Conservation (Endangered Species and Wild Land)
The final item of business today is a members’ business debate on motion S4M-05602, in the name of Murdo Fraser, on endangered species and wild land conservation. The debate will be concluded without any question being put.
Motion debated,
That the Parliament notes that 2013 is the Year of Natural Scotland; recognises the efforts of conservation charities and other organisations to save endangered species and wild land in Mid Scotland and Fife and across the country; understands that the indigenous red squirrel and the wildcat face a significant threat; believes that only 150 breeding pairs of wildcat are not in captivity; considers that habitat conservation coupled with breeding programmes could hold the key to saving endangered species; believes that there should be a network of grey squirrel trapping areas; notes the report, Public Perception Survey of Wildness in Scotland, which was published in July 2012 by Scottish Natural Heritage in association with Loch Lomond and the Trossachs National Park Authority; understands that the report claimed that 86% of people surveyed felt that further action was necessary to preserve wild land and that the most popular means by which this could be ensured was by introducing a specific wild land designation, and acknowledges calls for a concerted effort in 2013 to deliver a step change in conserving wild land and endangered species.
17:36
At the outset, I thank all the members from different parties who have signed the motion, which allowed me to secure the debate.
The debate is on the broad topic of conservation, and the motion refers to the year of natural Scotland 2013. It is very much a composite motion that covers different topics. There is something in it for everyone, so I am sure that members who wish to contribute can find an issue that they want to address and others that they might wish to avoid.
There is no better time than the year of natural Scotland to evaluate our strategies to conserve wild land and endangered species. I will start by talking about two species in particular that are under threat.
The first of those species is the Scottish wildcat. For 9,000 years, the wildcat has lived and thrived in Scotland. However, despite the efforts of hard-working conservation charities such as the Scottish Wildcat Association, Cats Protection and the highland tiger group, the pure-bred cat faces imminent extinction. The SWA has released figures suggesting that only 35 pure-bred cats are left living in the wild. My motion refers to 150 breeding pairs but, in fact, the true situation could be much worse than that.
The Cairngorm wildcat project trialled measures aimed at encouraging the growth of wildcats in the Cairngorms. Its recommendations included raising greater awareness, encouraging responsible domestic cat ownership, fostering partnerships with estates and conducting thorough research and monitoring. An extensive captive breeding programme should be added to that list. However, in the immediate future, those actions may not be enough—and desperate times often call for desperate measures.
I recently asked whether the Scottish Government would consider cloning as a means to save the wildcat. Although that suggestion did not immediately get a positive response from the minister, the storage of frozen gametes should be taken as a necessary precaution—only a multifaceted approach will save the wildcat, and we do not want the species to die out without a means of recreating it.
The red squirrel is another native species that is under threat. It is the pin-up species of natural Scotland but, thanks to the spread of the grey squirrel, its numbers are under threat. I have raised the plight of the red squirrel in previous members’ business debates, and I have been pleased with the positive actions that the Scottish Government has taken on the issue.
There is more than sentimentality at stake when protecting this iconic species.
Murdo Fraser’s point about the need for a multifaceted approach to species protection is important. It is also essential that there be an adequately funded vaccination programme for red squirrels. Will he comment on that?
Claudia Beamish makes a good point. A whole range of measures can be taken, and looking at vaccines is important. However, there is the difficult question of how they would be administered to squirrels. I dare say that we could find some volunteers if that was required.
The point that I was going to make about ancient woodlands is that grey squirrels cause irreparable damage to conifers and broad-leaved trees. They strip outer bark, with the result that vital nutrients are unable to travel up trees, which often consequently die.
Grey squirrels are also thought to be the carriers of diseases, including one that kills Japanese larches. They certainly carry the squirrel pox virus, which is not lethal to grey squirrels but is to red squirrels with which they come into contact. In many parts of Scotland, the red squirrel population is dying out as a result of its contact with grey squirrels that carry squirrel pox. We also know that grey squirrels kill woodland birds and damage arable crops, telephone wires and electricity cables.
