Commercial Forestry
I warn members in advance that the debate on motion S3M-1315, in the name of Michael Russell, on commercial forestry, is heavily subscribed.
I am very pleased to introduce this debate. This week is, of course, environment week—as we know from the events and receptions that are taking place around the Parliament building. As they walked to the chamber, most members will have seen a variety of posters and stands, one of which draws attention to the environment being a place of economic activity. Today's debate is about the economic benefits of one very important part of our environment in Scotland—forestry in both the public and private sectors.
In December, when I introduced the debate on forestry, access and health, I made a commitment to return to the chamber to debate the economic impact of the commercial forestry sector. I am glad to do so today.
Since becoming Minister for Environment last May, I have had the privilege of visiting quite a number of Scotland's forests and a number of the timber-processing and wood-using companies. I have been impressed throughout by the levels of innovation, investment and technology that are employed to transform a fairly simply thing—a small tree that starts out as virtually nothing—into a very large thing indeed, which can then become a variety of valuable and useful products.
What impresses me most about the forestry sector in Scotland is the long-term nature of its work. Forestry is not for the faint-hearted; it is for those who are prepared to take time to put effort into long-term investment and long-term success.
I will at no time claim that this Government has all the answers for the forestry sector. We are committed to working with a wide variety of organisations and individuals and to acknowledging the work that has been done before—by those of no political persuasion and by those Governments that have regarded forestry as an important part of Scotland's future, particularly since the establishment of the Forestry Commission in 1919.
Despite fierce global competition, the forestry industry in Scotland is a success story. Our processors have managed to remain profitable through a period of historically low timber prices. That has been due to continuous investment in new equipment and to improved operating processes. Over the past two years alone, new wood-using developments, either commissioned or committed, have amounted to £250 million. They include new sawmills at Lockerbie, Dumfries, Fort William and Kincardine, as well as major biomass energy projects at Lockerbie, Irvine and Invergordon. Two weeks ago, I visited an impressive sawmill facility in Falkirk, which will relocate next year to state-of-the-art premises in Fife. That represents continued investment in the future profitability of forestry.
The emergence of the bio-energy sector represents another huge opportunity for Scottish forests and woodlands. The Scottish biomass support scheme is well subscribed and some £17 million of new projects will come on stream this year, assisted by £7.5 million from the scheme. I was pleased recently to receive the report of the wood fuel task force, which I set up last year. The report includes useful recommendations for massively increasing the supply of material into a rapidly developing sector. We are keen that bio-energy should develop at a pace and scale that suits our fibre resource.
Those and other positive investments not only represent timber use, but provide well-paid and worthwhile employment, often in parts of rural Scotland that are short of such employment. The forestry industry in Scotland supports 12,000 direct jobs and 14,000 indirect jobs—26,000 jobs in total—and recent investments can only add to the number.
There is also a thriving and growing hardwood sector, which operates in niche markets and produces uniquely Scottish products, often in rural areas. I was particularly impressed when I visited the Borders Forest Trust on a wet day last autumn to see how its work produces not only jobs but items of utility and beauty. There is potential to develop all those parts of the industry. I hope that the debate encourages such development, which will generate economic benefits throughout the country.
In 1970, just less than 750,000m3 of timber was produced in Scotland, mostly from the national forest estate. So successful has the industry been that in 2007 our forests produced 6.6 million cubic metres of timber, more than half of which came from the private sector. It is important to acknowledge that partnership between the private and state sectors, which is appreciated by both sides, is producing economic growth. Our Scottish forestry strategy indicates that we will increase output to about 8.5 million cubic metres per year during the next decade.
That cannot happen without forethought, planning and planting. The dip in planting since 1970 will soon produce a shortfall. I am supportive of the aspiration to plant around 9,000 to 10,000 hectares of new forests and woodlands each year. I am keen to drive forward planting, so that in time we meet the previous Government's aspiration, which we share, to have 25 per cent of Scotland's land afforested during this century. That will provide a long-term supply of wood to the sectors that I talked about. The aspiration represents significant additional woodland, much of which will be native and broadleaved woodland. We must also continue to invest in the right products to sell in the competitive forest industry worldwide.
It might seem strange to say that timber production is only part of a forest's success, but other things count in the success of forests. Forests support a vibrant tourism and recreation sector and add to the richness and biodiversity of our rural landscape. Forest-related activity, particularly in tourism, provided no less than £260 million in gross value added to the Scottish economy last year. Some 14,000 people are directly or indirectly employed as a result of such tourism activity. For example, the creation of a network of mountain bike trails by the Forestry Commission Scotland has earned Scotland the title of adventure capital of Europe.
Not all forest tourism involves such strenuous activity. The growth of ecotourism and wildlife watching is starting to deliver economic benefits. The sea eagles of Mull, at Loch Frisa, are a firmly established tourist magnet, which pulls in thousands of wildlife enthusiasts. The Forestry Commission's Kyle Rhea otter haven on Skye is another example.
The minister will be aware of proposals for new mountain biking facilities in Glentress and Innerleithen, in my constituency. We will shortly reach the final stage of a feasibility study for a mechanised uplift facility at Innerleithen. Will the minister look favourably on the project if it requires public sector support? It could bring huge advantages in developing not just the Borders' place but Scotland's place in the mountain biking world.
I am happy to look sympathetically at all investments that enhance Scotland's reputation in the world, and I will be happy to talk to Mr Purvis about the proposal and to visit the site, to see how we can help further. As he rightly pointed out, such investment has produced massive dividends. That is the key issue of the debate. State investment in the forestry sector is only part of the overall investment, but it unlocks huge benefit for the whole of Scotland.
I am well aware of concerns in the forestry sector about the hiatus that has followed the closure of the Scottish forestry grants scheme in April 2006 and I am keen that rural development contracts should be opened up as soon as possible. I welcome the European Union's imminent approval of the full Scotland rural development programme. Some £269 million will be allocated for forestry measures over the life of the programme. That represents more than £38 million of new investment in forestry every year, which is a historically high level of support and is provided in recognition of what forestry can deliver for Scotland. I am confident that the private sector will respond positively to the new rural development contracts and I have asked Forest Enterprise Scotland to develop, in parallel, a planting programme. As I said, the state and private sectors are working together, learning from each other and moving forward.
It would be wrong of me to conclude without mentioning the community woodland sector. The Government is keen on local participation. Woodland that is managed through local involvement helps to generate local activity, particularly economic activity. I have visited a number of projects during the past nine months, including Aline community woodland on Lewis—a surprising wood to come across on the road from Tarbert to Stornoway. The project is generating jobs and activity. Training has been provided for five local residents, who are now employed by the group. The Forestry Commission Scotland works in partnership with more than 100 community woodland groups on the national forest estate and supports community woodland umbrella bodies.
Scotland's forests and woodlands, which cover 8 or 9 per cent of land mass—a proportion that we are keen to grow—deliver economic benefits, through employment in rural areas and the development of a profitable and expanding processing sector, and by making a major contribution to local industries, including the tourism industry. They also provide a backdrop to what this country is and what it can be. They provide a backdrop to our landscape, a haven for our rich biodiversity and a special place for people to find and to visit.
I am pleased to move,
That the Parliament, mindful of the Scottish Government's purpose to achieve sustainable economic growth, acknowledges the contribution that forests and woodlands make through timber, tourism and direct and indirect employment, and recognises the need to support the continued development and expansion of the commercial Scottish forestry sector and the competitive and developing industries which it underpins.
In the dying days of the first world war in 1918, the country was ravaged by conflict, our young people had been sacrificed on the battlefield and our economy was in free-fall. That is the context in which the Forestry Commission was born, to replant, rebuild and renew a crucial asset that seemed impossible to replace. Replacing forests seemed to be an oxymoron. How could the native Caledonian pine forests, which were hundreds of years old, be replaced? However, the foresters of old in the 1920s and 1930s did what it said on the tin. They replanted our forests with fast-growing and mainly, but not exclusively, non-native species.
