Environmentally Designated Areas
The final item of business today is a members' business debate on motion S1M-2790, in the name of Jamie McGrigor, on environmentally designated areas. The debate will be concluded without any question being put. I invite members who wish to speak in the debate to press their request-to-speak buttons.
Motion debated,
That the Parliament notes with alarm concerns expressed by local communities highlighted by recent petitions to the Public Petitions Committee (PE462 to 464) about procedures and scientific data used by Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH) for environmentally designated areas, such as Special Protection Areas, Special Areas of Conservation and Sites of Special Scientific Interest and believes that a programme of comprehensive consultation will result in more effective participation and co-operation between SNH and local people within the proposed areas of designation, which will result in better relations between SNH and local communities.
It is extremely important that the rich tapestry of fauna, flora and wildlife, which we are lucky to have in Scotland and which is the envy of Europe, is enjoyed by future generations. The right type of conservation is necessary. It is also vital that the needs and concerns of local people in areas of proposed designations are taken into consideration. The people who live and work the land and get their feet muddy are the people who know the environment best. In many cases, they are the reason that the species are there. They are the people who have been protecting the land and the wildlife for centuries, and who will make or break the protection.
A problem is evident in the growing distrust and suspicion of Scottish Natural Heritage and other conservation bodies, whether because of their lack of consultation or because of their choice of research methods. That situation must be unhealthy both for the people and for the protected species, and relationships must be improved. I have no personal grudge against SNH, which has a job to do, but it is doing it in the wrong way by ignoring local biodiversity in its mad rush to implement the European directives of Natura 2000.
I have heard concerns raised time and again, in committee, with petitions—received all on the same day—from our most northerly, southerly and westerly islanders, who are united in their frustration and who agree with one another for once. Similarly, at a meeting run by People Too, a non-political organisation that is attracting support from all walks of life, I heard from people who are fed up with being told what to do by an organisation that has little practical experience of their daily lives and struggles.
When an order is designated, there is no going back. However, nature can change. I do not know of any order—of any of the varieties—that has been cancelled. There is not even an adequate appeals process. Why put an order on Skye to protect golden eagles, which have been there for centuries and were there long before SNH was invented? SNH has released sea eagles, which appear to be chasing the golden eagles off their nests. SNH is also responsible for the encouragement of pine martens, which are extraordinarily destructive to other species of wildlife such as the capercaillie and the black grouse. They recently destroyed the chicks in a red kite's nest. Pine martens also kill house martins and swallows in farmers' barns.
Furthermore, SNH's scheme to eradicate mink in the Western Isles is not going well either. Beforehand, mink might have been found in North Uist, but now they have been spotted as far south as Eriskay. A constituent wrote to me of a loch where black-throated divers used to nest and where Slovenian grebes wintered in considerable numbers. An order was put on the loch, drawing attention to the species that were present, and now, as a result of the disturbance, most of those birds have deserted the areas. Why did not SNH consult the locals before it messed it up?
The consultation process is hopeless for any operation in a designated area. SNH must be notified in writing at least a month in advance. If an urgent operation is required, such as the repair of a dam or riverbank or the unblocking of a drain, substantial damage results from the delay. What are needed are machines and people with spades, who will react at once and take the advice of those who have local experience.
I will highlight what happened on Barra, relating to the petition against the designation of a special area of conservation for seals around Barra and Eriskay. First, SNH reported that local opinion was in favour of an SAC, but that was untrue. In fact, virtually the whole place was against it. Those who supported the petition included the community councils of Northbay, Castlebay, Eriskay and Loch Boisdale, Councillor Donald Manford of Barra, Councillor David Blaney of South Uist, Councillor Norman McKinnon, the Western Isles Fishermen's Association, the Barratlantic fish factory and the MacNeil of Barra—just to mention some. It was surely dishonest of SNH, therefore, to report to the Scottish Executive that the areas that the designation affected favoured the designation, when—blatantly—they did not.
