Protected Area Designations
The final item of business is the members' business debate on motion S1M-1243, in the name of Mr John Scott, on the designation of sites of special scientific interest, special protection areas and special areas of conservation. The debate will be concluded after 30 minutes without any question being put. I ask members who are not staying for the debate to leave quickly and quietly, please.
Motion debated,
That the Parliament notes and expresses its concern at the significant increase in proposed designations of Sites of Special Scientific Interest, Special Protection Areas and Special Areas of Conservation made during the last year and covering more than 8% of Scotland's landmass; requests a report to the Parliament on the scientific basis for these designations and on the findings of any consultations undertaken prior to designation, and believes that this issue should be debated in the Parliament before these designations are finalised. R
First, I declare an interest as an affected farmer and as an active conservationist—one who has perhaps done more than most for conservation in Ayrshire. Once again, I am speaking in a debate for a sense of balance. Today, I will address the creeping powers of the state over private property. Perhaps unfashionably, I do not subscribe to the view that land belongs to the Government and the people. In my view, it belongs to the country and to individuals such as the farmers and landowners who have bought and paid for their land, and who look after it and cherish it for little or no reward.
For generations, the country folk have struggled in all weathers, in good times and bad, to create the environment, the habitats and the scenery that is uniquely and identifiably Scottish and is so highly prized today. The preceding generations planted the trees, built the dykes and ploughed the fields that give us the habitats and biodiversity of today. There was and is an order, a balance in the rural areas, which is under threat. Why is it under threat, and from what? What threatens the balance in the countryside most noticeably, apart from low incomes and Mike Watson's Protection of Wild Mammals (Scotland) Bill, is the imposition of special sites of scientific interest, special areas of conservation and special protection areas.
As of 1999, more than 8 per cent of Scotland was covered by those designations. After the latest round of designations, that figure has now risen significantly, to cover between 10 per cent and 15 per cent of Scotland and put it under the control of Scottish Natural Heritage. That means that those areas are under the control of the state, because we must not forget that SNH is a state organisation. It is a Government instrument, which poses the threat of back-door nationalisation of the land.
Today, the threat is more focused. This year, due to a need to make European quotas, we have to create more SSSIs, more SACs and more SPAs, this time to protect the already protected hen harriers. There are between 450 and 500 breeding pairs of hen harriers in Scotland, a figure that has remained relatively stable for the past 10 years. The low point for hen harriers in Scotland was between the wars, when there were as few as 50 pairs. Since then, due to careful management and a desire to create a balance in wildlife and bird-life, numbers have increased to where they are today. In relative terms, hen harriers have recovered from the position of 60 years ago and, although rare, they are very much part of the Scottish landscape. It is the people who care about the countryside who have delivered that, not SNH.
Today, those who rescued the species and those on whose farms the birds have been allowed to increase in number and to prosper are being told by an organisation that came into being only 20 years ago: "No, you don't know what you're doing. No, you cannot be trusted. No, we know best". In a Government-inspired drive, SNH is taking control of even more of Scotland, telling those who look after the land physically on a day-to-day basis that SNH knows best.
When those ideal habitats are found, SNH imposes on owners a checklist that forbids up to 30 potentially damaging operations, so that those sites and wildlife habitats, many of which were hundreds of year in the making, are protected for future generations. The problem is the effrontery of SNH and Government—the Johnnys-come-lately of environmental care—in coming to the table in the past 20 years to tell those who have been looking after the land for hundreds of years how best to do so.
In my view, the Government has gone about this in completely the wrong way. If it had approached the issue in the European way, it might have ruffled fewer feathers. Some European countries are also trying to protect their wildlife and have introduced voluntary schemes. In Europe, the carrot rather than the stick is being used to encourage the preservation of the most valuable wildlife sites. That used to be the case in Scotland, where environmentally sensitive area and countryside premium schemes run at present. The stewards of the land have been queuing up to take part in those schemes.
The Government could have said, "We now want to introduce another scheme to protect hen harriers. You farmers and landowners will be eligible for entry if you undertake to meet the criteria by agreeing to the prescription of the potentially damaging list of operations. If you do all this, we will give you a small cash incentive." If the Government had done that, farmers across the country would be queuing up to join, as they did with the ESA scheme and the CPS.
