Official Report 628KB pdf
Good morning and welcome to the Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee’s 12th meeting in 2015. I remind everyone that their mobile phones should be switched to silent at least, as they can affect the broadcasting system, and that some committee members will use tablets to access the committee papers in digital format.
We have apologies from Graeme Dey and we welcome Christian Allard in his place.
Agenda item 1 concerns the Scottish Government’s biodiversity strategy. We will take evidence from the Minister for Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform and her officials. I welcome the minister, Aileen McLeod, and those who are with her: Keith Connal, the deputy director of natural resources at the Scottish Government; Sally Thomas, the land use and biodiversity team leader at the Scottish Government; and Professor Des Thompson, the principal adviser on biodiversity to Scottish Natural Heritage.
Do you wish to make opening remarks, minister?
I do, convener. I thank you for the invitation to discuss Scotland’s biodiversity and for the opportunity to make brief opening remarks. I welcome the committee’s continuing interest in Scotland’s biodiversity, which everyone acknowledges presents opportunities and challenges.
Since the committee last met to consider the subject, we have published the “2020 Challenge for Scotland’s Biodiversity”, which updates and complements Scotland’s biodiversity strategy, published in 2004. We are close to publishing “Scotland’s Biodiversity—a Route Map to 2020”. I am delighted to have been able to share with the committee a final pre-publication draft of the route map, on which I would be extremely happy to receive the committee’s thoughts prior to its publication next month. As you know, convener, I am always keen to hear the committee’s views and have its input, especially on such an issue, given its expertise and knowledge.
The route map sets out six big steps for nature and a number of priority collaborative projects that the Scottish Government and a wide range of partners are undertaking to improve the state of nature in Scotland and help towards meeting the Aichi goals and targets. The six big steps cover issues such as ecosystem restoration, wildlife conservation and the provision of quality green space for health and education.
The route map also recognises the importance of a range of biodiversity-related work that is focused on particular places and areas and which entails working collaboratively at a landscape scale and involving public agencies, local authorities, non-governmental organisations and others. I am aware that the committee heard something about the opportunities of such work at the round-table evidence-taking session with stakeholders and Scottish Government delivery bodies last week.
I acknowledge the substantial contribution of Scottish Natural Heritage as lead author of the route map and thank the many organisations that have been involved in its preparation—in particular, those that are represented on the delivery and monitoring group, which reports to the Scottish biodiversity committee, which I chair.
As we all know, biodiversity is a key component to our lives. It underpins our health and wellbeing and contributes significantly to our prosperity. That was set out in the “2020 Challenge for Scotland’s Biodiversity” and in the Scottish Government’s latest economic strategy, which highlighted that
“Protecting and enhancing”
our
“stock of natural capital … is fundamental to a healthy and resilient economy”
and
“supports sectors such as agriculture, forestry, fisheries, tourism and renewables.”
I am delighted to appear before the committee and I look forward to answering your questions.
Thank you. It is important for us to get a fix on where the route map hopes to take us by 2020. Do you have a concise vision of what Scotland’s biodiversity should look like in 2020?
By 2020, I want the importance of biodiversity to be widely appreciated for its own sake and because it underpins our economy and wellbeing. We need to focus on delivery. That is why the biodiversity route map has a strong emphasis on the practical work that is delivering benefits on the ground. We have the governance arrangements as well, which support all that work and are equally important. They include the delivery and monitoring group, whose role is to drive forward our delivery and to report to the Scottish biodiversity committee, which I chair.
I am glad that you mentioned delivery rather than process. I am sure that members will ask questions on the detail in the route map. At the moment, the question is whether it is likely to inspire people as a vision. It is highly detailed, and you are dealing with a diverse audience. It strikes me that the people who are already active in dealing with biodiversity are not just those in large organisations but a welter of people at all levels across civil society and government. Will the route map inspire people as a vision that allows them to feel, “Yes, we have something that we can achieve,” and “Yes, by 2020 we will have achieved it”?
I think that it will. We have the biodiversity strategy and the route map, and we cannot see either in isolation. Our 2020 challenge also adopts an ecosystems approach, which focuses on the need to protect our ecosystems in order to support our nature, wellbeing and a thriving economy.
The route map draws an excellent picture of the contribution that I set out of big steps and priority projects that are being taken forward on a partnership or collaborative basis and of what they will do towards meeting the 2020 targets. The route map is not intended to revisit the 2020 challenge, but the introduction in it seeks to capture the sense of ambition and our commitment to working with partners to improve the state of nature in Scotland.
I will build on the point that the convener raised. There is an issue with the detail of the plan. It is extraordinarily detailed, and a lot in it builds on a great deal of work that has gone before. That may be a problem as well as an advantage. There are many trees in this wood, but seeing the way through the wood could be an issue, particularly for what might be called the Twitter generation. Those people have a limited attention span and want to find one thing to do that will make a difference, but that is not in there. They would have to spend an enormous amount of time looking at the detail and would have to know rather a lot about it.
That point does not devalue the plan, but it asks where the plan fits into a wider strategy of getting across the simple message that biodiversity is extremely important for the future of not just Scotland but the planet and of letting people know how they can do things themselves to secure biodiversity—and not just by voting for the right people, supporting the right policies or volunteering for a variety of environmental agencies. How can you emphasise that to the people who will never read the plan?