Today, the picture is very different. Our living forests play several roles—in climate change mitigation, industry and construction, jobs, biomass, housing and leisure, and biodiversity. For example, the Laggan community forest, which was born out of the national forest land scheme, is an exemplar of new thinking, which brings together various themes: timber processing, combined heat and power, holiday accommodation and recreational access. A few years ago, on a wet November morning, I attended the opening of the Wolftrax mountain bike trails, where brave adolescents risk life and limb—and their parents' blood pressure—to demonstrate that gravity does not apply to anyone under 21.
By my back-of-the-envelope calculation, which could be wrong, the Parliament last debated forestry in 2004. I strongly welcome the debate and commend the minister for bringing it to the chamber. As with our debate on biodiversity a few weeks ago, consensus may well break out in the chamber again today.
I share the view of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds that the role of Parliament and Government is to enhance the environmental as well as the social and economic value of Scotland's forests and woodlands. I fully support the Scottish forestry strategy, which was developed by the previous Administration, and its three outcomes in the areas of health, competitiveness and the environment.
Time will not allow me to develop some of the important themes that relate to the debate such as business and community development, access and health, freight and roads, tourism, and crofting and forestry townships. I hope that future debates will allow more time for those subjects.
The Scottish woodland is an important natural resource. It helps in the fight against climate change by retaining carbon and acts as an integral part of our economy not only by ensuring the availability of raw materials for the construction industry but by supporting the jobs that are associated with that industry. It also has an important role in ensuring that people throughout Scotland can access woodland areas to experience the wide range of biodiversity that Scotland continues to have.
The forestry strategy's implementation plan for 2007-08 highlights a number of commitments that the previous Government made, including an allocation of £10.5 million to support biomass schemes, to which the minister referred. Although the biomass sector is at an early stage of development, it has potential for the future. As the minister will be aware, in some parts of Europe, biomass represents 50 per cent of power use. For example, 20 years ago, Styria in Austria started from scratch a combined heat and power scheme that has become a model in Europe. It uses biomass pellets to heat schools, hospitals and housing estates. It uses low-value wood close to source and is effectively carbon neutral.
I congratulate the previous Administration on developing support of this sector. When it comes on stream, the Balcas project at Invergordon will add to Scotland's energy efficiency by producing biomass pellets, thereby avoiding the need for imports. We are on the verge of a biomass revolution.
The Lockerbie E.ON UK project, which I think the minister is to open, will be the first 100 per cent biomass-powered plant to create electricity for the grid. Does the minister have plans to continue funding through the Scottish biomass support scheme so that the biomass sector can continue to grow?
The biomass action plan has been published, but the question remains how the Government intends to take forward the recommendations in the renewable heat group's report on a future renewable heat strategy. Also, will the Government bring forward a sustainable procurement action plan? Although we all want the biomass sector to grow, it is vital that a balance is struck so that demand for wood fuel for energy does not exceed supply and the wood-processing industry continues to have the raw materials that it needs.
The timber industry is important to our economy. It operates in a global market. Although prices for timber have held up well, particularly over the past 12 months, the industry is subject to the same economic pressures of any other global market. As we all know, the recent credit crunch, which stems from problems in the sub-prime market in America, has led to issues in the housing market. It has led to concern about the knock-on effect on the demand for timber as the housing market continues to slow. However, at the same time, there is a strong export market for timber from Scotland. Every effort must be made to ensure that the industry can grow further.
The minister will be well aware that James Jones & Sons, the maker of the innovative I-beam, announced recently that it is going to expand its plant in Forres. He will be aware that the I-beam forms a key part of the Forestry Commission Scotland's district headquarters in Inverness, which was constructed as an eco-building. I visited that building last week. It is an excellent exemplar of eco-building.
To ensure a sustainable future for Scottish timber in the construction industry, it is vital that people learn new skills. I welcome the minister's assurance that the development of skills in this sector is a priority. I will flag up another Highland initiative: the UHI Millennium Institute's Scottish School of Forestry at Balloch in Inverness, which is taking an excellent lead in this area.
Remote areas of Scotland are home to some impressive forests that could be used for processing. However, the difficulties in transporting the wood out can lead to companies ruling those areas out. Surely an increased role can be played by shipping and rail, through the freight facilities grant, to take the pressure off weak roads. Where that is not possible, it is vital that we bring weak roads up to standard. I hope that the minister will give his commitment to supporting the timber transport fund to help towards that.
The link between forestry and tourism is already well established. Members will be familiar with the world mountain bike championships at Fort William, which are an excellent example of that link.
I welcome this timely debate and acknowledge the contribution that the public sector, private sector and—let us not forget—third sector make towards developing woodlands and forestry. We have witnessed a sea change in forestry management since the establishment of the Forestry Commission. We have a high-value product and a growing world price for timber. There is strong export potential for Scottish timber. Indeed, one snapshot from the past shows that pulp from Irvine was once exported to Manhattan for the production of Time magazine.
We now have affordable forest crofts, some of which are powered by biomass. We are seeing skills development in forest management. We have sustainable development of the commercial forestry sector in which recognition is given to the importance of biodiversity. We are also seeing the replanting and regeneration of native species, urban greening that provides fair access for all Scots, and the mitigation of climate change. By skilful management of the economic, environmental and social dimensions, we can preserve and develop Scotland's rich, natural asset.
I move amendment S3M-1315.2, to insert at end:
"and further notes the significant role that Scotland's woodland plays in the mitigation of climate change and the conservation of biodiversity."
I welcome the debate on one of Scotland's most vital rural industries. I thank the minister for honouring his commitment to hold the debate.
Notwithstanding that Scotland is one of the least wooded countries in Europe, with only 17 per cent of the land covered by trees, the Forestry Commission estimates that around £800 million of the Scottish economy is linked to forestry, with 6.6 million cubic metres of timber produced annually. Wood production and processing employ around 12,000 people in our fragile rural areas directly and 14,000 in downstream industries. In the hills and uplands of many parts of Scotland, forestry has replaced sheep farming.
In a debate on commercial forestry, it is worth remembering why the Forestry Commission was established and why it continues to be relevant today. First, in both the great wars of the last century, the strategic need for timber left much of Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom denuded of timber, much of which had been grown over centuries. The Forestry Commission was established in 1919 to reafforest Britain in recognition of the strategic and commercial need for timber. Certainly, the commercial need for timber remains to this day. That is why the Conservatives welcome the Government's planting target of 25 per cent, although that target is a reduction on the historical planting target of 33 per cent that was aimed for in recent times past.
Commercial timber production delivers more than just timber. For example, forest tourism is worth £160 million annually to the Scottish economy. In addition, Scotland's 1.3 million hectares of forestry lock up 70 million tonnes of carbon, as well as supporting much of our significant and varied biodiversity. Those benefits will only increase as we move towards the 25 per cent planting target.
It is also interesting to note the willingness of the private sector to get involved in delivering the annual planting target of an additional 10,000 hectares that will need to be planted if we are to achieve the 25 per cent target. I understand that 8,000 of those hectares will be planted by the private sector, which is prepared to take the long view in its investment strategies. That is to be welcomed, as is the reintroduction of the forestry grant scheme now that the rural development programme has been agreed.
That said, we would not be being Conservatives if, even as long-standing friends of the Forestry Commission, we did not encourage it, as guardian of the public purse, to do better in future. Many in the private forestry sector believe that they do what they do in spite of, rather than because of, the Forestry Commission. Perhaps the public and private sectors could work more closely together in future to streamline and deliver a more efficient service in terms of UK timber production.
Although it is probably right that tensions will always exist between the private and public sectors, on Tuesday I was pleased to attend an all-day meeting of the board of the Forestry Commission Scotland and to find a representative of the private sector there, helping with the discussion on the next corporate plan. That is the type of co-operation that is taking place and I am sure that the member will acknowledge it.
I am happy to do so. That co-operation should be encouraged in future—I am sure that the two sectors can work together fruitfully for us all.
On land use and planting techniques, we support the view that new planting should not take place in deep peat, as that endangers that soil type and releases further CO2 into the atmosphere. On the location of new forests, it is becoming more apparent by the day that strategically placed forestry may have a significant role in flood attenuation. If we are to have joined-up government, the minister must be aware of the emerging evidence on that in considering the forthcoming flooding bill. Given the much-increased risk of flooding throughout Scotland, which apparently is a result of global warming, public money must be spent intelligently to deliver reduced flooding risk. Soft engineering using strategically planted forestry may well be part of the sustainable and low-cost solution that we all seek to reduce flooding risk.