Instead, across the country, the stewards of the land are bristling with indignation at the heavy-handed treatment meted out by SNH, which, as I said, knows little of the skills required to juggle and balance the competing demands of looking after and living off the land that feeds us all. That is why SNH's announcement yesterday that it is not seeking confirmation of four sites in the south of Scotland is welcome news, as it will allow a breathing space for full scientific evaluation and proper consultation to take place.
One of the sites that John Scott mentioned in relation to hen harriers is the Muirkirk valley site, which is in my constituency. Would he agree that the reason behind SNH's decision not to confirm the designation of the site was partly the lobbying to get it to consider the economic development potential of the area? SNH's decision was not based simply on the reasons given by John Scott. It is clear that the needs of the environment must be balanced with the wider needs of the local community.
I accept totally Cathy Jamieson's point, and I hope that other members will allude to it during the debate.
I urge the Executive to take note of the strength of feeling on SNH's impositions and at least to hold a wider debate and consultation, rather than pressing on relentlessly, regardless of the views of those who are affected. I believe that SNH should not confirm designations in other parts of the country and that the Parliament should hold an open and full debate on this matter. After all, the nationalisation of land is a big decision and should not be allowed to happen incrementally, by stealth or by the back door.
We now move to the open part of the debate. I ask members who wish to speak to press their request-to-speak buttons now. Given the number of members who wish to speak in the debate, I suspect that I will have to ask members to restrict their speeches to three minutes. Shorter speeches would be even better.
No right-thinking person could object to Government having mechanisms for delivering its objectives on biodiversity. The requirement for site designation to protect particular areas is vital, not only to meet our international obligations but to join nature conservation with sustainable development. When designating areas as special areas of conservation, there are real opportunities to unlock funds for sustainable rural development. To enable those funds, including structural funds, to be released and utilised to the full, a much greater emphasis must be put on education and awareness raising by Scottish Natural Heritage and by the Executive.
Something else that must be tackled is the level of confusion that is prevalent in the plethora of different designations. There are sites of special scientific interest, special protection areas, special areas of conservation, national nature reserves, world heritage sites, environmentally sensitive areas, natural heritage zones and Ramsar sites. Confusion creates uncertainty and fears that are greater than the reality on the ground. At some stage, a rationalisation of designations must be attempted, otherwise confusion and fear will continue to exist at unnecessary levels.
That confusion is not helped by the announcement today of SNH's withdrawal of the four moorland areas for SSSIs. At the same time as withdrawing them, SNH is telling everyone that it intends to recommend that those sites be considered again as SSSIs. I am afraid that SNH has painted itself as an organisation that does not know what it is about, leading to further confusion and fear. It cannot be denied that many people in rural Scotland are fearful of Scottish Natural Heritage and believe that it is beyond any real democratic control. My colleague Fergus Ewing, acting to help overcome such fears, has extracted a promise from SNH that it will automatically inform all MSPs when it begins consideration of whether an area should be designated.
It is well known that Scottish Natural Heritage must advise the Government on the environment, but its duties are not always fully appreciated. For example, it is a little-known fact that, under its founding statute, the Natural Heritage (Scotland) Act 1991, Scottish Natural Heritage must exercise its functions to take account of the needs of agriculture, fisheries and forestry, the need for social and economic development in Scotland and the needs of local communities. Many people believe that SNH does not take proper account of those matters. Some would say that a body that is, almost by definition, primarily concerned with the environment is not always best placed to take account of those matters.
I suggest that we need a root-and-branch review of the various designations that exist as well as a rationalisation. We also need a fundamental review of Scottish Natural Heritage itself. If the Executive is really interested in what people think and if ministers are progressive pragmatists who really want to take action to bring quangos to account, I suggest that they begin with SNH.
John Scott's motion says that there is
"concern at the significant increase in proposed designations of Sites of Special Scientific Interest, Special Protection Areas and Special Areas of Conservation".
His first reason for concern seems to be about the power of the state over individuals. I would like to point out that I believe our natural heritage to be for the people of Scotland rather than just for landowners. His second reason seems to be that those designations hamper economic and social development, but I think that the Conservatives, yet again, have missed the point completely. I would like to enlighten them on a few issues.
