Biodiversity Strategy
The next item of business is a debate on motion S3M-1204, in the name of Mike Russell, on the Scottish biodiversity strategy report.
I am sure that we will hear much science and some confusing terms this afternoon. Biodiversity is not a simple matter, so I thought that it might be best at the start to step back from looking too closely at the variety of life around us and to feel the sense of inspiration that our natural world should create in us. At the end of a poem called "Growing, Flying, Happening", the poet Alastair Reid—who is very much planted in the soil of Galloway, although he has lived all over the world—says that our
"Eyes open on growing, flying, happening,
and go on opening. Manifold, the world
dawns on unrecognizing, realizing eyes.
Amazement is the thing."
We are talking today about amazement at the rich diversity of life around us and at what exists, and about the determination that it should continue to exist in times that press hard on it.
I am delighted to open the debate on the progress report on implementation of the Scottish biodiversity strategy. The previous Scottish Executive published the strategy—"Scotland's Biodiversity: It's in Your Hands"—in 2004. It set out a 25-year framework for biodiversity action in Scotland. Just as my colleague Mr Lochhead did in respect of waste policy, I pay tribute to those who came before us. The Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act 2004 and the biodiversity strategy laid the groundwork for this Government to continue to work in partnership with all the members of the Scottish biodiversity forum and the much wider audience of the Scottish people to protect nature and wildlife in Scotland. The biodiversity strategy fits well with our five strategic objectives.
What have we to report today? We show that, under the previous Administration and this Administration, Scotland has made a good start in implementing the strategy, which is much needed. We have made progress on five key areas. On species and habitats, the report describes the strengthening of nature conservation legislation, activities to conserve salmon and red squirrels and the damage that invasive non-native species could cause to Scotland's environment.
The minister mentioned red squirrels and salmon. I am sorry that he did not mention the Scottish wildcat, which he knows is under enormous threat. Would he care to comment on the state and future of that species, whose loss would be devastating for Scotland? I ask him to do that without making cheeky remarks.
I am not sure whether I can meet the final request. I was planning to say that, whenever I think of Roseanna Cunningham, I think of course of the Scottish wildcat, in the most positive way. Fortunately, I am to launch a wildcat project next month, which will reintroduce the wildcat in some areas where it has died away and ensure that the wildcat continues to exist in Scotland, as the result of a development in genetics that means that the wildcat can retain a reasonably pure bloodline. I am conscious of the subject and I welcome the intervention. I will mention that when I next speak about biodiversity.
We have made progress on the issue of people and biodiversity. Biodiversity is often about people: it is about the social and health benefits of volunteering, conservation, the environmental benefits of regeneration, and it is about the value of wildlife watching and enjoying nature without harming it.
We have made progress on landscapes and ecosystems. The report describes work that has been done to protect Scotland's seas, developments on land in the national parks, planning reform and work to connect forests in Edinburgh and the Lothians to benefit wildlife. I will return to connectivity at the conclusion of my speech.
The report also describes the progress that has been made on integration and co-ordination and the work that has been done on knowledge. One example of that is the splendid newly published book "The Birds of Scotland", a motion on which, in the name of Peter Peacock, appears in the Business Bulletin. "The Birds of Scotland", which is published by the Scottish Ornithologists Club, is the definitive work on the subject and makes knowledge available to all of us.
Progress is being made—we were able to list that progress in the biodiversity indicators that we published last autumn. However, progress is not universal or uniform. Five of the indicators—nearly a quarter of the total—show improvement, but another five show no change. Nine of the indicators are baseline assessments for which no trend has yet been established; we will look at those. However, three of the indicators—for seabird populations, plant diversity and invasive non-native species—show deterioration. We take those issues very seriously. The purpose of indicators is to guide us to the actions that still need to be taken and to divert our effort from areas in which we are succeeding to those in which we are not. That will continue to be our approach. We will look at the range of indicators, which will show us how we are doing overall. The number and range of butterflies and moths are good indicators of habitat diversity, fragmentation and the impact of climate change. We can learn a great deal from examining those indicators.
I must mention climate change, because work on that is being done on the pressure of climate change on our biodiversity. Last week I launched a report for Forest Research, the research agency of the Forestry Commission, which showed that the impact of climate change on forestry will be great and will change how and where trees are grown. There will be changes in every part of our natural heritage. Our job is to try to hold back those changes through the proposed climate change bill and by reducing emissions. However, we will also have to adapt Scotland and some of our landscapes to changes that are already taking place, because climate change has been with us not just for the past year or 10 years, but for 40 years.
I conclude by saying something about the future. New approaches are influencing our work and we will increasingly look to key delivery bodies that are responsible to Scottish ministers for biodiversity planning. We will also look to the private sector.
Will the minister give way?
I am sorry, but I do not have time.
I welcome the amendment in the name of Jim Hume and confirm that we are happy to support it. I am happy to say that we will also support the Labour amendment, because we are conscious of the 2010 targets. Although they are challenging for every Government in Europe, we are endeavouring to meet them. We will work on those targets, work with our partners and work on the ecosystems approach, which is important. We have moved beyond the time of focusing narrowly on everything. To do the job that we want to do, we must change huge areas of our lives and, sometimes, areas of our country. I am increasingly interested in working with charities and others on that approach.
A good start has been made to a long and difficult process and there is much still to do. We are committed to ensuring that Parliament receives reports such as this every three years, in accordance with the programme that has been agreed, and to supporting international efforts. I am grateful that so far the debate on the issue has been positive. I look forward to this afternoon's debate and to our moving forward on this most important topic.
I move,
That the Parliament welcomes the collaborative work being undertaken by a wide variety of partners across the public, private and voluntary sectors to take forward implementation of the Scottish Biodiversity Strategy from 2004 to 2007, as set out in Scotland's Biodiversity: It's In Your Hands – A Progress Report 2005-07; commends the enthusiasm and commitment of all those involved in that work, and acknowledges that continued effort by all the partners engaged in conserving biodiversity in Scotland is required in order to address the challenges identified in the progress report such as climate change, invasive non-native species, river basin management, sustainable management of the natural world, the development of the ecosystems approach, wildlife crime and the need for the broader engagement of all citizens so that Scotland can play its part in delivering our national and international commitments to the cause of halting biodiversity loss.
