threatened by such developments because of the planning conditions that are applied to particular projects. Do you get the sense in the Government that biodiversity is one of the things that are less affected and that, indeed, landscape issues—what people see—are a far greater problem?
That is a fair point. Organisations whose core focus is biodiversity support the renewables sector. RSPB Scotland is a good example; it does not make a blanket rejection of every wind farm proposal—far from it. It is supportive of our society’s attempts to decarbonise electricity generation, because it recognises the importance of such an approach in preventing damage from climate change. Equally, it—and SNH as a statutory consultee and adviser to Government—has an input into proposals that might impact on particular sites to ensure that they are sensitively positioned and that we avoid difficulties with raptors and other bird populations. In general, however, you are right to say that renewables do not have nearly as big an impact on biodiversity as they might have in other areas.
The money for the Scotland rural development programme, which in the past has been the major funder of the many biodiversity schemes that are in place, comes from Europe. We have been waiting to hear what that budget will be; at the moment, the European Council has agreed to reduce funding slightly by 6 per cent from £89.9 billion to £84.9 billion, but I believe that the European Parliament is still unhappy with the budget and that there are still discussions to be had. I know that Ireland wants to get the budget sealed before the end of its presidency in June, but all the intelligence suggests that SRDP funding will not be in place for 1 January 2014 and that, in fact, it will not be in place until January 2015 at the earliest. Bearing in mind that we also have to meet the 2020 targets, I wonder whether the minister thinks that it will be possible to get a programme in place, when that might happen and when schemes might be open for applications.
Jim Hume is correct in his assessment of the situation. We are running the risk of having a transitional period in which there will be some uncertainty about the plans that we can put in place for a successor scheme to the SRDP. The Government is trying to develop contingency plans so that, over the period, we can cover the important agri-environment projects that are funded by the SRDP and ensure that if there is a delay in achieving a smooth transition to the new scheme—which seems likely at the moment—we have adequate plans in place. Obviously we might lose co-financing for forestry projects, but we are trying our absolute best to ensure that we minimise any drop in overall funding by looking at how we can profile our own spend to cover that period as best we can and ensure that we do not have the same drop-off in activity that we had at the previous transition. That will be very important.
With your consent, convener, I want to put on record a particular concern. The Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs and the Environment has made known his concerns about the emerging situation with the budget for successor pillar 2 schemes. Our reliance on voluntary modulation from pillar 1 to pillar 2 to maintain the current level of activity is a result of the influence of historic levels of activity on the previous SRDP budget and, looking forward, I think it likely that there will be a change in the way funding is allocated. It is possible that Scotland’s situation might improve slightly under the change methodology, but our use of voluntary modulation might be constrained by the overall common agricultural policy budget and its implications for Scotland.
We were disappointed that the UK was not one of the 16 countries that pushed very hard in the negotiations for additional funding as part of the deal that has been agreed by the European Council, because we might well miss out on hundreds of millions of pounds of additional agri-environment funding that might have come to Scotland had the UK Government taken a similar approach. Of course it is not too late for the UK Government to reflect on that and to ensure that Scotland receives an adequate share of any funding that might be allocated to the UK. Nevertheless, I am concerned that we face a very challenging situation with regard to funding agri-environment work.
I will not take the chance to remind members how members of Parliament voted on the European budget.
It is worth while noting that you have said that you are working on plans. When will your plans for the interim period that we are more than likely to face be available to the public?
12:00
We are looking at consulting in late summer on the SRDP and on what a scheme might look like. I am keen for that consultation to have as much input as possible from people who rely on agri-environment funding and who have at their heart biodiversity interests, so that we understand where they see the pressures. A formal consultation will take place, through which I hope that the committee and people outside Parliament can have a key role in influencing the SRDP’s design, so that we make the maximum possible use of funding to support our biodiversity objectives.
It is over to another member of the coalition—Alex Fergusson.
I assure you that I will not be asking any coalition questions here, convener. The minister mentioned forestry planting. Such planting by the private sector is important to meeting the overall target, which has been changed to 100,000 hectares over the next 10 years, although that is still an average of 10,000 hectares a year.