The justification for the designation was based on two surveys that were done by the sea mammal research unit, which is thorough in its work and open in the disclosure of its figures. Both surveys, which were done in 1992 and 1996, showed that the population of common seals was well above the figure of 1 per cent of the national population, which meant that SNH was required to make a designation. The national population of seals is 30,000, so any site that has more than 300 seals can be designated. However, SNH failed to quote the most recent survey, which was done on 8 August 2000; it counted only 140 seals, which is below 1 per cent of the national seal population.
The science, therefore, was against SNH's criteria for site designation, but SNH appears to have suppressed that information. I presume that it did so because the information went against political aims. SNH's action is surely unscientific, unlawful and immoral. That action might have made the minister vulnerable to judicial review proceedings on the basis that he had failed to take account of matters of which he should have taken account, which were the results of the 2000 survey. It is surely unacceptable for SNH, with its biased misuse of science, to put a minister in a position that makes him vulnerable to legal challenge. SNH, as a statutory Government adviser, has a duty to be unbiased and to report the truth to Government about local opinion and scientific data. In this case, it did neither.
It was on the shifting sands around Eriskay that the ship SS Politician, which was made famous by Compton Mackenzie's novel "Whisky Galore", foundered. How dreadful it would have been had another "politician", the motor vessel SS Finnie or SS Wilson, ended up wrecked on those same sands—but not so heavily laden with whisky, I hope—because of SNH's misleading navigation.
I want other members to speak, so I will end with the thought that SNH is proposing an experiment with beavers in Argyll. If successful, that experiment would result in a general reintroduction of beavers into Scotland. SNH says that local opinion favours that. However, the Scottish Crofting Foundation, the National Farmers Union of Scotland, the river boards and the angling associations are all united against the proposal. Perhaps all those bodies are wrong and SNH is right. Somehow, I doubt that.
May we have speeches of around four minutes, please. I call first Tavish Scott, to be followed by Sarah Boyack.
In June this year, the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee, of which I am a member, will visit Shetland. Rhona Brankin, who is present, is also a committee member. I hope that the committee, during an inquiry that we hope to begin on tourism, will also have an opportunity to look at eco-tourism and sustainable forms of tourism in one of the more far-flung parts of the country.
We hope to arrange a visit for committee members to the cliffs of Noss. The cliffs were part of my farm, before I left the non-viable area of agriculture and went into something else. The cliffs of Noss are recognised internationally for the size of the colonies of many different species of birds. The cliffs of Noss area is designated in numerous ways, but it is principally a national nature reserve.
I am not convinced that all those designations add much to the island of Noss. The cliffs of Noss were a tourist attraction for many years before nature organisations came into being. There have been great advantages to visitors in recent years in the Nature Conservancy Council and, latterly, SNH organising access to the island and the cliffs to look at the birds. However, I argue that that tourism would have happened anyway—perhaps through local arrangements.
I contend that SNH is in the worst possible world. SNH is the messenger that gets shot. I sympathise with Jamie McGrigor's arguments, but I disagree with him on one point. SNH is not driving the designation agenda. The agenda is being driven by European designations that were brought about by member states agreeing the habitats directive. SNH is simply the messenger that has to enforce those tiers of designation. That is what is wrong with the system.
To some extent, I agree with what the member says. However, does he agree that the messenger should report the truth?
I will deal with consultation in a minute. My main point is this: if an organisation that is separate from the Government but is the Government's main environmental agency is in such difficulties because its scientific advice is not believed by local people and communities and is disputed more and more, we need to consider why that organisation is there.
If European requirements mean that the UK has to meet targets on designated areas, I am not convinced that SNH is the correct mechanism by which those targets should be delivered. The main environmental adviser to the Government—especially since we have a Scottish Parliament and Scottish ministers—should be the Government itself. SNH should not be left in a position that must be ghastly for its staff, who are committed to natural heritage but are dealing with the worst of all possible worlds.
Does the member agree that there is a system for referring decisions to the independent advisory committee on sites of special scientific interest? Is he casting aspersions on the independence of that body by suggesting that it is not fully independent?
I am simply not aware of any appeal that has come before the committee resulting in the overturning of a decision about which local people are concerned.