We are bound by European directives, including the EC birds directive and the EC habitats directive. I think I should add that the Conservative Government signed up to those directives.
Will Sylvia Jackson give way?
I am sorry, but I have only a limited time in which to speak.
SPAs meet the requirements of the EC birds directive and SACs meet the requirements of the EC habitats directive. SPAs and SACs make up the Natura 2000 network, which helps to maintain and increase employment to safeguard rural livelihoods and the rural way of life. Payments are given to make that possible. In other words, the network offers an opportunity for rural communities.
I am only sorry that Ross Finnie is not in the chamber tonight to hear what we are saying about rural development. I could give members examples of developments in Scotland, including the Caithness and Sutherland peatlands, that have been positively received by local farmers and crofters. Designations should be viewed as an asset in which many landlords and managers are keen to participate. The National Farmers Union for Scotland and the Scottish Landowners Federation agree that much more—not less—should be done, to extend agri-environment programmes to manage designated areas. That issue should be addressed at the earliest possible opportunity.
What more can and should the Government be doing to make landowners such as John Scott aware of the potential of SSSIs, SPAs and SACs? First, it should ensure that conservation advice is available to owners and managers of designated sites. As Bruce Crawford said, we must get away from the confusion that exists, clarify the situation and provide support, so that people are aware of what is available—which John Scott clearly is not. Secondly, the Government must ensure that designations constitute a binding conservation contract that is supported by positive management incentives and is integrated into rural development planning and policy. Designations should help to maintain rural communities. Lastly, the Government should ensure that designations are accompanied by clear explanations and presentations to owners, managers, local communities and the public, and that resources are allocated for that purpose.
Many other European countries have much higher numbers of SPAs and SACs than we have. John Scott may not have a copy of the SNH document that I am now showing to the chamber, which lists Denmark, Greece, Spain, Italy, Luxembourg and the Netherlands, to name but a few. The Scottish Wildlife Trust and other environmental groups make the point that there is on-going fragmentation and destruction of habitats, and that insufficient attention is being paid to biodiversity. More important even than that is that increased designation is better and more effectively managed.
I would like to make two points. First, Robin Harper lodged an amendment to John Scott's motion, which I supported. Unfortunately, Robin is unable to attend today's debate, as he is in hospital, getting over a minor operation. It is important to point out that many members do not support the contention in John Scott's motion that there are too many designated areas. As Sylvia Jackson said, on that score we compare very badly with a number of other countries. The green argument needs to be put.
My second point relates to how the system works at the moment. I have a great deal of sympathy with the points that Bruce Crawford and Sylvia Jackson made about Scottish Natural Heritage and the defects of the present system. The system is too top-down and bureaucratic. There is insufficient consultation, there are not enough incentives and not enough is done to gain the agreement of landowners and communities. As Sylvia Jackson said, when the process is conducted properly, the community is often very supportive of designation and benefits from it economically; in other words, everybody gains.
The previous Conservative Government did not do much in this area; as a result, we now have a compressed timetable and things have to be done in a rush. The Executive should attempt to make designation much more of a partnership, but it should not back off from promoting more SSSIs and other kinds of designated area.
We should stick to having more SSSIs, and not support John Scott in reducing them. We should also make the designation mechanism less bureaucratic and emphasise partnership.
My point was about not the designations as such, but the fact that they are being imposed arbitrarily. I am perfectly happy with voluntary designations. The voluntary principle should be applied. I would like Donald Gorrie to accept that.
I am arguing for voluntary and co-operative efforts. My reading of John Scott's motion, and his speech, was that we should have fewer SSSIs and that landowners should be allowed to get on with it.
The Liberal party campaigned vigorously in the first part of the century on the issue of the land belonging to the people and had splendid songs about it. The land certainly does not belong to the Government—nothing belongs to the Government—but it belongs to the people. We should work with local people to make those designations.
I declare an interest in the debate, as a landowner and former farmer.
I congratulate John Scott and the Parliamentary Bureau. In many ways, this is a brave debate.
I will take up one issue with Sylvia Jackson, because she has missed the point. I would not mind if the percentage of the land in Scotland that was under designation was doubled if designation was done on a voluntary basis, as happens in Europe. Designation should not be imposed.