The private sector is dependent on agri-environment funding. Whatever the final amount might be, the level of that funding in 2014 is uncertain. Forestry schemes are not just dreamed up today and implemented tomorrow; some medium to long-term planning is involved. Is the minister in any position to say what impact the uncertainty about the funding level in 2014 is having on the likelihood of new forest plantations in 2014? He might not be in such a position, but I think that there is bound to be an impact.
I reassure the committee that we are aware of a good pipeline of projects that we can fund. The main impact is more likely to be on investor confidence, because of the nature of forestry planting. I am sure that, given his constituency interest, Mr Fergusson is well aware that those who plant forests must take very long-term decisions. That applies particularly in the commercial timber sector but, more generally, people look at time horizons of 30 or 40 years, rather than five or 10 years.
Having met Confor, the UK Forest Products Association and others—including conservation bodies such as the Woodland Trust and the Scottish Wildlife Trust that have an interest in forestry funding—we are aware of concerns about the impact of the shortfall in funding, but it is recognised that the issue is short term. The more fundamental point is to give reassurance of continued support from the Government for the sectors and recognise the balance of tree planting that is needed to support the commercial timber sector.
We have had such discussions to give confidence about the commitment to the target of 10,000 hectares per annum or at least the 10-year target. I have reaffirmed our commitment to that. RPP2 is out for consultation, but the Government has given a clear commitment to our forestry targets, which I have reiterated to the sector. It has welcomed the clear statement of the Government’s intent and the Government’s aim to work with industry on plant health issues, to ensure that the trees that we plant survive and that there is a healthy forest supply, for biodiversity and commercial timber interests.
I will broaden out the discussion to the SRDP again. In our RPP2 discussions, I asked the Forestry Commission whether nurseries have confidence and are planting seedlings, which are essential before planting out can take place. I did not get the sense that we knew that such planting would happen. It is important to reassure the private sector, which has two thirds of the forests, that seedlings will be available. The problem is that, for nursery people to plant seedlings, they must perceive a market to exist.
Absolutely, convener, and that has been raised with me in the context of discussions with Confor in particular. I am well aware that the short-term funding hit that there may well be in 2014 is probably of key importance to the nursery sector. That sector has other challenges that are posed by disease and pest issues and around knowing what to plant. We are trying to be as clear as we can be about what Government and Forestry Commission Scotland guidance there will be regarding which replacement tree species we anticipate being used to replace ash—or indeed to help to protect our investments from attacks by Dothistroma, phytophthora and other diseases.
There are a lot of uncertainties but, on the financial side, we are trying to ensure that we have as much work done as possible so that we have a plan B in the event that there is a gap in co-financing. I assure the committee that we are working hard on that to ensure that there is a minimal drop in the overall funding for forestry. We hope that that will give confidence to nurseries that there will be a continued stream of work in that period. There is also the tree health working group, which is looking at specific issues around the other threats that nurseries face.
Minister, are you concerned at all about the availability of SRDP funding for biodiversity, given the competing and increasing demands from so many other quarters for the financing of projects from that particular pot?
Absolutely. I was saying to Mr Hume earlier that a substantial amount of funding that is currently dedicated to agri-environment funding comes from the voluntary modulation of pillar 1 funding. We know that farming is also under increased pressure, so we have some concerns about the greening of the common agricultural policy having been watered down and the impact that that might have—both on funding for agri-environment work and on the overall level of funding that is available to us.
You are quite right, Mr Dey, to highlight the competing pressures that there are on Government in general. We do not have an abundance of riches, so we cannot find funds from elsewhere. There are real concerns about funding, but all that I can do is to assure the committee that I will be fulfilling my role, as anticipated by outside bodies, by banging the drum for biodiversity and by emphasising the ecosystem services approach and its value to society. I will be encouraging people to see the genuine economic value of investing in biodiversity—if there is a cost benefit analysis, the economic benefits are well understood.
In the past few years, there has been quite a reduction in the funding that the Scottish Government has been giving to the agri-environment—perhaps that was before your time as minister. Will you be fighting within the Cabinet and so on to ensure that that amount is not eroded any further—or perhaps even that it is increased?
We have had some correspondence in the local papers with Mr Lamont on the SRDP. The overall level of SRDP funding per annum has gone down, but we are reaching the end of the current funding scheme. The level of demand is pretty consistent and about 85 per cent of applicants are having their applications approved in the region that Mr Hume and I represent. That is consistent with previous years; in fact, a slightly higher proportion of applications are being approved this year than last year.