The key to that question is that the route map sets out clearly the six big steps for nature. It is very clear about the 12 priority collaborative projects that we are taking forward. There is a lot in it about the good work that we are doing on peatland restoration and the conservation of species, for example.
We have made it clear that the route map is an initial document and that more versions will follow, in which we will write in more detail about the pressures on biodiversity, what further action is needed to address them—notably in relation to land use change and pollution—and further refinement of the indicators that are being developed, so that we can be more precise about what is changing and why. There will also be more detail on who is leading the work, which is shared across our agencies, non-governmental organisations and estates. The route map is primarily for our agencies and NGOs, which are working collaboratively with their partners to deliver it.
What about the people who want less detail rather than more detail—who just want to be told one thing or inspired to do something? Where does that fit into the plan?
09:45
That is a good question. If we had distilled this into one thing, I think that we would have been criticised for omitting many aspects. I say as an aside that one of our NGO partners commented that the document was perhaps overly thorough, so how do we take that—is it damning with faint praise?
The document is intentionally thorough; it is structured in a way that we think is understandable to those we work with. We do not really make any apology for the fact that it is quite detailed and thorough. I will not attempt to identify the single word that would inspire people.
I am not asking anybody to apologise for the document, which I think is very good. I am slightly resistant to documents having three or four colours on every page, but I am just raising the question—I understand your concern about it. The issue needs to be part of the strategy, and I think that the committee would want to know that the strategy includes that type of direct and simple approach—a greener Scotland approach to biodiversity that draws people in to do things. The agencies are paid to do such things; they are full of enthusiasts. It is that simple point that I am looking for.
In the structures that the minister referred to, there is a communications group that is looking at how best to communicate simple messages. One example that it is looking at is about drawing attention to the relevance of a healthy environment to people’s wellbeing and to the health agenda. In that sort of area, there are often simple messages that resonate with people.
There have been one or two criticisms from stakeholders about the extent to which the route map has a strategic vision—that picks up on the point that Mike Russell just made—and the extent to which people will buy into what is in it, if they do not see themselves as the people who will implement it.
We had representations that land managers do not see the relevance to their day-to-day work spelled out. We also heard the criticism that the route map does not add value to what is already being done—it lists what is being done but adds nothing new. Will you respond to those criticisms about the route map not necessarily leading to any new action when one of the key things that came out in last week’s evidence was that we are failing to meet our targets, so everything needs to be stepped up?
The vision is set out in the strategy and in “2020 Challenge for Scotland’s Biodiversity”. The route map primarily sets out the detail of how we will deliver that vision—it is about what is deliverable on the ground and is still ambitious.
I know that there have been concerns that the route map shows a lack of strategic thinking. We do not accept that. The 2020 challenge sets out the strategic challenge, and it has been widely praised. The route map sets out some of the work that is under way or planned to meet the 2020 challenge. For example, the wildlife estates Scotland initiative, which is in the route map, adds value and shows where there is hard evidence as well.
I am quoting back to you the comments that we received about the route map from key stakeholders. One of the clear comments from Scottish Land & Estates was that it did not feel that land managers appeared to be
“at the very heart of the Route Map or Strategy. There is reference to using policy tools and developing initiatives that will influence land managers, but this is not the same as putting land managers at the heart of the strategy”.
There is that comment from land managers, and another point that came out last week was about the impact on farming and the extent to which a farmer will be obliged or feel willing to implement what is in the route map. That is about the connection between aspiration and delivery on the ground.
Land managers are, along with others, at the heart of the route map, and they will deliver eight of the priority projects in it, along with some of the health ones.
Throughout the route map, reference is made to a welter of activities that are on-going or planned. Priority project 11, which concerns sustainable land management, involves considerable ambition and joint working with the farming and land management community. The minister mentioned the wildlife estates initiative, which is an ambitious project to improve and widen the benefits of certain forms of land management.
Are we just too early in the process? People clearly do not see themselves as being at the heart of the document, even though that is your intention. How will you turn that round?
As I said, we are doing a number of things on sustainable land management. The document mentions the ecological focus areas and the common agricultural policy greening requirement, as well as increased protection for our hedgerows and watercourses. There is the wildlife estates Scotland initiative, which is all about encouraging best practice. We also have demonstration farms, including the LEAF—Linking Environment and Farming—farms and climate change focus farms. There is a lot of detail in the route map on the on-going work.
We have also set out the planned work. For example, we are doing a lot of work to provide support for landscape-scale agri-environment management under the new Scotland rural development programme environmental co-operation action fund, and we are promoting agri-environment and sustainable farming practices through the SRDP farm advisory service and the Scottish rural network.
My other point was about new projects. There has been criticism that much of the route map is about existing projects. Given the gap in meeting our targets, we need to have new projects that will make a difference.