Increasing hydraulic roughness to slow flood surges and remove the peaks in major flood events may be part of the holy grail that we all seek of a low-cost method of flood-risk reduction. Although further research into that sustainable long-term method of flood-risk reduction may be required, ministers should have early discussions with the Forestry Commission on the possibility of strategically placed plantations to improve flood management. In addition, strategic planting for flood attenuation might well be a challenge that private forestry interests address if they perceive such projects to be in their interests as well as the country's. Strategic planting grants could be made available in future for planting forests in high-risk river catchment areas. Part of the £38 million of rural development programme funding that is earmarked for the forestry grant scheme annually could be targeted at flood attenuation.
Forgive me, but I am in my final minute.
I congratulate the Forestry Commission and private forestry owners on the efforts that have been made recently to increase biodiversity, which have been helped hugely by the Woodland Trust Scotland and RSPB Scotland. Our iconic capercaillie and the Scottish crossbill need all the support and protection that we can give them. The benefits from tourism are demonstrable. The opening up of our forests and woodlands to walkers, bikers and car rallying enthusiasts is just one of the additional benefits that forestry delivers. The Scottish Conservatives encourage further diversification of those national assets for public benefit.
I welcome the debate, which draws attention to the importance of commercial and amenity afforestation. Our forests are national assets that should be cherished and supported. We should encourage their use to deliver economic benefits and increased biodiversity and to play an important role in carbon capture. I urge members to support our amendment.
I move amendment S3M-1315.1, to insert at end:
"welcomes the firming up of the 25% target for forest coverage, planted in ways and using techniques which will contribute to carbon capture; further welcomes the fact that the majority of this additional planting is likely to be established through grant aid to the private sector, and supports efforts to increase the biodiversity value of all forestry in receipt of public funds, in particular new schemes which enhance habitats for key native species such as the capercaillie and the Scottish crossbill."
As members have said, forestry is a major player in Scotland's economy. That is especially true in the south-west, where the local enterprise company has specialised in forestry innovation. We have the new E.ON plant, which David Stewart mentioned and which produces electricity from locally grown willow. I will return to that issue. The forestry industry, like any other, lives in a dynamic world. Needs change, and the key to any industry's advancement is innovation. That can mean simply finding new markets for old products—which requires the industry to compete on the world market—or, better still, it can mean finding new products for emerging markets.
Renewable energy is an emerging market that I studied in a previous life when I was a trustee of the Borders Forest Trust. I am glad that the minister has visited the trust. About 10 years ago, I visited East Tyrol on the continent to see its community heating plants, which use local forestry waste products to produce hot water—simple brash is used to give warm baths. The first plant that I saw was in a rural location and fed hot water to about 300 disparate houses through a mains supply. At worst, the water in the main loses 1(C, in an area where I have seen snow in August. The fuel is simply brashings and bark, chipped to a regular size and naturally dried. Because all carbon residue is filtered out before it escapes into the atmosphere, the emissions are so clean that if somebody goes into the plant with a cigarette, the smoke alarm goes off. That plant is far better than having 300 boilers running with different effectiveness and having oil and gas transported in from who knows where to warm homes, while the profits from the heat go not just out of the community but out of the country.
Another plant that I saw on that and subsequent visits was the Stadwärme plant in Lienz. The town lies at the bottom of three valleys and had problems with pollution lying on it, which were addressed with a co-generation plant that feeds warm water to up to 5,000 houses and produces about 22MW of electricity from biomass in its two combined plants. It is hoped to get the figure up to 75MW fairly soon. That is all done using local wood products, with little processing involved. David Stewart mentioned a plant that used pellets, but the Lienz plant uses bulldozed-in waste products from the wood industry.
At the last count that I did, which was two or three years ago, Austria, with a population of about 8.5 million, had more than 700 community district heating plants. Scotland can and should do that, too—it is not rocket science. The technology exists already and can be improved. I want Scotland to be at the forefront on biomass energy, not only because it is good for the environment—as has been mentioned, it tackles our carbon footprint—but because it is good for the health of our people and, which is important, good for local economies. With such schemes, money that is spent on energy is spent locally and therefore does not go out of the economy. Also, if the whole energy process is local, that helps people to understand where their power comes from.
I lodged my amendment to strengthen Mr Russell's motion. The minister mentioned the expansion of forestry. I hope that members agree that that should be done in a way that does not exclude others and that includes all. I have mentioned before the importance of integrating existing land users with any expansion of forestry. The Borders Forest Trust has been involved in prime examples of that. I hope that the minister agrees that such integration is essential. We need only look at the valley of Eskdalemuir in Dumfriesshire to see the lack of local people working in that now forested glen.
The member raises the interesting and always important issue of local involvement. Does he accept that the investment from the strategic timber transport fund in Eskdalemuir has been done with the co-operation of the local community and that it is producing a synergy between the community and the forestry sector that can only be beneficial, given the advantages that it will give to the village?
I recognise that point and I am fully aware of the situation. I hope that progress can be made on that in future.
John Scott mentioned indigenous plantings and peatland. I am led to believe that planting a tree in pure peat releases carbon into the atmosphere and that it takes the tree 30 years to negate that. I hope that the minister acknowledges that point.
We have seen the early growth of the renewables market in Scotland, which is no surprise to me. The Lib Dems made significant progress on biomass initiatives as part of the previous Administration with, for example, its £22.5 million investment in the Aberdeen Renewable Energy Group and its biomass action plan. In March last year, Nicol Stephen announced an extra £3 million for that initiative, which took the grant scheme up to £10.5 million. I call on the Government to put effort into progressing the biomass industry in Scotland to build on the previous Administration's work. That would help the Scottish National Party to meet its manifesto commitment on decentralising generation and developing local heat and power grids for communities.
I seek support from throughout the Parliament for the amendment in my name, on behalf of the Liberal Democrats. Combined biomass community central heating plants present a huge opportunity for Scotland, local communities and their economies and, of course, our environment.
I move amendment S3M-1315.3, to insert at end:
"further recognises the role that forestry can play in helping to meet Scotland's renewable energy targets through biomass generation; welcomes the work of the previous administration on promoting the biomass sector through the highly successful Biomass Support Scheme, and calls on the Scottish Government to maximise the opportunities for growth, jobs and sustainability offered by the expansion of the biomass sector in Scotland by delivering the previous administration's Biomass Action Plan."
Commercial forestry can create a good deal more employment throughout Scotland, but it is up to us to ensure that it is targeted at suitable localities. I hope that the large-scale clear-fell forestry of the past can be changed as we begin to develop sustainable forestry that has a more farmed nature. That would tie up with the idea of having many more forestry workers resident in the areas in which they do the job of growing trees, brashing them, cutting down some and farming them in a way that the clear-fell approach has not allowed in the past. That is why there is a potential for communities. New forestry, crofting and community forest enterprises can fit into the picture, so that commercial forestry is much more diverse than it has been.
Each amendment acknowledges that we must address the climate change imperative. If we are to do that, we need a clear map of Scotland showing the best areas for forestry. Jim Hume mentioned the fact that peat soils are dangerous to stir up, although we have already done so in large parts of the Highlands. We must be careful to plant new forests in a way that will not disturb the biosphere so much. I hope that we can consider the potential in the east of Scotland, which has lower-peat soils. I dare say that some of the areas to which I refer are grouse moors at present, but they could well become forests in future.
Does Rob Gibson agree that more research needs to be carried out to establish the level and depth of peat on which one should not plant? As Rob Gibson and I know, there is an issue with black-top ground. Will that be acceptable in planting terms, or will it not? I will be interested to hear what the minister has to say about that later.
I quite agree with Mr Scott. That is the sort of research that can give us a much clearer picture of where we should be planting. I urged the previous Executive to think about the matter, and I am sure that the SNP Government will treat it as a priority now.