There has been a tailing off of funding as we come towards the end of the period, but that also reflects the fact that the Government decided to bring forward funding to assist the agricultural sector and the rural economy at a time when the downturn occurred in the UK economy. There is a mixture of reasons for the downturn, but I hope that there will not be a similar one in the next SRDP period.
Heaven forfend—a nearly good news story.
The 2020 challenge document suggested that biodiversity policies might perhaps be implemented at river catchment level, which would make for an interesting map of Scotland—one that I have never seen—because of course every square metre is in some river catchment area.
Is it intended to work on that and to have plans for each river catchment area? If there are plans, who will do the work, who will pay for it and how soon are we likely to see the plans?
Those are excellent questions—I may have to rely on my colleagues to deal with some aspects of them.
You are right—we are trying to look at the integration of such things as the biodiversity strategy, the land use strategy and, indeed, river catchment management plans. Those documents are important. I am sure that Mr Hume and Claudia Beamish will be familiar with the Tweed catchment area, where a lot of work has been done at a local level on invasive non-native species, and excellent work is being done on the water framework directive and, generally speaking, on issues to do with wild fisheries. A comprehensive view is being taken of the health of that river catchment, and there is good reason to be confident that there are significant improvements in the quality of the river catchment plan.
I do not think that I have seen a map with all the river catchments on it, but I would be interested in seeing that. That is a good point, which I will perhaps address to the officials after the meeting. I know about the good work that is happening. Taking a comprehensive view of the health of a river catchment is constructive and has a certain logic.
Keith Connal might be able to pick up that issue.
Keith Connal (Scottish Government)
I remind the committee of an announcement that the minister made a couple of weeks ago about two land use strategy regional framework pilots in the Borders and Aberdeenshire. They will be supported with Government money and will start in April. I am happy to provide further details on them to the committee.
Fine. Thank you for that.
How will the value of ecosystem services be accounted for in planning decisions?
That is also a good question. I am getting a run of good questions.
As our understanding develops of how aspects of Scotland’s wildlife and environment contribute to sectors such as tourism and food and drink production—those are classic examples—we can see clear links. There are direct links between the environment and what we produce as a country and I am increasingly aware that the aquaculture sector relies on Scotland’s pristine environment, as it is perceived internationally, as a selling point for charging a premium price for quality products. The cabinet secretary is also aware of that with regard to the whisky and other sectors.
Obviously, we have gone into issues that relate to the health of the meat supply in recent weeks, but Scotland has invested to build a reputation on farm-assured meat products. The recognition that the environment has a critical role in attracting investment to Scotland and custom through our export industries is a similar issue.
Our developing knowledge will, for example, strengthen the arguments that local authorities present when they question the legitimacy of planning applications. It will also help planning applicants who are doing something to enhance biodiversity to express how that will enhance the economy. That area of our knowledge is emerging.
It is clear that the natural capital asset index is leading the way in Scotland in developing a way of measuring the health of our natural environment. There is a lot more that we could do, but we are some way further down the line than other countries in that respect.
Will you engage the planning minister in this work at an early stage so that it becomes a key feature of planning policy?
Obviously, there is an on-going consultation on national planning framework 3. Ministers are getting representations on specific aspects of planning policy that people want to be retained because they are seen as an asset or that people want to be enhanced if they think that there are weaknesses to be addressed. For example, the Woodland Trust is keen to see the protection of ancient woodlands. That is in the NPF2 document and they want to ensure that it is retained in NPF3.
Earlier, we discussed with Jayne Baxter the biodiversity duty that planning authorities would be expected to uphold. I will look to see that they take that on board in their activities and in how they interact with economic development interests and planning issues. I hope to see that reflected in NPF3 as well.
It would be quite a cultural step change if developers respected decisions when, for example, their planning applications were turned down because of the development’s impact on ecosystem services. How can you make the process of regulation and the promotion of ecosystem services robust?
12:15
Charles Stewart Roper will say something on that subject in a moment.