There is no meaningful consultation on the designations. I am concerned about the fact that people's views are dismissed simply because they relate not to scientific areas but to social and economic aspects. However, those aspects are as important to local people as the scientific case. If people's arguments are dismissed because they do not meet the precise requirements of the designation process, the process is meaningless.
SNH, I repeat, is in the worst of all possible positions. The body that acts as the Government's adviser should be part of Government. That is the position at which we should end up in this debate.
I congratulate Jamie McGrigor on securing the debate, because it is useful that we run through such issues in the Parliament.
I support strongly the principle that is outlined in Jamie McGrigor's motion, which calls for improved consultation, but I would also say that consultation should be transparent. Picking up on what Tavish Scott just said, I stress that it is important that the communities that are involved in the designations can see how the scientific evidence has been pulled together and debate that with SNH.
Broadly, the system that we have is based on ensuring that a rigorous process of identification is conducted in the public interest. Jamie McGrigor was right to point out the weaknesses in the system and to highlight areas in which people feel that the system has not worked properly. However, we should not make sweeping generalisations that cast SNH into the darkness and say that it fails on all the environmental designations.
In advance of the debate, I received an interesting briefing from RSPB Scotland, which had positive things to say about the fact that people value the designation system that we have in Scotland. I do not disagree with Jamie McGrigor's focus on the problems, but we should not say that only problems are associated with environmental designations.
I want to reflect on the reasons why we have a system of protection in Scotland. Because traditional crofting and agricultural processes have created a high environmental quality, it is easy for us to make assumptions about the quality of our environment and to sit back and say that, given that we have had plant and animal life in the area for years, there is no problem. However, the statistics on biodiversity show that, across Scotland, we are losing species every year. That should be of concern to us. We should not pretend that the environment that we have will be there for all time. We need to manage it actively. We need to think not only about the quality of our visual environment and our landscapes, but about the habitats that our wildlife and plants need.
Part of the problem is the language that we use. We often focus only on protection of the landscape and the environment and do not think about their active management. We should turn the debate round and focus more on active management and the financial support that should go to rural communities—and to some urban communities—that need environmental designations. We need that different approach.
Does Sarah Boyack agree that mankind cannot necessarily alter the flow of nature and break migratory species? Is she suggesting that we should change the ecosystem and introduce species to suit the whim of human beings?
No, I am not. I am suggesting that we need to take account of the statistics that tell us that, year on year, we are losing species from Scotland that we will not see again. The challenge is not just to reintroduce species after we have lost them; it is not to lose them in the first place, so that we do not get into such arguments.
One of the core issues is ensuring that the Executive continues to shift the focus from straightforward agricultural support to agri-environmental support, so that the agricultural community in particular has a positive challenge and opportunity, and so that that community gets the support that it needs to manage some of our most precious environments actively and to continue economic development at the same time. I ask the minister whether the Scottish Executive has recently considered quantifying the economic benefits that flow from environmental designations, such as rural development opportunities and tourism opportunities, which Tavish Scott mentioned.
Our system works broadly, but it does not always work. One of the reasons for that is that we need to modernise the system. I urge the minister to introduce nature conservation proposals in the Parliament as soon as possible. I have written to Ross Finnie about that on more than one occasion. The last response that I received said that he would introduce legislation in the Parliament very soon. I know that "very soon" is an indefinable term, but I urge the minister to ensure that that very soon is very soon. If he has any hints, all members would appreciate them.
Modernisation of the system would let us pick up on the glitches, the problems and the dissatisfaction that people feel about the way that the system operates. It would let us make progress together. It will not take away the local controversy. There will always be controversy, but at least modernisation would allow it to take place in a modern legal framework that suits us in the 21st century. If the minister can give us any positive indications, I urge him to do that.
We should all congratulate Jamie McGrigor on securing the debate, given that we are working in the legislative vacuum to which Sarah Boyack has just referred.
The SNP and I are supportive of environmentally designated areas, but that does not mean that we do not believe that there is room for improvement. There is a need for improvement. "The Nature of Scotland: A Policy Statement", which the Executive published over a year ago in March 2001, contained some very good proposals. On the topic about which we are talking, it said that we would need to enhance local consultation and involvement in the designation of environmental areas.