The 1992 earth summit in Rio was a defining moment in global history. Apart from the carnival atmosphere and the culture, music and dance that we would expect from a proud country showcasing its society, there was a real sense of achievement. One hundred and fifty-nine countries met, debated and agreed a new tomorrow for a planet that is threatened by monoculture, starvation and climate change. That is the context in which this afternoon's debate is taking place, as Rio set the framework for European, United Kingdom and Scottish policies on biodiversity. There will be no carnivals today, but the debate is no less important.
The minister's speech was interesting and stimulating and I judge that his comments will be widely welcomed across the chamber. I will make some big-picture comments on biodiversity and emphasise the role of volunteers, non-governmental organisations, farmers and crofters, as well as public bodies, and ask some specific questions of the minister.
At a naive level, it is worth asking the simple question: Why do we need biodiversity? On the other side of the looking glass is monoculture, which has led to stagnation and starvation. Looking back on history, it was arguably monoculture that contributed to the Irish potato famine of 1846 in which two potato varieties were subject to a blight that wiped out the crop and caused disaster to the Irish community, killing a million people and causing another million to emigrate.
Coming back to the present day, there has been a strong lead on biodiversity from the European Union, the United Kingdom and here in Scotland. We have had two directives from the EU, one on habitats and the other on birds, as well as its commitment to implement the Convention on Biological Diversity. From the UK has come the biodiversity action plan, which is being pushed forward, and in Scotland, as has been mentioned, the Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act 2004, which is the basis for the current biodiversity strategy, was passed in the previous session of Parliament. The 2004 act led to the establishment of the forum, the indicators, the 27 local action plans, the biodiversity action grants and the species action framework.
Does the member agree that although there are 27 biodiversity action plans, among the first of which were from Dumfries and Galloway Council, the City of Edinburgh Council and Stirling Council, the five councils that have still not lodged their biodiversity action plans should be named and shamed by the present Administration?
The member makes a strong point and I am sure that he will tell me that those five are Labour authorities. It is important that those authorities sign up and put their money where their mouths are.
In 2004, volunteers were encouraged to become involved through a wide range of organisations, such as ProjectScotland, and non-governmental organisations, such as the RSPB Scotland, were empowered in management and conservation work. Duties were placed on public bodies and Scottish Natural Heritage was given a lead in many areas.
Let us not forget the national parks. Cairngorms national park, for example, runs training and awareness courses on biodiversity for local residents and land managers. It is currently establishing a project to work with members of the green tourist business scheme to engage visitors in biodiversity. Biodiversity is important in developing tourism as well.
As the minister pointed out, the 2004 act required the Scottish Government to report on progress by 2007, which has led to the publication of the document that we are considering today. The report is well presented and considered and it highlights the twin threats to biodiversity—habitat destruction and invasive non-native species. The report highlighted examples of conservation, such as the important role of the white-tailed eagle, and examples of control, such as the American mink and signal crayfish.
Community action by local groups is important. I highlight the important role that is played by volunteers and schoolchildren, which has been a striking success and has helped to raise awareness about biodiversity throughout Scotland. I will offer a local Highland example. Foyers primary school sits above Loch Ness side in the middle of a large coniferous forest. There are fewer than 20 children at the school, but they have monitored air and water temperature and pond life since 2004. As the school report testifies:
"inside the school, the pupils are buzzing with enthusiasm for their project—Loch Bran—its wildlife, plants, ancient history and secrets".
When the pupils are asked what they want to do when they are older, there is the usual selection of "Don't knows", and "I'd like to be a forest ranger" in the report, but one young man says quietly and with measure that he would like to be an entomologist. He does not elaborate; he is just certain. What action will be taken to raise awareness about biodiversity in schools and encourage more volunteering?
I have several specific questions for the minister to address in his winding-up speech. Under the current spending profile, will the Scottish Government meet the Gothenburg target to halt biodiversity loss by 2010? Will all sites of special scientific interest be brought into a favourable condition under the Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act 2004? What future does the minister see for key agri-environment schemes under the Scottish rural development programme? How can we encourage new entrants to schemes that deliver biodiversity priorities and public benefits? Finally, does the minister see public bodies' duty to promote biodiversity extending to procurement?
Biodiversity plays a key global role in adapting to climate change. A strong Scottish framework is in place in which farmers, crofters, NGOs, volunteers and statutory bodies play key roles, but well-funded agri-environment schemes that will meet the Gothenburg target of halting biodiversity loss by 2010 are crucial.
Biodiversity touches all our lives—it touches on everything from carbon recycling to flood control to medicines. The progress report is an important staging post towards a greener Scotland.
I move amendment S3M-1204.1, to insert at end:
"and calls on the Scottish Government to confirm the commitment to meeting the 2010 EU Gothenburg biodiversity targets."
I, too, welcome the biodiversity report and the improvements that are outlined in it, but I share the minister's concerns. There are concerns about crayfish and non-native invasive species, for example. I also welcome his support for my amendment. Obviously, he did not pussyfoot around that, as he did with the wildcat question.
The importance of preserving Scotland's vast biodiversity is clear to everyone. We have a moral duty to look after our flora and fauna, but we also know about the significant economic benefits that our landscape brings to us, for example from outdoor activities and green tourism. Anyone who visits Scotland will say that they come here for its magnificent scenery and natural heritage.
There are also marine interests. Game fish such as salmon and trout contribute about £112 million to the Scottish economy, and aquatic invertebrates make an indirect contribution to the game fish industry as a food source. The Scottish offshore fishing industry depends largely on sustainable populations of herring and haddock. Invertebrates such as shrimp, mussels, langoustines and lobsters make a vital contribution to the economy of coastal communities.
Any ecologist will say that biodiversity does not just happen. As I have said often, we need economic activity on the ground or in the water to benefit our environment. Our grazed upland pasture has been hailed as among the most biodiverse in Europe, and our wild mountain thyme would not be blooming around our purple heather without the benefits of sheep grazing. Our birdlife benefits from cattle. Therefore, existing flora and fauna need to be nurtured and looked after. I agree that we must look after our biodiversity by looking at the wider ecosystem. It is important to build from the bottom up with the help and understanding of practitioners.