The imposition of an SSSI is unnecessary for the conservation or protection—there is a great difference between the two—of the hen harrier, in the four cases that have been mentioned.
Although I applaud the decision of the chair of SNH to postpone the notifications of the four sites, I recognise that that is only a postponement and may well be nothing more than a token gesture. I am sure we will be told that any landowner on whom one of those SSSIs is to be imposed has the right to appeal, but appeals can be made only on the basis of scientific information. Given that most of that information is held by SNH, it is evident that that will not account for many of the concerns of landowners.
Not only does the bias of specific scientific criteria ignore many other legitimate reasons why sites of nature conservation interest may be valued; crucially, it raises unnecessary barriers between scientists, conservation managers, land managers and members of the public.
Another unnecessary barrier is raised by the refusal of an SSSI to recognise a legitimate need for sustainable economic development. Cathy Jamieson mentioned that. I am delighted that that vital point is to be discussed. At the proposed site for Glenapp in Ayrshire and Galloway, one landowner, whose land is located on the edge of the site, wanted to retain the right to develop a stone quarry for the two good reasons of diversifying his farming operation and providing some desperately needed local employment. Despite the logic and passion of the landowner's arguments, the quarry could not be removed from the list of potentially damaging operations because, as the development has no scientific criteria, there was no right of appeal.
In the Executive's National Parks (Scotland) Act 2000, the need for sustainable economic development is highlighted as one of the main aims of a national park. Given that aim, the power of an unaccountable body, such as SNH, to deny sustainable economic development seems to be unjustified, especially when one takes into account the paucity of jobs in rural Scotland at the moment.
We need a reverse of the current situation, in which there is a distinct lack of open discussion. SSSIs are seen to be imposed by a heavy-handed Government body, which shows little concern for some of the wider parameters—to which I would have referred had not the Presiding Officer cut down the time allowed for my speech by about half.
Well done.
The minister may well argue that it was sensible for the Presiding Officer to do so.
Increasingly, resentfulness, bitterness and in some cases downright anger are being caused, as my colleague John Scott and I witnessed at a recent SNH meeting in Stranraer.
I cannot believe that the present system is the ideal backdrop to sound conditions for a joint approach to conservation. I ask the Executive, SNH and the organisations that represent landowners and managers to address the issues that I have raised, so that the matter can be taken forward in an atmosphere of consensus, which will achieve results, rather than the prevailing atmosphere of mistrust and resignation, which most certainly will not.
I, too, lodged an amendment to John Scott's motion, but at the time the motion had not been selected for members' business and my amendment was not accepted. I was happy to sign Robin Harper's amendment; it is regrettable that he is unable to be here to put the environmental side of the argument.
We must consider first principles and the kind of world we want to live in. What is the purpose of sites of special scientific interest? To save the hen harrier or a certain species of toad or butterfly. Why do we want to do that? Because mankind has systematically exterminated the wolf, the bear, the wild boar and other creatures that used to inhabit Scotland.
Conservation is carried out here on a much smaller scale than in other countries. Daily, we hear that one hectare per second of rainforest is being destroyed and that hundreds of species are being exterminated. The world is either becoming a concrete jungle or increasingly being put under the plough. Scotland must accept that it has a role to play in conservation. That role does not need to have an adverse effect on rural communities. The conservation movement is not only trying to save rare species in areas of natural beauty; it is trying to bring jobs into those areas and to develop them in a sustainable way.
Alex Fergusson said that he would not be bothered if the amount of land that was available for conservation was doubled, as long as conservation of that land was not compulsory. However, a certain area of bog land, for example, may be the last remaining refuge on the planet for a specific species. If that is the case, for the sake of future generations and the preservation of the species, such sites must be taken under the wing of the conservation bodies as SSSIs.
The only types of development that are permitted in SSSIs are those that are appropriate and that do not undermine health or natural values. Damaging developments may be allowed in such areas only for reasons of overriding national importance. That is absolutely right. Furthermore, SSSIs provide opportunities for rural communities. Some €30 billion is being made available for such sites from European Union structural funds, and programmes that encompass environmental protection and sustainable development are achieving a much higher priority. That means that issues such as those that John Scott touched on, such as rural unemployment, can be addressed in conjunction with conservation.
