Forests
The next item of business is a debate on motion S2M-1899, in the name of Lewis Macdonald, on making the most of Scotland's forests, and two amendments to that motion.
It gives me great pleasure to open this debate about Scotland's forests. Scotland's forestry and primary wood-processing sector contributes more than £800 million to the economy, provides more than 10,000 jobs and attracts a further £160 million in forest-related expenditure by tourists. Forestry can also play an important part in meeting social and environmental objectives.
Forestry policy is delivered through the regulation of and support for the private forestry sector and through the national forest estate, which is run by Forestry Commission Scotland and represents 8.5 per cent of Scotland's land area. The private and public sectors of the industry combined account for 17 per cent of Scotland. Forestry is a significant industry and both sectors should play a role in it.
Prior to devolution, the Forestry Commission was unique in that although it was a Westminster department that operated across Britain, the Secretary of State for Scotland was the lead minister. With the passage of the Scotland Act 1998, forestry was devolved and became the responsibility of the Scottish ministers, to whom the Forestry Commission became accountable in relation to its work in Scotland.
We recognised that the structure of the commission had to change to reflect the devolved arrangement. In April 2003, following a review of the operation of the Forestry Commission, we established Forestry Commission Scotland to strengthen the commission's accountability to the Scottish Parliament. We have also made the management of the national forests estate more accountable, by setting up Forest Enterprise Scotland, which is an agency of Forestry Commission Scotland and manages the estate in accordance with performance measures that were agreed with ministers. These changes have ensured that the development and delivery of forestry policy are integrated effectively with our wider rural development objectives.
The public forest estate should be an exemplar of sustainable forest management. In August last year, we arranged a review of the long-term role of the national forest estate. We received more than 400 written responses to a public consultation and are grateful to those who contributed.
I am delighted to have been able to announce earlier today that we have accepted all the recommendations of the review group. In doing so, we endorse the vision that
"Scotland's national forests will benefit everyone in Scotland, promoting vibrant and healthy communities; enriching natural environments and our cultural heritage; and creating wide-ranging opportunities for economic development."
The minister can correct me if I am wrong, but am I right in saying that the report of the review group was published only this morning? If it was, would it not have been more helpful for there to have been a gap between publication of the report and this debate, so that we also could have had full knowledge of the review group's conclusions?
I am glad to see that members in the chamber have copies of the report. It is, of course, available in the Scottish Parliament information centre. I would be pleased to return to the matter on any future occasion when members want to pursue issues that have been raised in the review.
The review group recommends increased opportunities for communities to take a greater stake; closer working ties between the forestry and tourism sectors, to make the most from the nation's forests and to take a more strategic approach to economic development; more large-scale landscape and native woodland restoration; and increased opportunities to enhance wildlife habitats near towns and villages.
There is an imaginative proposal in my constituency and that of my colleague Roseanna Cunningham for the use of wood fuel to fuel the new secondary schools that are being built in the community. There are some difficulties and issues about grant application processes. Will the minister take an interest in those issues and remove some of the obstacles to ensure that we can use the enormous potential of the forestry in the Breadalbane area to rebuild and fuel Breadalbane Academy?
I will be happy to take an interest in the matter. Mr Swinney will know that biomass and renewable energy generally were formerly my responsibility. In our previous roles, Mr Wilson and I worked together closely on the matter Mr Swinney has raised, and we will continue to do so.
I wrote to Lewis Macdonald and to Allan Wilson several months ago, requesting a meeting with me and Perth and Kinross Council to discuss the issues that John Swinney has raised. Would it be possible for us now to have that meeting? Public-private partnership schools are being built without biomass heating, which is a wasted opportunity.
I understand that Mr Wilson has replied to Mr Ruskell's letter today. When Mr Ruskell receives Mr Wilson's response he will no doubt be able to take forward with him the issues that he has raised.
We are looking to take forward the national forests estate. We want to ensure that the public funds that we invest in the national forests estate continue to deliver a wide range of public benefits. We will adopt a more flexible approach to the size and distribution of the estate by giving Forestry Commission Scotland more latitude to buy and sell land at the margins. We can use money that is raised from sales of land and forests that do not contribute significantly to our objectives to develop other parts of the estate where greater public benefits can be generated, with at least some of the proceeds being invested in worthwhile projects locally.
Bearing in mind that 8.5 per cent of Scotland's land area is owned by Forestry Commission Scotland, will the minister encourage community buyouts of forestry land?
One of the things that we want to take forward is to find ways to make it easier for communities—crofting communities as well as other communities—to take ownership of forests on their land. That is one of the matters on which there is room for further development.
We will also continue to support the forestry sector as a whole. Private woodland owners, growers, those involved in harvesting, the hauliers and the wood processors are all working in a very competitive climate. We want to give them appropriate support.
We designed the new Scottish forestry grants scheme, which was opened last year, to deliver more closely the objectives and priorities of our forestry and agriculture strategies on land outwith the national forests estate.
Although so much that is positive has been going on, we have also been aware of the economic pressures on the industry. We have made the grants as attractive as we can and we recognise that the reform of the common agricultural policy has caused some people to delay in making choices about whether to plant trees. Forestry Commission Scotland and the Scottish Executive Environment and Rural Affairs Department have been working hard within the strictures of the scheme to ensure that the conditions are as favourable as possible for farmers who are considering planting. We look to that process to be completed quickly.
Everyone with an interest in the agriculture side of the policy will recognise that some of the uncertainties around single farm payments will be resolved in the relatively near future. I think that we will then witness an increase in planting by those in the agriculture sector.
Timber production is forecast to double over 15 years and we have been working with the Scottish forest industries cluster and Scottish Enterprise to identify the best way of taking advantage of that opportunity.
The minister referred to the forecast increase in production over the next 15 years. What measures will the Government take in relation to its own buildings and the heating of those buildings to increase demand for that timber?
The greening government strategy that is in place involves improving the use of sustainable products of one kind or another. In general terms, we are working hard with the construction sector to develop opportunities to make use of timber and wood fuel. The Building (Scotland) Act 2003, which will come into force in May 2005, is supportive in that regard. We certainly expect such matters to be developed in relation to our estate and more generally. Under the able chairmanship of Mr Wilson, the forum for renewable energy development in Scotland will in the near future carry forward work on many issues to do with the use of wood fuel and biomass.
Will the minister give way?
I am conscious of time and must make progress.
We listened to the case that a number of parties made about how to address some of the economic challenges that the industry faces and we agreed to establish the timber transport fund, with support of £13 million over a three-year period. Given the forecast doubling of timber production over 15 years, transport infrastructure was recognised as a priority in the forestry strategy. By working with all the relevant parties, we have developed innovative solutions in many parts of Scotland to allow matters to go forward.
Will the minister give way?
Will the minister give way?
Will the minister give way?
I think that Eleanor Scott intervened first.
The minister can take only a very brief intervention, because he is in his final minute.
The minister mentioned the transport infrastructure that is opening up forests. Will the minister undertake to implement fully the recommendation in the review group's report, which I was able to glance at briefly, that Forestry Commission Scotland and SEERAD should be instructed to discuss ways of instituting forest crofts?
Yes. As I mentioned in my reply to Mr McGrigor, we seek to facilitate croft forestry.
We also seek to support and carry forward the woods in and around towns initiative. We have announced additional funding—£2 million in 2005-06 and £4 million in 2006-07—to enable more people to enjoy woods close to their homes and to play a part in contributing to human health and well-being. Last December we announced a proposal that Communities Scotland and Forestry Commission Scotland should consider the potential for releasing land to increase the supply of affordable housing in the Forestry Commission Scotland estate. Forestry Commission Scotland has encouraged the identification of appropriate sites and 40 sites on which social housing can go forward have already been identified.
We are working with partners on a range of social issues such as access to forests and the use of forest land for housing; economic issues, which I have described; and environmental issues such as encouragement of the growth of native woodlands through the Scottish forestry grant scheme and other measures. The report, which was published today and which we have accepted in full, recognises the social, economic and environmental aspects and potential of Scottish forestry. We will carry work forward to allow forestry to play an even greater role in Scotland's society, economy and environment in the years ahead.
I move,
That the Parliament recognises the significant contribution which Scotland's forestry and primary wood processing sector makes to the economy, tourism and jobs; recognises the environmental benefits of the creation and restoration of more than 8,600 hectares of native woodland in the last two years; believes that Scotland's forests can contribute to the achievement of the Scottish Executive's renewable energy targets; welcomes the contribution made to delivering greater benefits to communities through 70 partnership agreements between Forestry Commission Scotland and communities and through the setting up of the regional forestry forums and the Strategic Timber Transport Fund, and believes that all stakeholders from the public, private and voluntary sectors should continue to work together to maximise the value of forestry to the economy, the environment and the people of Scotland.
I welcome the minister in his first debate as Deputy Minister for Environment and Rural Development.
As I stand at my French sycamore desk in our spectacular new Parliament building, which features French and German oak throughout, the challenges that face the Scottish forestry industry are brought home to me. I am, however, glad that the spectacular chamber well is made from Scottish oak and that although not all the wood in the Parliament is Scottish, all the manufacturing was done in Musselburgh.
This is the first debate in the new Parliament building on one of our key primary industries. Although the motion is entitled "Making the Most of Scotland's Forests" the Scottish National Party does not believe that Scotland is making the most of its forests—a point that I will allude to throughout my speech.
The SNP hopes sincerely that we can bring forestry in from the cold and place it at the heart of our economic, environmental, health and energy policies. We all know that forestry can have economic, social and environmental benefits and we all accept nowadays that forests are multipurpose, but we must balance those objectives. We must ensure that the national forest for which the minister is responsible provides public benefits, which means economic as well as recreational and environmental benefits.
The industry has a vibrant private sector, including farmers and crofters, that sustains 10,000 jobs directly and 40,000 jobs overall, but it faces short, medium and long-term challenges. As the minister said, timber production will double in the next 10 to 15 years. That will create opportunities and challenges. We must ensure that Scotland's processing capacity matches the increase in production and that markets are available so that the industry can stay profitable, because it must be profitable. That means finding new markets and developing new products.
