Chamber and committees

On the basis that I will have further conversations with the cabinet secretary ahead of stage 3, I will not move amendment 19.

Amendments 19 and 20 not moved.

Amendment 42 moved—[Mercedes Villalba].

Convener, I am glad that you made that point, because yes, I am aware of that—I was just coming to it.

The demand for timber is in construction and it is for hardwood. The majority of what we grow and produce is softwood. It gets chopped up and exported while we import a great deal of wood for construction. We no longer have the vast native hardwood forests that we once had. We can bring them back by having mixed woodland and continuous cover, rather than chopping down whole forests at a time. There is a pathway to that. I accept that it will be a transitional process and will not happen overnight, but it is not the case that we cannot make interventions on non-native species because we are dependent on them. We are dependent on importing high-quality timber from overseas, and we need to increase our native-grown timber for construction and for the transition.

Are you saying that you envisage the provision in the bill being used only if Environmental Standards Scotland, for some reason, no longer existed or became a different organisation? Is that why that provision is there? If ESS existed and were functioning well, you would not envisage any need to appoint a different body to carry out its functions.

On the scope of Alasdair Allan’s amendment, will there be any requirements or conditions for anyone who is affected or has an interest? Could anybody in the world have an interest?

Yes, according to the amendment as drafted.

I would be grateful if the member could point me towards any reports or evidence on the breakdown of the economic impact in relation to native versus non-native species. My understanding is that game shooting does take place with native species. Is the member saying that no shooting would be possible if we did not allow non-native species to be introduced?

I think that this is my first time winding up a group at stage 2, so I am quite excited, but I will not take up too much more of everyone’s time.

I am pleased to hear that the cabinet secretary has acknowledged stakeholders’ concerns about invasive non-native species as drivers of biodiversity loss, and I look forward to working with her on revised amendments ahead of stage 3.

I will take a few minutes to respond to the points that the cabinet secretary made about conifers helping Scotland to meet climate change targets. There are native and non-native species, and we have an abundance of non-native Sitka spruce. Yes, they sequester carbon, but that type of tree is very fast growing and has a short life cycle, which means that it is chopped down and then the carbon is released. It is possible to meet our climate change targets by investing in native woodland.

I have nine amendments in the group, which cover three areas. I put on record my thanks to the organisations that have engaged with me in drafting my amendments: the Scottish Rewilding Alliance, Scottish Environment LINK, the Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and the Royal Society of Edinburgh. I also thank the Scottish Parliament’s legislation team for its support in drafting the amendments at what must have been a very busy time.

The first set, amendments 19 and 20, relates to an area of concern raised in committee evidence at stage 1 and through the call for views. There is a crucial need to distinguish between habitat condition and habitat extent when discussing how best we can support habitats. Given that habitat condition and extent are distinct and are each in their own right significant areas of conservation importance, the reasoning is that they should be treated in the bill as separate targets. Amendments 19 and 20 seek to do that. The goal is to clarify and strengthen the bill’s focus on measurable outcomes. If the Scottish Government cannot support the amendments as drafted, it would be helpful to hear from the cabinet secretary how she will address that issue ahead of stage 3.

My next set contains four amendments. As my colleague Sarah Boyack mentioned, they seek to add additional target topics to the bill. Namely, amendment 42 would add

“the restoration of natural processes”;

amendment 43 would add

“the condition of marine and terrestrial ecosystems”;

amendment 44 would add

“the status of keystone species”;

and amendment 22 would add

“the ecological connectivity of natural habitats”.

Amendment 42 relates to the restoration of natural processes and, by introducing a target topic on that area, it recognises that the health of our ecosystems depends on the proper functioning of natural processes. It seeks to explicitly add natural processes to the list of targets topics, which would enable secondary legislation to be introduced to create targets on that topic. The term “natural processes” would refer to any ecological cycles or processes that are hydrological, geological, atmospheric or that otherwise relate to flora and fauna. For example, it would include seed and pollen dispersal via wind, wildlife or water.