During the biodiversity debate, Nigel Don and others raised the issue of how realistic it is to expect that, when a development is happening in one area, you can immediately replicate elsewhere an ecosystem that has developed over hundreds or thousands of years, if not longer. We need to be sensible about that when we consider the impact of a development on a location. If it is a case of cutting down some conifers in an environment that is not particularly rich in biodiversity, that is not a great issue, but, clearly, a different set of calculations and considerations come into play if the development involves an ancient woodland.
Charles Stewart Roper (Scottish Government)
In the planning system, strategic environmental assessments and environmental impact assessments already take account of many aspects of ecosystem services such as water quality. As knowledge of the value and function of particular ecosystem services broadens, I am sure that more will be brought into those formal systems.
The other point that I would make is that the issue is not always about protection. In many cases, it will be about enhancing the value of the natural capital through our planning decisions.
That is helpful.
I will ask three questions in one. What priority will be given by the Government to trying to engage people with nature, not least of all for its health benefits? How will you seek to increase the understanding of biodiversity through education? Do you agree that using the word biodiversity—it is suggested that up to 75 per cent of the public do not understand its meaning—is perhaps hindering the process of raising awareness and understanding and that deploying the phrase, “the balance of nature”, which our colleague Alex Fergusson used in the recent debate, might be more helpful?
You raise a number of important points.
I know that Deborah Long gave evidence to you on engagement. We generally believe that the public are reasonably well engaged, socially and culturally, but there is perhaps more that we could do on education about biodiversity. We have some good initiatives, such as eco-schools and forest schools, which are positive things. Good work is done with primary schools, and there is generally good engagement at that level. The first event that I attended as minister was a bioblitz in Vogrie country park in Midlothian, which involved children from Tynewater primary school monitoring the health of ponds in the area. However, I know from my discussions with the Scottish Wildlife Trust and others that there is a tail-off in interest among secondary school pupils. I have had bilateral discussions with Michael Russell, the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning, about what we can do through the curriculum for excellence to enhance the environmental aspects of the curriculum throughout all subjects. There are clearly areas in which environmental examples could be used to demonstrate mathematical techniques and so forth. We could do more to engage pupils in that way.
You are right to raise concerns about people’s understanding of the term biodiversity. It is fair enough to talk about a biodiversity strategy, because that is being pitched to local authorities, the national health service, government departments and other stakeholders. Ecosystem services is an ugly term, if ever there was one, but it is an important one. We use that kind of jargon when we are talking to ourselves, but we need to relay these messages to people in terms that they can understand. That is why the use of terms such as “nature”, “wildlife” and “environment” is good, as people can understand them, while they might struggle to understand what we mean by “biodiversity”.
I understand that Scottish biodiversity week has been rebranded as the festival of nature this year. That is a good example of a change in approach. Similarly, the new app that is designed to promote key species in Scotland, which the cabinet secretary recently launched, is called Scotland’s Nature, not “Scotland’s Species” or “Scotland’s Biodiversity”. It is pitched at a level that makes it suitable for use by children in schools and by adults. Finding terminology that people understand and buy into is crucial.
I have a question about the establishment of an ecological network. That fits quite well with the previous questions because it is a spatial planning issue. The 2020 challenge document states:
“Protected places will lie at the heart of a national ecological network, delivering multiple benefits to the people of Scotland.”
You will, of course, be aware of the central Scotland green network, which has been in development for a number of years. How does the Scottish Government intend to create a national ecological network? One purpose of the network will be to deliver connectivity between protected areas, and it is important as a species support response in relation to climate change. Will the biodiversity strategy help with that? Will the network be part of NPF3?
On the latter point, the SWT and RSPB Scotland have made a pitch to me and Mr Mackay on the inclusion of a national ecological network in the NPF3.
The biodiversity strategy sets out the benefits of a well-connected and resilient environment. That is an important principle and it is fundamental to the ecosystems approach that we are taking and to improving ecosystem health.
To date, we have seen 240 national development proposals for NPF3, including the establishment of a national ecological network. The main issues report is due to be published for public consultation in March. It will identify those proposed national developments that are considered to support preferred strategy and options around that strategy. It is anticipated that the proposed NPF3 will be laid before the Parliament for consideration in the autumn. Officials have held a briefing session for members of the Scottish Parliament on the preparation of NPF3.