It is not right that, although Scotland is a largely rural country, the United Kingdom imports 80 per cent of its wood from the Baltic and Scandinavian states, which offer cheaper commodity wood products. A couple of weeks ago, the BBC's "Landward" programme featured forestry issues. The presenter highlighted the fact that, at present, every lorry load of timber that is produced in Scotland makes a loss.
In the longer term, we must ensure that we have continuity of supply and quality wood products. According to the Forestry Commission's figures on woodland grants, which I read this morning, new planting has decreased by 62 per cent in the past five years. If we are looking ahead to the next 30 or 40 years, we must address that issue now. We need a beyond-2020 strategy right away, not later. The Government has a target of ensuring that forestry cover in Scotland amounts to 25 per cent of our land mass by 2050, but I understand from the industry that that has become an aspiration rather than a firm commitment. We must ensure that it is a firm commitment and that the figure is a minimum—after all, 17 per cent of our landmass is already covered by forestry. Given that the European Union average is 36 per cent, we are once again playing catch-up with many other small countries in Europe.
One big issue on which the minister can help is transport. I know that he has been working on that in the past few months. We must improve the transport infrastructure if timber, at the new production levels, is to get to the markets and be accessible. At present, 150,000 forestry lorry journeys are made every year on fragile rural roads. That situation is unacceptable and we must address it by establishing more railheads and piers. It is imperative that the Government gives maximum support to achieve that. To cut down further on transport, we must also ensure that more local processing facilities exist, which means creating local markets to allow those facilities to feed into them.
The SNP supports the increase in community forests, particularly native woodlands, which have benefits for biodiversity and local wildlife as well as recreational benefits, particularly when they are located next to urban communities. Such woodlands bring the countryside to urban communities. They provide an example of how we can get other benefits, such as health benefits, from woodlands and forests. People can escape their stressful everyday lives and improve their physical and mental well-being. Our forests are increasingly used for sports such as mountain biking. The mountain bike world championships at Fort William have direct economic benefits for the local population, as does the development of Glentress forest near Peebles.
Another demand that we can make on forests relates to environmental policy. I am glad that Ross Finnie is here. To play our part in tackling CO2 emissions and given that trees store and recycle carbon, we should expand forest cover in Scotland. It is imperative that we put forestry at the heart of our environmental policy.
Will the member take an intervention?
Very briefly.
Although the point that the member makes is true up to a point, the carbon in trees is part of the carbon cycle and will return to the atmosphere when the tree decomposes or is burned, whereas the carbon that is added to the carbon cycle from fossil fuels was sequestered hundreds of millions of years ago and is an addition that cannot be mopped up by trees, never to return to the atmosphere. Although there are lots of reasons to plant trees—and that is one—it is scientifically misleading to say that it will help to solve the problem of global warming.
I was so hoping for a brief intervention.
I appreciate that there are many complex issues, but there is general agreement that expanding our forestry cover can help to tackle the problem of carbon dioxide emissions in Scotland and worldwide.
Another demand we could make on our forestry resources that would make them more profitable is through energy policy. On biomass, we again find ourselves playing catch-up with other small countries. We should be ensuring that biomass is a new market for our forestry. The Government has to play its full role. There are no companies in Scotland that make wood pellets, although some are setting up to make woodchips so that local communities can use them for wood fuels.
The Government put 23 action points into its 2000 strategy, but there was no mention of renewable energy contributing anything to forestry. That attitude has to change—there have been some more hopeful signs during the past few weeks that that will happen. Again we are playing catch-up with other countries throughout Europe.
Timber-framed housing in Scotland is another way in which we can raise demand for wood and make more of a call on our forestry resources. It is sustainable. If we could set up communities where the new housing is timber framed and heated by biomass, those communities would be sustainable and that could lead to sustainability throughout Scotland. The Government should set an example by ensuring that public spending on buildings involves indigenous wood resources and biomass heating. That is the future for sustainability in Scotland. It would help to create new markets for our forestry sector and it would help it to thrive.
We want to make Scotland's forests work for Scotland. For far too long we have been playing catch-up with other countries on renewable energy and in the forestry sector, which are interlinked. It is about time we went ahead of other countries and they were having to catch up with us.
I move amendment S2M-1899.1, to insert at end
"; further believes that increased emphasis should be placed on the principal economic concerns of the industry; calls on the Scottish Executive to introduce a specific target to promote the use of forestry for biomass; believes in the objective of a greater mix of public, community and private ownership of forestry, and urges ministers to take further steps to promote the use of timber in the construction industry."
It will be noted that, in common with Richard Lochhead, I have not sought to delete any of the Executive's motion. How could I possibly do that? I acknowledge that the minister is relatively new to his brief and I take this opportunity to warmly welcome him to it.
The motion does three things: it ignores the real concerns in the forestry industry; it pays no heed to the vital role the private sector of the industry has to play; and it leaves me completely dumbfounded as to why we had to wait until 5 o'clock on Tuesday evening to be informed of the wording of what I can only describe as a somewhat vacuous motion. That is compounded by the point Alasdair Morgan made about the report being published on the same day as this debate, which is almost a discourtesy to the chamber.
I am not surprised at the motion's wording: it simply reflects the consultation on the review of land managed by Forestry Commission Scotland, about which I noted that one major respondent said:
"It has been difficult to respond entirely constructively to each question due to the leading nature of many and the alluring yet vague language of much of the text."
As with the consultation exercise, so it is with the motion before us this afternoon.
Since devolution, the industry has been stuttering along on a stop-start basis, which has sapped much of the confidence that it richly deserves. Despite that, major investment has continued, particularly in the processing sector, which is just as well for the economy of rural Scotland and the many thousands of people the industry employs directly and indirectly. Investment will continue of course, because the industry is not able to uproot—if members will pardon the pun—and move to another country as other industries can and do.
The first major post-devolution event to affect the industry was the suspension of the farm woodland premium scheme. That came without any warning whatsoever and led to a virtual six-month cessation of new planting schemes. Once it was reintroduced, the industry—along with many others—suffered from the effective moratorium that foot-and-mouth disease imposed on all rural activity.
Just as the industry was picking itself up from that, the woodland grant scheme was suspended prior to the introduction of the Scottish forestry grant scheme. Again, that introduction inexplicably took four months to put in place, which was another period of enforced inactivity. Now, in the wake of common agricultural policy reform, the industry is again in a period of complete uncertainty.
Members do not have to take my word for it; the figures speak for themselves. As Richard Lochhead said, in 2000 10,400 hectares of new plantings was undertaken, all within the private sector. In 2004, that figure reduced to 6,700 hectares. Not only that, but restocking levels had been level-pegging at 12,000 to 13,000 hectares per annum for years, despite an ever-increasing hectarage of mature timber being harvested.
Mr Fergusson has listed a number of Government measures. Does he agree that by far and away the biggest effect on the forestry industry was caused by the dumping of timber on the market by the Baltic states? It caused a collapse in prices.
I agree. I have no difficulty accepting that. In fact, I was just about to refer to it. However, I do not believe that that affects what I am saying.
We must ask ourselves why forestry matters. In the much-vaunted Scottish forestry strategy, Parliament endorsed the objective of having a strong, expanding and profitable forestry sector. Indeed, the Executive committed to a target of 25 per cent woodland coverage by 2050. That aim requires annual afforestation of 14,000 hectares, but we currently plant less than half that.
Why? I suggest two reasons. First, the new grant structure administered by Forestry Commission Scotland appears hugely cumbersome and grossly bureaucratic. It has slowed down the process so much that not only are the commission's resources stretched to the limit, there is a less-than-complete update of the available grant funding. Secondly, we have CAP reform. Some months ago, in Ireland, it was announced that following the introduction of the single farm payment, land managers would be able to reduce their agricultural holdings by up to 50 per cent and not only retain 100 per cent of their single farm premiums but receive full forestry grant aid on the rest of the holding.
In Ireland, everyone knows where they stand and everyone is deciding and acting accordingly. Here, in stark contrast, the Executive promised a stated position in early October, but we are almost in November and we still have no clarification. I am delighted that the minister said that clarification is coming shortly, but I suggest that it is well overdue.
The industry is certainly not expanding and neither is it profitable, given the points to which the minister alluded. In 1995, the standing price of coniferous timber was over £100 a tonne, but now it is less than £50. Despite the fine words and noble rhetoric of the forestry strategy, the Executive has failed to deliver its objectives. Therefore, the question is how it can do so. We believe that the answer lies to an extent within the private forestry sector, which must operate, let us remember, without the £80 million a year subsidy that the state equivalent receives.
Calculations from Forestry Commission data show unequivocally that the cost to the taxpayer of forest management, excluding new plantings, is some £38 per hectare for Forestry Commission Scotland's estate. That compares with £4 a hectare for the private estate, which suggests strongly that the state sector has many lessons to learn from the private sector when it comes to management. In the short time that we have had to look at the review, it seems that few such lessons appear in it.
In the management of the trunk roads network, the Executive turned to the private sector for reasons of efficiency and economy. I suggest that it is time to do the same with the management of the state-owned forest estate. The benefits of private sector management of the nation's forest estate could be immense. I hope that the minister will seriously consider the possibility of establishing a pilot scheme to explore the potential benefits.
We must not overlook the multifunctional nature of the industry in considering ways to support it. It is a clean and environmentally friendly industry, but it receives no recompense for that. Out-of-the-box thinking is required. I commend the Forestry and Timber Association's manifesto, "A Level Playing Field for Forestry", for providing innovative thinking. More of the same should not be an option. The industry continues to invest, despite the disadvantages it faces. For that, it deserves the Parliament's fullest encouragement and not just a fairly meaningless motion once every few years. I commend the amendment in my name.
I move amendment S2M-1899.2, to insert at end:
"notes, however, that new planting is at an all-time low, that Forestry Commission Scotland and Forest Enterprise Scotland are budgeted to receive £80 million in the next financial year from the taxpayer with the consequential competitive disadvantage to the private sector and that the promised Executive statement on the link between the agricultural and forestry industries following the introduction of the single farm payment has still not been made, and believes that these factors demonstrate that the Executive betrays a lack of understanding of the importance of the private sector to Scotland's forestry industry."