Ecological change and decline in Scotland are often related to disrupted natural processes such as the seed rain from the invasive non-native Sitka spruce, which dries out peatlands and leads to the release of previously stored carbon. As it stands, large swathes of Scotland’s land are being managed under conservation efforts, yet biodiversity continues to decline. Amendment 42 is ambitious in that it would shift the conversation from merely protecting our natural environment towards restoring Scotland’s biodiversity.

Similarly, amendment 43 would ensure that marine and terrestrial ecosystems are included in nature recovery targets. As my Labour colleague Sarah Boyack has highlighted in her amendments, urgency is needed in our actions to protect the marine environment. The alarming fact that less than 1 per cent of Scotland’s inshore waters are in recovery further highlights the need for the inclusion in the legislation of marine and terrestrial ecosystems. As a result of amendment 43, secondary legislation would set targets for the recovery of Scotland’s seas as well as land.

Amendment 44 is closely related to the previous two amendments in that it provides the opportunity for the Scottish Government to be ambitious in upscaling its work on ecologically threatened species. Keystone species are species that have a disproportionately large effect on ecosystems compared to their relative abundance in nature. It follows that if restoration and conservation efforts are focused on only threatened species, there is a danger that approaches for species that are not critically threatened may be delayed.

Habitat fragmentation is one of the leading drivers of biodiversity loss; therefore, improving ecological connectivity is a vital step not only in improving the resilience of our natural environment but in being ambitious in our legislation by looking to restore our natural woodlands. Amendment 22 is intended to address that through the introduction of a dedicated target on connectivity. I know that Ariane Burgess has an amendment in a later group—amendment 47—which may seek to achieve something similar in that area, so I will listen to her contribution on that group with interest.

My final three amendments in this group seek to broaden the scope for species targets beyond those species that are classed as threatened. The goal is to promote conservation and restoration, thereby securing and safeguarding the recovery of Scotland’s natural environment in its entirety. Amendment 21 would amend the species target to refer to

“species including but not limited to threatened species”,

whereas amendment 105 would replace

“threatened species”

with

“species of conservation concern”,

and amendment 106 would provide a definition of

“species of conservation concern”.

Amendment 104, in the name of Evelyn Tweed, and amendment 23, in the name of Mark Ruskell, seek to achieve a similar aim. I will listen to their contributions and the minister’s response before deciding whether to move my amendments.

You say that it is obvious. It might be so, but my understanding is that legislation has to be taken as it is written. As drafted, would the amendment allow for anyone who has an interest, anywhere in the world, to be consulted?

Amendment 25 is my only amendment in the group. I lodged it following concerns that were raised at stage 1 by groups such as the Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management and Scottish Environment LINK regarding the potential consequences of measures that could result in reduced transparency and uncertainty around statutory targets—namely, the provision in the bill that the

“Scottish Ministers may by regulations amend this section to specify a different person”

—other than ESS—

“to carry out the assessing, reviewing and reporting functions conferred.”

That is in new section 2G(4) of the 2004 act, introduced by section 1(3) of the bill. Amendment 25 seeks to remove that wording; it is intended to underscore the vital role of Environmental Standards Scotland and the crucial role that it plays in independent oversight and enforcement of environmental law.

The targets that the bill creates will be meaningful only if there is an independent body through which the Government and relevant public authorities can be held accountable for meeting them. There is concern, therefore, regarding the provisions on the reassignment of functions that are currently granted to ESS.

It will be helpful to hear from the minister on that today in order to ensure that there will be no weakening of oversight, nor any reduction in transparency. There can be no question as to the fact that the bill should strengthen, not weaken, the scrutiny of Government and how it achieves its targets. As it stands, however, I am not persuaded that allowing the reassignment of those functions achieves that.

I am sympathetic to a number of other amendments in the group, which have already been discussed, in particular Emma Roddick’s amendments 50, 51 and 52 and Mark Ruskell’s amendments 24 and 49. I believe that those amendments share the underlying principle of my amendment, in that we must have a serious conversation about transparency and accountability in relation to our environmental targets.