Invasive non-native species cost the British economy £1.7 billion a year and it is estimated that the grey squirrel alone costs it £14 million per year. In Perthshire, in the part of Scotland that I represent, there is a front line between red and grey squirrels and strong measures are needed to stop grey squirrels encroaching on the reds’ territory. It is clear that, in the past 10 years, grey squirrels have moved further and further north and we are seeing battleground areas in places such as Perthshire. There are similar situations in Aberdeenshire and the Borders, where there are red and grey squirrels in the same areas. As a consequence over time, the reds are being driven out into more and more remote areas.
I pay tribute to the Perth and Kinross red squirrel group, which I met recently. It is working incredibly hard to raise awareness of the threat. Of course, the efforts of voluntary organisations, although important, can only go so far. I would like to hear from the minister about what more the Scottish Government can do to support the conservation efforts of foresters, landowners and conservation charities, including the European Squirrel Initiative. Habitat protection, trapping and the creation of grey squirrel exclusion zones should be set up.
It is not just that animal species are being threatened. Wild land is disappearing—and disappearing fast. According to Scottish Natural Heritage, between 2002 and 2009 the amount of land free from visual interference or built development declined from 41 per cent to 28 per cent. If we had up-to-date statistics, I am sure that we would see that the situation has deteriorated further. Those statistics are worrying, and action must be taken to reverse the trend.
In a recent BBC article based on forthcoming research from David McCrone, our landscape was chosen as the most important aspect of our culture, ahead of music and the arts. A 2008 SNH study found that 92 per cent of Scottish residents felt that wild places were important and a recent public perception survey of wilderness in Scotland found that 60 per cent of respondents believe that wild areas are under threat.
There is a substantial financial case for protecting wild land. Nature-based tourism contributes £1.4 billion to the economy and spending on nature-based activities is worth 40 per cent of all tourist spending. A simple click on the VisitScotland website shows headlines that highlight Scotland’s scenery.
What can be done to save wild places in Scotland? The John Muir Trust is calling for a specific wild land designation. That approach should certainly be looked at, but we would need to have some caution in implementing such a strategy. After all, what is wild land? Wild land is often a managed asset. The rolling, heather-clad hills that we have in Scotland are actually a carefully managed landscape, which supports jobs in the form of stalking and grouse shooting. Any designation must ensure the sustainability of that important rural industry.
One area in which the Scottish Government could practise greater responsibility is its approach to planning. Pylons, telephone masts, wind turbines and bulldozed hill tracks are all-too-common sights on what people would see as wild land.
In this debate, I do not want to go into the detail of concerns over the cost, viability and effectiveness of wind turbines, but if we are to have renewable energy projects, it is clear that we have to be very careful where we site them. Scotland is home to 10 per cent of the world’s blanket bog resource. Peat bogs are a natural carbon sink that helps to absorb harmful carbon gases. Due to their national and international significance, surely peat bogs should be exempt from turbine developments.
SNH has estimated that 39,000 jobs rely on nature-based tourism, which is an awful lot more than the 11,000 who are estimated to be employed in renewable energy. We should be concerned about further losses to wild land, because of the impact on those who live and work, particularly in tourism, in the Highlands.
In the year of natural Scotland 2013, saving endangered beautiful wild land and endangered species should be a priority. I urge the Scottish Government not only to get behind wildlife charities but to put in place measures to save wild land before it is too late.
17:44
I am particularly pleased to speak in the debate because I have spent all of my adult life and much of my childhood living and working close to some of Scotland’s wildest places. Although I use the word “wild” in the ordinary sense of the word, on reading some of briefings that have been sent to me I find that the word is inadequate. A stronger word is needed, at least for me. What I mean by wild is the wildness that we experience going through the Corryvreckan whirlpool in a small fishing boat in a gale or walking over the mountains of Mull in a snowstorm in winter, not for fun but out of necessity, and sometimes out of grim necessity.