Trees take up carbon dioxide, store carbon and release oxygen. Without trees, the earth's systems would operate in a completely different way. Sustainable forestry and maintaining global tree cover are fundamentally important to the human race. Fortunately, in the debate, we have to think about trees only in the context of Scotland. However, it is important to recognise that forestry industries operate and compete in a global market.
The debate is welcome, given the importance of forestry to Scotland. For a start, forestry has a significant impact on the landscape: it covers 16 per cent of the land area of Scotland. On the economic front, according to the Scottish forestry industries cluster the industry contributes £1.3 billion to the Scottish economy from sales and supports 44,000 jobs.
Woodland, particularly native woodland, delivers great biodiversity, and forests and woodlands offer a variety of recreational opportunities. They are just as important to townies as to country dwellers. We know intuitively that trees contribute to our health and well-being, and interesting and useful work has been done by the University of Newcastle's centre for research in environmental appraisal and management to quantify the social and environmental benefits of our forests in monetary terms.
Having taken on board the importance of forestry and forests, what are the questions that we should be addressing? There are fundamental questions that we should resolve at the outset. What is the state forest for? Is the concept of a strategic timber supply outdated? Depending on how we answer those questions, does the remit of the Forestry Commission have to change?
On a practical note, as members have said, timber production was 4 million m3 in 1999 and is expected to be 6 million m3 in 2006 and 8 million m3 by 2013. How do we absorb that increase on to the market? How do we make best use of that resource? Do we, and how do we, and where do we, replace all those trees? There are a lot of questions and there is a lot riding on getting the correct answers. There is consensus about the fact that the direction in which those answers should be taking us is one where forests and woodlands should be evaluated on their contribution to all three strands: the economy, the environment and social benefit. There will be some very big answers and lots of very small answers which, cumulatively, will be just as important.
One of the big questions, which has been floating about for some time, is whether making the major investment—the mega-investment—to site a large pulp mill in Scotland is a good idea. Whichever way the decision goes, it will affect both how the current timber supply is used and the future composition of our forest resource. That is such a big chunk of the whole equation that we should decide either to go for it or to nail it once and for all.
What is the answer?
I am asking the question.
But what is the answer?
As I said, the answers are important. We have got to get the right answers and there is a lot riding on them. I would need to look into the matter in much more detail to give Mr Ewing an answer. We need to look into it in detail and make the decision, and then it is done and dusted.
If we go to the other extreme, one of the sets of little answers concerns local biomass schemes. On the face of it, such schemes should be springing up all over the place, and I believe it would be fruitful to investigate why that is not happening. In Insch, a lot of work was done over several years to set up a biomass scheme, but it foundered. Why? In a community with a willing, indigenous and already successful entrepreneur, a copious local supply of brash and small round wood, a convenient cluster of public buildings and a supportive local authority, there has to be a reason for its failure and there must be an answer in there somewhere.
With the timber bulge over the next few years, what are we and the Scottish Executive doing to lead by example and to create and stabilise new markets for wood? How many new public buildings are timber buildings, showing the potential of utilising timber in construction? What are we doing to promote wood fuel, which can minimise waste by using the bits and pieces? We are rightly proud of our achievements in renewing the schools estate, but how many new schools or other public buildings are being heated by wood-fuel boilers or by combined heat and power plants?
At this point, I PAWS to pose yet another question, on planted ancient woodland sites. Many ancient woodland sites were overplanted with commercial conifers. As those trees mature and are felled, the opportunity is presented to allow regeneration or replanting with native species. The Forestry Commission is utilising those opportunities in certain sites. The question is about the basis on which those sites should be selected. Should we be looking for the best sites or the worst sites? There is an argument that the worst sites should be prioritised because they are the ones where the regenerative capacity will certainly be wiped out if action is not taken. Or should we just let them go and save the best?
On the review of Forestry Commission holdings, I should quickly point out that any disposal of assets should be done with safeguards built in, to ensure sustainable use under new ownership and management. I would have liked to say something about maximising pockets of wildlife habitat by creating corridors between them, and about the potential of land management contracts, but in a short speech on a wide topic one cannot cover everything.
I will close by addressing how we enthuse the general public about forestry, woods and wood products. I also want to highlight the good work that is being done on my own patch by the north-east forest industries group through its stands at events such as the Turriff show and the annual Treefest. The group also uses the excellence in education through business links programme to provide teacher secondments that have led to the production of classroom material for the five-to-14 curriculum. The group also has its own initiative, the wood tour, which is a hands-on woodworking experience for primary children.
Although Forestry Commission Scotland is an excellent and worthy body, I am not sure that the average person sees it as particularly relevant. We could boost a sense of ownership of the national forestry asset that is run for us by the commission by calling it "The Scottish Forest" and using those words on forestry signage across the country.
I want to call all the back benchers who wish to speak. I ask members to stick to six minutes, by which I mean six minutes and not six minutes and 20 seconds or six minutes and 30 seconds. I will stop each member when they reach their six-minute deadline.
I will start by echoing what has been said about the unfortunate coincidence in the timing of the debate, which is taking place on the day that Forestry Commission Scotland's report is published. I was able to see the report briefly at lunch time, online. I would make more of a fuss about the timing had it not been for the fact that I am very pleased with what I saw in the report. I was gratified to note that much of what is in the report was contained in the amendment that I lodged, but which was not selected for debate. I am even more gratified to have heard the minister indicate that the Executive is looking to implement the report's recommendations.
It is true that we have not made the most of our forests. Too much of our tree cover is poor-quality, single-species conifer that has little or no market, conservation or amenity value. Our forest cover stands at 17 per cent, which compares badly with figures of 29 per cent in Norway, 66 per cent in Sweden and the European average of 36 per cent. The picture worsens when we consider that four fifths of our forest resource is commercial conifer plantations—although we should use the term "commercial" with a bit of care, as a combination of poor quality, inaccessibility and low prices means that much of the softwood that is ready for harvesting would cost more to extract than it would command at market. Worse still, our ancient woodlands, which should be the pinnacles of our native biodiversity and landscape, nowadays cover only 1 per cent of our land. Those woodlands should have 100 per cent protection.
Limited though our current forest resources are, they offer huge potential for the fuel wood that is required for heating at the domestic and community scale. Other members have spoken on this subject. To some extent, this is happening already in the Highland area. For example, Scottish Natural Heritage has recently installed a woodchip boiler in its Aviemore office. There are also proposals for district heating schemes using waste wood in other areas.
Estimates based on our existing forest resource suggest that wood fuel could provide between 1,500 and 2,000 sustainable rural jobs. Again, on the subject of making the most of our forest resource, we should be looking at how to use our low-quality wood for heating at the domestic or neighbourhood scale instead of seeking to use it for the generation of electricity.
I believe that we should also look at capital grants for wood-fuel heating systems. We should do so because of the fact that we are way behind the rest of the United Kingdom, and in particular Wales, on that issue.
Although I have noted that Scotland's forest cover is amongst the lowest in Europe at some 17 per cent, we should remember that Forestry Commission Scotland's estate amounts to some 10 per cent of Scotland's land mass. We should also remind ourselves of what the forestry strategy says. Our objective should be to increase Scotland's forests and woodlands to one quarter of our land area by the middle of this century. The quality of our woodlands and timber will be at least as important to future generations as our forest area will be. Although we have been making progress in extending forest cover, at current rates it could take us closer to a century to achieve that 25 per cent goal.
We should praise Scottish forestry for being a world leader in some ways, not least because of Forest Stewardship Council certification, ecological restoration and community forestry. However, the UK as a whole imports 80 per cent of its forest products. Our overseas forest footprint is massive and highly destructive. We need to do more to ensure that our future built heritage features fine Scottish hard and softwoods. We need to ensure that planning guidance is issued, architectural awards are made for timber buildings, funding for training is found, awareness is raised in the construction industry about the use of wood, and so on.
I welcome the 70 partnership agreements with communities that are mentioned in the motion. We should remember that the Forestry Commission Scotland's estate accounts for some 10 per cent of Scotland's land mass. As the commission proceeds with its disposal programme, community ownership becomes ever more important. Currently, communities can register an interest in ownership, but can only buy if land becomes available on the disposal list, which can, in effect, mean that it is the poorest land. The commission has made land available for affordable housing, which is a welcome step, but we need to think more about housing in forests, rather than housing or forests.
The strategic timber transport fund, which was mentioned earlier, offers a good opportunity to tie in infrastructure developments, which typically will mean forest roads, to opening up land for crofting. We are still awaiting the crofting reform bill, which will allow new crofts to be created. Some of them should be forest crofts. I am glad that the minister appeared to be sympathetic to that. That could provide a new and appealing opportunity for living and working. The Executive should also consider forest crofts as an opportunity for making more of Forestry Commission land outwith the crofting counties.
Community owned and managed forests are hugely important, and for far more reasons than the community benefiting from products such as wood fuel. In Assynt, the community-run Culag wood is used as a placement for people on community service orders. In Abriachan, in Inverness-shire, the award-winning community wood is seeking funding to set up a forest school, and it already provides a valuable learning environment for nursery pupils. The social benefits of community woodlands are immense. I agree with the Community Woodlands Association that all new forestry developments should have a set of underpinning principles on local community economic development and involvement. I hope that that principle will be accepted by the Executive.
Members would be disappointed if a Green made a speech in this chamber without mentioning climate change. Climate change is associated with extreme weather events, such as flooding, but so is poor land management. Sensitive afforestation can do a lot to reduce flood risk, which is yet another of the multiple benefits that arises out of making the most of our forests.
I do not have enough time to go into the carbon cycle again, but much has been made of carbon sequestration. The jury is still out on whether it can be of any benefit. What is certain is that we cannot afford to plant a few trees then go about business as usual with fossil-fuel emissions. Reducing pollution is better than trying to sequester it. Burning wood for domestic or community-scale heating offers one ideal fossil fuel-free and efficient way of using the resource.
I am happy to join the ranks of the tree huggers this afternoon, and talk about forestry, in particular with reference to my constituency in Dumfries and Galloway. Forestry is an extremely important industry, as others have said and I expect will say in the debate. I want to talk about the benefits to the region, some of the potential, and also one or two concerns and how they are being addressed.