I apologise if I seem to be obstructive in answering that part of the question, but I would not want to prejudge another minister’s consultation. We will make representations on connections to the biodiversity strategy and the land use strategy and the importance of the initiatives that would perhaps be part of a national ecological network, such as the central Scotland green network. That network has been a real success. I am looking forward to learning more about what it is doing on the ground, but I gather that is a good example of successful investment in a national project.
However, I would not want to prejudge what my ministerial colleagues with responsibility for local government are considering.
Looking forward, how will an ecological network in Scotland join up with networks in other UK countries and neighbouring countries? That is obviously a difficult question at this stage, but are any discussions taking place about how that might happen on a broader level?
The British-Irish Council environment ministers’ meetings provide a good opportunity to discuss issues. In fact, the first one that I attended was all about biodiversity. Also, the Joint Nature Conservation Committee plays a particularly important role in looking at the health of the UK’s biodiversity and, indeed, interaction with Ireland as well.
We have to be careful about connectivity. There are cases in which it is a good thing, but it can be a negative as well. For example, in the south of Scotland, we are looking at protecting our diminishing red squirrel population. I believe that I will be meeting the member to discuss that. If we connect up too well to networks south of the border, we could spread grey squirrels into areas that have remaining red squirrel populations. We have to take a sensitive approach that takes account of the various pressures that exist.
As a general approach, however, I am certainly sympathetic to looking at ways in which we can improve the ability of wildlife to expand its range and repopulate areas that have lost biodiversity and habitats.
I will talk a bit about the restoration of degraded ecosystems, but I am also conscious that, next week, we will deal with RPP2 and I want to try to avoid discussing deep peat or raised bogs just now, because we may repeat ourselves.
There you are—I got it in: the P word.
We are talking about including in the ecosystems resilience strategies restoration of at least 15 per cent of degraded ecosystems. Leaving aside the P word, are there any other degraded systems that you expect us to be able to deal with?
Indeed, convener. I will do my best to avoid using the P word.
We are looking to restore coastal dune and heathland areas, particularly where 20th century forestry planting is threatened by rising sea levels and inhibits natural coastal protection.
When I was in the Western Isles last week, I heard about issues to do with protecting the machair. A good example is a golf course in South Uist allowing the machair to recolonise part of the beach to strengthen the natural sea defences.
We are also looking at trying to eradicate most invasive non-native vascular plants from all protected areas. That is a way of enhancing and improving the quality of our ecosystems where they are threatened by invasive plant species. The Tweed is an example of that approach. There has been a lot of good work there to eliminate knotweed and various other invasive plants.
Supporting such initiatives to enhance the natural environment is an important step that we can take.
I think that I avoided the P word.
Yes, we will come back to that.
Minister, you just touched on non-native invasive species. As we know, the EU has been actively engaged in addressing invasive species. I am sure that we have all had to deal with issues in our constituencies regarding Japanese knotweed and Himalayan balsam to name just two.
How is the Government engaging with the EU institutions on the forthcoming legislative proposals and how will they help to deal with invasive species?
I will ask Charles Stewart Roper to come in on the EU issue. I will not place him in a difficult position, but I will ask my colleagues about engagement.
We are grateful for the opportunity for Scotland to attend the environment council—not in our own right, obviously, but to support the UK delegation. The council is considering improving the water environment. To pick up on Mr Don’s point about river catchment health, the presence of invasive plants in our river catchments is a key issue.
We have a code of practice on non-native species. SNH and the Scottish Environment Protection Agency are taking lead roles in delivering on that. The Forestry Commission obviously has a role on that in forestry, as does Marine Scotland in the marine environment. All agencies are working together on the code and they have interactions with their European counterparts and the Council of the European Union.
It might be more appropriate for Keith Connal to comment.
We are engaging with European officials. They have been keen to hear about the approach that Scotland has adopted. We are not only contributing to their ideas from scratch, but they are looking to what we have done.
Minister, do you know offhand whether any of the public bodies has recently used the powers that they were given under the Wildlife and Natural Environment (Scotland) Act 2011 to deal with anyone who has introduced non-native species into the country?