We should give some thought to the kinds of species that we are growing. No one has yet mentioned that, if we are going to have a lot more wooden buildings, we should be growing more Douglas firs here. We need to do that commercially, to supply the main beams and structures that will last 300 years—rather than the 30 years' life of public-private partnership schools, houses and other buildings that are being built at the moment. We need to plan for the long term. If we start growing Douglas fir in our own country, rather than importing it, we have the opportunity to create many more jobs here. I believe that Sitka spruce can be used for cladding. We have got a lot of it, and such uses would be better than using it for the gash purposes that some fast-growing woods have previously been used for. We should recognise the huge new market in the kinds of timber that will be used for eco-friendly homes.
I have asked about the possibility of a forestry map, and about resident workers. It is interesting to take note of the Balcas factory, which I hope will soon be built at Invergordon. It is based on a structure used at Enniskillen in Ireland. The company there serves a whole market across Ireland by transporting the pellets that are created. If we can ensure that such a body gets going here, it will allow people to use wood-fuelled stoves, which cut the amount of carbon that is emitted and increase the amount of heat in the home. That could be of great benefit.
I know that the minister is concerned that, when we tie up parts of the sector in producing the wood for making pellets and for wood burning in biomass form, we must have a secure market. Therefore, we must ensure that the machinery works. The plant that uses waste heat from the distillery in Wick is an example of something that must be able to work. There are plenty of good examples on the continent, as has been mentioned, which could help to ensure that we get the sort of equipment that can do the job. What an opportunity that is, considering the news that the waste plant in Lerwick is bringing hot water to 700 people—although it is burning waste, rather than wood, unfortunately. The thing that bothers me about the Lockerbie plant is that there is nothing there to use the waste heat. That is a mistake that cannot be repeated.
On the matter of having a joined-up rural agency, there has not yet been any mention of how the Forestry Commission is to work with other agencies. I hope that the minister can tell us a little more about how farmers, communities and others can buy into the whole sector. We know that the use of forests, in their many forms, can increase the number of people involved. We should ensure that the Administration enhances the potential to bring new people into forestry.
The rural development programme will be tight, and we will seek to make additions to it in the near future. The forestry sector offers one of the brightest hopes for us to create more sustainable jobs in Scotland. I fully support the motion, but I hope that we can sort out and agree on the amendments in such a way that they do not negate one another. The basic principle is that we need a sustainable forestry. That is the best way forward for Scotland.
I am delighted to speak in this debate on forestry, because the industry is so important to the economy of the south of Scotland, particularly that of Dumfries and Galloway. Forty per cent of Scottish forestry capacity is in the south of Scotland, and 60 per cent of those businesses are located in Dumfries and Galloway. Many of them are small businesses, employing fewer than five people, but they offer vital employment in rural areas.
One of the challenges to forestry has always been how to add value to the felling and logging of trees. When I was first elected to the Scottish Parliament in 1999, the Steven's Croft site next to the M74 near Lockerbie was something of an embarrassment to the local enterprise company, which had invested heavily in it—from memory, I think that it invested about £1 million. The expectation had been that there would be a multimillion-pound development by the Austrian multinational firm Kronospan but, unfortunately, Kronospan shelved the plans.
At that time, the investment was perceived as a terrible waste of public money, and the local enterprise company was the butt of many sarcastic floats at the local galas. Perhaps there is a lesson there about the public sector being prepared to take risks: eight years, on, Steven's Croft is perceived as being a great asset to the area. It has become established as the site of a number of forestry-based industries. Admittedly, there have been highs and lows in the narratives of the firms that have located there. There was a loss of jobs last October, when Forest Garden decided to consolidate its production nearer its market. However, a month or so later, there was an announcement of a further investment of £20 million by James Jones & Sons for sawmills on its site. David Stewart has referred to the James Jones investment in Inverness.
Steven's Croft is now the site of the UK's largest biomass plant, I think. It came into production in the autumn. Totally by serendipity, I visited it a week past Monday—I was unaware at the time that this debate was to take place. E.ON's 44MW plant can supply energy to about 70,000 homes, displacing about 140 tonnes of greenhouse gases. Including the supply chain, it will contribute about £12 million per annum to the local economy. It uses a mixture of fuels, including by-products from the sawmills on site. It uses logs that are the wrong size for further production, as well as branches. Increasingly, it uses short-rotation willow coppice, which is beginning to be grown locally. About 20 per cent of its fuel is recycled waste wood. It is all produced by the firm AW Jenkinson, which is in charge of commissioning the various products to fuel the plant.
There has been criticism of the plant over the failure to recycle the heat that is generated. I should say in defence of the plant that its efficiency is about 33 per cent, which compares very favourably with the efficiencies of coal-fired and oil-fired power stations. That does not mean that improvements cannot be made but, to an extent, the criticism has been unfair.
The biomass market encourages the management of neglected woodlands, and willow coppice offers diversification opportunities for local farmers, and also employment opportunities. Everybody is aware of my position on a balanced energy policy—indeed, I believe that nuclear power has to be part of that. One of the good things about biomass is that it contributes towards base-load capacity, which addresses one of our concerns about other renewable energy sources. The First Minister will be officially opening the plant in March, and I urge him to take advantage of the opportunity to climb up the outside of the plant. I do not say that out of any vicious intent; there is a very good view of the surrounding countryside from there.
Commercial forestry is contributing to the local economy in other ways. There has been reference to mountain biking. The 7stanes mountain biking trail through the Borders and Dumfries and Galloway is now well known, and it was awarded global superstar status by the International Mountain Bike Association in 2006. By the end of this year, the estimated annual number of visitors to 7stanes is expected to reach about 650,000.
The region offers a variety of events ranging from events for novices to major competitions. As a result of the success of the 7stanes, Dumfries will host the world mountain bike conference in September. I believe that that will be the first time that the conference has been held outside Canada, so it is quite a feather in our cap in Dumfries and Galloway. The conference will attract around 400 delegates and is expected to bring £1.3 million into the local economy.
Mention has been made of Eskdalemuir, which is also in my constituency. I stress the importance of the timber transport fund and the work that was done with the Eskdalemuir community over quite a long period to address the problems caused by the transport of logs through the village. The fund, which the previous Executive set up, has been extremely successful and I hope that the minister will confirm that such investment will continue in order to alleviate the problems that arise when harvested timber is taken through communities.
Forestry directly provides 19,000 jobs in Scotland, many of which are in my region of the Highlands and Islands, especially in remote and isolated communities where their value—and that of the associated jobs that they sustain—is consequently great. I hope that the number of people who are employed in the industry in the future will increase as the sector expands. Scotland has the land to provide further significant forestation and huge potential can be realised in many areas if the Government puts in place the right conditions and support, including adequate infrastructure.
I live on Loch Awe in Argyll. I remember when every house in the villages of Eredine and Dalavich, which were both purpose built by the Forestry Commission, was filled by a forestry worker. Almost all those workers have now departed, despite the fact that the forests are still there. I acknowledge that the Forestry Commission did good work in the past, but I share the concerns that have been expressed about how much value for money the taxpayer has received from the investment that was made.
I am fascinated by the reference to value for money. I visited the village of Dalavich on a wet and dreich day last November to launch a Forestry Commission publication. I found that the community there was live and vital and that many people there are still working in some aspect of forestry. The diversification has been vital and has been about the state and the private sector working together.
I hope that the state and private sector will continue to work together, but I disagree with the minister that many of the people living in Dalavich work in forestry—they do not.
The private forestry sector is concerned that it does not have a level playing field. I hope that the minister will respond to such concerns in his summing up. Will he concede that the state forestry sector receives four to six times the level of support that the private forestry sector receives? Will he assure me that the new grant proposals under rural development contracts will be fair and equitable? Will he today provide specific details on how grants for restocking and replanting will be administered? I want to see the private forestry sector, with its excellent delivery mechanism and value-for-money comparisons, winning adequate support to allow the replanting that is needed for a sustainable forestry sector.
What will the minister do to ensure that the enlargement of the commercial forestry sector, taking account of biodiversity and the enhancement of native woodlands and open space, is moved up the agenda of the regional project assessment committees? That is vital, but so far it seems to be a very low priority for the RPACs.
The previous Executive let down the private forestry sector badly when, in 2006, it ended the forestry grants scheme a year earlier than planned. We therefore look to the new Scottish National Party Government to treat the private forestry sector with more respect and to promote forestry that encourages wildlife. John Scott's amendment refers to capercaillie and Scottish crossbills. I add to that blackcocks and greyhens, which will thrive in diverse forests but are destroyed by the monoculture of massive blocks of Sitka spruce.