Forests cover more than 25 per cent of the region's land, the region produces 27 per cent of Scotland's output of sawn wood, and the industry generates sales outside Dumfries and Galloway in excess of £80 million, according to Scottish Enterprise Dumfries and Galloway. The industry also directly employs 1,500 people, or 2.3 per cent of the work force in the region.
Forestry is becoming an increasingly important means of diversification for farmers. One of my constituents still farms, but he has also diversified not just into livery stables, but into forestry, and he is running an extremely successful business from his farm.
We are lucky in Dumfries and Galloway to have a centre of excellence in training at Barony College at Parkgate in Dumfriesshire. Its trainees are able to use computer simulation to learn how to drive around forest tracks and use some of the equipment, but they are also trained in the operation and maintenance of large-scale specialist equipment. Obviously, they have to be trained in maintenance as well as operation, because many of them work remotely, and if their equipment breaks down they will not be able to call out the forestry equivalent of the Automobile Association to fix their machinery for them. Having a centre of excellence in training is of great benefit to the region.
The SNP amendment mentions the importance of biomass, with which I agree, although I do not agree that we have to have a specific target, because it comes within the target for renewable energy generation.
If that is the case, why does the individual on the forestry cluster recommend that there should be a target?
People have different points of view. We do not have targets for other sources of renewable energy generation, so it is not necessary to have one for biomass. However, I recognise that biomass is extremely important, which is one reason why I was pleased that Dumfries and Galloway Council gave approval to Powergen to build a 40MW wood-burning power station at Lockerbie, which will create jobs and provide energy from renewable resources in the constituency.
I am also pleased that in the discussions around the closure of Chapelcross power station, which has already stopped producing energy—it was supposed to do so next year—one of the matters that is being considered is the possibility of using some of the plant as a green co-firing power station. That would enable some of the work force there to regain employment and, hopefully, enable some of the contractors who are reliant on Chapelcross to have further work once it starts being decommissioned.
Forestry is also important for leisure and tourism. The Forestry Commission lists two walking nature trails, both of which are in Mr Fergusson's constituency, at Dalbeattie and Mabie, and there are many less well-documented trails. There are six forest cycle tracks and 10 forest horse-riding locations, so clearly forestry plays an important part in leisure pursuits in the region. Ae forest has been well developed as a tourism and leisure centre area. It is one of the locations for the United Kingdom sled-dog racing events. I found it rather strange to think of Siberian huskies racing through the forests of Dumfries and Galloway—and they make one heck of a noise—but it has become a regular part of the cycle of those events. We also have quad bike events and mountain bike events and the world logging championships were held outside Lockerbie in September 2002, which brought visitors into the region from all over the world and were extremely successful.
Wildlife tourism has been mentioned. Dumfries and Galloway is of course one of the few areas where we still have red squirrels, so it is an important area for the conservation of that species. I was rather concerned to hear just yesterday from my colleague John Home Robertson that SNH is considering not reappointing the red squirrel officer and I will take that up in the context of the protection of the species.
As I said, there are concerns, one of which is timber transport. If we have trees, we somehow have to get them out and get them somewhere. There is no point in saying, "Get the timber lorries off the roads," because if we are going to use the resource we have to find a way to transport it. Eskdalemuir village in my constituency has had significant problems over the years with increasing numbers of timber lorries coming through the village.
Will the member take an intervention?
No. Sorry, I do not have much time left.
There was a serious and unpleasant accident not very long ago in which a house was semi-demolished by a lorry. The Dumfries and Galloway timber transport group involves Dumfries and Galloway Council working in partnership with the enterprise company, the police, the Forestry Commission, landowners and private companies to agree timber transport routes and ways of maintaining and improving them to resolve or avoid timber transport problems. Dumfries and Galloway Council deserves a lot of credit for the development of the strategic timber transport fund, which Alistair Speedie from the council in particular has been proposing for a number of years. He lobbied me—I am sure that he lobbied Mr Fergusson and Mr Morgan too—and I am sure that we all took forward some of his ideas. I was particularly pleased that £13 million over three years has been allocated to that fund. I was also pleased that the annual timber transport forum conference took place in Dumfries yesterday, partly in recognition of the council's role in developing the timber strategy and proposing the introduction of the strategic timber transport fund.
I will close with a small concern about Ae forest. Given all the leisure and tourism activities that take place there, it is not the best location for 96 450ft wind turbines. The minister knows that I am in favour of renewable energy sources, including wind, but where there is conflict between wind energy and the potential for tourism and wildlife, I hope that ministers will take that into consideration.
In my constituency, forestry and the forest industry in relation to the paper, panel and construction sectors as well as the sawmilling sector is of fundamental importance. The debate should focus on the controversy of the Executive's failure to focus on the serious economic concerns of the forestry industry. Richard Lochhead and Alex Fergusson have already alluded to some of the serious problems.
In politics we must be able to distinguish between what is important and what is essential. Leisure, tourism and environment interests are important, but unless we have proper planning and the correct approach to the needs of the industry we will neglect the essential aspects of forestry policy.
Will the member give way?
Not at the moment.
We acknowledge that the Forestry Commission plays a role in ensuring that there have been long-term contracts to ensure what is essential for the sawmilling sector—namely continuity of wood supply. If a sawmill does not have a reliable supply of high-quality saw logs, it cannot survive. That is where the Forestry Commission has played a role, with secure, long-term contracts at difficult times such as a couple of years ago, when, as Mr Finnie indicated, the economics made it unviable to take the trees from the forest. Things have improved since then, but the important aspect of the debate lies in recognising the long-term nature of this vital, proud Scottish industry. There are some serious criticisms that I really hope the minister—whom I welcome to his new role—takes on board. Richard Lochhead has alluded to the failure of the Forestry Commission to maintain proper plantation levels. How will it fill gaps in the future if the private sector is simply not able to supply the sawmills?
It is my information—from some pretty reliable sources in the Highlands—that thinning has been ceased and that the supply of fertiliser has been massively reduced. Unless proper sylvicultural practice is followed, Sitka spruce will become of an unusable quality. That is a major concern, and other members have referred to it. If the wood is unusable, it is useless. Why is the Forestry Commission not following proper sylvicultural practice, especially if the figures to which Alex Fergusson referred—the cost of forest management being £38 per hectare in the public sector but only £4 a hectare in the private sector—are anywhere near correct. How can it be the case that so much money is being spent while proper practice is being neglected?
The Liberal Democrat speech contained a record number of questions asked without a single answer being provided. One question was whether there should be a new large-scale sawmill or a new second line, as was proposed for the sawmill near Irvine. I think that that proposal was shelved, and that the investment went instead to China. At the moment, the answer to that question is no. If there were a massive new mill in Scotland, that would jeopardise the supply of saw logs to Brownlee and Co, John Gordon and Son, Walkers, Howie Forest Products and all the other proud, successful Scottish businesses, almost all of which have been around for more than a century. They do not need lessons from people with degrees in forestry about how to run their business; they need a proper focus on the needs of the industry.
Forestry is a successful industry. It is viewed as a heavy, dirty industry. James Jones and Sons invested £18 million just a few weeks ago. Now, it is a high-tech, high-quality industry. The clusters group has done some good work although, frankly, we are still waiting for the conclusions on some of the topics that have been discussed in conferences and seminars and that have featured in consultants' reports over the past four years, in particular on e-commerce, plastic wood, chemical derivatives and the use of spruce in joinery. The establishment of the centre for timber engineering at Napier University—the CTE—is welcome, despite the abrupt departure of Professor Choo. All in all, we must focus on the real needs of the industry.
The £13.5 million transport fund is welcome. However, it is no use simply having new ways to transport timber by sea. That is happening already at places such as Lochaline. It is no use unless there is also assistance with freight facilities grants for the provision of loading equipment. We cannot just create a pier and take the timber off without loading equipment. It costs about £250,000 for a crane. Ferguson Transport (Spean Bridge), based in my constituency, is the only such operator in the Highlands. It was turned down recently. Why? How does that help? Unless help is to be provided with loading equipment, how can timber be taken away by sea?
There will be 400,000 lorry trips to sawmills each year in five to 10 years' time. That is my estimate, based on statistics referred to by Allan Wilson from David Howat's booklet. That is twice as many trips as at present. We welcome that £13.5 million, but will it really tackle the problem? In any event, nothing will happen for a year yet, despite the fact that I, Alex Fergusson and others had a debate about the matter in Aberdeen, and have been pressing for measures on timber transport since the Parliament was formed.
We need a level playing field. That is crucial, and that is what we must focus on. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, Gordon Brown, is creaming off billions of pounds of taxation on fuel, with a rate of 75 per cent—he is creaming off extra billions every year. The cost that the tax on fuel poses to the industry is absolutely colossal. It would be very encouraging indeed if the minister, in his winding-up speech, could speak for Scotland and say enough and no more—there must be no more increases in tax on fuel. The rate of tax on fuel is already about the highest in Europe, and there must be a freeze on it.
You must finish now.
Finally, I hope that the minister will explain why "The Review of Land Managed by Forestry Commission Scotland" was withheld until today.
As a native of Argyll, I am acutely aware of the contribution that Scotland's forestry has made, and continues to make, to the economy. However, many changes have been made in the forestry sector in the past 40 years, some of which have been good and some of which have been not so good.
I well remember when the villages of Eredine and Dalavich, which were built specifically for forestry on Loch Awe in Argyll, were populated almost entirely by local people working for the Forestry Commission. There was pride, spirit and a strong sense of community. Those villages, along with many others, were built when modern forestry in Scotland was in its infancy and they certainly contributed to the employment of local people in remote areas. The situation now is completely different. Hardly any forestry workers live in those villages; a primary source of local employment has gone.
However, the news is not all bad, because over the past 10 years Forestry Commission Scotland has become more receptive to community engagement and to sourcing jobs within the forestry industry and locally. That employment factor is vital now, given that the value of the product is hardly economic. West Argyll forest district produces 400,000m3 of timber, which supports some 300 jobs between Southend and Kilmelford.
The timber transport group network has made progress on linking up forestry roads to carry heavy lorries that would otherwise damage public roads. In future, such roads may well be used as forest drives, which will stimulate the tourism sector by attracting motorists and the increasing number of cyclists and mountain bikers. They are a very good way of opening up more of Scotland's splendid scenery to the general public. However, I have heard concerns from forestry groups that the funding for the strategic timber transport fund that Fergus Ewing mentioned, which will receive £13 million over three years, is simply not enough. Although that funding is welcome, it may not be enough to prevent trees from being landlocked in the future.