There is considerable ambition on new projects. To see that, we need only look at what is going on in relation to habitats and species. The species that are mentioned include curlew, corn bunting and some bee species, as well as raptors such as hen harriers and golden eagles. We have a project to reinforce the golden eagle population in the south of Scotland, where there are only two to four nesting pairs at present but where we could have 14 to 16 pairs. We have a terrific partnership in place that involves RSPB Scotland, Scottish Land & Estates, the Game and Wildlife Conservation Trust, Scottish Natural Heritage and other bodies. They are willing the reinforcement of that population. To me, that is ambitious. A lot of work is going on behind the scenes to ensure that habitat and other conditions are in place. There are many other examples.
Perhaps the issue comes back to the point that Mr Russell made about communicating the ambition. We have put a lot of effort into producing the route map, which outlines many projects. Perhaps when it is published, that will be the time to develop the communication plan, as the minister outlined.
I will go back to a point that Sarah Boyack made. We are certainly keen to encourage partners that want to be involved in the wildlife estates initiative. Scottish Land & Estates sits on the Scottish biodiversity committee and is going to produce an annual report on wildlife estates Scotland. We very much look forward to seeing that and finding out about the work that it has been involved in.
We have two supplementaries, from Alex Fergusson and Claudia Beamish.
This part of the discussion is incredibly important because, if the aims of the strategy, plan or route map, or whatever we want to call it, are to be achieved, we need buy-in from not just the various agencies and partners that are involved but the people of Scotland—frankly, from the man in the street. At last week’s meeting, I highlighted an email that I received from an individual who had been at an environmental conference one day and at a farming seminar the next day. He described it as like being in two parallel universes, because of the language that was being used. I am glad that Professor Thompson mentioned communication, because that is terribly important. If I may say so, I think that we have become too highfalutin about all of this. The phraseology and terminology that are used are incredibly complex and complicated.
When we discussed this in 2013, I suggested that we stop talking about biodiversity and start talking about the balance of nature. People understand the balance of nature; they do not necessarily understand a strategic plan for biodiversity with a route map to 2020. I wonder whether you would acknowledge that to communicate the plan properly—because it must be properly communicated if it is to be successful—we need to simplify the language to make it understandable. To go back to where Mike Russell started, it is so that a layman can approach the plan and say, “That’s a good idea. I can do something about that.”
Yes. I would be very happy to do so. I am all for simplification of language and trying to keep things as simple as possible. I had the opportunity last weekend to go to the environment fair organised by Dumfries and Galloway Council, which was attended by a number of environmental partners and non-governmental organisations. There were children there, engaging with environmental projects. I would agree that we need to keep the language about what the plan means for nature and the environment as simple as we can.
Good morning, minister. I want to follow on from Sarah Boyack’s remarks about our evidence session last week and the written evidence that we have had about new projects that fit into the biodiversity route map. As has been highlighted this morning, some concern has been expressed about a lack of new projects. Will you comment specifically on three issues? One is the degree to which the national ecological network will be taken forward, building on the work of the central Scotland green network. Another is curlews, which Des Thompson has already mentioned. In its written evidence, RSPB Scotland stressed that there is concern about curlews, which are being looked at internationally. The curlew population in Scotland has declined by 55 per cent since 1995. Those are two examples, one of which is quite broad and one of which is specific. Where are we seeing new things coming into the route map?
I also have a question about marine issues, but perhaps I could come back to that in a minute.
The curlew is a good example because we have named it in the route map. We are very fortunate because RSPB Scotland has been leading a European effort to restore curlew populations. We know that we have globally important populations and massive decline. Considerable research is being led by the RSPB to try to identify the causes of the decline in curlews and therefore the work that is needed. That is just the sort of work that is being captured within the route map. As further versions of the route map are published, we will set out in greater detail the sort of work that is being undertaken.
Claudia Beamish referred to the central Scotland green network, which I recently visited across in Shotts. In the route map, under “Planned work”, we say that we will
“Develop a national ecological network to enable characterisation of the nature of Scotland, and to help with the identification of priority areas for action on habitat restoration, creation and protection.”
Thank you. That is encouraging.
I turn our minds to marine biodiversity, which, as you will know, is big step 6. Concern has been expressed by some stakeholders about marine protected areas, for example that only parts of marine protected areas are being designated as no-take areas. There is also the broader issue that RSPB Scotland has raised, which is the concern that there are few new projects in relation to marine biodiversity.
On biodiversity in marine areas, we will be
“Developing the evidence base through setting and delivering surveillance/monitoring strategy that will allow authoritative reporting of state and progress.”
We will also be
“Completing the suite of MPAs (including the additional NATURA sites) and agreeing and delivering measures for their effective management”,
as well as
“Putting in place Regional Marine Plans that incorporate provision for decision making that promotes ecological coherence between protected areas and safeguards priority marine features.”
10:00
We move on to mainstreaming and biodiversity duty reporting.
Good morning, minister. Claudia Beamish made a point about a lack of new projects. I am pleased to say that I have a copy of Falkirk Council’s biodiversity duty report for the period 2011 to 2014. As well as highlighting some excellent work that has been carried out to date, it highlights a number of projects that are under way, including the inner Forth landscape initiative, which will combine more than 30 projects between now and 2019, so a high number of new projects are going ahead in my area.
The Scottish Parliament information centre was told by the Scottish Government that it had received 25 biodiversity duty reports from local authorities and 11 from other public bodies. However, it appears that some local authorities and the vast majority of public bodies have not informed the Scottish Government that they have published a biodiversity duty report.