I agree with what other members said about the tourism potential of forestry. We must plant a diverse range of deciduous trees as well as conifers because that will benefit the environment, wildlife and tourism. I hope that most members agree that the days of simply planting thousands of acres of Sitka are over and will not be missed. Monoculture in forestry is a bad idea—the Gearraidh na h-Aibhne plantation of western hemlock on the Isle of Lewis was completely destroyed by the pine beauty moth.
Forestry must be planted with markets in mind, whether we are talking about the production of fuel briquettes for biomass, which Jim Hume mentioned, or the production of high-quality paper, for which Scotland already has a good reputation: Time magazine, for example, uses Scottish paper. Pulp and paper mills, such as those that sustained Fort William and Invergordon in the past must be strategically planned and timber transport should be planned to involve sea and rail, so that as little damage as possible is done to Scotland's roads.
I am also interested in alternative types of fencing for forestry. Young trees must be fenced to protect them from deer, but it is possible nowadays to use unobtrusive electric fencing in place of the conventional high fences that can kill birds and are expensive to maintain.
Today's debate has been constructive and welcome. If ministers take anything from it, I hope that they will recognise that the private forestry sector wants to play a full, positive and dynamic part in developing the commercial forestry sector in Scotland, and that it is uniquely well placed to do so. All the private forestry sector wants is a level playing field in accessing the support that is available, and a process that is not bogged down with bureaucracy and red tape. I support the amendment in the name of my colleague John Scott.
I welcome the chance to debate the position and significance of commercial forestry in Scotland. Many people throughout the country will not realise the significance of the industry, but the minister and others have set out its importance.
Forestry and wood processing provide thousands of jobs and are worth hundreds of millions of pounds to the Scottish economy. The industry currently produces some 6.8 million tonnes of softwood round timber a year, which is forecast to rise to more than 8 million tonnes a year over the coming two decades. We are currently pretty good at sourcing material from indigenous sources: it is important that we maintain that, given the forecast rise in production. That is one of the reasons why I welcome the Government's commitment to increasing forest and woodland cover within 25 years. There are other reasons to welcome that commitment, to which I will return. As the industry grows and production increases, it is vital that we ensure that more raw materials for the forestry industry are secured by way of greater forest cover.
We should also note that more than 70 per cent of the softwood round timber that is sourced in Scotland is processed in Scotland. Although I welcome the fact that the remainder finds ready markets elsewhere, we should take pride in the large degree of self-sufficiency that exists in the Scottish industry. The fact that the vast majority of timber that is sourced in Scotland is processed in Scotland is good news for the Scottish economy and jobs. The fact that most of the timber stays within our borders to be processed here ensures environmental effectiveness by reducing transport emissions.
The environmental angle is important. Our forests and woodlands are important tools in mitigating the effects of climate change. Crucially, the industry itself recognises the importance of that. The Confederation of Forest Industries estimates that tree planting is now offsetting around 8 per cent of Scotland's carbon emissions. I accept that carbon-emissions offset is not in itself going to win the climate change battle, but it has an important part to play, so the Scottish Government's commitment to increasing forest cover within 20 years or so is important in that regard. The more trees that are planted, the greater will be the carbon-emissions offset. Increasing forest cover is good news not just for the industry but for the environment.
Increased forest cover is good for the physical environment and combating climate change, but it is also good for our aesthetic environment. Scottish Environment LINK has recently contacted members to set out the importance of Scotland's landscapes. It states that the value of good landscapes to local economies is shown in tourism surveys, which consistently reveal that scenery and landscape are a key reason for visiting Scotland. Ensuring better forest cover can go some way towards ensuring more attractive landscapes.
According to the Confederation of Forest Industries, Scotland has 17 per cent forest cover, which compares favourably with the UK figure of 11 per cent, but lags significantly behind the EU25 average of 36 per cent. At one stage, Scotland was almost entirely covered by forest. I am not suggesting that we will be able to roll back thousands of years of human activity, but the Government's important commitment to increasing forest cover will help to create more attractive landscapes in our country and therefore to assist tourism, which is an important part of the national economy in which, of course, forestry also plays a part.
I have not yet mentioned forestry's importance to biodiversity. Only two weeks ago in the debate on the biodiversity strategy, Parliament broadly agreed on the need to maintain Scotland's biodiversity. I think that, this morning, we broadly agree that our forests—and our forestry industry—can also play a role in that respect. As a result, I welcome the Labour amendment. My only hope is that, if and when the amendment is successful, Labour members will, unlike yesterday, not go into hiding when it comes to the vote on the substantive motion.
Oh grow up, Jamie.
There you go.
I congratulate the Government on securing this debate. Our forestry industry is pretty strong at the moment, but there is scope for growth. After all, the UK currently imports 90 per cent of its paper and much wood-based produce, and the value and cost of those imports amounts to £6 billion. There is no reason why, with continued growth, the Scottish industry cannot replace some of those imports and provide the necessary materials to make many of those products. I am sure that commercial forestry will continue to flourish in Scotland and that the Government's policy of increasing forest cover, which will bring us closer to the European Union average, will play a huge role.
I commend the motion to Parliament.
I am pleased to speak in the debate. I support the forestry sector's expansion. As a result of that expansion, we have an opportunity to promote and develop greater public access to our land.
We should remind those who manage forestry land on our behalf that they are doing exactly that: access is as important as planting and harvesting trees, managing the forest for future generations and future needs, creating employment and adding to our economy. It is beneficial not only to the financial viability and future sustainability of our forests and associated land but to the health and well-being of the people who use those areas.
I welcome the Forestry Commission Scotland's growing involvement in managing forests and woodland in my Cumbernauld and Kilsyth constituency. Over the past few years, it has moved from managing what I consider to be large-scale forestry projects to becoming involved in smaller areas close to residential communities. However, it should always be mindful that it cares for some of the most beautiful land and landscapes in our country and, in the case of the Carron valley in my constituency, probably in the world, never mind in Europe. People want to see their lands, forests and woodlands managed to the highest environmental standards and to have access to them for recreational purposes. For those who are unfamiliar with the Carron valley, it is geographically at the heart of Scotland. Stirling claims to be the gateway to the Highlands, but the fact is that Kilsyth, the Kilsyth hills and the Tak-Ma-Doon Road, which leads from Kilsyth to the Carron valley, is the front door. Resting in the heart of central Scotland between Kilsyth, Stirling and Denny, Carron valley forest enjoys an enviable location. As most major Scottish cities are within an hour's drive, it is understandable that people want to visit the area and use the trails and paths for walking and cycling. I want to ensure that we make the most of that advantage by developing what we already have and providing facilities for visitors.
The minister is aware of the Carron Valley Development Group, which came together in 2003 to develop the potential of the Carron valley forest. Those volunteers put a lot of hard work into designing, raising money for and building an ambitious trail. In spring 2006 the group, in partnership with North Lanarkshire Council, Stirling Council and the Forestry Commission Scotland, launched the first purpose-built mountain bike centre in central Scotland. The group then developed a further three trails, which opened in August 2006. Such trails, which were designed to the highest specification and built to take account of future maintenance needs, could be developed throughout Scotland.
However, that partnership appears to be going downhill. It seems to the volunteers and the councils that unless the rest of the partners agree with the Forestry Commission—and unless that organisation puts forward a particular idea—nothing happens. I will write to the minister later this week on this matter; I do not have time at the moment to highlight all the issues, but he knows that last autumn I met representatives of the Forestry Commission Scotland and the other partners.
I am happy to meet Cathie Craigie to discuss that long-standing problem. I understand that the Forestry Commission holds the same position as I do: if we can help to solve it, we will try to do so.
I am happy for the minister to intervene but, although the commission says that it is happy to solve the problems, nothing is happening on the ground. I welcome the minister's offer and will get in touch with his office to arrange a meeting with me and representatives of the Carron Valley Development Group and partner organisations.
The minister will be very busy if he is going to meet everyone who has spoken this morning. He is very welcome to visit Wester Ross and see the Forestry Commission Scotland's excellent work. I am glad to see—and am encouraged by—the Parliament's support for Forest Enterprise Scotland and the Forestry Commission Scotland.