There is also concern that the Executive's cutback in funding for public roads has meant that forestry producers are not being allowed to use many of the roads that they would have expected to use, which has added enormous cost to the industry.
What cutback in funding for public roads is the member referring to?
I am referring to the cutback from the original Conservative programme, which I think is a cutback of 100 per cent.
The carriage of timber by sea has been another plus point as regards getting heavy lorries off the road network. Both the piers at Campbeltown and Ardrishaig are being used; indeed, Ardrishaig is bursting at the seams and cannot cope with extra tonnage. On that note, I ask the Executive to consider redeveloping more piers on the west coast, such as the pier at Furnace and the piers on islands such as Mull, Skye and Jura, which hold an enormous amount of timber.
Rail transport should be further used for timber, but I am told that forestry groups are finding it hard to motivate English Welsh & Scottish Railway to facilitate timber transport by rail. The Executive must help with getting more timber carried by rail.
The biggest problem that forestry faces is undoubtedly the price of timber, which is about half of what it was seven years ago; even then the price was thought to be bad. I understand some of the reasons for that, which are to do with imports and exchange rates, but it would seem sensible to extract as much added value as possible and to source more markets in local areas that are close to the site of timber production. A glaringly obvious way of extracting benefit would be the use of biomass to obtain light and heat, a subject on which I have questioned the Executive on several occasions over the past five years. Much of Europe has made use of biomass on a large scale, but all that the Executive seems to do is talk about it.
There have been significant biomass projects in Argyll, at Whitegates housing complex and the Lochgilphead swimming pool and through the efforts of Torren Energy, but it is essential that any major biomass project is thought through carefully and that there is supply to fulfil the demand. Biomass is certainly cost effective in comparison with most fuel systems, except possibly mains gas, but people will not invest in wood boilers if there is no ready supply of the fuel close at hand. Therefore, it would be advantageous if Forestry Commission Scotland encouraged more outlets such as the Auchencorvie sawmills at Campbeltown to make biomass fuel. That would be a good way of making the most of our forests.
The member is obviously slightly out of touch with what is happening in Argyll. He will know that Torren Energy—the company that supplied the boilers to Whitegates—went bust. Now, a local sawmill in Campbeltown supplies biomass for the system at Whitegates, for the new system that is being built in Campbeltown and also for the new one that will be put in at the community swimming pool in Campbeltown.
I thank the member, but I think I mentioned that just before he got up.
You are in your last minute.
I have already spoken about the tourism aspect and I congratulate the Forestry Commission on the work that it does to promote walking tracks. It is worth mentioning the Dalriada project, in which the Forestry Commission has linked with British Waterways Scotland on the Crinan canal and worked with Kilmartin House Museum and SNH to encourage exploitation of the culture and natural biodiversity of that area of west Argyll.
Good forest management can help freshwater fisheries by making sure that burns are not canopied by trees, blocked by log dams or filled with silt. The Forestry Commission has been helpful to fishery bodies. I wish that I could say the same about its policy on red deer, which of late has involved all-year-round indiscriminate slaughter rather than discriminate seasonal culling. In the past, the Forestry Commission earned valuable income from deer hunters from both the UK and abroad. The forests produce notable heavy stags that provided a good source of lean, healthy meat, which was supplied by local game dealers. It is important for red deer to be seen as an asset of Scotland's forests rather than as vermin. If young trees are planted in an area—
You must finish now, Mr McGrigor.
—they will act as a honeypot, so it is necessary for areas of young trees to be properly deer fenced. Any practical forester will confirm that.
The Forestry Commission was the first public body to establish the concept of job creation and one of the first, if not the very first, to establish affordable housing for its workers. That helped to retain people in our countryside and created many viable communities. There is no doubt that the forestry industry continues to be one of only a few rural enterprises that still employs significant numbers of people in rural Scotland. It is estimated that 10,000 people are directly employed by the forestry industry and a further 40,000 are dependent on its activities. In Skye, in my constituency, the Forestry Commission employs 12.5 full-time man-hour equivalents: eight forest workers, two foresters and 2.5 administrative staff. In addition, it employs 11 full-time man-year equivalents on a contract basis: seven in forest management and four for harvesting. With annual timber production expected to double by 2020, even with changes in the world economic climate, the number of people employed in forestry will hopefully increase.
The motion that we are debating covers a wide range of issues, including the benefits of the increase in community-owned woodlands in Scotland, but I would like to concentrate on the problems that are faced in timber extraction and transportation. There is no doubt that the projected increase in forestry production during the next two decades will cause increasing problems on our vastly underdeveloped road system. Roads in the Highlands have been badly damaged during the past half century by heavy vehicles carrying timber and products for the aquaculture industry. Statistics indicate that 95 per cent of timber is carried by road, with only 3 per cent being taken by sea and 2 per cent by rail.
Like other speakers, I welcome the Executive's investment of £13 million to pay for timber transport infrastructure projects. I would like that money to be targeted particularly at the development of harbours and new railheads to handle timber. In 1991, the Forestry Commission carried out a project to transport timber from the Isle of Raasay to Kilmallie near Fort William. The experiment came about because of the problems that the commission had experienced when winter gales left a trail of damage on plantations throughout the area. Some 400 tons of timber were taken by workers to the pier on Raasay and loaded onto a barge that was then towed by tug to Kyle and on to the mill at Kilmallie. There is no reason why such a project cannot be considered as an example of how timber transport can be taken off the road, except that it costs a large amount of money. The experience that was gained from that initial exercise encouraged that forestry enterprise to extract 70,000 tonnes of timber from north-west Skye. That was ship-loaded at the site and transported directly to mills. That initiative alone removed some 3,500 lorry loads from our road system and is to be welcomed and encouraged. The more we see of it, the better.
Kyle of Lochalsh harbour in my constituency has undertaken several relevant exercises. It has excellent road and rail links and has ample water depth at all states of the tide. It is restricted because the pier facility and the berthing arrangement are more than 100 years old and are hardly what we would expect in the 21st century. We must ensure that some of the additional funding that is available is directed quickly to upgrade and improve that marine infrastructure, which I hope will encourage more use of our excellent marine resource and help to protect our fragile rural roads.
I welcome the minister's statement and the publication of the review, which I read easily at lunch time. I hope that land on forest margins can be used for affordable housing, but I ask the minister to find ways to ensure that, if affordable housing is built in those places, it does not pass into second-home ownership.
The last time that I spoke in a forestry debate, I described a visit to Migdale woods in Sutherland, which form a wonderful native woodland that is managed by the Woodland Trust and much used by walkers. I will mention two other forestry projects that illustrate the contribution that forestry makes to biodiversity and the potential for Forestry Commission Scotland to work in partnership with other agencies to deliver significant tourism and job opportunities, which are essential for the rural economy in the Highlands.
In early summer, I took part in a guided visit to what may be a unique forest. It is at the top of the Black Isle and is not the kind of forest of which Fergus Ewing would approve. The visit was sponsored by Highland Council during a conference on biodiversity. I remember the forest in that part of the Black Isle in the past. It used to be closely planted with non-native conifers and the bogland on which they grew had been partly drained to promote better tree growth and was probably fertilised, too. There were and are peat banks in the forest clearings where we used to cut peat. I now recognise and regret that that was an act of vandalism in that environmentally sensitive area.
The bogland is being restored and inappropriate tree species are being removed. We now have a wonderful and unique wetland forest at the top of the Black Isle that supports diverse wildlife, including nesting ospreys. Paradoxically, the wetland's inability to support the growth of dense and tall trees promotes diversity and encourages the osprey, which prefers to nest in trees with stunted tops.
The other project to which I will refer is only in its infancy and was briefly mentioned by Jamie McGrigor. The Dalriada project in mid-Argyll is promoted by the Forestry Commission, but the partnership involves many other agencies, such as Argyll and Bute Council, Argyll and the Islands Enterprise, British Waterways Scotland, the local tourist board, SNH and Historic Scotland. Hardly a public body is not connected with the project.
Mid-Argyll is famous for its forests and woodlands, an increasing amount of which contain native species and not just the blanket-introduced conifers. It is also famous for the Crinan canal, which yachtsmen use to access west coast waters, but which could support many more forest-related tourism projects along its banks. It is famous, too, for the important bronze age monuments in Kilmartin glen and for the safe anchorages in Ardfern, for example.
Mid-Argyll offers tremendous potential for agencies to work together to develop sustainable environmental and activity tourism. Visitors can combine sailing with woodland walking or a visit to the excellent Kilmartin House museum. However, there is a need for investment to realise those aspirations, especially along the Crinan canal. I look forward to lobbying ministers fairly intensively in due course so that the aspirations in the review that was published today can be realised in mid-Argyll.
Forestry is not just about tourism and leisure; there is a timber product, which often in the past has not been used imaginatively enough. There has been a perception that home-produced timber is of an inferior quality for building purposes, especially for timber-framed houses. However, that myth was laid to rest at the recent conference of rural housing associations, at Nethy Bridge, which some members here attended. We were shown samples of timber produced in Scotland, which can compare in quality with what is produced in Europe. It enters the market, but timber wholesalers do not distinguish the Scottish product, so it is difficult for someone who wants to build a house as sustainably as possible to identify and access local timber. Can we please have some way of identifying Scottish timber when we go to B&Q or Jewson to look for wood?
In the planning system, except in Shetland, there seems to be an aversion to timber-faced housing. Even houses that are faced with locally grown timber are refused planning permission because they are somehow foreign. That is obviously nonsense. I fail to understand why such decisions are being perpetuated year on year. It would give a boost to our timber industry if we could have more timber-faced houses. I grew up in a timber-faced house that was beautifully warm and well insulated, and I would like to see more of them in the countryside.