Are you aware of whether all the organisations and public bodies that should have produced biodiversity duty reports have done so?
To date, the Scottish Government has been informed of the publication of 34 reports. As a Government, we encourage our public bodies to inform us of the publication of reports on the biodiversity duty, but they are not required to do so. Therefore, the list that is available on the biodiversity Scotland website might not be comprehensive. No sanctions are available under the Wildlife and Natural Environment (Scotland) Act 2011 for use against those public bodies that fail to report, but we will revise the guidance to public bodies to make reporting easier in the next round. We will shortly commission a research project to evaluate the compliance and the quality of the biodiversity duty reports—that project will begin later this year.
Is the use of sanctions an option that you will consider?
We certainly want to review the guidance, and we will see where we are once we have done that. I am keen to make sure that our public bodies report to us on their work on biodiversity.
What use will be made of the reports that you have received to date?
We will use the reports that we receive to get a sense of what is happening in our different agencies and local authorities, and we will take it from there.
A lot of very important regional and local activities and projects are under way, and we would like to reflect that in future versions of the route map.
We have written to all our public bodies to remind them of their obligation to report on the biodiversity duty and we have provided detailed guidance, but I do not think that the duty is specifically mentioned in the grant-in-aid letters, because it has not been the Scottish Government’s practice to seek to list all the statutory duties that apply to public bodies. However, I will be happy to look at that again.
Do you have any sense of why organisations are not putting together biodiversity duty reports? Is it because of a lack of expertise? Is it not a high enough priority? Do some organisations not see the biodiversity duty as being relevant to them? Last week, it was reported that 25 out of the 32 local authorities had produced biodiversity action plans. Do we know why not all local authorities have produced such plans?
It is partly to do with resourcing; it takes time and effort to produce a biodiversity duty report. All that I can say is that the reports that we have seen have been excellent. We must try to share that experience.
Could I come back on that point? I recall that, in years past, some local authorities had a dedicated biodiversity officer, and I wonder whether there is any information on how many local authorities now have one, or at least someone who has biodiversity as part of their remit. If there is no one specifically focusing on biodiversity, that might explain why seven local authorities may have reported but have not informed the Scottish Government that they have reported.
Where we have local biodiversity officers, it makes a huge difference in marshalling all the activities and projects that are being carried out. There are some exceptional individuals out there doing fantastic things for nature.
Maybe you could write to us about that.
Claudia Beamish makes a good point. We would be quite happy to come back to the committee on that.
We move on to non-native invasive species.
The evidence that the committee heard last week indicated that some organisations remain committed to the eradication of non-native invasive species and believe that that should be a priority in their biodiversity plans. Others are less convinced that that is now a priority, and the evidence that we heard—from example, from Sue Marrs of SNH—was that there is no point in one individual doing it with enthusiasm if their next-door neighbour is not doing it at all, by definition. I would be interested to know what priority the Government now gives to that; whether it recognises that, worthy and important as eradication may be in certain circumstances, there are some circumstances in which it is no longer possible to fight the fight; and how those decisions are made.
The spread of invasive non-native species and wildlife diseases is one of the key pressures on biodiversity. Our water environments and islands are particularly vulnerable to invasive non-native species, and our woodlands are also threatened by various tree diseases. The invasive species are now the single-biggest negative pressure on protected nature sites, and it is clearly important that action against non-native species is carefully assessed and prioritised at national level, to ensure that expensive commitments deliver value for money and can be sustained.
One of the most important jobs at national level is to prevent new species from becoming established, by identifying and addressing pathways and ensuring that we have good biosecurity measures in place. For example, new legislation will be introduced to ban the sale or keeping of highly invasive aquatic plants commonly used in aquaria, but that is the job of the non-native species action group.
We had a project that sought to remove non-native hedgehogs from the Uists to protect nesting seabirds, and we have a project to save Scotland’s red squirrels. Such projects are carried out at a landscape level, and they need to be carefully co-ordinated and monitored to avoid any fragmentation and any wasted or duplicated effort. At local level, we seek to encourage partnerships between landowners, SNH, the Scottish Environment Protection Agency, NGOs and volunteers.
You have given some interesting examples. I am old enough to remember the individual who brought the first hedgehog to Uist. I shall not name him, although I think that Des Thompson knows who I am talking about. It was done with the best of intentions but the worst of results. A distinction needs to be made between that type of action, which can be prevented, and, for example, the spread of Phytophthora ramorum, a disease for which there is as yet, as far as we are aware, no effective means of treatment apart from radical action within forests. What relative priority do you give to prevention, eradication and disease control? Given that such efforts will absorb more and more of the resources that exist in the state, is it really a sustainable activity, or will you have to prioritise in a different way?
On prevention, we have wide-ranging legislation that takes a general no-release approach to the introduction of non-native species. Where exceptions are needed, they are provided through secondary legislation or under licence from SNH. In terms of early detection and rapid eradication, our top priorities are to identify how those species invade and to act quickly to prevent their establishment and spread.
Early detection and reporting are encouraged through our monitoring programmes and through citizen science initiatives such as the PlantTracker app. Part of the agencies’ responsibility with regard to non-native invasive species is to assess risks as they arise and to develop appropriate responses. Recent successes have included action to prevent the establishment of the zebra mussel, raccoon, marbled crayfish and black-tailed prairie dog.