We need more emphasis to be put on planting native species within forestry as part of any work to improve wildlife habitats. I have played a part in such work as a Borders Forest Trust trustee and a member of the South of Scotland regional forestry forum. We must also preserve and improve our peatlands, which are important as carbon sinks and for their unique biodiversity. An increase in funding through the biodiversity action plan grant scheme would be most welcome.
I come to the point behind my amendment. Obviously, it is important to have agencies such as the Scottish Environment Protection Agency, SNH, the Scottish Executive—I think that the former Scottish Executive Environment and Rural Affairs Department had six representatives at the previous core forum meeting of the Scottish Biodiversity Committee—the Forestry Commission, the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, the RSPB, the Scottish Wildlife Trust and the National Trust for Scotland at the helm of the Scottish Biodiversity Committee, but the biodiversity strategy would be better delivered through broader, vertically integrated stakeholder involvement. As the strategy directly affects not only farmers, but land managers and practitioners, forestry interests, tourism, fishing interests and sporting interests, it is important that stakeholders in such areas take a meaningful interest in it. That would, of course, help to meet the target of suffering no further losses in biodiversity by 2010, and would ensure that all stakeholders are engaged and heard so that an objective that we all share can be met in a way that benefits everyone.
I have said that I intend to support Jim Hume's amendment, but I want to put something on the record. Attempts have been made to invite many of the organisations that the member mentioned to take part in discussions, but there has been a falling away at times. However, I am happy to ensure that we encourage those organisations to take part in discussions again. I shall ensure that my officials do so, but we must recognise that they may sometimes be reluctant to take part in other organisations' activities, because they have a living to earn.
I appreciate that, and we must take it into consideration. We need at the helm people who work in the environments that we are trying to change and improve.
Economic activity, both on the ground and in the water, is essential to deliver biodiversity benefits. If the Government wants a meaningful strategy that stands a better chance of being delivered and understood, it is of the utmost importance that practical land users and marine and fishery interests are among the leading partner organisations in the Scottish biodiversity forum. From such acorns great oak trees will grow—and we will want Querqus petrea, our native species.
My amendment is not controversial or political. Let us have inclusivity instead of exclusivity, as well as common sense. I move amendment S3M-1204.2, to insert at end:
"notes that land users, land managers, inshore fishery interests, sea fishing interests and land practitioners are charged with delivering environmental benefits, and recognises that there is a need for these stakeholders in particular to be formally involved in the strategy at all levels, to understand the objectives, and thereafter to contribute practical solutions to the strategy and its overall aim."
I begin, as ever, by declaring my interest as a farmer. I will also start by saying how important Scotland's biodiversity is to Scotland. Indeed, it is almost impossible to overstate the importance of our uniquely and identifiably Scottish landscape and environment. For that reason alone, I welcome today's debate.
I join the minister in welcoming the progress that has been made towards the biodiversity strategy and congratulate the many voluntary and public agencies that have achieved so much in that regard. However, I sense a real danger of complacency. For example, it is deeply worrying that only five of the 22 biodiversity indicators show any improvement, while three show deterioration. As RSPB Scotland has pointed out, some of the indicators that are listed as stable remain in a perilous state. Furthermore, I am concerned to see that, according to the progress report, only half the habitats in Scotland's designated protected areas are deemed to be in favourable condition. That is a desperately low proportion considering the fact that they are within apparently protected areas.
The minister will not be surprised that I want to touch on the importance of farmers and land managers because, arguably, it is they who are the biggest players when it comes to enhancement and preservation of the natural environment. In the vast majority of cases, they do a good job. The many agri-environment schemes underline the crucial role that farmers play, and it is vital that they remain at the heart of the biodiversity agenda to reduce habitat destruction and the spread of invasive non-indigenous species. Indeed, I lodged a parliamentary question only this week, asking the minister about the spread of bracken especially in the west Highlands.
That said, conflicts can arise over land management issues—it is vital that they be managed sensitively. Too often, bodies such as SNH are accused—rightly or wrongly—of taking a top-down approach that irks local communities. For that reason, a review should be undertaken of SNH, SEPA and the Forestry Commission to ensure that they always work in the best interests of the communities that they serve and of biodiversity. The SNP pledged a review of the possible merging of SNH and SEPA. I would like to hear from the minister what progress has been made on that.
I turn to one of the most compelling reasons for redoubling our efforts to conserve biodiversity—the importance of tourism and eco-tourism. Huge numbers of people come here to enjoy our unrivalled scenery and wildlife, which is why the prioritisation of resources towards the protection of Scotland's most iconic species—many of which are in serious trouble but which wildlife tourists come here to see—is essential. A good example is the capercaillie, which is a magnificent game bird that is found nowhere else in Britain. The destruction and near-disappearance of Scotland's once widespread Caledonian pine forest led to the bird's extinction more than 200 years ago. Although it was successfully reintroduced to Perthshire in 1837, numbers have again plummeted from around 20,000 in the early 1970s to perhaps 2,000 or fewer today. I am aware of the work that is being done by the Forestry Commission, SNH and RSPB Scotland to turn things around—with some success. Yet, the history of the capercaillie is a sobering reminder of what can happen if we neglect our biodiversity treasures. Although its reintroduction shows that the damage can sometimes be undone, the fact that it remains in such a perilous state underlines the need to accelerate efforts to aid the recovery of this iconic species and others such as the red squirrel and the wildcat—which was mentioned by Roseanna Cunningham—for future generations.
I look forward to supporting the Government's motion and both the Labour and Liberal Democrat amendments this evening.
Historically, strategies that favour long-term benefits have been championed by environmentalists, and those that favour short-term ones by politicians—with, of course, the obvious exception of the SNP.
Global warming threatens biodiversity on an unprecedented scale. We can no longer avoid responsibility for the long-term outcomes of our actions. We can take action now that involves little or no conflict between short and long-term benefits. As an example, I will suggest one area where, with joined-up thinking, apparent conflicts of interest could be resolved.