I ask the minister, as Sarah Boyack has just done, to tell us when we will get the natural heritage bill. I refer the deputy minister to his boss's words in November 2001, when we last debated the issue, when Ross Finnie replied to my colleague Bruce Crawford:
"Bruce Crawford asked me what I have done: I have accelerated the timetable for the production of the bill. Let there be no question about that. However, I cannot give a categorical timetable for its drafting at this point."—[Official Report, 15 November 2001; c 3905.]
I hope that the deputy minister will give us a date tonight, rather than a soon or a very soon. Once the bill is introduced, we can legislate to ensure that we have full and proper consultation.
SNH is not above criticism in this regard. I happened to be at the Public Petitions Committee in February when the three petitions that are mentioned in the motion were discussed. Jamie McGrigor has highlighted the problems about which the people from Barra came and told us. The same story was told by the islanders of Arran and of Yell.
SNH is not alone in being a public body that is not good at consultation with the public. I have personal experience of the former Greater Glasgow Health Board and West of Scotland Water using techniques similar to those that the petitioners discussed in relation to SNH. They are examples of public bodies that seem to think that going to the public and telling them what they are doing counts as consultation. If we had the legislation, we would, through the parliamentary process, be able to ensure a proper process for SNH not just to present its proposals to the public, but to listen to what the public have to say about them and to adapt or moderate them in light of that.
I join RSPB Scotland in saying that we need a bill and we need it soon. I would say to SNH that it should take note of the petitions and of the debate and realise that it must adopt best practice now so that we do not have to wait any longer and so that no other communities feel obliged to petition the Parliament on the same subject.
I congratulate Jamie McGrigor on having his motion debated this evening.
The two main points that I wish to make have already been touched on by Tavish Scott and Sarah Boyack: the first is about consultation and listening to the views of local people; the second and, from my point of view, the more important one is about financial incentives for positive management of land, which seem central to getting communities to back designated areas and what is being done within them.
Financial incentives would also give communities an incentive to state whether they want the areas to be designated and would avert the feeling that designations are being imposed by someone on high. That someone may be SNH, the Scottish Executive or the European Union—communities do not really care. At the moment, it appears that whatever they say or think, there is a feeling that designated areas are being imposed upon them.
What happened in Islay provides a classic example. The south-east Skerries were recently designated a special area of conservation. The designation was opposed by most of the community councils and by the locals, basically because they thought that a seal sanctuary was unnecessary. The number of seals is growing, not shrinking, so the people questioned why the designation was being made.
I was grateful to the then Minister for Transport and the Environment, Sarah Boyack, who met me and one of the local representatives, Ian Mitchell—although I am not clear about whether Mr Mitchell is representative of the community at times; he has his own agenda. We made our point and challenged some of the scientific issues, but the location was designated despite the community's objection.
One of the fundamental reasons for the community's hostility to the whole thing was the fact that Islay already had a number of designations. There were the goose management regulations and various others. Members of the Islay community have now reached the stage where they believe that the whole world is telling them how to live their lives. It seems that they, the way in which they use the land and how they farm and implement their land management are being controlled from all angles.
The goose management scheme has been reasonably well accepted as a serious amount of money is coming in with it. Some of the other schemes have not. To my mind, whether communities buy into the designations is probably the key issue. If the act of land management in designated areas were encouraged, communities would not resist them; they would clamour and queue up to join them.
The proposals that I hope will be in proposed legislation are very important. I repeat what others have said: the sooner such legislation is introduced, the more effectively we can ensure that communities reap financial rewards and benefits from designations that are made in their areas.
I support what Jamie McGrigor and other members have said about SNH. Unlike some of my colleagues, I declare an interest.
The whole subject of SSSI designations has created an enormous amount of ill will and bad feeling throughout Scotland. From the most northerly island, Yell, to Barra in the west and Arran in the south, the message is constant—it is one of dismay over the designations that are imposed. Others have spoken about Barra and Yell; I wish to deal with Arran and areas in the south of Scotland, from which I have received a large amount of post.