There must come a moment—rhododendron is a classic example—when something is no longer a non-native invasive species but has in fact become part of the landscape and requires eradication or careful control. Bracken, for example, is rampant in parts of Scotland and requires control. How do we address that situation, given that it becomes a land management problem more than a simple biodiversity problem? The resources that are applied to land management by the Forestry Commission and others become important at that point.
Yes—the case is made extremely well in respect of bracken and rhododendron, but that surely reinforces the importance of the huge effort that we are making to prevent invasion in the first place. As the minister highlighted, there are some exemplary cases such as American mink, hedgehogs, rhododendron control and river-bank vegetation. In Britain—indeed, in Europe—we are leading the way in tackling non-native invasives.
The key message, as the minister has just reinforced, is the need for prevention. We need to get across the message not only about the huge risks to nature but about the economic cost of ensuring control.
I want to put three words to you, minister, and I suspect that you could put money on what they are: American signal crayfish. I listened carefully to your reply and I cannot argue with any of it, but everything that you have said is just about blown apart by the situation with the American signal crayfish in Loch Ken in my constituency.
Frankly, the measures that have been taken there to try to stop the crayfish spreading have not worked. The crayfish are spreading—I do not know whether they might have spread faster if the measures had not been taken. I simply put it to you that, as Michael Russell said, there will come a time when these species can no longer be looked on as invasive, as they will be part of our everyday scenery.
Somewhere along the line, with something like rhododendron or American signal crayfish, we have to accept that, unless we are going to press the nuclear button and really do something serious about them, they are here to stay. When that becomes the case, a different approach must be taken. I put that to you as a general thought.
As Mr Fergusson well knows, I recognise the local concerns and the long-standing serious issue of American signal crayfish in Loch Ken. I am very keen to try to find a way to resolve the issue, and I would be very happy to meet Mr Fergusson to discuss the crayfish in Loch Ken and consider what other options can be explored.
I am conscious that my predecessor, Paul Wheelhouse, held a meeting in New Galloway last July to which a number of interested parties were invited. There is no easy solution, but I am happy to meet Mr Fergusson to try to fathom a way through the situation.
I will take the minister up on that invitation—thank you, minister.
Is there no natural predator for the signal crayfish?
No.
Man.
In that case, we will look forward to what the conversation produces.
We have discussed the issue of woodland being threatened by imported diseases such as Chalara, or ash dieback as it is known. As has been said, control is fine but prevention is far more important. What work has the Government been doing on importation of specific arboreal diseases? Has any thought been given to encouraging more local nurseries rather than, as happens at the moment, nurseries being allowed to get larger and more centralised, which leads to diseases such as ash dieback spreading faster across large areas of the United Kingdom, Scotland and Europe?
10:15
We are extremely fortunate in Scotland because a huge amount of research has been done by the Forestry Commission’s forest research agency and the plant health centre of expertise, which are examining a range of ways of making trees and woodland ecosystems more disease resistant. Jim Hume mentioned the use of nurseries, which is clearly very important in terms of developing resistant strains. This is one area in which we are fortunate to have a strong research base. We have responded well to the pressures; indeed, some of the pressures were anticipated some time ago. We are therefore well ahead of the game in trying to find solutions. Jim Hume has set out a very challenging problem.
We are developing a Scottish plant health strategy. We recognise the number of plant health threats that are arising and that the spread of pests has increased due to climate change and globalisation of trade. The plant health strategy will set out measures to safeguard Scottish agriculture, horticulture, forestry and the wider environment from pests and disease, and it will be consistent with the ambitions of the United Kingdom plant biosecurity strategy. A UK chief plant health officer has been appointed; the Scottish Government has also committed to the appointment of a Scottish chief plant health officer. That post will complement the work of the UK officer.
We will move on to the natural capital agenda and the natural capital asset index.
Big step 2 is on investment in natural capital. Two years ago, the committee wrote to the then minister asking for more detail on how that can be translated into action. Scottish Land and Estates says that the natural capital agenda shows promise and notes that the Woodland Carbon Code is a step in the right direction, but says that the agenda is not yet tangible. What can we do to make the national capital asset index more tangible, so that land managers can more meaningfully buy into the biodiversity agenda?
A number of steps are being taken to make the concept of natural capital relevant to biodiversity and to the Scottish Government’s wider strategy and policy. I draw the committee’s attention to the “2020 Challenge for Scotland’s Biodiversity”, chapter 2 of which is about natural capital and not only captures the role that natural capital plays in underpinning our economy and wellbeing but sets out some practical, on-the-ground examples of nature services and their value.
The work by the Scottish Government and a number of partners on peatland restoration is a practical example. We are also supporting people who are developing the concept of natural capital; I am delighted that the Scottish Government is helping to fund the work of the Scottish forum on natural capital. Two of our senior staff, including the chief economist, sit on the forum’s steering group. Also, we supported the inaugural world forum on natural capital that was held in Edinburgh in 2013.