I am led to believe that the definition of wild land is
“an area where an individual finds the experience of wildness is particularly strong.”
I find that that sometimes applies to Edinburgh. According to that definition, there is not much of Scotland that I, and the people who work on the land in our remote rural areas, would describe as wild.
I have a love of our natural environment and all its inhabitants. I am fortunate to be able to enjoy that right on my doorstep. Dolphins often play around the ferryboat that serves my island home. I can climb into my kayak and, in less than an hour, watch sea eagles on Mull or golden eagles on the Garvellachs. I have scratched the backs of basking sharks on lazy summer seas and rowed madly away from killer whales when their distinctive dorsal fins have appeared too close for comfort. I have come face to face with wild Mull goats, looked into their eyes and understood why the devil was sometimes personified as a big billy goat with horns and a beard. I am really not being funny here. I have watched otters play and nursed young seals back to health.
However, my chief concern is that it is our own species, Homo sapiens, that is the threatened species throughout much of the Highlands and Islands. Mankind has inhabited Scotland for around 10,000 years, perhaps more. In that time, we have disposed of the Caledonian forest that once covered our country. In Argyll, we did it to make cannonballs for Nelson’s navy. Almost all our land has been grazed or burned, and the landscape has no resemblance to what it was even a few hundred years ago. A handful of people make a meagre living from it. It supports fewer people every year. Traditional rural economies are declining. Many people cling to their livelihoods like limpets on wave-washed rocks.
Rural economies are changing, as they must do, to survive. New opportunities are opening up, which almost always involves some new development. Many of our most economically and socially fragile areas are already suffering death by designation. Living and life itself are sometimes banned in those areas, yet those people who live on our land, as opposed to those who go there only to play, have been the custodians of that land for generations. They have a deep-rooted understanding of the land and how to nurture it. That landscape quality takes work and active management. Under the care of people who understand that, our landscapes have been maintained in an almost pristine condition—a pristine condition that leads others to conclude that it is wild. Successful conservation is a bottom-up and not a top-down process, and cannot and should not be imposed by designation.
17:49
I congratulate Murdo Fraser on securing this evening’s debate. As the motion recognises, 2013 is the year of natural Scotland, which gives us an opportunity to focus on biodiversity and promote our heritage, wildlife and landscapes. I hope that it is about more than pinning a natural Scotland label on events that are already in the pipeline. We need much more debate and discussion about our environment, and a tangible legacy of the year would be a robust biodiversity plan with clear actions to deliver on our targets.
In focusing on endangered species, the motion highlights the red squirrel. Last summer, I went to a red squirrel fun day in Tentsmuir forest in north-east Fife to find out about the work of the Fife red squirrel group. Fife is not a target protection area, but the peninsula at Tentsmuir provides an opportunity for local activists to try to grow a population there. I commend the work of the Fife red squirrel group and groups like it across the country as they work tirelessly in raising awareness and introducing programmes to protect endangered species. However, as Murdo Fraser said, they need support to do that successfully.
Not for the first time in the chamber, I highlight the work of Scottish Environment LINK and its species champions programme, which is certainly capturing the imagination of MSPs. Although it is a bit of fun, it is proving to be an effective way in which to engage the Parliament in the challenges that many endangered species are facing. I am grateful to Dave Thompson, who is not here this evening, for adopting the sand eels. My puffins need them as they provide a valuable food source and help to grow their habitat.
Habitat protection is vital to securing the future of species. The minister will be aware that there are concerns that the marine protected areas do not protect seabirds. The motion also mentions habitat conservation. That is just as important offshore as it is onshore, and the minister knows that there is growing concern about the delayed marine plan.
I understand the concern about migratory species such as seabirds, but I put it on the record again that we are proposing to protect sand eel populations through the MPA network.
I am aware of other measures that the Government is taking, but the minister will know that there are still concerns about marine protected areas not protecting seabirds. Their inclusion would give an extra layer of protection.