There is no doubt that the commission is one of our outstanding national assets, and we cannot ignore its tremendous contribution to Scottish life and commercial forestry over the past 90 years. As members have pointed out, it was established a long time ago, in 1919, to reverse the massive deforestation that was caused by the high demand during the 1914 to 1918 war for timber, which was used in the trenches or to make pit props for our coal mines. The commission's remit at the time was to establish an important national strategic reserve of our timber in the event of hostilities recurring.
In fact, the commission was really a massive job-creation exercise that provided much-needed employment in rural areas through the depression of the 1920s and 1930s. The availability of jobs kept young families in the straths and glens, where they supported the economy and the social structure of those remote areas.
The commission also had a great social conscience. For example, after the evacuation of St Kilda in the early 1930s, it housed the island's residents in different parts of the west coast, including Dalmally, in Mr McGrigor's area. He says that not many forestry workers live there today, but it was certainly one of the main areas where the St Kildans were housed.
The Forestry Commission also provided many in its workforce with rented housing, which was something new in those days. Some of the houses were attached to crofts and other small agricultural holdings. That is evidenced today by the descendents of the original tenants who are still living on the holdings and happy to be employed in sustainable forestry activity.
Following the 1939 to 1945 war, the commission continued to provide work and new housing for workers to rent. As Mr McGrigor mentioned, whole new villages were built using timber houses, albeit that they were imported from Sweden. Those houses are still in excellent habitable condition, despite our inclement weather and 60 years of use. We should be appreciative for the past efforts of the forestry developers.
The rural economy derives great benefit from planting, management and harvesting of mature timber. Transport companies have expanded to meet the growing demand for timber supplies delivered over long distances to pulp and paper mills, to the Bonawood and sterling board factories and to the sawmills to produce building-grade timber for the construction industry.
As several members have said, the Forestry Commission is today the largest landowner in Scotland and it has been progressive in the use and development of its woodlands for timber, tourism and recreation. However, more needs to be done. We have heard of the developments for outdoor pursuits in much of the forest estate, and they are to be welcomed, but I would like more of its unproductive land to be made available for affordable housing. The commission has done that in the past—it built villages in the straths and glens—so why should it not start the process again?
Let me reassure John Farquhar Munro that the commission is keen to enter into discussions with any social landlord who wishes to build houses on any suitable part of the forest estate, particularly if the construction uses wood and includes a combined heat and power plant using wood biomass. That is the way forward, and the commission is desperately keen to ensure that it is part of it.
I thank the minister for that comment, but I would like the Forestry Commission to be a scheme promoter. It has the resources, and the houses could be built with locally sourced timber. Biomass could be used to heat the homes, so there would be great benefits all round.
As I am in my last minute, I will make a final plea to the minister on something that I have spoken about before. We have previously made a freight facilities grant available to take freight off the roads and put it on to rail. The Forestry Commission should be given a marine facilities grant so that timber from remote areas can be transported by sea. Marine structures are difficult and expensive to establish, so consideration should be given to supporting such an exercise.
It is particularly important when we debate forestry that our horizons to stretch far beyond our own short lives. The first world war was not the first time Britain and Scotland were stripped of their trees. I can think of an instance in the mid-16th century when the whole of Fife was denuded of its oaks to build the Great Michael, then the biggest warship in the world.
Here is a lovely story. In the middle of the 16th century, Brasenose College built a new hall and wanted an oak hammer-beam roof. At the same time as the roof was built, the college looked forward two hundred years and planted on its land enough oaks to replace the roof at the time it thought it might wear out—at the maturity of an oak, which is between 100 and 200 years. That is the kind of long-term planning that we will need in a forestry strategy if we want high-quality construction wood and high-quality environments in Scotland.
Today's debate has been extremely interesting and informative, and I am happy to say that I will support all the amendments and the motion. I have just a few comments.
One of the mixed uses of forestry that we have not addressed today involves forestry and farming. Ten years ago, a small group of experts went from Scotland to Norway to find out how forestry and farming are managed there. The findings were interesting, and I recommend them to the minister. I will not go into detail, but one example was mixed forestry and sheep farming, which would be ideal for us in Scotland.
I should have declared an interest to begin with, but does the member acknowledge that the Scottish Agricultural College has already carried out work on mixed forestry and woodland enterprises at Kirkton and Auchtertyre near Crianlarich? I am sure that he would applaud that work.
I acknowledge that point—it is a pity that such work is not spreading further.
We have a serious shortage of construction timber in Scotland, and we need to plant for the future. That is evidenced by the fact that wood for one of the best developments in timber-framed housing in the past couple of years has had to be imported from Germany. It is also evidenced by the fact that the designer of the new primary school at Acharacle—one of Scotland's leading environmental architects and not someone who would go for imported materials lightly—is importing wood from Austria because that is what he needs for a high-quality school.
I was pleased to see Jim Hume's amendment, and it would be good for the Government to reflect on the history of Torren Energy and why it had to be taken over. That happened because it had difficulty in selling its product to councils. It was selling a system of heat from wood fuel, and it designed its system for use in council buildings and schools.
I was delighted to hear Rob Gibson's mention of better uses for at least some grass moors. It would perhaps be better to plant them with forestry rather than use them for the annual ritual slaughter of birds for the delectation of foreign visitors. I know that that activity is an important part of our economy, but some of our moors would be better used for trees, which would benefit our economy as well.
Finally, it is a pity that John Scott did not include in his amendment what he said about flooding in his speech, because his comments were sensible. We do not need research: as I have said before to the minister, we could be getting on with planting trees in river catchment areas now.
I suppose that it might come as a slight surprise to some members that I am speaking in the debate, given that there are not a huge number of trees in Caithness. However, as the minister well knows, there are many in Sutherland and Easter Ross.
Like others, the minister correctly drew our attention to the history: the important date of 1919 and why the Forestry Commission came into being. He mentioned also the 12,000 direct and 14,000 indirect jobs that the forestry industry supports. All of us welcome his commitment to plant more trees and to seek to attain 25 per cent of Scotland's land area planted with trees. His was a good introduction to a consensual debate and, like Robin Harper, I hope that we can coalesce around all the amendments.
John Scott correctly mentioned deep peat planting on the flow lands of Caithness, which is a huge issue. He also introduced a new term to the debate—"hydraulic roughness"—which I will remember. The intervention that I sought to make on him was this: in anticipation of flooding on sloping land, there is no doubt about the important role that strategically placed planting can play in preventing landslips. If trees had been planted where we have seen some of the extensive landslips in recent times, they would not have been as bad.
Jim Hume talked about innovation and spoke from his background about the importance of the product, markets and marketing. Like David Stewart, he referred to the Austrian experience. David Stewart and Jim Hume were correct to say that Austria is far further along than us and is where we should be now. Austria provides the example of the direction in which we should go.
Jim Hume talked about health. I think that we all agree that Scotland's forestry represents a kind of green lung for us all. Many young and old people use forest trails in my constituency. Some people indulge in the incredibly dangerous occupation of mountain biking, to which David Stewart referred. I would not be seen dead on a mountain bike—well, if I were on a mountain bike, I would be dead.
Rob Gibson, who has had to leave us but who was kind enough to apologise, talked about sustainable forestry and the idea of local forestry workers living and working in and around the communities in which trees have been planted. As he said, that would be in deep contrast to what happens under clear felling. What Rob Gibson and John Farquhar Munro said reminded me that, in my childhood, forestry workers' houses stood at Morangie on the outskirts of Tain, but forestry workers no longer occupy those houses.
I draw to the minister's attention the village of Lairg in central Sutherland, which depended greatly on forestry in years gone by, although that is not the case today. There is room for work on that, but I do not doubt the minister's commitment.
I was going to invite an intervention.
The member knows—because I invited him to be there, although he could not be present—that I visited Lairg last summer to talk about ways in which the whole rural delivery service is changing job patterns. However, I remain concerned and I shall be back in Lairg this summer, when I will invite Mr Stone to join me again.
I look forward to greeting the minister in my constituency. As always, he is welcome.