As Jim Hume will probably be aware, natural capital was also referred to in “Scotland's Economic Strategy”, which we published recently. That was welcomed by Jon Hughes, who is the joint chair of the Scottish forum on natural capital.
When we talk about land managers, we have in mind hill farmers and crofters as much as estate managers. How is the question of natural capital being addressed with regard to those small land managers?
Thinking of crofters and your constituency, convener, I say that such land managers probably understand natural capital more readily than many other people who are thinking about it. Think of the vast peatland ecosystem, with which the convener will be familiar: those land managers have been treating peatlands as natural capital for centuries, so they have no difficulty in thinking of the value of peat in terms of the carbon store, what it does for clean water, wildlife, and reinforcing the cultural identity of the area. That is all part of the natural capital of the area.
It is reassuring that many of the organisations say that they understand natural capital and have been ahead of the boffins and others who are articulating it.
That is one side of it, but unless the people in those areas have economic support, they will not be able to address natural capital.
I am very worried by the RSPB Scotland submission, which suggests that somehow or other we are spending only 27 per cent of the SRDP on agri-environment measures, whereas in England they are spending more than 60 per cent of the equivalent budget on such measures. That does not take into account the less favoured areas where we have to support the very people you have just said are more alert to biodiversity. I find the comparison of apples with pears that RSPB Scotland has made completely unhelpful when we are considering how we can apply the moneys that we have.
The challenge is partly in converting the habitat that is being improved into a measure of natural capital. Perhaps some organisations have been better at doing that than others. The natural capital of some RSPB landholdings—the Insh marshes and some of the areas in the flow country, for instance—is very considerable and benefits greatly from various grants and other support that are provided.
I do not deny that the RSPB has good examples. However, I started by talking about crofters and hill farmers who are clearly the key people who are supported by the less favoured areas support scheme, which the RSPB does not like.
You mentioned the agri-environment measures, convener; the cabinet secretary has ensured an increase in that budget of more than £10 million per year.
Let us move on to question 7, which relates to data.
Last week, as you will know, minister, there was a broad-ranging discussion on monitoring research and biodiversity indicators. I want to highlight one or two remarks that were made in evidence. James Davidson of Aberdeenshire Council said that, based on his experience of the land use strategy pilot project, more local data and indicators are needed, whereas Simon Jones from the Scottish Wildlife Trust said that we should not let lack of data prevent us from doing work now.
As you will know, minister, the “State of Nature: Scotland” report, which was launched last year in Edinburgh states:
“we simply do not have sufficient knowledge to make a robust quantitative assessment of the state of nature in Scotland.”
There is a conflict between a lack of evidence in some areas and the need to act. The committee wonders how the monitoring of biodiversity and provision of data and research to support action on the ground can be progressed to ensure that local data is available in order that resources can be targeted at smaller projects.
The main priority at the moment is our ecosystem health indicators. It is intended that the set of indicators will be presented nationally, but will be scaleable to finer resolution, which will help us to understand the status of Scotland’s ecosystems over time and to make priorities for restoration, to inform action that is taken and to assess progress.
Much of that work is being taken forward by a subgroup of the science and technical group, membership of which has been drawn from the James Hutton Institute, Marine Scotland, Scotland’s Rural College, RSPB Scotland and the centre for ecology and hydrology. We need to continue to deepen our understanding and evidence base, and we need both because one supports the other and we need to be clearer about what needs to be done to improve our ecosystems’ health.
What will the process be for local people to work with NGOs and local authorities? We have talked about the North American signal crayfish and we took evidence on invasive species and ash dieback from the previous minister. How will the issues and the continuing research be fed to the people who matter on the ground?
They will be set out in the annual report.
As the minister has rightly said, at the tail-end of the route map, we will produce an annual state of nature report that will draw on the many indicators that we have. Bear it in mind that those indicators have contributions from thousands of people working across Scotland on a wide range of taxonomic groups.
We need to turn this around. We have a phenomenal resource in people—citizen scientists—who are collecting an amazing amount of data. We are fortunate to be able to capture that, report on what is happening, and understand the underlying causes of change.
I understand that process, but I am really asking about taking it further and how the information will be fed back to people who are responsible for citizen science or local authority biodiversity, or who are working in NGOs. That process must be robust if we are going to meet our 2020 targets.
It must and, as you highlighted earlier, one of the great ways of doing that is through the local biodiversity officers, who are supremely well equipped to do that and to redirect the efforts of local people who are working on the ground.
On monitoring, assessment and indicators, how do the biodiversity targets fit with the national performance framework targets? The Cabinet Secretary for Finance, Constitution and Economy is obviously keen that those NPF targets are taken forward and considered by committee. I am talking about terrestrial birds or other areas related to biodiversity.
The targets contribute directly to the NPF.
We will move on to the role of education.
Last week I picked up on a point about education. In big step 3 and priority project 6, on taking learning outdoors, the aim is to increase secondary and primary schools’ access to green spaces and nature for outdoor learning. There is a good example of an outdoor learning venture in my constituency—Lochaber Rural Education Trust, which is run by Isabel and Linda Campbell, whom I first met a number of years ago. We have been helping them to get funding to keep that fantastic little project on the road, but we have had great difficulty. When the previous First Minister was with the Cabinet in Lochaber, he went along to have a look at it and thought that it was fantastic, but there is no funding for it.