I will consider some international background first. Many habitats and species are threatened by climate change and intensive agriculture. Supermarket buying practices favour intensive agriculture. The United Kingdom's outdated Industrial and Provident Societies Act 1965 hampers agricultural co-operatives, which makes it harder for small farmers—who tend to produce high-quality, environmentally friendlier products—to compete effectively.
Meat that is produced intensively, as opposed to extensively, is unhealthy and harmful to the environment. Rare breeds of domestic animals and plants are threatened by large-scale commercial operations, which is a biodiversity issue, as has already been mentioned.
What is the good news? People are becoming more health conscious and environmentally aware. The Rare Breeds Survival Trust notes that rare breeds are ideal for managing natural pastures to maintain biodiversity. Ecologically rich habitats benefit health, well-being and, of course, tourism. The Scottish Government and bodies such as NFU Scotland promote greater food awareness and healthier eating. There is a growing market for high-quality, locally produced, environmentally benign products, such as the seaweed-eating North Ronaldsay sheep.
I will pull together those points in the context of a specific example. Although many examples are possible in Scotland, I have picked one almost at random. The machair habitat is a focus of biodiversity, being home to rare species such as the great yellow bumblebee, which looks rather like my lapel badge, except that normally it would be rather livelier. Seventy per cent of the UK machair special areas of conservation are classed as being in unfavourable and declining condition. Machair was traditionally maintained by extensive agricultural practices involving grazing in autumn and winter only. The principal threat to the habitat is related to changes driven by socioeconomic factors. For all interested parties—crofters, conservation bodies and the Scottish Government—the solution is to consult on branding and promoting areas where machair is found. We could say "Machair—where traditional farming produces quality healthy products in an environmentally friendly way", "Machair—where rare breeds of domestic animals are conserved" or "Machair—a globally renowned example of joined-up thinking in the world's most progressive nation, Scotland". We could think up a variety of advertising slogans, such as "The best wee machair in the world—probably."
It would help farmers if the UK Government modernised the archaic Industrial and Provident Societies Act 1965 to allow co-operatives to use such luxuries as e-mail and compete on an equal footing.
I have said enough for members to understand my first major point on joined-up thinking. That leads me to my second point, on joined-up habitats. With global warming, we are likely to see the fragmentation of ecosystems. Species will only survive if breeding populations are of sufficient size to be maintained. I am therefore encouraged that the Scottish Government is aware of and supportive of BEETLE—not, in this case, the carabid, but the biological and environmental evaluation tools for landscape ecology—which is software for mapping habitat networks.
I am glad that the member mentioned BEETLE, which is the best landscape and wildlife information system. I had the pleasure of being involved with launching it at the land use planning and climate change seminar. Does the member agree that we now need to encourage the use of such software, joined-up thinking and joined-up habitats right across the planning structure in Scotland?
I suspect that it will come as no surprise to members that I agree with the minister.
I am pleased that the Scottish Government is aware of the danger of woodland fragmentation and that it supports projects to improve woodland ecosystems' resilience to climate change. Funding to support such projects is vital.
Sea levels are certain to rise, perhaps by as much as 5m by 2095. If we manage our retreat well, we can boost wetland habitats and biodiversity. Hard engineering solutions to rising sea levels are not necessarily the best option. Graceful, staged retreats that are anticipated and planned in advance could be cheaper and of huge benefit to wildlife tourism and Scotland's international image.
Biodiversity can be thought of as an irreplaceable treasure. We should strive to preserve it and be prepared to pay for it in the short term, but through creative joined-up thinking we can maintain biodiversity in a way that yields both short-term and long-term benefits. Our generation is at a crucial junction—let us not be found wanting.
I am pleased to take part in this debate, and I welcome the fact that the Scottish Government is continuing with the previous Executive's biodiversity strategy. Indeed, I urge that it become a central focus of Government.
As other members have pointed out, the sustainability of biodiversity is threatened by climate change increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and rising sea levels. Climate change is a real threat to biodiversity. Whole hosts of species are migrating further north, and some of them will not survive. Studies show that, on average, breeding birds are nesting nine days earlier and are extending their ranges north by 19km. We need to appreciate, understand and, above all, protect and conserve Scotland's biodiversity.
Thankfully, people throughout Scotland are engaging directly with the issue by joining local groups and, for example, taking part in surveys. Even counting the birds in our gardens helps. It makes us more human when we feel part of the natural world although, that said, it is too easy for some of us to forget that the majority of Scots live in an urban environment. Not all of us commute back to the countryside of an evening—or on Thursday night. Although four out of five of us live in urban Scotland, that balance is not reflected in the make-up of local authorities, and we must be aware of that if we are to preserve and encourage biodiversity.
Although theoretically there is an allocation for green spaces in grant-aided expenditure, the money is taken up with looking after formal parks, and little is left over for informal green spaces. Projects such as the restoration of Dundee's Baxter park are laudable and essential, but they are not enough in themselves. Insufficient attention has been paid to the huge potential for biodiversity that cities offer, and towns and cities must be encouraged and supported to preserve informal wildlife areas that, too often, are under severe pressure from the built environment.
Many species rely on cities to survive. We should not plan concrete jungles that have no space for species such as song birds. We need stringent planning laws to oblige developers to provide green spaces, with street trees, hedgerows and open water to allow birds and small mammals to drink. We need to plan our cities with wild nature in mind. Farmers and farming are, of course, important to biodiversity, but so is everyone else.
Does the member agree that we might be able to do as she suggests if we ensured that all houses were planned with back gardens?
Indeed. I have already said that we need to avoid building concrete jungles. Too many people these days do not appreciate the importance of gardens and expect to be able to park their car within a foot or two of their front door.
I draw members' attention to Tayside biodiversity partnership, which is undertaking a major project on the swift to raise awareness, provide survey data and increase nesting sites in urban developments. Other projects include the Scottish Wildlife Trust's nesting wall for sand martins at Broughty Ferry and the highly popular Tayside red squirrel project. Such work needs to be encouraged.