To show that I am not someone who will back away from trickier issues, I note that the motion also mentions wild land designation, and I understand that the Public Petitions Committee will take evidence on the John Muir Trust petition in the near future. I recognise the concerns of the John Muir Trust and other organisations such as Ramblers Scotland about wild lands in Scotland. Effective protection of wilderness areas is important and, as Murdo Fraser highlighted, it is valued by the public. The Parliament has introduced protective measures over the years. The National Parks (Scotland) Act 2000 resulted in the establishment of the Loch Lomond and the Trossachs national park in 2002 and the Cairngorms national park in 2003.
In a response to the Public Petitions Committee, the minister outlined the existing means of protection, which include sites of special scientific interest, national parks, national nature reserves and national scenic areas. NSAs are defined as areas
“of outstanding scenic value in a national context.”
There are 40 such areas and they cover 13 per cent of the land area of Scotland. They ensure that areas such as Glencoe, Ben Nevis, the Hebrides and some landscapes in Perthshire and the Borders are protected from inappropriate development.
There is a system of protection and there is already a system of constraints that are placed on developers. It is not easy to achieve the right balance between competing demands, but it is essential to do so. The John Muir Trust has a clear position on the limiting of renewables development and it raises concerns about the impact that such development has on our landscapes and the environment. However, Murdo Fraser started to explore the fact that designating wild lands would present other challenges. Decisions would be fairly subjective and they would run the risk of creating an imbalance in another direction. The key debate needs to be about the value of what is being protected, rather than what is being prevented.
The Government has said that it is
“satisfied that existing legislation and administrative systems for land use planning and environmental management provide appropriate means for meeting the obligations and objectives set out in the”
European landscape convention. However, there are issues, such as hill tracks, on which we need progress to make the protections that we already have work better. I am sure that there will be an interesting debate on the matter in committee, and I look forward to hearing the minister’s response when he closes the debate.
17:54
I, too, congratulate Murdo Fraser on securing this important and timely debate in the year of natural Scotland. I thought that it would be useful to use the debate to talk about what is being done positively to help endangered species.
I know that many members have joined Scottish Environment LINK’s species champions scheme, which Claire Baker mentioned. That is a great way to highlight the plight of 93 species that are currently facing significant threats. Many members have now adopted a creature and the chamber is full of strange species. I have no doubt that many members hope that the qualities of their chosen animal might reflect on them. Perhaps that is why Rhoda Grant has chosen the golden eagle, Aileen McLeod is the industrious red squirrel and Mary Scanlon is the exquisite freshwater pearl mussel. However, I cannot understand why Murdo Fraser omitted to mention that he is the champion of the natterers bat as well as the wildcat.
I am also the champion of the juniper—that might be something to do with the fact that it is a key ingredient in a popular drink.
That was also a good one to choose.
I have more of a challenge on my hands, as I am championing the adder. I was a little bit alarmed when Scottish Environment LINK told me that it thought that I would be the perfect champion of the only venomous snake in Britain—indeed, the only snake at all in Scotland. Apparently, the reptile was unloved among parliamentarians and could not find a champion because, for some reason, politicians did not want to be associated with a poisonous snake. I felt that I had a duty to take up the cudgels on the adder’s behalf and I have no regrets.
Like so much of our wildlife, the adder has a huge cultural significance. It features in our language, our literature and our art. It was originally known as the northern viper, which comes from the Latin words “vivus”, meaning alive, and “parere”, meaning giving birth, because of its live bearing habit. It is unusual in that it is a reptile that does not lay eggs.
Shakespeare made several references to the adder. In sonnet 112 he said:
“In so profound abysm I throw all care
Of others’ voices, that my adder’s sense
To critic and to flatterer stopped are.”
The adder’s sense that Shakespeare refers to means turning a deaf ear. There was a belief that adders could stop their ears to unpleasantness and screen out sounds that did not please them, which is quite a handy attribute for politicians as well. Unfortunately, it is a myth, as adders do not have ears.