I am not aware of any prosecutions of people for bringing in non-native species. Early work has been done on protecting freshwater mussels and there have been some recent prosecutions on that. We are working with sectors that have interests in ponds and fish species on restrictions on plants that can be brought in, and those working in the horticulture industry are under obligation to avoid bringing in invasive non-native species. At the UK level, decisive action has been taken to protect the forestry sector from the threat of Chalara fraxinea, which is not an invasive non-native species but a tree pest. We are working with our UK counterparts to minimise the risk of such species and tree and other plant pests coming in and posing a threat to Scotland.
12:30
A number of tree diseases in particular have come in during the past decade, despite increasing awareness of the dangers of bringing in different species. I am mindful that I have mentioned the subject of the problem that my constituency has with North American signal crayfish more often than is good for my health, and it is occurring increasingly throughout Scotland. Given all the problems that have come in in the past, and the fact that their incidence does not appear to be lessening, to what extent does the minister feel that we are fighting a losing battle? I am not suggesting that we should give up that battle, but I wonder about the extent to which the actions that he proposes to take can put an end to our problems.
Our priority follows European good practice. The first step is to prevent new introductions where we can. Accidental releases can occur of captive species into the wild. We then consider eradication or long-term management, depending on the situation that we are faced with.
When it comes to species such as the North American signal crayfish, we do risk assessments to help to inform the consideration of a ban on the sale of crayfish, and I know that that is a subject of interest to Mr Fergusson. We also look at making decisions on doing control work where any new populations are found. For example, crayfish have been eradicated from ponds in the Ballachulish area. We have to take account of what is practically possible.
The same thing applies to tree pests. We might just have to live with the fact they are here now and work with the industries that are affected by them to ensure that we minimise the potential economic damage and damage to habitats. It is important to work with the industry in each case and, in the case of crayfish, to work with the fisheries on managing the situation at the local level when it is possible to do so.
Ideally, when the non-native species is already here, we must prevent it from spreading. With ash dieback, for example, we initially hoped that we could prevent its spread in Scotland but that is simply not possible and we recognise that. We have to manage the process and give ourselves time to develop alternative strains or a viable ash tree that is resilient to such disease.
We have to take a sophisticated, nuanced approach that depends on the particular threat that we face, and we have to assess the risk that it poses.
We turn to the marine environment.
Minister, you have already talked about coastal dunes. During the consultation on the 2020 strategy, some consultees highlighted the importance of the links between land and marine issues in relation to biodiversity. Do you have any specific comments on the protection—perhaps I should say the better protection—of internationally important seabird species?
Also, as on land, our marine environment faces increasing demands and sometimes conflicts. You will know that the committee has been looking at aquaculture and how fisheries and other demands can be balanced with the development and enhancement of biodiversity.
That is an important point. Scotland has a tremendous opportunity to use its marine environment for the generation of renewable energy, but with that comes responsibility to ensure that that happens in a way that minimises the damage to our precious marine environment. In our discussion with the deputy director of the environment directorate-general in Brussels, we discussed the pressures that we face from the habitats directive in relation to the development of our renewables industry and aquaculture and other development pressures. The habitats directive is important to the Commission and to us, but it should be seen not as a barrier to growth or economic development, but more as a framework within which we consider the impacts of proposals and projects that come forward and mitigate their impacts as best we can.
There are occasions when a development is of overriding public interest. I am not aware of that approach having been exploited in Scotland to date to any great degree. For the most part, we are confident that developments in the marine renewables sector and development of harbours for the manufacturing and installation of equipment can be done in a way that is sympathetic to the habitats directive and the impact on seabirds, harbour seals and other key species that we seek to protect. The habitats directive is sometimes seen in the outside world as an ultimate ban on any economic aspirations that communities might have, but my interpretation is that it is more about ensuring that habitats and the environment are respected and that we work around those concerns to ensure that development is in sympathy with the environment and not to its detriment.
It is important that we protect seabirds. To give a couple of examples, we are working to protect black guillemots and sand eels, which are a key food source for many seabird species such as puffins. I am sure that it will please Claire Baker, who I think is a species champion for puffins, that in our consultation on marine protected areas, we are proposing to protect areas that are important for sand eels. It is difficult to define an area that can be defended scientifically as the key territory for migratory species. That is a challenge in the design of MPAs and in defending species scientifically. However, we are confident that, by protecting the food source for seabirds, we can assist in protecting those species.
I hope that that helps to answer your question in part—forgive me if I have missed anything.