We should examine SSSIs from a positive perspective and consider that conservation can work in tandem with farming, forestry and fishing. For God's sake, let us not think about ploughing under all the land in Scotland, as has happened in East Anglia, where prairies have been created and 100,000 miles of hedgerows have been destroyed. Let us think about future generations and the world that we want to bequeath to our descendants.
I am grateful to all members—especially John Scott—who have contributed to the debate. People such as John Scott and Alex Fergusson have a proprietorial interest in the land, but they also have a heartfelt interest in the land and the rivers from which they earn their living or seek their recreation. Some of that passion was evident in what they, and others, had to say.
In summing up, I will answer the question—I think it was asked by Donald Gorrie—about why the Scottish Executive and Scottish Natural Heritage are pressing ahead with the selection and designation of protected areas for Scotland's nature. I also intend to make it clear that we will not introduce protection unless we are satisfied that there is a clear scientific case for doing so and that the necessary consultation has been conducted satisfactorily on our behalf by Scottish Natural Heritage.
Scotland has an outstanding natural heritage, and some areas of the country have special importance as part of our national inheritance. However, some of those sites are not so obvious, such as the raised bogs in central Scotland, which Kenny Gibson mentioned, that have taken thousands of years to accumulate, and the rich underwater habitats of some of our reefs. We can sometimes be blinded by the abundance of natural resources in Scotland and, as a consequence, not pay enough attention to conservation. I agree with Kenny Gibson that we should protect the best examples of all our habitats and species, to ensure that we pass on to our successors a natural heritage that is at least as rich as the one that we inherited. That is why we have a continuing programme to protect Scotland's most special natural places.
Will the minister take an intervention?
I suspect that I am about to come to the point that Jamie McGrigor wants to raise.
As well as the arguments of principle for continuing a programme of protective designations, there are arguments of simple legal necessity. Our obligations under European law mean that we are completing an ambitious programme of nature conservation designations. As Sylvia Jackson said, we have a specific obligation under EC law to propose the best sites for a range of habitats and species to the European Commission.
On reflection, the UK's original approach was perhaps too restrictive compared with what some other member states proposed and it was fair enough that we should be asked to do some more. If we did not select further candidate special areas of conservation, we would also be likely to face specific penalties and infraction proceedings in the European Court of Justice for failing to propose sufficient sites, with the prospect of daily fines against the UK. The Commission is also considering restricting our ability to access European structural funds if we do not comply with environmental obligations. We have a similar legal obligation under the EC birds directive. It is clear from European Court of Justice case law that member states must classify those sites that meet the scientific criteria for selection as SPAs. There is no room for voluntarism.
The Scottish Executive and Scottish Natural Heritage know that nature conservation designations can be controversial. Different interest groups think different things. On the one hand, proprietors have legitimate concerns about a nature conservation designation's potential to constrain their choices about how they manage their land. On the other hand, environmentalists tell us that we should do more. We must try to balance the two interests. Let us not forget that the last time a controversy about a European nature conservation site arose, it was because proprietors wanted us to do more. We must walk the tightrope and make objective judgments about whether there is a sound scientific case for selection of any particular site as a protected area. Full and considered consultation with the proprietors of proposed sites and other interested parties is an essential part of that process.
Members should be clear that the selection of a site as a protected area does not mean that it is put beyond economic use. There are cases in which damaging development is inhibited by the presence of a nature conservation designation. Sometimes it is right and proper that a judgment should be reached, through the planning system or other consent regimes, that the natural value of the land means that damaging development should not go ahead. That is a long-established principle, which I, and other members who spoke today, support.
A number of valid criticisms have been made, for example by Bruce Crawford, of the way in which the programme of nature conservation designations has been managed. The question is, can we do better? There is always room for improvement and, as the Minister for Environment, Sport and Culture made clear in a response to a parliamentary question from Bruce Crawford's colleague, Fergus Ewing, we are considering whether improvements can be made to policy and law on nature conservation. Through our spending review, we have allocated additional resources to Scottish Natural Heritage to enable it to offer more financial incentives to the people who manage protected areas. In the meantime, however, European obligations mean that we must pursue a programme of nature conservation designations quickly. That is not necessarily popular with everyone. I am, however, convinced that it is the right thing to do and that it is an essential part of protecting the best of our natural heritage.
Meeting closed at 17:37.