Jamie McGrigor slightly confused me by referring to a pulp and paper mill at Invergordon, which I do not recall in my time. However, he and others were correct in their sentiments about the Balcas development in my constituency. The first thing to say about Balcas is that we have got there: the innovative plant is being built in Invergordon. It will produce very small wood pellets by a highly efficient method that uses all the tree. Brashings have been referred to. The plant will operate a highly efficient system in which almost everything is used.
I say to the minister that the method by which we reached the Balcas development was not always as easy as we would have liked in the Highlands. My colleague Fergus Ewing would bear witness to that. At times, we nearly went down the wrong road for the sort of plant that we would have at Invergordon, but we got it right. However, a backward-looking exercise would give ministers and the enterprise network room to examine some of the avenues that were previously considered, but that is perhaps for another day.
Cathie Craigie gave an excellent advertisement for her constituency and John Farquhar Munro said that the Forestry Commission was
"one of our outstanding national assets".
He was right to talk about the marine transport of timber, but highly pertinent to my constituency is getting as much timber as we can off our hard-pressed road structure and on to rail. Many people from parties across the political spectrum have referred in the past to that, on which more work has to be done. Given that the railway line moves inland as it goes through Sutherland and approaches Wick and Thurso, timber could without doubt be moved by rail.
The heat and power initiative in Wick was mentioned—I forget by which member. That is a tremendous success story. It is what we should have done years ago and what has been done in Austria and many other parts of Europe. The scheme provides affordable heat and power for families who need such assistance. According to national parameters, the Pulteneytown area of Wick is recognised as an area of need, so the resource is being targeted where it is most needed. As other members said, the scheme's beauty is that it provides a completely sustainable form of energy with the minimum transport—locally grown timber from as close to Wick as it can be obtained is used. If we can replicate the Wick experiment the length and breadth of Scotland, that will be a great success story.
I support my party's amendment and I am sure that we will support all the other amendments later.
The debate is well timed, as it takes place in the middle of Scottish environment week, the theme of which is enabling sustainable livelihoods, and just after the Confederation of Forest Industries (UK)— the forestry industry's trade association—has challenged the Government to unlock the potential of Scotland's forests. The debate has made it clear that that potential is enormous and diverse.
ConFor's chief executive, Stuart Goodall, is striving for greater public recognition of the value and benefits of forestry and I commend him for that. He argues, and we do not disagree, that forestry has a major role to play in tackling climate change, not only by locking up carbon, but by providing the wood that the construction industry is increasingly using as a substitute for concrete and steel and which has significant potential as a fuel, as many members have said.
Biomass generation could contribute seriously to meeting Scotland's renewable energy targets, as Jim Hume's amendment highlights. We are happy to endorse his call for continuing support for the biomass sector and we are pleased with the minister's commitment to continue the biomass support scheme.
I recently visited the Enterprise North East Trust's headquarters in Inverurie in Aberdeenshire, which is heated by woodchip biofuel. I was extremely impressed by the system's efficiency and the building's warmth. Market potential clearly exists for wood fuel and forestry expansion will be crucial to developing that market.
As Stuart Goodall told The Press and Journal in a good article last weekend, the industry is optimistic, as the price of wood from forestry has increased significantly. However, we need to look to the future by increasing the forest area in Scotland to ensure long-term supplies of timber to satisfy the growing demand. As the minister said, wood production is a long-term process.
ConFor also wants to restore the credibility of the industry, which is still in the shadow of the monoculture planting that blighted much of the Scottish landscape in the 1980s and early 1990s—as in the Caithness flow country, to which Jamie Stone referred—and which Jamie McGrigor described vividly. The industry accepts that new forest planting must be of mixed species and must have open spaces for people to enjoy and in which wildlife can prosper. That view is endorsed by organisations in Scottish Environment LINK, such as the Woodland Trust and RSPB Scotland—of which I declare I am a member—which want woodlands to be managed in ways that maximise biodiversity and which caution against tree planting purely for carbon sequestration.
As much of the existing forest is due to be felled, my party is pleased that the Government has promised to raise £15 million a year from the sale of national forest estate to be reinvested in new woodlands, which will be managed in line with the Scottish forestry strategy. We are especially pleased that the Government has firmed up the previous Executive's aspiration to increase forestry coverage from the current 17 per cent to 25 per cent by promising about 10,000 hectares of new planting per annum, most of which will be established through grant aid to the private sector. As we have heard, the industry's profitability depends heavily on partnership between the state and the private sector, and the latter is keen to be involved in developing the industry.
Great concern and despondency were felt when the previous Executive ended the forestry grant scheme prematurely, which in effect ended new planting by the private sector. The welcome new financial support should redress the situation by encouraging the establishment of new forests and not least by assisting owners of agricultural land to diversify into sustainable forestry.
The promised new planting provides an excellent opportunity to correct the damage that was done by the dense and largely lifeless plantations of the past and to regenerate our native woodlands, which are valuable for tourism and rich in biodiversity. As John Scott said, strategic forest planting could play a significant role in flood prevention.
As we have heard from all parties, there is no doubt that forestry is one of the most important industries in rural Scotland. With the increasing number and variety of businesses that use timber, it is at the forefront of sustainability and mitigating climate change. The industry's growth by 39 per cent in the past eight years shows its economic potential. It contributes nearly £1 billion to the Scottish economy and employs many thousands of people in wood production and processing. In the past 15 years, it has achieved £60 million of private sector inward investment.
Many benefits can be derived from our woodlands. They are home to numerous species of insects, plants and animals, including, as we have heard, the Scottish crossbill and the threatened capercaillie, whose survival depends on our ancient Caledonian pine forest.
Thanks to the Forestry Commission, the Woodland Trust and others, our forests have in recent years been increasingly opened up for recreation. Every day, my dogs enjoy walks in the woodlands at Countesswells, near my home. The tracks there are also used regularly by horse riders and cyclists. Many visitors and locals enjoy the sculptures and views in Kirkhill forest, and the Gight Woods, near Methlick, which are managed by the Scottish Wildlife Trust, provide education and enjoyment for many people from the local neighbourhood and beyond. Those are only a few examples from Aberdeenshire; there are many more the length and breadth of the country. As we have heard, Scotland's forests also play host to many sporting events, such as car rallying and the mountain bike world cup.
We are happy to support the motion and the amendments. We want to see the on-going development of forestry, which is already a key industry in rural Scotland, in ways that will increase its biodiversity as well as its commercial value. We look forward to an increasingly confident and competitive industry that is encouraged and assisted by Government support, and we are anxious to hear the details of that.
This is another important and worthwhile debate, which has been constructive and, in the main, consensual. It is a welcome recognition of the role that forestry plays in a range of sectors in Scotland, but perhaps most importantly in the conservation of our biodiversity and the mitigation of climate change. Indeed, yesterday, the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee heard how forests can act as a soft engineering measure in tackling flooding in Scotland. That is an issue on which we will want to see some progress made.
As we sit in this fabulous chamber and marvel at the beauty of the wood that surrounds us, we must reflect on the fact that far too much of it required to be imported from overseas because too much of our indigenous woodland has been lost, leaving little for current generations to share. I am interested to hear how the minister and the Government will address that problem.
Rob Gibson rightly mentioned the potential for using timber in housing development. Sweden has taken the lead in that—indeed, I was brought up in a so-called Swedish timber house, which is still our family home. Ikea now seems to be getting in on the act by supplying kit houses. Sweden has exported many good things to the world, including Abba—I could ask Jamie Hepburn, "Does your mother know that you're out?", but that would be churlish—and I am keen to know the minister's views on how timber and eco-friendly housing can play a role in meeting the Government's housing targets. I am also interested to hear how he will work with his colleagues across portfolios and in other departments to make progress on that.
As we develop further opportunities for the planting of forests in Scotland, it is essential that we proceed in a way that is sensitive to the wildlife and biodiversity of any area. I seek assurances from the minister that the new forestry planting strategy will not repeat the mistakes of the past but will avoid sensitive areas that are important for wildlife and that provide a range of public benefits. Can he assure Parliament that any efforts to combat climate change will not—as other members have mentioned—result in the implementation of environmentally damaging models of forestry? I am thinking particularly of the dangers of planting in peat bog areas.