Although a small loss to the environment may seem unimportant, the loss of any significant part of our biodiversity cannot be calculated. We need look only at the recent headlines about the planned removal of the green site near the Gyle, outside Edinburgh, to see yet another threat to our green spaces. Of course, the need for jobs and the way in which we plan our economy lie at the heart of the issue, but I might be forgiven for suggesting that if we decentralised more jobs we could retain more green space, support biodiversity and create more jobs for places like the city of Dundee. I look forward to a statement from the Government on when it will meet the pledge that the SNP has made in each election since the Parliament's establishment to decentralise jobs to Dundee. However, I do not want to break the consensus in the Parliament by adding that to the list of broken promises.
I conclude with a reference to those who are raising awareness about biodiversity through newspapers and websites. One recently launched website is called "Bright New Scotland". Its aim is to become a one-stop shop for environmental education in Scotland, with a team of specialists and teachers. In a three-year period, it provided in-school support for more than 250 schools involved in the eco-schools green flag award—it worked with more than half the schools that gained that prestigious award in Scotland in that period. We are fortunate that there is such commitment from people who seek to enlighten us about the interdependence of living organisms and their ecosystem.
Mike Russell said at the beginning of the debate that he was concerned that he might hear a lot of scientific terms and complicated words. I suspect that his comments were directed at colleagues such as Dr Bill Wilson, given his expertise and understanding of those matters, rather than at me, but I give Mike Russell an undertaking that I will keep such references to a bare minimum—for my sake, if not for his.
Biodiversity is important, and our Government has certain obligations to meet in respect of it. Those obligations, as set out in the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity and the EU target to halt the loss of biodiversity by 2010, as well as domestic initiatives, are reflected in Scottish policy and legislation.
It is important that the Parliament has a chance to scrutinise how well we are doing in ensuring that biodiversity in Scotland is maintained, so I welcome today's debate. It is clear from the minister's opening speech that much has been achieved in the past three years, since the adoption of the Scottish biodiversity strategy. Those involved in that work deserve our thanks.
The Scottish biodiversity forum is a clever approach to the maintenance of Scotland's biodiversity, combining as it does the Government and its agencies, representatives of those who work our land and seas, local government and, vitally, the well-established bodies in the third sector that have an interest in biodiversity. Those who invest their efforts in ensuring the maintenance of Scotland's biodiversity are to be congratulated.
However, while congratulations on the work thus far undertaken are due, much remains to be done. Members will have received the briefing for the debate from Scottish Environment LINK, which rightly points out that
"The loss of wildlife is not just of importance to scientists and enthusiasts. The loss of genetic diversity, species, and damage to habitats and ecosystems affects us all, in many ways we are only beginning to understand".
The first thing that must be done is to build on the good work that the minister has mentioned and ensure the continued rich diversity of our land and waters. I understand that the Scottish biodiversity forum is due to consult on the next three years of the biodiversity strategy. I look forward to seeing what emerges from the consultation, and trust that it will seek to build on what has gone before.
The minister set out some of the many challenges that exist for the future. He rightly pointed out that climate change is prime among them. Earlier today, I spoke in Patrick Harvie's members' business debate on the subject. I welcome the Scottish Government's hugely ambitious aim to cut carbon emissions by 80 per cent by midway through the century.
I look forward to any marine bill that emerges from the Government. I am interested in how it may play a part in protecting biodiversity.
It is clear to me that the task of maintaining biodiversity is taken seriously by our Government, and that, as the minister mentioned, it is building on the work that began under the previous Administration, which also deserves congratulations.
I commend the activities that are being undertaken in Scotland to protect biodiversity and I commend the Government motion and the two amendments.
I recall a helicopter trip that I once made with Michel Barnier, who was then the European Commissioner responsible for regional development. We left from Edinburgh and flew up over Crianlarich, over the Rannoch moor, down Glen Coe, round to Ben Nevis and back up the great glen to Inverness. In the course of the journey, he asked me, "Why are all Scotland's forests square?" That was an interesting observation. As someone who comes from France, where there is still extensive natural forest, he was commenting on the fact that Scotland has almost none of its natural forest left and that we have planted most of our forest.
Indeed, if one looks at the Highland landscape as a whole, one sees that, far from the general perception that it is a natural environment, it is heavily managed by man. It has been managed for grouse and deer, and is overgrazed for the most part. Nowadays, the landscape has little natural growth—natural growth would sustain a much wider variety of species, as it did a couple of centuries or more ago. Thankfully, awareness of biodiversity is beginning to roll back the monoculture that is evident in so many aspects of our lives.
As I said, when M Barnier and I looked down from the helicopter, we saw forests that had been planted by way of downhill furrow ploughing that drains the nutrients from the soil. The way that things were done allowed no accommodation for native species. In fact, during much of the last century, the planting of trees in Scotland was, in the main, about planting a crop. Thankfully, that viewpoint is giving way to one that sees much more diverse softwood planting mixed with hardwoods. Also, the natural regeneration of trees now forms part of how we manage our forests.
The gradual recreation of the Caledonian pine forest is helping to sustain the capercaillie, which John Scott mentioned. Miles and miles of heavily managed Highland landscape is giving way—albeit slowly—to more enlightened management regimes that encourage natural regeneration, reduce grazing pressure and encourage species diversity.
The move towards big ranch farms in Easter Ross and Fife saw trees felled, hedges ploughed up and land drained. Slowly, that practice is giving way. Hedgerows are recovering and trees are being planted for shelter belts and biodiversity reasons. Also, fields that once were drained are being recreated as wetland. I do not want to overstate the extent to which that is happening, but it is an important sign of progress. Farmers, land managers and crofters need support to go further, but they face challenges in doing so. The changes to the agricultural regime through common agricultural policy reforms should lead to increased payments to farmers to enable them to do more of that important work.
The advent of the farming of biofuels has the potential to become a danger to biodiversity as monoculture farming takes over large areas of land. Changes to the set-aside regime, which has allowed species—particularly insects, but also birds and animals—to flourish on set-aside land, threaten all of that. In addition, changes to the agricultural payment system will result in stock being removed, particularly from the Highland hills. As we know, cattle in particular support a diverse habitat. They can improve habitat and create richness in the environment. We are seeing worrying trends in that regard.