In Arran and the south of Scotland, there has been an erosion of the rights of individual farmers. It used to be believed that if one bought and paid for a property—a piece of land—one had the right to do with it largely what one pleased. The land had an open market value that reflected the flexibility in its farming capacity. Now, across Scotland, those rights are being eroded in the 12.8 per cent of Scotland's landmass that is designated by SNH. It is therefore little wonder that people are up in arms, especially as in many cases designations reflect decades, if not centuries, of care that SNH now says landowners are not to be trusted to continue carrying out properly.
We all understand that, under EU legislation, SNH has to make designations. The problems are being caused by the way in which it goes about that task.
Once land is designated, it may become almost valueless. No longer can its farming value be underpinned by a forestry or sporting valuation, as trees cannot be planted on it and sporting rights cannot be fully exercised over it. Neither can the land be improved or diversified—the list of potentially damaging operations sees to that. A piece of land—a farm—is effectively freeze-framed. A snapshot is taken and, under the designations, the land must apparently remain in that condition for ever.
All that might be bearable if it were done reasonably, but in many cases that is not happening. Letter after letter speaks of SNH's arrogance and inflexibility. Letter after letter speaks of its inability to recognise—even at the margin—the socio-economic consequences of its actions, to which Tavish Scott referred in his speech and at question time. A reasonable person might expect that when owners and tenants lose their rights, freedoms and earning capacity, compensation would be paid and socio-economic considerations would be taken into account, but that is not happening. That is one reason for the current state of affairs.
I do not believe that SNH is happy with what it is doing or about the ill feeling that it is incurring. Farmers are certainly unhappy at having what they can do with their land restricted. A feeling is being fostered of creeping land nationalisation and state control.
It is necessary for SNH and the Executive to take a more sympathetic approach to the problems that are caused by these designations. Perhaps reform of SNH is required, but a better way must be found. If it is not, disillusionment with SNH—and, indeed, with the Parliament—can only grow. That is not a sensible way to govern any country, let alone Scotland, which is so precious to us all.
I sympathise with some of the elements of Jamie McGrigor's motion. I also concur with some of the statements that have been made about the designation of a special area of conservation for the seals around the Eriskay causeway off the island of Barra. There is no doubting that there was a breakdown in communication between SNH and the community of Barra, but we should not accept the sweeping generalisations in which Jamie McGrigor involved himself during his speech.
The Barra episode was—and, I hope, is—an isolated incident, particularly in the context of the Western Isles. I do not have any difficulty in commending the staff of Scottish Natural Heritage on the way in which they conducted an exemplary consultation process in relation to the Lewis peatlands, for example. In Lewis, SNH consulted some 3,000 crofters—I was one of them—and took people along with it. Indeed, SNH allowed the consultation process to overrun so that every community and individual could be properly consulted.
Designations have benefited greatly many crofting communities, such as that of Aird on Benbecula and that on the island of Berneray just off North Uist. I could cite many examples of communities in which crofters have benefited from designation. The species that we are trying to protect have also benefited. If it were not for the co-operation of the crofters and their positive interaction with Scottish Natural Heritage, we would not have as many corncrakes in the Western Isles as we currently have.
I have a question about the species on the member's home isle of North Uist. Does he not think that something really radical now needs to be done about the mink situation? If the mink are allowed to remain there, the local species will disappear.
That is another example of where I can commend SNH and the Executive—for their handling of the existence of mink, which is a great threat to many species in the islands of North Uist, Harris and now, sadly, Eriskay and South Uist. SNH is working positively to combat that great threat to great species. The £1.5 million programme that is to run for some years would not exist without Scottish Executive support.
I know that the minister is well aware of wind-farm developments because he responded to a debate on wind farms on Lewis some months ago. He responded helpfully, particularly in relation to the Arnish yard, to which he pledged Scottish Executive support. He also pledged that Scottish Executive agencies would help retool the yard. We all know that wind farms represent a great opportunity for people in my constituency. We have the potential to generate something like 1 per cent of the UK's electricity requirements.