In relation to the public benefits of forestry, I will focus on two specific issues. First, the minister is aware of my interest in the sale of forestry and woodland to community groups for their management. I welcome the written answers that I have received, which say that he is reviewing the guidance to ascertain whether there are ways in which sales can be made below the current market value. I encourage him to ensure that that happens where it can clearly be demonstrated that there would be community benefit, so that woodlands throughout Scotland can be owned and managed by the communities around them.
The second issue is the use of wood-burning stoves and heating systems in public buildings. In my constituency, groups such as Carbon Neutral Biggar are keen that any new schools that are built should use such systems. Indeed, in opposition, the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth put forward such arguments in the chamber. There is disappointment that the biomass boilers have been withdrawn from the City of Edinburgh Council's PPP schools project. Obviously, the council has the right to make that decision, but it seems strange that we are not using such major new building programmes as a driver for changing the type of heating systems that are installed, which would be of great advantage for the future. Perhaps the minister will reflect on how the Government could provide greater incentives and more forceful guidance to local authorities and other public bodies to encourage the development of sustainable fuel sources as new buildings are constructed. That would be good for the environment, good for those who would use the buildings and, as other members have said, good for the industry.
Several members have mentioned the importance of forestry to tourism and how we can expand and develop tourism in our forests and wooded areas. Some have mentioned the use of mountain bikes, having attended the mountain bike world cup. I noted that a number of members were offering to chip in to buy Jamie Stone a mountain bike, but I am sure that they did not mean it. Nevertheless, mountain biking has provided an invaluable source of tourism for Scotland, especially in Fort William and the Highlands but also in the Borders, at Glentress. As the facilities there expand and develop, it will become a positive tourist attraction. I am keen to learn how the minister believes that that can be driven forward and used to best advantage.
I find myself in the strange position of supporting a Conservative amendment—again—as well as the Liberal Democrat amendment and the Government's motion. I urge other members to do likewise. This is an important area for Scotland in which the industry, the public sector and the private sector can move forward together. We must do that to ensure not only that Scotland has a sustainable resource for the future and that our children are not left with the legacy of deforestation that we inherited, but that Scotland is in a much better position to face the challenges of climate change that lie ahead.
The debate has been consensual, positive and well informed. Those in the forestry sector who are listening to or watching the proceedings will be heartened by that. Members seem to have taken advantage not just of the briefing materials that have been distributed at various stages, but of their own genuine knowledge of and research into the sector and its importance.
We must acknowledge the wide range of players who will be interested in the discussion that we have had today. Those include the Forestry Commission Scotland and Forest Enterprise, in the public sector; the private sector, to which I will return in a moment; and the community sector. I pay tribute to the community sector and acknowledge as a live issue Karen Gillon's point about community purchase and the valuations that are used in such purchase. I am working hard with Forestry Commission colleagues to provide the answer that both she and I want within the state accounting rules. We will do our best to provide that answer.
The environment and wildlife non-governmental organisations are also key players in the sector, and the users of timber—in the processing, building and energy industries—are important. Finally, we should always remember the public interest. The public are deeply involved in the forestry sector for tourism, recreation and health. They are also involved as the consumers of timber products. So, everybody in Scotland has an involvement in forestry.
I know that the messages that the debate sends out will be listened to. Calum MacDonald, the non-executive forestry commissioner for Scotland and the chair of the Forestry Commission's national committee for Scotland is in the public gallery—I am sure that we all welcome his presence here and the fact that he has listened to the debate. Bob MacIntosh, the director of the Forestry Commission Scotland, will also have listened to the debate, as will many forestry workers throughout Scotland who are keen to hear not just what we know, but what we are going to do—both the Government and the Parliament—to encourage their work.
I am slightly critical—which is very unlike me—of one speech this morning. I think that Jamie McGrigor should get out more into our forests and woodlands. If he did that, he would understand that there is an active partnership between the private and public sectors and that there is no attempt to give an unfair advantage to either side. I felt slightly resentful at his implication that there would not be fair and equitable treatment of all those who apply for the SRDP funding. The idea of that funding is to generate new activity in every part of Scotland and by every player. Again and again, we have stressed the need for people to be active in promoting the scheme, including members of the Scottish Parliament. They should not be implying that there will be unfairness, but should be trying to ensure that as many people as possible take part in the scheme.
I think that I said that there has been unfairness in the past and that we look forward to a much more progressive attitude and a more level playing field for private and state-funded enterprises within the forestry sector.
I am a great fan of revisionist history and I accept that revisionist history of what was said.
I am deeply appreciative of John Farquhar Munro's speech, in which he reminded us how forestry has been central to the Scottish rural economy, certainly in the 20th century. Robin Harper mentioned the situation before 1919—indeed, he implied that he could remember back to the 16th century, at which I am deeply impressed—and I take his key point about the need for sustainability. We should be mindful of his example of those who use wood but also plant trees.
Let me address some of the detailed points. On the important issue of flooding, forestry has a key role to play, as it has in all land-use activities and indeed in many climate change activities. Climate change is not the core driver for the forestry sector but it is a driver, so I am happy to take on board Robin Harper's point by acknowledging that forestry not only can but must start to play a role. In addition, I was pleased to be involved in discussions this week about moving ahead quickly with demonstration projects so that we can start to do things.
Transportation was another key point. I must express some disappointment that it has been difficult to involve the rail sector in forestry, but there are reasons for that, especially for particular projects in Galloway. However, not enough has happened.
Will the minister give way?
No, I must make progress.
On the shipping sector, the contribution that John Farquhar Munro called for is being made. The Forestry Commission in Scotland currently supports the timberlink shipping service, which removes lorries from roads on the west coast by enabling the timber to be sent by sea. The subsidy for that is just under £1 million a year. There has been some slow build-up of similar services in other parts of Scotland.
I am keen for timber lorries to be taken off the roads if at all possible. The strategic timber transport fund has been highly successful in doing that but it was due to close in December 2008. I am sorry that members suggested that an announcement was yet to be made on the fund's renewal—clearly, they have not been keeping enough of an eye on the timber press—as I announced in December that the life of the fund would be extended. Financial support for the fund will continue until 2011, with a total budget of £15 million over the next three years.
I am grateful to all those who have been involved in projects such as the one at Eskdalemuir, which Elaine Murray and a number of others mentioned. Community involvement in such projects is vital, because they are of high significance to all of us who use the roads in one way or another, including—as was the case in Eskdalemuir—those who walk on the roads.
I conclude by drawing attention to some key messages on important issues for forestry that need to be communicated following today's debate. First, Scotland's wood-using sector is a major long-term success story—
Will the minister give way?
Sorry, I really must finish.
As all Governments—even a Government as good as this one—are transitory, every Government must make a long-term commitment to the wood sector. Although the current Government will not be that transitory—if yesterday is anything to go by, we have a long-term Government—it will eventually change at some time. The sector supports 40,000 jobs in all and provides £760 million of value added to the economy and those figures can grow.
We must remember that imported timber will continue to be needed in Scotland. Some timber that has particular advantages cannot be grown here and must be sourced from elsewhere. However, we need to up our penetration of the Scottish market.
We accept that bioenergy presents a major opportunity, that our small but important hardwood sector can increase and that forest-based tourism makes a significant economic contribution. We also accept that sustainable timber construction—a point that was raised by Karen Gillon among others—can contribute to affordable homes, climate change mitigation and sequestration. Indeed, I am keen that we continue our work on housing by making land available—and possibly by being a player in the way that John Farquhar Munro suggested—and on using wood in building design. Again, I was pleased—although I am sorry that members did not seem to be aware of this—to launch a book on timber construction last month at Napier University's centre for timber engineering.
This has been a good debate. I have been impressed by virtually every speech—as have, I am sure, the forestry sector representatives who have been listening—and I am pleased to be consensual in accepting the Labour and Tory amendments. I am not yet certain whether I can accept the Liberal Democrat amendment because, although it would perhaps do no great harm, its ambition for future biomass projects is less great than ours and it takes no account of the conclusions of the wood fuel task force. However, I will think about the matter further during the course of the day and—as I am always consensual—if I can help in any way to bring about a resolution, I will do so.
I thank members for the debate and look forward to another debate on the issue in future times.