A lot of our fear and suspicion of adders is based on our misunderstanding of them. No one has died from an adder bite in Britain for more than 20 years. With proper treatment, the worst effects of a bite are nausea and drowsiness, followed by some swelling and unpleasant bruising. The best advice is to leave adders alone. They only tend to attack in extremis, when they are frightened.
Adders are relatively common in areas of rough, open countryside and this is the best time of year to see them, when they get ready to mate. In the phenomenon called the dance of the adders, males rise up and writhe and compete against one another for female attention.
The south of Scotland—the area that I represent—is an important area for the adder. Currently, the population status of the adder in Scotland is unknown. However, anecdotal evidence suggests that it is in decline because of habitat loss, habitat fragmentation, unsympathetic land management and increased public access, which all put it under pressure.
One important way to manage land to favour adders in Scotland is to do with how we manage forestry—once we have a dense canopy of trees with close planting, the snake does not have the sunlight that it needs to thrive. It does much better on the edge of woodlands, where there are young trees, so new planting is important.
Adders favour areas with habitat diversity, so their presence usually indicates a healthy ecosystem. They provide food for predatory birds and mammals and they prey on mammals and reptiles. Scotland has no baseline data to indicate the size and distribution of the adder population. Perhaps that is because of the adder’s unpopularity. That lack of data represents a significant barrier to the conservation of the species, so a project to assess the number of adders, where they are and how populous they are, is important. I hope that we have plans to do some counting in the future, as has already taken place in England and Wales.
17:59
Murdo Fraser said in his introduction that this is a wide subject, and so it has turned out to be. The debate has been all the better for that. It is an interesting topic with many different dimensions to it. I congratulate Murdo Fraser on bringing it to the chamber. It is an important debate, especially in the year of natural Scotland.
I declare an interest, in that I am a member of the John Muir Trust. As a national body, it is to be widely commended for all the work that it has been doing over many months to ensure that we are debating the facts rather than the myths.
I am often told by my climbing friends from south of the border that Scotland is the most privileged nation thanks to the extraordinary beauty of her landscapes, particularly those that are in the most remote areas of the country. Mike MacKenzie made an important point about what wildness actually means. For those people, the landscapes are a powerful magnet that attracts many people from all over the world, in all seasons, in all weathers and in all kinds of outdoor adventures. The argument for the protection of that wild land—or, at least, some of it—is compelling, just as it is in places such as Northumberland’s national park, north-east England’s heritage coast or the north Pennines. However, some caveats have to be put in place, which I will speak about in a minute.
As Tories, we are obviously not given to supporting additional legislation too easily, but we remain conscious of the tensions between the wilderness and economic development, specifically the creation of employment, which have been brought into the starkest focus by the march of wind farm development across our precious landscapes. Two summers ago, when, along with some others, Murdo Fraser and I were climbing in the Fisherfield area—accompanied by millions of midges—we had to accept that, even in one of our most treasured wilderness areas, large-scale wind farm developments could be seen on the skyline. That brought home to us just how significant that development is and why it is difficult for some people to accept it. Obviously, that is an issue that has been widely debated in many forums in this Parliament already.
Apart from the overwhelming need to protect the ever-more fragile environment, there are growing social and health reasons for taking action, as is evidenced by some of the studies from other countries that have been set out in the briefings that we have had.
On that point, I should say how important the role of groups such as the John Muir Trust has been in educating our young people about the responsibilities that they have when it comes to the protection of wild places. I remember vividly, when conducting my first school project with the John Muir Trust, the slightly indifferent reactions of pupils when they heard that we would be helping to do a major beach clear at Achmore on the south side of Loch Carron. I think that, perhaps not surprisingly, the pupils thought that they were there for a litter pick-up because their teachers fancied a bit of time off. Of course, nothing could have been further from the truth and, on that day, the John Muir Trust made a huge impact on the lives of 14 teenagers, none of whom had been in that kind of environment before and who knew nothing about the responsibilities that come with it.