The two companies involved—AMEC and British Energy—are of course working sensibly and constructively with the Stornoway Trust, which is the public landowner. They are responsible companies. They have already undertaken one of the largest ornithological studies ever undertaken in the UK, which was under way before they lodged their formal request for planning permission. The Scottish Executive has supported us in relation to the Arnish yard and the UK Government is supportive in other ways.
I have three questions for the minister, particularly in relation to the Lewis peatlands in the context of the proposed wind-farm developments. Does the designation of SSSIs prevent development? Does Natura 2000 designation prevent development? Will the minister ensure that no private landowner will be allowed to abuse the designation process for their own narrow selfish reasons, given that they can magic up spurious designations simply to protect their narrow interests?
Jamie McGrigor made some serious allegations about SNH, using words such as suppression of information, unscientific, unlawful and biased. I am delighted to follow Alasdair Morrison in trying to set the record straight where SNH is concerned.
Under European Union law, selection of sites must remain on a scientific basis with consultation and appeal limited to scientific merit. Management decisions concerning sites might include wider considerations where they are appropriate, subject to assessment of the scientific evidence. We have a legal and, I would argue, a moral duty to protect the most special natural areas within Scotland. Both European and UK legislation acknowledges the need to identify the natural jewels in the crown that exist in our countryside.
However, special sites should be identified through objective scientific analysis and I believe that the selection of SSSIs, special areas of conservation and special protection areas by Scottish Natural Heritage is based on sound scientific assessment.
Robin Harper talked about scientific data. The point that I made about the Barra data was that they were suppressed. SNH did not report the data to the Government, as it is supposed to do.
I hope that the full truth about that incident comes out, but I am talking about the generality of the way that SNH has been caring for our environment over the past few years.
There is an assumption that the designation of an area for purposes of conservation will result in prohibition of human activities in some cases. That is a myth that should be dispelled. In most cases human activities such as traditional management practices undertaken by crofters or landowners form key components in the conservation of wildlife on designated sites. Sarah Boyack referred to that in her speech.
Here are some figures for you, Presiding Officer. An analysis of consultations on some 200 special areas of conservation, carried out since June 2000, reveals that a total of 11,506 local consultees and a further 15,766 central consultees—that is, bodies and groups with a regional or countrywide remit—were consulted.
Will the member take an intervention?
No. I will not take an intervention right now.
Only 1.1 per cent of local consultees in the past two years, and no central consultees, raised objections. In other words, the vast majority of SNH's activities have not resulted in objections.
It is clear that the system of site selection for protected areas is robust and that the level of consultation on designations is comprehensive. Nevertheless, SNH is supportive of the proposals to modernise procedures for protected nature sites in Scotland that were published in the Executive's document "The Nature of Scotland", to which previous speakers have referred.
Regrettably, since the proposals were published more than 12 months ago, the Executive has not seen fit to introduce legislation to enact them. It is clear that it is partly the Executive's inactivity in that area—and not the actions of SNH—that is directly responsible for the delay in enhancements to the system for the protection of natural heritage sites in Scotland. I recommend that when the Executive puts the proposals into action through legislation, it considers methods of mediation and of involving local people in the production of the plans for the management of SACs and SSSIs.
Members have had quite a lot to say in the debate. I will need to accept a motion without notice to extend the debate by 10 minutes to five minutes past 6. I think that members agree with that, and I would be grateful if someone would so move.
Motion moved,
That, under Rule 8.14.3, the debate be extended to 6.05 pm.—[Sarah Boyack.]
Motion agreed to.
I was keen to speak in the debate and, having heard some of the speakers, I remain keen to do so, as I have concerns about the tone that some of them used. I also have grave concerns for Scotland's natural heritage if we should fail to protect the special places of which Scotland is so justifiably proud.
It is not only Scots who appreciate our natural heritage. Many thousands of visitors come to Scotland from the rest of the United Kingdom and from abroad to watch our ospreys, our puffins and our bottle-nosed dolphins. Thousands also come to visit the remains of our ancient Caledonian pine forests, our heather moorlands and our peatlands. Many more come simply to walk, to cycle or to climb our mountains. As Tavish Scott said, environmental tourism is vital to the Scottish economy. It is also important to many fragile rural communities.