The brash from forestry and sawmills now also has a commercial value as a source of individual or district heating and as a source of power. The first of those uses is becoming fairly well established, although I would like it to be the automatic first choice for public-private partnership school projects as well as in new housing developments, as others have said. In the housing development in Strathspey, which is to be a mixture of executive and affordable houses, although the housing association wishes to use a woodchip biomass district heating scheme, the private developer refuses, meaning that the private buyers will not benefit from renewable energy and that the housing association's costs will be higher than envisaged. That is the kind of grass-roots problem that we must sort out through our planning systems, otherwise unsustainable heating will be perpetuated. We have not yet used biomass to generate power. I believe that there are proposals in the pipeline, but they will need considerable support from the Executive, which I hope will be forthcoming.
At home, we ordered a lorry load of woodchip from our local sawmill to put down as garden mulch. Unfortunately, we did not realise that the sawmill owner had bought a very much bigger lorry than he had before. If anybody would like a bag of woodchip, they should see me later.
I agree with Alex Fergusson, who said that the motion was vacuous. Its vacuity is matched only by its length although, to be fair, I would have to say that about the amendments as well. The only contribution that the motion makes to the forestry industry is in the amount of paper that it uses.
I am not going to apologise for returning to the subject of biomass, as the Enterprise and Culture Committee's report on renewable energy, which was published when I was the convener of that committee, cited the potential benefits of the use of biomass. Biomass is clean to use because it involves no net CO2 emissions and because of the high fixation of CO2 that we get from young trees. As well as biomass not contributing to the production of CO2, virtually none is produced in its transportation from its place of production to its place of use, which is an important consideration. However, as other members have said, the mechanisms—grants, and so on—are not yet in place to encourage the use of biomass sufficiently.
Even in rural areas, in the middle of all the trees, we often find it difficult to get wood used where it should be. John Swinney raised the issue in relation to my old school, Breadalbane Academy, which is trying to get a wood-fuel boiler. It is a sad comment on the passage of time that the new school that is being planned replaces a school that was not even built when I was at school—but there we go. It is an area in which the public sector should be setting an example; yet, how many such projects do we have? We still have rural projects importing polluting fuels that are brought over vast distances. Surely, that is nonsense.
The public sector must also be more proactive in the use of timber in buildings, as Maureen Macmillan pointed out. Scotland does far better than the rest of the United Kingdom in the number of timber-framed buildings that we erect, but we could do better. The industry is keen to produce the correct product and it is capable of doing so, but the demand needs to be stimulated. Environmentally, we are in a win-win situation. Compared with other products, timber has high insulation properties, so it can reduce the amount of CO2 that goes into the atmosphere. In addition, when the building is eventually knocked down, the material can be recycled or, at worst, used as fuel. The same cannot be said of other building materials.
Another issue on which the Government needs to do a selling job is improving the forestry industry's image among the public. As Fergus Ewing pointed out, the industry is often thought to be a dirty industry. Certainly, one sawmill operator recently told me that the industry is encountering increasing difficulty in finding machine operators for the forestry part of the operation and in recruiting operatives for the sawmills. He speculated that the industry's image might be a contributory factor in that difficulty. Of course, the reality is that the equipment that is used both in the forests and in the sawmills is highly mechanised and very sophisticated. We need to get the message over that forestry is a high-tech industry, because I am not sure that that is appreciated by many of our youngsters when they are considering their career.
From the briefings that we received in advance of yesterday's meeting of the embryonic cross-party group on forestry, it is clear that different sectors of the industry have different priorities. One briefing from the industry stated:
"Some would question the apparent over-emphasis on native species in general and native broadleaves in particular."
On the other hand, the Woodland Trust submission clearly emphasised the reinstatement of native woodland. With due deference to my colleague Fergus Ewing, I do not think that those positions are contradictory or—
Mutually exclusive?
That is exactly the phrase that I was looking for. They are not mutually exclusive. For the sake of tourism and the environment, we need native woodland, which has the biodiversity that attracts the increasingly selective tourists that we need. On the other hand, we need cycle tracks for the sake of recreation and we need a healthy industrial sector to provide jobs in fragile rural areas. We can fulfil both those objectives at the same time, but much more encouragement is needed than simply the fine words that the industry currently receives.
I return briefly to the subject of the environment. We have seen many Government initiatives to reduce CO2 emissions, such as fuel taxation and the fuel escalator. Incidentally, on that subject, the cost of diesel is one factor that currently prohibits the timber industry's development. The industry is not even allowed to use red diesel on all the extra mileage that it is encouraged to run on forest tracks, which are off the public roads that the taxation is meant to pay for.
Although the Government has introduced other fuel taxes such as the climate change levy, those have been essentially negative measures. Investment has been made in renewables but, in comparison with the alternatives, one of the cheapest ways of achieving an improvement in our CO2 emissions would be simply to grow more trees. It strikes me as strange that only £20 million is made available in woodland grants. That figure compares poorly with the £0.5 billion that we give to agriculture.
Investment in forestry is a good proposition because it invests in the environment and in the natural world. Although it is a commercial industry, it is not mobile and it will remain here: once they have been planted, the trees will not move out of Scotland.
I call Rosemary Byrne to speak, after which I will give John Swinney five minutes.
Forestry is a big issue in Scotland, not only in rural areas but in urban areas, where woods act as the green lungs of communities. Although I recognise and agree with much of what is contained in the motion, there are many issues about our management of Scotland's forestry that need to be addressed. I want to concentrate on three main issues.
First, the Scottish forestry strategy must ensure that the case for community involvement in forestry is strengthened. I welcome what the minister said about that. At present, the Forestry Commission has limited powers to implement the existing strategy or any new, strengthened strategy. A good example of that is Forestry Commission Scotland's ability to distribute funds through the Scottish forestry grant scheme and the partnership fund, which is distributed locally through conservators. Those mechanisms are restrictive and leave no room for the funding of national initiatives.
We must bring forestry to the people. There has been a commendable effort to open up woodlands to public access, but the concept of woodland communities is far from the reality. That is of particular relevance to people in urban communities, who are lucky if they are able to access woodlands for recreational purposes, let alone live and work in woodlands. We should use the opportunity to return much more of our woodlands to communities, which would benefit health, education, social well-being and the basic democratic right of communities to own their own land.
Approximately 16 per cent of Scotland's land area is covered by trees, with high levels of the timber resource situated in Dumfries and Galloway and the Borders. It is estimated that, by 2016, the supply of softwood in Scotland will exceed 8.4 million m³. That constitutes a doubling of the existing harvest. The potential for fuel wood from that crop to provide a form of renewable energy needs to be promoted at a local level. We must have a range of renewable energy sources, and fuel wood could play an important part in that. Community-scale installations such as Bettyhill swimming pool in Caithness and Kinlochleven community centre—supplying heat, not power—are showing that the use of fuel wood can be a success.
If we can develop our domestic markets for fuel wood, construction timber and so on, imports could be reduced, which would benefit Scotland financially and in terms of employment possibilities. We can ill afford to ignore jobs in the forestry industry.
Forestry is a resource for health, social well-being and jobs, as well as being of benefit to the environment. The upcoming Scottish forestry strategy must be predicated on that and we must take the opportunity to ensure that our forests are returned to the control of the people for the benefit of the people.
Will the member take an intervention?
I am sorry, but I want to talk about planning.
While forest cover in Scotland is expanding and native species are more in evidence, the majority of planting is still of non-native species that will produce poor-quality timber. As a consequence, the timber industry is still geared towards finding large-scale uses for a poor-quality resource. Support for small businesses to develop markets for high-quality products made from hardwoods is just not there. We need to consider that closely as we should be supporting the industry, which, as I have said, provides jobs that we can ill afford to do without.
John Swinney can have six minutes after all.
I am grateful for that generous additional allocation of time.
The forestry industry is of enormous significance to my North Tayside constituency, particularly the highland Perthshire area. It is important that we establish sensible and positive policies for the forestry industry and use forestry activities to provide benefits at a local level.
In politics, people look to us to come up with commonsense solutions to the issues that confront us. An issue that I have raised with the minister and others on previous occasions is the importance of a project that has been developed by Perth and Kinross Council to ensure that the newly constructed Crieff High School and Breadalbane Academy in my constituency are fuelled by wood. That is an eminently sensible idea. Trees are available in abundance, transportation issues would be diminished by the proposal and the public would see that we are doing something for the environment. It is all common sense. Unfortunately, the financial logistics of making it happen are complex.
On a number of occasions, I have discussed with Perth and Kinross Council the importance of ministers engaging in the debate to try to find a way of ensuring that those new schools in the heart of the forestry industry area in Perthshire can be fuelled by wood and that we get over some of the mechanistic difficulties with grant systems that are stopping that happening. I hope that we can make progress on the matter.
Earlier in the debate, I asked the minister whether he would meet me, John Swinney and Perth and Kinross Council to discuss the difficulties and complexities that John Swinney talks about. The minister said that he had responded with a letter, but the letter does not agree to a meeting with him; it agrees to a meeting with an official. I have phoned the official during the course of the debate and he knows nothing about such a meeting. Is that not a case of the Executive brushing off the issue? It does not care what Perth and Kinross Council thinks and it does not care what we think either.
I had only a brief look at the letter that Mark Ruskell is talking about. From Lewis Macdonald's response to my intervention earlier in the debate, I got the sense that he was prepared to take a personal interest in ensuring that the project can go ahead, which it could do if the obstacles could be cleared out of the way. I am certainly prepared to engage in discussion with the minister after the debate to ensure that that happens. We must come up with sensible uses of forestry production to guarantee the economic prospects of rural Scotland and the investment in public services that is important in rural Scotland.
The second point that I will make is about transportation. A large part of the highland Perthshire area of my constituency is forested by commercial forestry. Forestry Commission Scotland has been working for years to minimise the amount of transportation by road and to re-establish what we think would be the commonsense solution of a rail development on the Rannoch line at the western edge of the Rannoch forest. It has been from one pillar to one post to another pillar to another post to try to get Railtrack and Network Rail engaged in the process. At long last we seem to be getting somewhere, but the project is yet again delayed.
I hope that the timber transportation fund that has been announced today can have a positive impact on ensuring that practical solutions can be found to address the transportation issues that concern my constituents across highland Perthshire. I hope that those transportation issues, which lead to the use of lots of fuel and cause damage to the environment, can be addressed by getting the timber hauled out by rail. It is a practical and sensible solution, but the Forestry Commission has been thwarted at every turn in trying to make progress on the issue. That shows the lack of cohesion and the lack of joined-up government in relation to some of the issues. I hope that the minister will take a good look at the scheme.
