Chamber and committees

I will clarify that point. The recommendation for the exclusion would have been made on the basis of evidence, and rejecting that evidence would be outwith the way in which the frameworks process is intended to work. As Euan suggests, if that were to happen, it would represent a very significant breakdown in the collaborative working between the two Governments—in fact, between all the devolved Governments. If that were that to happen, given what a big deal that would be, the Scottish ministers would set out next steps at that point.

That is an interesting question. When I was in Montreal speaking with people from other subnational Governments around the world, it was interesting to see how different the challenge in Scotland is from the challenge in large countries in South America or parts of Canada. For those places, to meet the 30 by 30 target, they can more or less draw a line on a map and say, “Right! That is our 30 per cent—we’re done. No people or only people who live traditional indigenous lifestyles live in this space.” That makes their job relatively easy.

We have a different challenge. All our managed landscapes in Scotland are inhabited, so we cannot and would not be able to remove or separate people from the land in that way. Our challenge is therefore interesting. We need to find a way of carrying out all our current economic activities, such as farming, fishing and activities in our towns and national parks, but within a framework that allows us to be nature positive, and allows nature regeneration. If we can do that, we will set a model for the whole world, because we will show how people and nature can live side by side and thrive.

That is why land reform and agricultural schemes, for example, all need to be looked at within a framework of restoring biodiversity, replacing what is lost and making sure that we create abundant biodiversity. It is an interesting challenge and one that is unique to Europe and to Scotland, where we have such highly managed landscapes, but it is an exciting one.

I hope that our national parks can play a particular role in all this. Because of their unique position in the Scottish landscape and because they contain commercial forestry and farming, they can provide places where we can pilot ideas about humans and nature living alongside one another. Other countries do not have those kinds of activities in their national parks. We have an interesting challenge ahead of us and it is quite unique, because it means that we can show the world how people and nature can live together.

Overall, there is clear alignment between the Kunming-Montreal global biodiversity framework and our draft Scottish biodiversity strategy, including the 30 by 30 protections. Our analysis is that the strategy either already matches or exceeds the ambition in the global framework.

The Scottish biodiversity strategy has more ambition than the global biodiversity framework, because the completion date is 2030 for our targets and 2045 for delivery of the vision, compared with 2050 with the global framework.

The goals and targets in the global biodiversity framework are global goals and not all of them can be directly translated to a national context. It is the job of our biodiversity strategy and delivery plan to set out what we need to do in Scotland to contribute to meeting the global goals. We will publish the comparison between our goals and the global goals in the final document.

Liam Kerr is maybe looking at this using a different framework to the one that I am looking at it in. The actions that we are taking now are well-evidenced actions. We know, for example, that restoration of peatland has excellent results for biodiversity as well as for carbon sequestration.

All the actions that we are taking are evidenced, and things such as the nature restoration fund are going towards very practical actions, including restoring rivers, restoring wetlands and managing rhododendron in the rainforest. We know that the actions that we are taking are effective. What we need to do with the strategy is join it up and mainstream it across agriculture and all the different sectors. Of course, that takes time and requires stakeholder engagement so that we make sure that we get the pieces right and bring everybody along with us on the journey.

However, that does not mean that we have not got started or that we have delayed taking action, and it does not mean that we are not using evidence to support the actions that we are deciding to take.

There are quite a lot of challenges involved. Some of it is about helping people to understand what their options are, because there may be an attitude of, “This is how I’ve always managed my land. I don’t want to change.” That is fine, but it is also about saying, “Here’s what’s available to you if you want to manage your land differently.”

The head of the Association of Deer Management Groups told me that the way that things are set up means that he cannot have fewer than 12,000 sheep and can have no more than 1,400 deer. He said that that does not make sense to him and that it is not necessarily how he would like to manage his land but that the current system means that that is how he needs to manage his land. Part of it is about putting different tools in place so that land managers like him do not feel obliged to overstock with sheep, for example, but are able to have more of a mosaic even on their own land.

That project is a partnership between NatureScot and Hampden & Co, and the Scottish Government is not directly involved in it, so I do not have the information on when the details around that project might be published. That is an on-going partnership, so we can see how that works.

Absolutely.

I do not have that information.

That might not be the case. I am not aware of those discussions, but I can certainly find out and write to the member on that matter.

There is absolute consensus on that.