I believe that our system of designation is vital if we are to ensure that we do not lose more of our species and habitats than have already been lost in Scotland. We have already lost vast swathes of heather moorland, ancient oak forest and Caledonian pine forest. We are still close to losing our capercaillie. Our challenge is to ensure that we involve local communities effectively.
I agree with Rhona Brankin's comment about the capercaillie. Does she agree that we should take advice from the Scottish Gamekeepers Association, that is, from the people on the ground? Predators are the real reason for the disappearance of the capercaille. Unless we do something about predation, we will have no capercaillies.
One of the reasons why we are losing vast numbers of our capercaillies is forestry fencing, but other issues are involved as well. It was important that we took capercaillie off the quarry list, and I welcome the recent action that has been taken.
We must ensure that we involve local communities in the consultation process on designation in an effective way. I welcome the proposals that are contained in "The Nature of Scotland". We must not lose sight of the fact that SNH carries out a rigorous consultation process. Robin Harper has already provided the figures that relate to the research that was carried out recently, which showed that only 1.1 per cent of local consultees raised objections to designations.
Let us dispel some myths. First, there is not a huge level of opposition to every designation. Secondly, designation does not necessarily damage the local economy. There is evidence to the contrary, such as the research that was carried out by Broom, Crabtree, Roberts and Hill, which identified the socio-economic benefits of sites that were designated as part of the Natura 2000 directive. However, we must get better at working with local communities. I support the development of the natural care programme, which ensures that we pay for the positive management of Natura 2000 sites. I agree with Tavish Scott and George Lyon on that.
We can be proud of our natural heritage in Scotland. The challenge is to protect that heritage and to ensure that it sits alongside sustainable economic development in some of our most fragile communities.
The Scottish Executive recently received research that showed conclusively that Scotland can be self-sufficient in renewable energy without siting wind farms on designated sites. I ask for an assurance from the minister that internationally important designated sites will not be prey to wind-farm developers. I support the motion.
The debate has indicated why we need designation, but it has also highlighted that designation does not always work as well as it might. The excellent document, "The Nature of Scotland", proposes substantial reforms to the way in which we protect and manage our most special natural places. I make a plea to the Executive to introduce the relevant legislation, which will enable parliamentarians to go into the necessary depth and detail on how we manage SSSIs, how we make them work better and how we ensure that proper consultation takes place.
We will be able to thrash out all the issues that have been highlighted in the debate if we are given an opportunity to discuss the bill that will follow from "The Nature of Scotland". It is vital that the draft bill is produced as soon as possible, so that we can tackle the issues in a constructive, detailed and thorough manner.
I thank all those members who have participated in the debate and I thank Jamie McGrigor for securing it. I welcome the opportunity that the debate presents to discuss some of the issues. The fact that the Presiding Officer has extended the time that is allocated to the debate is indicative of the wide interest in environmentally designated areas in the Parliament.
Those members who have been engaged in dialogue with me during the past few months will not be surprised to learn that I have a great deal of sympathy with the thinking behind today's motion. I believe strongly that SNH's consultation processes should ensure that decisions on whether to designate sites are informed by local views, but I have no reason to think that SNH has not undertaken full and open consultation on recent designations. In fact, for some time SNH has gone beyond its legal requirement to consult local owners and occupiers and has involved other interested parties. I want to ensure that the interests of local people are fully recognised in the consultative process.
The problem is what constitutes consultation, which I touched on during question time in response to Tavish Scott. Consultation should not be confined to the environmental or scientific implications of designation. Like most people, I take the view that consultation should encompass much more than that.
However, we go beyond many of our European partners, who simply designate without any process of public consultation, because we incorporate a system of consultation. We are also constrained by decisions of the European Court of Justice, which confined the consultation process to those very same scientific and environmental considerations. Social and economic considerations are excluded until after the designation has been made.
I am grateful for the minister's explanation. When the current—dare I use the word—quota of the habitats directive has been fulfilled, will the Scottish Executive ensure through the member state that any new tranche of designations will take those wider points into consideration? Is that a possibility?