We have something that is working really well and is giving schoolchildren the chance to learn a lot of useful things about the environment, animals and growing things, but we cannot seem to find a regular source of funding to keep it going. It is run by volunteers, in the main. There are also problems with the schools running out of funds for buses to take their children there. In a constituency like mine, people have massive distances to travel and they need to travel to such projects because they cannot be in every single place.
What cross-departmental work is being done to ensure that there are proper funding streams for excellent projects such as that one? It has made a few successful short-term funding proposals, but if it does not get proper funding soon, it will close. Where does it leave us if we do not have a separate, identifiable funding stream that such folk can bid into?
10:30
I agree about some of the fantastic projects that exist for our schools. A few weeks ago, I had the opportunity to meet some of our local biodiversity action plan officers and hear about a north-east Scotland camera trap project, which is absolutely fantastic. It was set up to gather information on some of the more secretive mammal species that live in our woodlands across the north-east. To be honest, it captured me because there were thousands of videos and images that revealed the movement of a range of species, including our wood mice, red squirrels, badgers, otters and pine martens. That has all been done with the help of local volunteers and through our schools and Aberdeen City Council, Aberdeenshire Council and Moray Council. The project received LEADER funding and funding from the Forestry Commission Scotland to work with a number of schools.
Officials may want to comment.
I will add two things to the wonderful example that the minister gave. A huge amount is being done through the curriculum to improve awareness educationally. We are also doing a lot of work with Young Scot to promote the wider links between education and appreciating and caring for nature.
There are a lot of examples across the board.
That is all great; it is fantastic and it is good to hear it. However, when the previous First Minister visited the project that I described about four years ago, he mentioned LEADER and nothing came of it. The project has struggled on ever since. It is a great project. Funding streams such as LEADER do not seem to be working effectively.
Why have a priority project 6 to
“Increase Secondary and Primary schools’ access”
when we already have people volunteering and running projects that need a relatively small amount of regular income? Why not help them? They are already doing valuable work. If we lose that, we will go backwards, not forwards. Although there are things happening in the schools and other things going on, why are we not considering supporting such work?
I invite the minister and her officials to come up to see that little project—I would be more than happy for them to do that and I am sure that the people at the project would be really pleased to see them—so that they can assess for themselves its value. It is in a very rural area. It is just below the ski slopes at Aonach Mòr, so the minister could go up in the gondolas when she comes out, which would also be an interesting experience. That project is working but is in danger of folding. The minister should identify some kind of funding stream that such projects can deal with. It is about thinking across departments.
I would be more than happy to accept Dave Thompson’s invitation to go and see the project. I would also be more than happy for him to write to me about that case setting out all the details. That would be helpful for us and we will look to see how we can take the matter forward.
It is a Cook’s tour beyond our ken. It would certainly be valuable to see some of those things over the summer.
We probably need to ask the education minister about how the focus on eco-schools might be looked at and reviewed, because that might help with biodiversity education and so on. I will mention one or two other things about that in a minute—as well as other issues that we need to raise with you, minister. First, we have Mike Russell.
It would be remiss of me not to mention two other developments that tie in with that. Perhaps the problem is that there are so many different developments in the area that cohesion is required.
The first is forest schools, which is a Forestry Commission initiative. That initiative is extremely important and offers some of the best outdoor education. The other is the growing development of outdoor nurseries. Indeed, in Dave Thompson’s constituency, Stramash, which is an Argyll-based provider of outdoor education, is about to start its third outdoor nursery. The children are outdoors for almost the entire time; the only shelter on the site is a large yurt, which they eat in from time to time.
There are many initiatives; the question is, how are they drawn together? Perhaps the minister would care to co-operate with her education counterparts to see whether the committee can be informed about how the initiatives are drawn together, where the budget lines are and how they tie together.
I would be very happy to do that, including on the health side. I know that Forestry Commission Scotland is taking forward a number of very good green health projects with the NHS.
It would be useful to have a Government briefing on what those projects are and how they all tie together. I think that we would find out quite a lot from that.
I would be happy to provide that to the committee.
I have a follow-up education question about access to skills and ensuring that biodiversity is embedded in the school curriculum, which Dave Thompson asked about. We need to move on further and get young people to consider taxonomy or work in biodiversity as a potential career opportunity. There are a whole load of careers out there, but to what extent does biodiversity follow through the school system?
At last week’s committee, the lack of skilled taxonomists and the fact that we are not recruiting new people in that area were raised as key issues. Having a positive approach to biodiversity would fit with a range of environmental and land management careers and would be a useful building block towards such careers.
I noted with interest what was said last week. NGOs such as the Scottish Wildlife Trust, Plantlife and RSPB Scotland have done a fantastic job in nurturing that expertise and encouraging specialisms in different taxonomic disciplines.
SNH employs a number of graduates each year to develop their skills, which is terrific for their employability. We also fund a PhD scheme, which develops skills at the highest level. SEPA is no different: it is actively involved in a number of PhD schemes.
We are acutely aware of the issue, but we should not lose sight of the importance of reaching the youngest people. If we can reach the kids at the early primary school stage and through the nurseries that we have heard about, we can have a lasting impact on their appreciation of the environment and how they care for it.