It goes a long way towards answering it. Thank you.
Does Alex Fergusson want to come in?
I am happy to, if I may. I am always happy to come in, convener.
I just thought that you might want to comment.
I would not mind asking a little follow-up question, because I mentioned the issue in the debate in Parliament. I asked, more or less, what the point is of protecting where birds breed if we do not protect where they feed. A lot of the evidence to us has suggested that not enough action is being taken to protect feeding areas for birds. I ask the minister to expand a little on that.
One of the proposed marine protected areas that we will put to consultation is a protected area for sand eels. We recognise the importance of that species as a key food source for many of our seabird species. You are right that it is important to protect the feeding sources for seabirds as part of their habitat. We are taking a habitat approach as part of our ecosystem approach more generally to protecting biodiversity. Clearly, food is an important aspect of that. However, there are limits to what we can do. If we wanted to protect a more mobile species that was prey on which birds depended, it would be difficult to define the relevant area. Obviously, fish move over a huge range, but we know that certain areas have concentrations of sand eels, and it is easier to define such areas, which we can protect, to achieve the objective. However, more generally, it is difficult to protect, say, cod in a particular area, otherwise we would probably be in a much happier place in understanding how to protect our key fish stocks.
The EU has a very specific seed list but, as far as biodiversity is concerned, we have been urged to minimise genetic erosion and safeguard the genetic diversity of farmed plants and farm animals. How does the Government plan to put such safeguards in place?
The Government’s strongly held view is that genetic modification in agriculture and food production should be avoided in Scotland. Although in signing off a number of vaccine developments to deal with diseases I have occasionally had to allow some GM, I want to protect our food supply, which is perceived internationally as a premium quality product because it is natural and free of such issues. Scotland’s diverse range of plants is sustaining our biodiversity.
Of course, the issue also links into the health of our bee populations, which are very important in an agricultural system that is not GM focused and which relies on pollination to encourage a naturally evolving agri-environment—if I may put it in those terms. As a result, we need to take an integrated approach to the health of those ecosystems and, from a perception and quality point of view, recognise the importance of keeping Scottish produce GM-free at this stage.
Table 2 on page 70 of the document refers to a “Proposed UK ... indicator” on
“Genetic resources for food and agriculture”
and mentions two existing indicators relating to the “Effective population size” of sheep and cattle. Obviously maintaining those indicators was important to genetic variety and I had hoped that the biodiversity strategy, in particular, would have looked at the issue.
The foot-and-mouth crisis devastated many historical and ancient breeds of cattle and sheep in Scotland but we need genetic diversity to ensure a resilient agricultural production system and livestock sector. Our bovine and sheep livestock faces many disease threats, and genetic diversity protects such species from being wiped out by one disease. After all, if we had a genetically homogeneous sheep population, one disease could threaten the national flock. We have to take such matters into account and are doing what we can by, for example, giving crofters access to good-quality bulls so that they can propagate good-quality and resilient stock and investing in research into livestock genetics at Easter Bush in Midlothian. We are certainly taking steps to ensure that we understand the importance of genetics in agricultural production.
In fact, I visited a Scotland’s future farmer winner in Drinkstone near Hawick—Claudia Beamish might be familiar with it—who is looking at the health of the progeny and productivity of his stock and seeking to enhance its estimated breeding value. Instead of being pretty, those sheep are healthy and robust and should, in theory, contribute to lowering climate change emissions.
We might well come back to what is a big area—it looks like it might be opening up.
You mentioned bees, minister, and I believe that Richard Lyle has a question on that matter.
Minister, you have referred to bees, and I want to ask you about the plight of the bumblebee. Representations have been made to the committee about examining the use of neo-neonicotinoids.
The European Commission is considering suspending the use of three such pesticides on any agricultural crops that attract bees. Specifically, the measure would prohibit the sale and use of clothianidin, thiamethoxam and imidacloprid on crops attractive to bees, including sunflower, rapeseed and corn. It would similarly prohibit the sale and use of seeds treated with the three pesticides, although exceptions would include crops and seeds that do not attract bees.
What is the Scottish Government’s position on the European Commission’s proposal to ban the use of neonicotinoids on certain crops? When will the Government receive the advice of the Advisory Committee on Pesticides? What are the implications of the ban for Scottish farmers? Perhaps most important, what are the implications for the poor humble bee?