As Tavish Scott knows, we are considering that issue with some degree of urgency in the light of current circumstances. I had intended to deal with that. As has been said, the proposals that are outlined in "The Nature of Scotland" include a stronger voice for local communities. It is my personal mission to see that that is enshrined in the forthcoming legislation.
We also propose—this answers the point that was raised by Sarah Boyack and several other members—that there will be less bureaucracy and increased resources, which will provide incentives for the positive management of those protected areas. I am pleased that nobody has doubted the need to protect Scotland's most important wildlife and habitats through site designations. Environmental policy and legislation has long recognised the need to identify and protect sites, rare plants and species because what we collectively understand as Scotland would be belittled without them.
The selection of sites of special scientific interest is an important component of that policy. A recent survey of SSSI owners and occupiers showed that 71 per cent of them are proud to have an SSSI on their land and do not believe that it causes any problems. In the UK, the SSSIs underpin the whole designation for special areas of conservation and special areas of protection. I am also familiar with the statistic that Robin Harper quoted that, of local consultees for proposed special areas, only 1.2 per cent—a wee bit more than 1.1 per cent—have objected to the proposals. I am sure that all members, including Jamie McGrigor, would agree that that is a pretty good record for which SNH can and should take credit.
I would agree with the minister on that, except that, having looked at the situation in Barra, I might doubt the figures.
I understand where Mr McGrigor is coming from, but I understand that some of the more difficult and controversial designations are being dealt with only after circa 95 or 96 per cent of the schedule of proposed sites has been dealt with. The more controversial designations, such as Barra, necessarily come at the end of the process. Mr McGrigor alleges that SNH did not properly report the outcome of the Barra consultation. SNH denies that. The reason that I delayed a decision on the designation is that we attach great importance to such decisions. In the light of what has been said by Jamie McGrigor and others, we will require further information before taking any decision on Barra and on some of the other remaining designations.
As has been pointed out, the designations should not be seen as a negative force. There is no automatic barrier to development or to change of use. If I may to some extent answer Alasdair Morrison's question—and, as a corollary, agree with what Rhona Brankin said—site designation does not in itself affect the management or use of a site. Development is not prevented on SSSIs or on Natura 2000 sites. On the landowner interest, the proposals in each individual case must be examined, but any designation must be scientifically valid.
As George Lyon suggested before he left, designation can be of economic benefit to rural communities and places, where it can make the most difference. We have provided an additional £22 million over a three-year period to SNH to fund its natural care strategy.
I was in Galicia at Easter on an Executive visit. In Spain.
We know where it is and we are jealous.
It was a long-delayed visit and I was fortunate enough to be in my post by the time it came up.
In Galicia, a system of land reform, which is now about 10 years old, was all about consolidating very small parcels of land to make them more economically viable. The system is complex and involves getting lots of people around the table to agree to co-operate. When the process started, there was massive opposition; but now, because successful programmes have been running for some time and have been proven to be of economic benefit to the landowner and to the land users—an issue that has been mentioned by many speakers tonight—the system is popular. People are now queueing up to participate. I would like to see a similar thing happen with designations here.
A scheme is already under way for the Forest of Cluny in Perthshire. Others are planned in Ayrshire, Galloway and the island of Arran in my constituency. I hope that local landowners and occupiers will take advantage of the new schemes, which are designed to promote sustainable management of the land for forestry interests. People can also benefit from other funds.
I want to respond to a point raised by Sarah Boyack and others. The continuing process of identifying tourism sites has been a massive undertaking. The vast majority of designations have not raised local concerns over the protection of the sites. The process shows our concern for the natural heritage of Scotland. The Executive and SNH are making every effort to inform and involve local interests. I hope that we can all, locally and nationally, share a pride in, and a concern for, these special places.
I think that I am just coming to the question that Fiona McLeod wishes to ask. I repeat my assurance that we will be publishing a draft bill based on the proposals in "The Nature of Scotland".
When?
As soon as possible. Fiona McLeod poses the question and she has said that we need a bill and that we need it soon. I agree, but I want to go further. We need a bill and we need it very soon. I will certainly make it my objective to bring forward proposals as soon as possible.
Meeting closed at 18:03.