There are opportunities to improve biodiversity through, for example, better support of the organic sector, in the ways that I set out earlier. Recently, as Bill Wilson said, the RSPB reported on its Western Isles machair project to the cross-party group on crofting. Working with a range of partners, the RSPB hopes to pursue the project, if it gets the support of local crofters. I hope that that happens. If crofters give their support, the project has the potential to support not only the machair—which, in turn, supports a wide variety of wildlife—but the crofters in the sustainable practices that they are deploying. There are many positives, as well as challenges.
Bill Wilson referred to challenges such as the reduction in the number of bumble-bees and ladybirds and the change in the behaviour of the honey bee, which are not fully understood yet, but it is clear that there will be an effect on pollination rates. There are also wider effects on people, in terms of our enjoyment of the countryside, and on how the countryside functions.
As Marlyn Glen said, we all have a small part to play by way of what we do in our gardens and allotments. Trish Godman, who is sitting next to me, is a great advocate of allotments. We must not forget window boxes and our public parks and spaces. We can all make a small contribution to improving biodiversity.
I would love to have had more time in the debate to speak about peatlands, which Jim Hume mentioned; eco-schools and the huge contribution that they make to our awareness of the environment; the opportunities that the flooding bill offers in terms of sustainable flood management; and moves to create more sustainable land and diverse habitats in our country. I could have said a whole range of things in the debate. I hope that, at some future date, the Government will sponsor a much longer debate on these wide and important issues.
The debate has been interesting. I have enjoyed it. It has not been as controversial as the debates that I normally enjoy, but I have enjoyed it nonetheless.
Mike Russell confirmed that a good start has been made in implementing the strategy that ministers in the previous Administration introduced. He said that the good work is continuing under the present Administration and that things are moving in the right direction; that of the 22 indicators, five show an improvement but three are dropping. He mentioned invasive non-native species among a couple of seabird populations.
I was intrigued by the minister's line—which I am not sure he intended—when he said that climate change has been with us for 40 years. The climate is always changing. I think he meant to focus on the fact that we face extreme challenges in tackling dramatic climate change.
I did mean that phrase. Strong evidence suggests that the change in climate that we are now talking about has been taking place for at least 40 years. That can be seen, for example, in the rise of rivers at peak flows. I would be happy to provide more evidence to the member should he find that helpful.
I remember the 1970s, when everybody was talking about the coming onslaught of the next ice age.
David Stewart focused on the key role played by biodiversity in the challenges offered by climate change. Among other questions, he asked whether the Government will end biodiversity loss by 2010 and whether we will have well-funded biodiversity schemes.
Jim Hume's amendment focuses on the need for stakeholders, land users, land managers and practitioners to be charged with delivering environmental benefits and to be fully involved in the making and implementation of policy. The minister intervened on Jim Hume to make the point that the Government cannot force people to be involved but that it can certainly encourage them. I am sure that the Government will do that.
John Scott warned against complacency about the indicators the minister mentioned. He shocked me by saying that he will accept the Liberal Democrat amendment. That must be a first for him. I am sorry that he is not in the chamber to hear of my amazement.
Bill Wilson brought the benefit of his scientific background to the debate. He focused on joined-up habitats as well as joined-up government.
Marlyn Glen said that climate change is a real threat to biodiversity. She focused on green space money for urban councils, mentioning Dundee in particular. I was not surprised by that, as she is a regional member for North East Scotland, which includes Dundee. She had a point, up to a point. We should not be robbing Peter to pay Paul in the allocation of funding. Biodiversity is equally important in urban and rural parts of Scotland.
As he promised, Jamie Hepburn did not blind us with science. I do not see him in the chamber, but I thank him, wherever he is.
Peter Peacock made an excellent point: we must not confuse biodiversity with no change in the environment. Our landscapes are managed and have been subject to huge changes. That will continue; change is inherent. What we have in the countryside at the moment is a snapshot in time. We would be making a mistake if we felt that the promotion of diversity equated to no change in the countryside.
We will be happy to support the amendments and, of course, the motion.
Although short, this has been an interesting and wide-ranging debate that has clearly demonstrated the richness of Scotland's biodiversity and the importance of protecting it. Members in all parts of the chamber have illustrated just how important it is for people from all walks of life, including partners in the public, private and voluntary sectors, to continue to work together to meet the commitments of the biodiversity strategy that was created by the previous Scottish Executive.
The progress report, three years on, that we are debating today indicates some progress, but it does not leave room for complacency—for the reasons John Scott and others gave. Urgent action is required if we are to meet the challenges of our national and international commitments to safeguard our biodiversity. That will require everyone to engage in practical measures to protect and enhance our environment. That is a worthy end in itself, but it is also vital to the wildlife tourism that is so important to our economy.
People travel the globe to visit our wilderness areas in the hope of seeing not only the beautiful and majestic scenery, but some of the iconic species that dwell within it, such as the golden eagle, the capercaillie, the red squirrel—and the wildcat. It is important that we stamp out wildlife crime and take adequate measures to protect our red squirrels from the invasive grey squirrels that have decimated them in so many areas.
As we have heard, much good is being done by farmers, gamekeepers and other land managers to safeguard and enhance the natural environment—it is important that that continues—but we have also heard that land management issues sometimes cause conflict with local communities, whose co-operation is vital. Bodies such as SNH, SEPA and the Forestry Commission need to show sensitivity in their dealings with local communities.
I will illustrate my point by giving an example from a community I know well. I hear at first hand from local people in the Braemar area of Mike Rumbles's constituency about their concerns about the red deer cull to protect and encourage regeneration of the native Caledonian pine forest. There is no doubt that there were too many deer in the area, even for their own good, but local opinion is emphatic that too many have now been shot.
Last autumn, during the rutting season, there was scarcely a stag's roar to be heard and many regular visitors who know where to look for deer are complaining that they are scarcely to be seen. Few local people agree that the right balance has been struck between preserving the forest and maintaining the red deer population, and they are highly critical of the bodies responsible for the cull. It is crucial in such an area, given its dependence on tourism and game hunting, to get that balance right.