My final point concerns tourism, which my colleague Alasdair Morgan mentioned in his speech. We are fortunate that the forestry industry is applied to the tourism sector in Perthshire and Angus—the areas that I represent—in many respects. There is currently a fabulous temporary visitor attraction at the Hermitage in Dunkeld, arranged by Forestry Commission Scotland, called Enchanted Forest. It is a great celebration of our natural history, music and the use of light in our community that attracts thousands of essential visitors into rural parts of Scotland. If some of the imagination and innovation that I see in various forestry projects in my constituency were applied in the general approach to economic development in rural Scotland, perhaps we would begin to see an increase in employment and in the opportunities for people to live in rural Scotland.
One of the difficulties that we will undoubtedly be confronted with is where people who work and operate in rural Scotland can find houses to live in, because many of the Forestry Commission houses that were always there in the past have been sold off and rented stock is not available. Some imagination of the type that I talked about in relation to the projects in my constituency needs to be applied to tackle some of those issues, so that we can have a vibrant forestry industry that contributes to a vibrant rural economy. However, the Government must play its part in making those things happen.
This has been a good and constructive debate. I will deal with a couple of themes that came through in most members' speeches.
My own interest in the issue is the fact that Argyll produces 20 per cent of the total Scottish timber output. Timber is a major contributor to the Argyll economy; it provides many jobs in felling and planting and also a substantial number in the haulage industry. Unfortunately—I suspect that this is true for many other areas—the majority of the timber leaves Argyll with no value added in the local area; the timber is all transported out as a raw commodity. The statistics are disappointing, and I will return to them.
The two key points that have been mentioned many times in the debate are, first, the transportation of timber from where it is produced to the major production facilities and, secondly, how the public agencies might facilitate the use and development of biomass.
Timber production is forecast to rise to 10 million tonnes by 2020, so transport is a key challenge for the Scottish industry. There is no doubt that the Scottish Executive has made excellent progress on shifting timber from road to sea, through freight facilities grants. Daily, thousands of tonnes of timber that would previously have been hauled out by articulated lorries on the main trunk routes are loaded on to ships at Ardrishaig, Portavadie, Ardyne and Campbeltown and shipped out of my constituency by sea. However, although we have succeeded in removing heavy timber traffic from major trunk roads, we have not succeeded in removing traffic from B-roads and single-track roads throughout the constituency. The timber might be taken out by sea, but it must still be transported from the woods in the hills down to the nearby ports. Daily, the small back roads are being pounded into oblivion, but that has not yet been recognised as a serious problem that the Executive must address.
In some landlocked areas of afforestation in my constituency, timber cannot be removed because of the poor state of the roads, and there is no prospect of the timber being harvested and transported out in the foreseeable future. I am pleased that the minister recently announced that a new strategic timber transport fund will be set up to tackle such issues. I would have liked the fund to have been substantially bigger, but £13 million represents at least a significant step forward. When the minister winds up, will he elaborate on how the fund will be used and on how it will sit alongside the freight facilities grants? Will the funds be complementary? Will the strategic timber transport fund be used specifically for developments for sea and rail, or can it be used to upgrade some minor roads, which are vital arteries in bringing harvested timber from the hills to sea level?
Will the member give way?
I will give way, as long as I get some extra time.
I understand from what the minister said today that the strategic timber transport fund will be administered solely by Forestry Commission Scotland. Does the member share my concern that there is a need for local authority input into the administration of the fund?
That is clear, because the local authorities are the owners of the roads that will have to withstand the extra tonnage if production doubles over the next few years.
I want to consider how we develop biomass energy heating systems. Substantial progress has been made in my constituency. Fyne Homes Ltd, the local housing association, has led the way in developing such systems, but not without encountering sometimes substantial difficulties. The housing association recently developed 52 houses at Whitegates in Lochgilphead, which are heated by a Swedish boiler. Unfortunately the company that supplied the boiler, Torren Energy, went bust and the development was left without anyone to service the boiler. Worse, Torren was responsible for supplying the wood to fuel the system. Thankfully, Fyne Homes has managed to rescue the situation by securing a local supplier of woodchips from a small sawmill in Campbeltown and finding engineers to service the plant.
Fyne Homes will install a similar heating system in a new development, and the local authority is building a major swimming pool project in Campbeltown that will use the same type of system. In Oban, West Highland Housing Association is building a major housing development that will have a biomass energy system. However, what most worries me is that all those projects are procuring boilers from different sources and we will have a different kind of boiler in each development. The great worry is that we will lose the catalyst and the tremendous opportunity to build up local expertise and knowledge on servicing the equipment that is used in the schemes.
The systems will benefit local suppliers of woodchips, which exist ad nauseam throughout the constituency. We can create a virtuous circle by getting everyone to co-operate in the development of the industry and by using local timber and building up local expertise. I ask the minister to ensure that public agencies that are involved co-operate more fully in the future.
The debate is one of those that does not happen very often in the Parliament—the subject of forestry seems to inspire good will from all parties. As well as supporting the Conservative amendment, we are happy to support the Executive motion. We will even support the SNP amendment, as on this occasion that party has seen fit not to include the independence clause that usually makes it impossible for us to support SNP amendments. However, I have one or two qualifications, which I may come to later.
The forestry industry inspires good will. A number of members have mentioned points on which there have been developments since we last debated the subject. The industry has progressed to the extent that the amount of timber that is produced in Scotland is significantly higher than it has been at any time in the past, yet sadly, the price that we get for timber is, in real terms, one of the lowest ever prices. The effect is that the industry is run on the basis of public subsidy and, in some cases, good will. The public forestry industry in Scotland keeps the industry alive, but the private forestry industry, which the motion and all the amendments support in principle, is struggling to compete in a system in which production at a loss has become the norm. Therefore, it is important that we ensure that the price of timber, or its realisable value, goes up over time.
Several members have mentioned the opportunities to use timber as fuel. Wood is a good fuel. Much has been said about the technology that is involved, but we should remember that, although until relatively recently the burning of logs in a fireplace was as advanced as the technology got, it was one of the most common ways of providing heat in large areas of Scotland. We heard from Eleanor Wood—
Eleanor Scott.
Sorry—that was a Freudian slip.
We heard from Eleanor Scott that the use of wood as a fuel does not achieve a great deal environmentally, but we should value the fact that it involves rotational carbon and displaces the use of fossil fuels, even if it takes the carbon out of the system only temporarily. If the use of wood prevents the alternative of burning fossil fuels, it is worth while. I am in the process of throwing out an oil-fired central heating system and replacing it with a wood-fired system. It is getting very cold at home because I am having difficulty finding a plumber, but that is a different matter.
We can increase the value and quality of timber production in Scotland by ensuring that, when we cut trees, we use the best-quality timber for building purposes and the poorer-quality timber for other jobs. If using that poorer-quality timber for firewood—in one way or another—is the best way in which to recover value, we should do that. However, one problem is that there may be a question as to whether that use will be acceptable under the system of renewables obligation certificates in the future.
I have corresponded with ministers on that subject and I would like guarantees, either today from the minister or in the future, that Scotland will not be disadvantaged by the fact that while grant aid is available for the provision of short-rotation coppicing south of the border, no additional grant aid is available for such schemes in Scotland. The argument is that we have a great deal of surplus timber. Scottish Coal has raised with me its concerns that it might find it difficult to compete in the future if it is not allowed to use surplus timber from Scottish forests in the provision of combined fuel that its competitors in the south are providing using short-rotation coppice material that is heavily subsidised by the Westminster Government.
Nora Radcliffe pointed out that our forests have an environmental, economic and social benefit to deliver to us. I am concerned that, in certain quarters, the social benefit might get too much attention. I am aware of the social benefits of Scotland's forests, but we must consider the long-term economic benefit as one of the highest priorities.
Looking at the budget proposals that have been made available to the Environment and Rural Development Committee in recent weeks, I am concerned to see that it is not planned to increase over time the amount of money that is set aside for new planting. I am aware that it is normal practice for the replanting of forest areas to be a condition of a felling licence, but I am concerned that in the north-east, huge areas of forest are currently being clear felled. The resources should be available in the long term to ensure that those forests are replaced.
We heard about the impact of carbon dioxide emissions on climate, but I am more concerned about the flooding that is caused by the run-off from clear-felled areas and the ability of clear felling to affect microclimates in specific areas. I therefore commend the Conservative amendment, will support the SNP amendment and will support the principles that are set out in the Executive's motion.
There is strong consensus in the chamber that we should find a way to put the forests closer to the heart of the people's idea that forests should be something from which this nation can benefit. After all, Caledonia, which means wooded heights, was the name that the Romans gave to Scotland. Forests sustained the ancient population as well as offering them protection. However, over the centuries, that relationship has been severed.
In T C Smout's 2003 book "People and Woods in Scotland", Alexander Mather concluded:
"in recent times, people have been separated from the forest, geographically, environmentally and managerially."
That is the reality of Scottish forest ownership and management today. For example, crofters were given the right to grow and harvest trees only in 1991, as were tenant farmers. However, it does not have to be so. Consider Hordaland in west Norway. It has similar geographic features and climate to the Highlands, but its forests are mainly native Scots pine and broadleaves whereas Scotland's are mainly sitka spruce. There is also a marked difference in how the forests are used and in who owns them. As Nora Radcliffe suggested, perhaps we ought to consider whether the strategic aims of Forestry Commission Scotland should be changed.
In west Norway, 87 per cent of the forest is owned by individuals—50 per cent of whom are farmers—and 95 per cent of that forest is privately owned. In Norway as a whole, the forest owners federation numbers 56,000 members, who grow 60 per cent of the productive forests in the nation. Those members negotiate timber prices with the Government and they control 75 per cent of the timber market. That suggests to me that as the SNP amendment talks about having a greater mix of public, community and private ownership of forests, we ought to consider successful models such as that in Norway. Compare those figures with the Scottish forests. The largest Scottish landowner is the Forestry Commission, along with a few hundred private owners, whereas there are 125,000 owners in Norway. Terry Wogan used to own a forest in Caithness. Need we ask who needs a better system?