In 2002, only 35 schools were involved in the John Muir Trust award. Now, 259 are involved. That means that the number of pupils who are in receipt of the award has risen tenfold in that period. The trust deserves congratulations for that. Of course, that is very much in line with the basic principles of the curriculum for excellence.
We have had a briefing from the Ramblers Association, too. It makes a good point that there has to be a much more coherent approach that includes other measures relating to the planning process and the design of the financial incentives. It is absolutely right to point out that there is a balance to be struck when it comes to the economy and the protection of wild land. I particularly note the association’s campaigning on the issue of what is happening just now in relation to the Cairngorm national park.
We must be careful to ensure that all voices are heard. My colleague Jamie McGrigor would have made that point had he not been unwell today. Protection should not be considered on a blanket basis, lest we do not pay due attention to the needs of the traditional land uses, such as farming, angling, crofting, game shooting, deer stalking and so on, all of which are hugely important.
We must hear the voices of those who speak for managed land, because they are just as important as those of us who like to enjoy the wilderness. Most land is managed, to a certain extent, but it is important that we take a structured view and try to consider all avenues because, at the end of the day, we have the most significant landscapes in the world.
18:04
We have indeed heard many interesting contributions in the debate on tonight’s motion, which I thank Murdo Fraser for bringing to the chamber. We have heard mention of various wild things, from wildcats to wild land as well as bats, adders, juniper—mentioned by Murdo Fraser in the context of gin—puffins and sand eels. I have really enjoyed listening to the speeches. It will be a challenge to cover all the points that were made, but I will do my best to respond.
Much has been said about the John Muir Trust campaign and petition for a new environmental designation for wild land, and there is public support for recognising the value of areas of relative wildness. I am pleased to have the opportunity to respond, because it allows me to make it quite clear that the issues raised are important. The Scottish Government believes in the protection of those sensitive areas of Scotland that are valued for their beauty or wild land character.
The nub of the matter—Claire Baker and others referred to this—is how best to achieve that. We realise all too well that there is a balance to be struck between gaining the optimum climate and economic benefits from Scotland’s renewable energy resource, which Mike MacKenzie mentioned, and protecting our landscapes. We already have a mechanism, in “Scottish Planning Policy”, for protecting areas of wild land character. We also already have statutory designations with a landscape focus, such as national scenic areas and national parks, as Claire Baker mentioned.
The importance of wild land is recognised in “Scottish Planning Policy”, which states:
“The most sensitive landscapes may have little or no capacity to accept new development. Areas of wild land character in some of Scotland’s remoter upland, mountain and coastal areas are very sensitive to any form of development or intrusive human activity and planning authorities should safeguard the character of these areas in the development plan.”
The policy also requires local authority development plans to set out a spatial framework for onshore wind farms of more than 20MW.
I am grateful to the minister for that explanation. As I quoted earlier, the figures show that there has been a decline in wild land in Scotland over the past decade or so. Is that not indicative of the fact that the planning policies to which he refers perhaps need to be revisited?
I certainly recognise that the issue is gaining greater significance as we face more development pressure. However, we will consult soon on a new draft Scottish planning policy and on the third national planning framework main issues report. That will allow us to hear a full range of views on how areas of wild land character and relative wildness throughout Scotland should be protected within the planning system.
Some 20 per cent of the land area of Scotland already has a statutory protection and—I think that Claire Baker referred to this—40 national scenic areas have been established. National scenic areas are often overlooked in this debate, but they are designated precisely because of their outstanding scenic value in a national context. We also have the two national parks, which Claire Baker also referred to, which were designated with all-party support as iconic landscapes because of their outstanding natural heritage, distinctive character and identity.
There is a lot of overlap between those already designated areas and certain areas of wild land character. Some half of the broad-brush wild land search areas that were identified by SNH in 2002 are already protected by being in an NSA or in a national park. There are no commercial wind farms in our national parks and NSAs, and the planning system provides the necessary protection to ensure that wind-farm developments do not impact adversely on such areas.