As John Scott said, we think that SNH, SEPA and the Forestry Commission should be reviewed to ensure that they always serve the best interests of the communities they are dealing with. The SNP had a manifesto commitment to do that. We want to know what progress the Government is making in that regard.
The Scottish Conservatives strongly support efforts to give our seas greater protection. Poor management has resulted in our once rich marine environment harbouring few fish to attract the many sea anglers who visit Scotland's coastal communities or sustain many colonies of seabirds.
For the second time this afternoon, I draw members' attention to allotment gardening and domestic gardening, which contribute to biodiversity. They teach us how best to grow our food and flowers, what insect life and nutrients benefit food and flowers, and what damages them; and they provide physical exercise and fresh fruit and vegetables, which help our health and fitness. Properly designed gardens attract a variety of wildlife, such as birds, butterflies, bees and other insects, which are important to our country's biodiversity and which contribute greatly to our sense of wellbeing.
We have no hesitation in supporting the motion—or, indeed, the amendments. Jim Hume's amendment emphasises the responsibility of specific groups of people to deliver environmental benefits, and we think that it enhances the motion. Labour's short amendment on meeting the 2010 EU Gothenburg biodiversity targets emphasises the need for urgent progress, and we agree with that. The debate has been interesting and it is on an issue of vital importance to us all. We are happy to support the motion and the amendments.
The debate has been worth while and a number of members have made important suggestions that I hope the minister can take forward in the months ahead.
Many members spoke about the importance of land managers and farmers in the process. I agree, and I have a number of questions for the minister—which he can respond to when he sums up or in correspondence. How much money can be spent on agri-environment schemes and biodiversity projects through the new Scottish rural development programme? After next year's CAP health check, will there be any changes in the funding that is available? Does he see any future changes in voluntary modulation to help stimulate agri-environment schemes? When will the SRDP schemes be implemented, following EU approval? When will that work begin?
This is an important debate because, for many people, biodiversity can be an anodyne concept. They might appreciate how important it is only when things go wrong or—which is more important now—when they are given appropriate and accurate information.
The growth in the number of eco-schools and the increased quality of their work has been one of the most important and encouraging developments in recent years. Almost every primary school in Scotland is engaged in environmental questions and in changing environmental practices in the school. Perhaps the minister will outline how we can encourage many more secondary schools to participate in that worthwhile venture. There can be few better vehicles for increasing awareness and knowledge of our natural environment.
I have seen at first hand superb projects that involve the whole school in studying, for example, the return of salmon to the Clyde, waste and recycling in the school and the creation of natural wildlife havens in the school grounds. Practical projects allow young people to experience the environment in all its richness, to develop attitudes that promote positive stewardship and to gain insights that are likely to influence their behaviour for the rest of their lives. Those projects are all part of an important programme that supports a key plank in the biodiversity strategy.
We must of course remember the vital importance of the health of our seas. The coming marine bill will allow us all to focus on that much more. I welcome the cabinet secretary's decision to get more baseline information on the health of our seas and the sea bed. Peter Peacock called for that in one of his first speeches after the election. I welcome the fact that the minister has responded so positively, and I hope that he will do so to some of my suggestions, too.
One Government bill in the making relates to flooding, and we in the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee are currently involved in a flooding inquiry. There are opportunities in the Government's proposed bill to make progress with biodiversity arguments relating to the re-creation of wetlands, the planting of more woodlands and the encouragement of scrub and trees along our riverbanks. Those can all form part of a more natural and sustainable approach to flood management, and they can help improve habitats for a variety of species.
There are also opportunities in our urban environments, where the pressure to develop land can so often compromise environmental quality and biodiversity. We need new thinking about flood management. We should be opening up green wedges and corridors and spaces for water to flow and for people to interact with their environment. As Marlyn Glen said, protecting and enhancing green spaces in urban areas is vital to ensuring that people have access to high-quality open spaces that they can enjoy and explore.
As we continue to deal with the pressure for affordable rural housing and to develop sustainable rural communities, we must ensure that we do not sacrifice biodiversity at any cost. The overall health and well-being of our communities partly depends on access to open spaces. It is clear that those who are most vulnerable and least able to fight back are excluded most from healthy environments. That impacts on all aspects of their lives and on the health inequalities from which Scotland suffers far too much. We have a chance to change that. Indeed, we have an obligation to do so.
The cities growth fund that Labour created allowed our cities to fund improvements in streetscaping and to help manage and enhance their green spaces. I hope that the Government will continue to work with local authorities in developing that. People who live in our urban environments deserve protected green spaces. They deserve opportunities for recreation and enjoyment.
As Nanette Milne said, the clamping down on wildlife crime has a contribution to make. I look forward to the report from Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary for Scotland, which supports more action by police forces throughout the country. It is unimaginable that we might not see our magnificent golden eagle, our red kite, our hen harrier and many other species that are under threat from people who do not seem to care or understand how their actions work against the rich diversity that we all want to see and to leave for our children and their children in turn.
As the progress report shows, improving biodiversity is, without doubt, challenging. It is helped by joined-up thinking and cross compliance. We have moved far in the right direction and I encourage the Government to ensure that it pushes that progress further in the next four years. As the Labour Party's amendment suggests, we must make available the resources that are needed to make that happen.
I am confident that, if we work together across this chamber and across Scotland, we will leave a biodiverse future for those who come after us.
I call Mike Russell to wind up the debate. Minister, if you could aim to sit down at five to five, that would be ideal.
I shall do my best, Presiding Officer, to ensure that you live an ideal world.
This has been a good and positive debate. Ministers usually say that when they sum up a debate but, often, when they do so, they must ignore one or two speeches that have not lived up to expectations. Today, every time a member rose, I wondered whether that speech would be the one I would have to ignore, but none deserved to be ignored.
Every member has spoken with commitment, very often with passion, and certainly with knowledge. The Official Report of this debate will show just how positive it has been. As Karen Gillon said, many speakers have put forward positive ideas. I am happy to say that I will read the Official Report of the debate and reflect on those points. Like Peter Peacock, I hope that we will be able to return to this subject for a longer debate—perhaps a subject debate that will deal with one or two of the key issues within biodiversity.