Far too little of our timber is grown or used for construction, yet locally produced Douglas fir, larch and oak could make frames, cladding and high-quality fittings for energy-efficient, low-cost housing as happens in Norway. The artist Lotte Glob's house, which is made of larch post and beam with European oak cladding, and which is sited beside Loch Eriboll in Sutherland, was short-leeted for today's Royal Incorporation of Architects in Scotland award finals. That shows that homes made of wood could go main stream, because that house cost only £70,000 to build. The house was pipped at the post, but did well in the competition. We could have many more houses like that.
Local materials can create homes that are fit for our people. Expanding locally controlled forestry is at the heart of the community trust movement. The north Sutherland community forest trust in Borgie is a good example of that. The trust wants to turn some Forestry Commission land into woodland crofts and recreational land. Negotiations have been tortuous, but the trust could transform the chances of a small north-coast community housing the people who want to stay there. Many members throughout the chamber have urged the minister to ensure not only that forests can provide land for people to live on, but that people can live in the forests themselves and have access to them.
The community forest movement is dynamic, but its funding is crucial. The Government boasts of 70 partnership agreements between the Forestry Commission and communities, but there should be hundreds of such partnerships and energy must be put into achieving that. Given the potential for biomass, it would surely be possible to have many more partnerships between the commission and local communities that would focus specifically on that target. We ask the minister to respond to that possibility. It is a pity that the report on the Forestry Commission's efforts and the minister's take on them was made available only at lunch time, or we might have had more detail on those efforts.
The SNP believes that having far more forest owners could transform forestry prospects. The Assynt crofters trust has planted hundreds of thousands of trees in the past 10 years. However, the nearby Vestey shooting estate, which is now on the market, has planted only a couple of trial plots to measure exposure. People and the forest go together and Scotland should aspire to having more people live on forest land, based on forestry industries.
In the past, our forests protected us from invading armies; for the future, we must let the people reclaim the forests to safeguard their future. Geographically, environmentally and managerially a much tougher forestry policy for Scotland is called for. My case has outlined why; the SNP's amendment outlines how. We ask the minister to respond speedily.
It has been a good debate, which has covered a range of issues. There is agreement on some issues and disagreement on others. However, the debate has reflected the significance that all parties in the chamber give to our forestry sector. Members have recognised that growers and processors face a continuing climate of challenge and change. It is clear that we need the public and private sectors to continue to work together to make the most of Scotland's forests.
As has been said, forestry is a long-term business, which is precisely why we have embarked on developing a future forest resource that is rich in diversity. I was interested in the different views of a number of members—sometimes from the same side of the chamber—on the correct balance in that regard. However, we are clear that we want an increasingly diverse national forest and forest cover, whether in the public or in the private sector, that develops the natural resource to increase not only the supply of paper, wood and other forest products, but the environmental and social benefits that were touched on in the debate.
That is why, as well as investing in the public sector, we have invested, through the Scottish forestry grant scheme, in work in the private sector. I hope that members will agree that it is right to seek to deliver even more against those wider objectives. That is the purpose of the review and recommendations that were published today. The developments in the woods in and around towns initiative, for example, should be widely welcomed because organisations and individuals are working together to make a real difference in areas around our towns that have been neglected for too long.
In time, the new woods that are planted under that initiative today will make a significant difference to the health and well-being of the next generation in our towns and cities. Woods can provide the links by which people reach the wider countryside, providing opportunities for enjoying outdoor recreation. As I said at the outset, they also provide significant assistance to our tourism industry. Whether it is through forest recreation and tourism, walking, watching wildlife, cycling or horse-riding, or whether it is through small businesses hiring out mountain bikes or providing other related services, those activities are not peripheral to our priorities, as some have said. Those activities are a critical part of what forestry policy is all about.
The economic issues are of great importance, and I am pleased about the broad welcome that there has been today for the timber transport fund. That is a key challenge for the industry in delivering its product to market. The subject of freight facilities grants was raised, and members should be aware that a number of such grants have been used in the past to improve marine infrastructure such as the piers at Portavadie and Lochaline. The timber transport fund that we have now established will seek to connect forests to both marine and rail facilities, and we are keen to work with partners in the timber transport forum on how to promote more rail and sea transport of timber to market.
Will the minister address the point that George Lyon raised and state whether some of that money will be available for local authorities to use on roads?
That is a significant point. To answer the point that George Lyon raised, and the question that Alex Fergusson asked in his own speech, the fund will be administered by Forestry Commission Scotland, which will work with local authorities and other stakeholders through the timber transport forum to address not only the rail and sea issues that have been mentioned today, but how to remove the pressures on local roads in the way that George Lyon highlighted. That will be done in part by making better use of forest roads and by investing in and building on that network, but the Forestry Commission will also seek to develop an alternative transport network, such as was approved in Argyll last year, to take those vehicles off the public roads.
There have been a number of areas of consensus on which members have welcomed the things that we have done.
One issue that many members have raised is the decline in new planting in recent years. Will the minister introduce any measures to reverse that decline?
We shall quickly bring about a resolution of the issue relating to the reform of the common agricultural policy and the single farm payment, which has been raised by members of several parties and which we believe is key in many respects to restoring the level of private sector planting. I shall say a little more about that in a moment.
Alex Fergusson kept what I thought was the most interesting part of his position on the issue to the end of his speech. He made a new proposal for putting Forestry Commission management in the private sector, which is novel but perhaps not unsurprising. It is also interesting that he asserted, in his speech and in the Conservative amendment, that Forestry Commission Scotland was somehow soaking up public subsidy while the private sector suffered from neglect, and he used the figure of the £80 million budget line for the Forestry Commission.
It is important to make it clear that the funding that goes in cash terms from this Parliament to the Forestry Commission is in the order of £46.6 million and that the majority of that money—£28 million of it—goes to support private sector growers and industry generally. That happens, for example, through the woodland grant scheme, which is public money devoted to the private sector and to what it is able to contribute. Alex Fergusson mentioned an additional sum of around £7 million, which is provided through the farm woodland premium scheme for farmers to plant woodland.
The private sector, which has an important role to play, receives significant support from the Scottish Executive and will continue to do so. However, the debate has made it clear that there are good reasons why we continue to look to Forestry Commission Scotland as the public agency that should lead on forest policy and should drive forward forest policy, in the economic sphere and in social and environmental terms. That is the direction in which we wish to travel and that is the key message of the review report that was published today. Indeed, that is the underlying theme of our strategy and of the policy that we have followed until now.
I welcome the broad support that the chamber has given for biomass and for the wide application of that form of energy. Unfortunately, I cannot accept the proposal that is contained in Richard Lochhead's amendment that we should set
"a specific target to promote the use of forestry for biomass",
not because targets are unimportant or because they might not have a role to play, but because, as was mentioned in the debate, we recently asked an expert group under the umbrella of the forum for renewable energy development in Scotland to report to FREDS and ministers on how best to grow the biomass sector in Scotland. At this stage, we do not want to instruct the group on the conclusions that its members should reach or the recommendations that they should make.
Notwithstanding the minister's determination not to set a target at this stage, does he accept the Government's responsibility to intensify the timescale for the development of biomass projects? Does he agree that any practical obstacles in the way of such projects should be removed?
I absolutely accept the role of Government in this area, which is why Scottish ministers have taken a lead through FREDS to seek to develop the biomass strategy. I am certain that my colleague Allan Wilson, who now has responsibility for this area, will want to return to the subject. I am sure that he will do so when the expert group makes its report available to him.
Other renewables issues were raised, including short-rotation coppicing, which Alex Johnstone mentioned. I confirm that short-rotation coppicing is grant aided under the Scottish forestry grant scheme. I am aware of the issues involved and assure the chamber that the Executive is happy to address those issues if required to do so.
There was a wide expression of support for the greater use of Scottish timber in housing, particularly for external cladding. Forestry Commission Scotland, which is working closely with the industry on that subject, is supporting a research project to explore the use of Scottish timber in cladding and the opportunities that that presents. That is the right direction in which to go.
Alasdair Morgan raised the important issue of the contribution that the Executive makes to industry training. Having until recently had responsibility for lifelong learning, I am conscious of the relevance of the issue. Indeed, Forestry Commission Scotland is working with the Forestry Contracting Association to support a number of projects that the association has under way. [Interruption.]
I am sorry to interrupt, minister, but I must ask members to refrain from their conversations. The persistent hum of conversation is making it difficult to follow the debate.
Thank you, Presiding Officer.
Forestry Commission Scotland is working with universities and colleges to ensure that this important industry has a skilled and trained work force.
Will the minister address the private sector concerns that I raised in my speech about the fact that good sylvicultural practice in respect of thinning and fertilisation is not being followed? There are concerns that the production of high-quality saw logs is being jeopardised.
I intended to address that point and I am happy to do so now. I know that Mr Ewing described the source as being "pretty reliable". My sources tell me that it is not very reliable and that there is no truth in the statement that Mr Ewing reported. However, it is important to keep an eye on such matters. Forestry Commission Scotland tells me that it is doing all that it can to maintain thinning populations where it is reasonable to do so. The commission recognises the long-term benefits that that practice provides.
Clearly, forestry is an important employer in rural areas. It brings economic benefits. As members described, it also contributes to the rural economy in a number of other ways. I am thinking of imaginative projects such as treefest, the musical trees tour, the woodland bus tour and the tree trunk online. Various efforts are being made to increase awareness of our forests and woodlands and to promote the contribution that they make. We do not want to lose sight of the cultural aspects of our woodlands.
As several members said, forestry plays a central role in sustainable development and in the contributions that it makes to global and natural systems. The more that we hear of and understand climate change, the more we recognise the importance of forestry in that respect.
Our strategy for Scotland's forestry was put in place some four years ago. We are keen to ensure that that strategy is fully up to date, so next month, through the forestry forum, we will begin to examine the current strategy and look at putting in place the groundwork for the next strategy. The five regional forestry forums that we have established, which have been critical to ensuring that stakeholders have a say in the way that we develop our forest policy, will inform that process. We will continue to take such an approach. We look forward to working with all parties in the chamber on those areas on which we agree in the future months and years.