Given that time is pressing, let me say a little bit about SNH’s work in mapping wild land, which first started in 2002 and is relevant to the debate. As Mike MacKenzie mentioned, capturing a subjective quality such as wildness, which can be found in many places including in urban areas, is challenging. Measuring wildness is inherently difficult, because people respond differently to the quality of wildness according to their experience and their expectations. However, it is possible to capture and map basic characteristics such as ruggedness, slope and elevation that contribute to certain types of wildness. SNH has used modern mapping tools to improve upon the broad-brush search area for wild land of 2002. In 2012, SNH consulted on a map of relative wildness covering all of Scotland, which will be of great help in the forthcoming review of Scottish planning policy.
As members will be aware, not all applications for onshore wind farms receive consent. Indeed, in 2012-13 only 21 per cent of those multiple turbine projects that were referred to reporters were actually approved or allowed. Therefore, it is not true to say, as some have said in the discourse, that all wind farms immediately gain approval as soon as they go to the reporters—far from it. Some proposals do not even make it past the scoping stage due to a range of factors and planning constraints, or they are withdrawn before application or refused at local level. Reporters give careful consideration to issues of landscape.
I will move on, because time is pressing and I want to pick up on a number of points about species. I recognise Murdo Fraser’s genuine interest in the Scottish wildcat. He has submitted a number of parliamentary questions on the issue, to which I have responded. Media reports last year highlighted that there might now be only 150 breeding pairs of Scottish wildcats left in Scotland. I heard the figure that Murdo Fraser mentioned with interest. Although I agree that the indications are that wildcats are rare and are under considerable threat, we need to be careful about drawing conclusions from estimates of population size and different types of information.
Hybridisation with domestic and feral cats, to which Murdo Fraser referred, poses the greatest threat to the Scottish wildcat, along with the close proximity to feral and pet animals, which exposes the species to novel diseases such as feline influenza. Loss and fragmentation of habitat, which Joan McAlpine mentioned in relation to adders, is another issue for the wildcat that we are concerned about.
To reassure Murdo Fraser in one respect, the Scottish wildcat conservation action group is apparently already storing frozen gametes, which offers the potential to do the work that he mentioned. SNH and its partner organisations directly addressed the challenges that face wildcats in the north-east of Scotland through the Cairngorm wildcat project, the findings of which were published in full in August 2012, with the final report available on the Cairngorms national park website.
Presiding Officer, can I just check that I am in my final minute?
Yes, but you can have two, if you wish.
Thank you—that is helpful.
Work is being taken forward through the Scottish wildcat conservation action group on other possibilities, including innovative approaches such as captive breeding and translocation of cats in the wild. However, the current emphasis is on obtaining more up-to-date information on numbers and distribution, which in turn will help to prioritise action on the ground.
I certainly identify with Murdo Fraser’s point that the red squirrel is an iconic species and an important part of our ecosystem. It faces even more challenges now that ash trees are threatened, as those are one of the main trees that are resistant to grey squirrels and do not suffer from the damage to bark that Murdo Fraser talked about. We are looking at the issue in the context of our response to the Chalara fraxinea outbreak.
The aims of grey squirrel control are different in different locations. We need to prevent their spread into areas that currently have only red squirrels through control in key corridors in places such as Tayside, Loch Lomond and the Trossachs, the Borders—as has been mentioned—and Aberdeenshire. We also need to try to contain the spread of the squirrel pox virus in the south of Scotland.
Claudia Beamish is unfortunately no longer here, but I know that she has a long-standing interest in the area. I reassure her, perhaps through Claire Baker, that we are awaiting information from the Moredun Research Institute on the costs that are involved in progressing a vaccine. To sound a note of caution, a vaccine might take several years to develop, so it is not an immediate solution to the problem. We need to work on habitat fragmentation. We must also try to protect the existing pockets of red squirrels and prevent the spread of grey squirrels from the areas into which they have already encroached.
Meeting closed at 18:13.