12:45
I am not sure whether Mr Lyle is a champion for bees, but he has done a very good job there. I was aware that the issue might come up, so I have a line, which I hope will help.
Scottish ministers currently have legal powers to withdraw or amend an existing pesticide authorisation in Scotland. However, enforcing a ban on the use of neonicotinoids—I had to practise that word for a while—in Scotland would be problematic. Any enforcement would need to cover both the sale of neonicotinoids for professional and amateur use as well as the import of seeds treated with neonicotinoids. Thus, even if we banned the deployment of neonicotinoids, seeds containing or contaminated with neonicotinoids could still come into the country.
We are awaiting advice from the Advisory Committee on Pesticides on the European Food Safety Authority’s review of neonicotinoids. We are also waiting to hear the Commission’s final proposals for restrictions on their use, which are likely to be voted on by member states at the standing committee meeting on 25 February. Obviously, our position will need to reflect what judgment is taken by member states on 25 February. Whatever happens, we need to take a balanced and proportionate approach to any restrictions so that we meet farmers’ needs while safeguarding the environment.
The Government takes very seriously the issue of bee health, for the reasons that I outlined to the convener; indeed, we have a bee health strategy. We will need to look at the issue in the context of the Government’s objectives for supporting our important bee populations while taking into account what European ministers decide on 25 February.
I am happy to write back to the committee once we receive that decision so that I can then give a definitive view on how we will take matters forward.
Does the minister agree that we will need to be able to measure as accurately as is feasible the progress of the biodiversity strategy? If so, what indicators can we anticipate being put in place to aid that process, and within what timescale? In the minister’s view, how often would it be useful for updates on progress to be made available?
I am aware that Hanzala Malik asked in the debate whether we could produce data at six-monthly intervals. Although I can understand the desire to have regular updates, that would mean that we would face having to dedicate a lot of our resources to monitoring populations of species throughout the year.
More regular updates would also present us with very practical difficulties. For example, one hears the phrase “One swallow does not make a summer” for the very real reason that swallows are migratory birds, which come here for only part of the year. If we looked at statistics from only one part of the year and suddenly discovered that there were no swallows in Scotland, we might have a panic. We need to take a practical view on what is deliverable within our resources, which are constrained at the current time. I will look to what we can do. Taking a longer-term view about the monitoring of numbers, with annual updates where relevant, is probably the right way to go.
We also have opportunities to build up across Scotland the strength of citizen science networks, whereby people contribute to the RSPB bird surveys or to the bioblitz work that I outlined earlier. The raptor monitoring group also plays an important role in helping us to understand what is happening to our key raptor species. Given that we have a lot of good work going on out there, we need to work with those partners to ensure that we have as much good-quality, useable data as possible coming in.
I am keen to pick up on the important point about the need for us to be able to understand what the monitoring is telling us about where we are going in terms of achieving the aims of our strategy. Certainly, I am committed to continuing to work with ministerial colleagues on championing biodiversity to ensure that we get those messages out, especially where challenges arise and where we see things going in the wrong direction. We have established a delivery agreement with our partners that sets out roles and responsibilities in drawing up a set of performance indicators. Obviously, the strategy itself will be quite high level, as I said, but we can identify indicators in partnership with the different agencies on the Scottish biodiversity committee.
We are also proposing to set up a biodiversity monitoring committee, which will sit below the biodiversity committee and will inform our technical understanding of what we can do and what the monitoring is telling us over time. We can also build on measures such as the natural capital asset index, which may not be perfect yet but is a big step forward. Work is on-going to revise and improve on the methodology of the index as we go forward.
We hope that initiatives such as the citizen science networks, the biodiversity committee—on which many of those organisations are represented through Scottish Environment LINK—and the biodiversity monitoring committee, along with tools such as the natural capital asset index, will all work together to help us to understand where we are going.
I thank the minister and his team for the evidence that they have given. We will also write to the minister. We have reached the end of this episode, but I suspect that, because the Parliament is taking the subject seriously, we will find many more ways in which we can interrogate the Government’s actions in future.
At our next meeting, on Wednesday 27 February, we will again take evidence from Paul Wheelhouse but on RPP2.
Meeting closed at 12:51.