I echo those comments. There has been continuing investment by the Scottish Government, via rural affairs, food and environment research, in the Royal Botanic Garden Edinburgh—that provides support to what is a world-leading taxonomic institution.
The Royal Botanic Garden Edinburgh provides specialised programmes, including at PhD level. We are delivering, in partnership with the James Hutton Institute and the University of Aberdeen, the first PhD in lichen taxonomy in the UK in more than 30 years.
That was a very different answer from the one that was given to us last week.
We will reflect on that when we are thinking about our next moves.
Before, we move to the final point, we have a question about big step 6 and marine and coastal ecosystems.
Yes—I want to come back to big step 6, and the marine ecosystem in particular. We have heard this morning that farmers, land managers and crofters need to be at the heart of the strategy. We have also heard that there is a gulf between land managers and conservationists, and that natural capital may be able to address that.
The same gulf exists in the marine environment, between the people who harvest our seas and the NGOs. How will the strategy address that particular gulf?
Just to be clear, is your question about what we are doing in relation to the coastal environment and coastal restoration?
Yes—it is on the marine environment and ecosystem, and the strategy for our seas. The fishermen and the people who harvest our seas have been very proactive, and I do not want them to feel, as the land managers, farmers and crofters feel, that they are not involved in the strategy. I do not see a lot on that issue in big step 6.
As the minister set out earlier, priority project 12, which is part of what we are doing in relation to the seas, involves gathering a significant amount of evidence to enable us to understand the wealth of nature that we have and the work that we need to do in that respect.
At present, SNH has a specialist seconded to the Scottish Government to develop our understanding of coastal erosion and coastal processes so that we ensure that those areas are much more robust in relation to change.
I want to ensure that the strategy is targeted not only at the NGOs, but for the benefit of the coastal communities that harvest our seas.
Yes, of course—we are working to take the strategy forward with a variety of coastal fora, ranging from the Forth and Clyde coastal fora to other, more regional fora. It is incredibly important that we do that. The coastal fora are so effective because they operate across the marine and land environments.
We are happy to come back to the committee to set out the approach that Marine Scotland has adopted—I am conscious that the area also falls under the cabinet secretary’s portfolio—and the ways in which it works with environmental groups and the fishing sector. Christian Allard spoke about conflicts, so we would be happy to set out that work for the committee if members would find it helpful.
I have a couple of quick points, minister, on your department’s involvement with transport and infrastructure. The A9 is about to be dualled, and all the preparatory work is being done. Under priority project 5, your planned work includes
“Delivering the National Walking and Cycling Network and promoting its use by the public.”
I have been pressing very hard for a proper route all the way up the A9. I am not necessarily talking about just a cycleway: as you know, we are going to spend £3,000 million on that road, and we need to ensure that there is a proper people-way for bikes, walkers, people in disability buggies—
I wonder what that point has to do with the biodiversity strategy.
It is to do with priority project 5 and the proposal on
“Delivering the National Walking and Cycling Network”.
I want to ascertain whether the departments work together in relation to the strategy and whether there has been input from various departments. Are we going to get a proper cycleway/walkway alongside the A9 when we improve it?
My second point—which is very much to do with biodiversity, convener—is whether we are going to have green bridges. If we are not, we will be creating a barrier over which wildlife will have great difficulty in moving, whereas green bridges give wildlife a green way of getting from one side of the road to the other.
Those things will all add cost, but we need to look at them. In a project of the size of the A9 project, we need to get everything right. I wonder how much involvement your department has had in the project. If you have been involved, that is great, but if you have not, I think that you should be.
10:45
Those are all areas that we are considering right now. We are delivering the national walking and cycling network, and promoting its use by the public. We are also looking at how we can improve the provision of green space in many of our disadvantaged areas in urban Scotland. We are doing that work through a number of our green infrastructure projects, which will be funded through Scotland’s 2014 to 2020 structural funds programme.
We have been meeting at official level with Transport Scotland colleagues in relation to the A9 and biodiversity, and there has also been a lot of detailed work and discussion with the Cairngorms National Park Authority, which covers the area through which a significant part of the route runs. There is on-going work at a detailed level to look at individual sites and opportunities along the route, certainly with regard to biodiversity.
Thank you for that. The first section, from Kincraig to Dalraddy, is already out for consultation on the detail. I have not had a chance to look at that in detail yet, but I will do, and I certainly hope that a proper cycleway or walkway and green bridges are being considered.
Thank you, minister. There are other things on which you need to update us, because Paul Wheelhouse gave us a lot of information during our session on 18 March 2013. Will you agree to write to us with updates on the national ecological network, a small part of which we have just been discussing; on the strategic programme for re-establishing species driven to local and national extinction; on progress on the work that is being undertaken to restore degraded ecosystems; and on progress on tackling marine biodiversity? The previous minister touched on all those points, and it would be valuable for our consideration to get an update.
I am happy to do so, convener.
I thank you and your officials for a wide-ranging session. It was slightly longer than we had expected, but that is good, as it shows that you are doing your job and that we are doing ours. We are pleased that we have had that discussion.
We will now have a short suspension to allow for a change of witnesses.
10:47 Meeting suspended.