The 2010 target is extremely important and extremely challenging. I know from my conversations with the relevant ministers in the other Administrations in these islands that they feel exactly the same. We have every intention of working as hard as we can towards the target.
Let us focus on some of the specific targets. The previous Administration set a target of having 80 per cent of designated features in a favourable condition by March 2008. We anticipate being able to meet that target—indeed, we hope to slightly surpass it. In any case, we will certainly be in that region and I do not think that two or three per cent either way matters.
The target of having 95 per cent of designated features in a favourable condition by 2010 was accepted at the time as very ambitious. As climate change speeds up, it becomes more and more ambitious. I hope that, as we debate this matter in the coming years, we realise that everything is being done to reach that target but that there are some natural barriers that we will have to overcome in order to do so. That is why the interrelationship between various pieces of forthcoming legislation will be important, as Karen Gillon said. The marine bill, the flooding bill and the climate change bill will be key tools that we can use to achieve our biodiversity indicators as well as do a range of other things.
Karen Gillon mentioned the SRDP scheme. I am sure that, like me, she will have warmly welcomed the fact that the scheme was considered and passed by the European Commission yesterday. We now await formal written approval from the Commission, which we hope to have within two or three weeks. The programme will open as soon as practicable thereafter—certainly in the spring. That is a big step forward and I pay tribute to the officials involved and to Richard Lochhead, who has lost some sleep over the issue in recent months. As the member knows, yesterday's decision means that less-favoured areas support scheme payments can now proceed.
There are important things in the SRDP that we can use to help us. Agri-environment support is an important aspect, but we should reflect on the key issues in that programme: business viability, the enhancement of biodiversity and landscape, the improvement of water quality, the tackling of climate change and support for thriving local communities.
I am sure that the minister agrees that the flow country in Caithness and Sutherland is the most important peatland habitat in the world. Will he actively promote the case, with the United Kingdom Government, for that area to be awarded the accolade of world heritage status?
I will promote that case as vigorously as I can once the process of assessing the full detail of the case has concluded. I am keen for the peatlands to be recognised, not least because, as the member knows, damage to them would lead to considerable consequences in terms of the release of carbon, which we simply cannot afford to allow.
The Scottish rural development programme needs to be pushed forward. I am now confident that people can begin to consider what they can apply for and what they can be involved in—considerable material to help them is available. As the months go on, much of the programme will contribute to the meeting of our aims. I hope that members will encourage people throughout the country to be involved in applications on the basis of the things I have mentioned—particularly the enhancement of biodiversity and landscape, which is crucial.
I will focus for a moment on eco-schools. I am very impressed, as is every member, by the eco-school movement. It is the most successful eco-school movement in the world. Active work is now being done to move some form of the programme into secondary schools and I, along with my colleagues who speak on education, will encourage that as much as possible. There are other initiatives that help schools, such as the salmon in schools project that Karen Gillon mentioned.
I declare a slight interest here—my wife was bitterly disappointed that her school could not take part this year because the programme was oversubscribed. I am sure that by putting that on the record I shall encourage them to apply for a future year. The serious point concerns young people's enthusiasm to take part in schemes that distribute knowledge about biodiversity.
Knowledge and public participation are two of the key issues in the biodiversity indicators. John Scott urged me not to be complacent. That is not something I tend to be, and from reading the report and discussing it with those who work in the field, I know that there are many things to be concerned about.
The biggest challenge that we face, however, is a people challenge: motivating the Scottish people to recognise the real challenge that the issue presents to them and ensuring that they are involved. That is why I warmly welcome and strongly encourage the inclusion of some new indicators: attitudes to biodiversity, the extent and composition of green space, visits to the outdoors, the involvement in biodiversity conservation and the membership of biodiversity organisations. We have set ourselves the objective of involving people in the biodiversity debate.
Does the minister agree that one of the big problems with achieving vital biodiversity is wildlife crime, which Nanette Milne mentioned? Would he like to talk a little bit about that?
I will move on to that very briefly, because I want to finish on one or two very important issues—particularly the interrelationships that Peter Peacock mentioned.
I am passionately committed to the elimination of wildlife crime in all its forms—not simply the well-publicised crime that we have heard about, but a range of other types of wildlife crime such as poaching, which is at times undertaken in an industrial way. We will work very hard to ensure that wildlife crime is eliminated. I look forward to the report from Her Majesty's chief inspector of constabulary, which is also a report from the inspector of prosecution—we are considering all parts of wildlife crime.
Bill Wilson talked about the machair project, as did Peter Peacock. There is a complex relationship between all parts of our ecosystem. Sometimes, things are done and we do not realise the consequences, and we reap disastrous results. Last summer, I was deeply involved in the very interesting issue of tick infestation. We are now going through a massive increase in tick infestation, which is resulting in an increase in tick-borne diseases and consequences for animal and bird health, particularly for grouse moor health—[Interruption.]
Judging by the sound of that mobile phone, somebody clearly wishes to tell Mr Scott about tick infestation and to keep him up to date on it.
We have to work with a range of organisations to deal with the problem. For example, one of the reasons tick infestation is so bad is the reduction in hill sheep, which has caused a considerable problem. Another reason is the global warming that is taking place. The result is a massive increase in the number of ticks per square metre. We will find a way to do something about it, but it is not simple, and it will require attention to a range of issues—[Interruption.]
Order. There are far too many conversations going on in the chamber.
The debate has been an encouraging indication of the best of the Scottish Parliament when members in all parts of the chamber—I include Robin Harper, who asked a very important question, which I will consider, about naming and shaming local authorities; it is time they delivered those plans, and I hope that they are listening—come together to pay attention to the key issues of our time.
I am disappointed that there were so few members in the chamber at the start of the debate. I hope that the others will take part in future debates, because there is no doubt that the issues of biodiversity are the key issues of our time. We have inherited a country that is rich in plant life and wildlife—although, as Peter Peacock said, it is sometimes artificially rich and too ordered—and we must not pass on to future generations a planet and a country whose biodiversity has been ruined by our actions or our lack of action.
I commend the motion and the amendments to the Parliament. I look forward to continued co-operative working in the Parliament so that we can meet and overcome the challenges that face us.