Chamber and committees

The targets are important in that regard. I mentioned to Beatrice Wishart the ability under the legislation for the targets to be changed, although they do not have to be reviewed every 10 years. Whether those targets are working or not, they are subject to parliamentary scrutiny—and, of course, there is all the reporting that is associated with the biodiversity strategy and all the questions that we have in the Parliament. A robust parliamentary system will scrutinise the use of all the powers in the bill, and, as I have said, the purposes for which the powers can be used are built into the bill. I think that they are robust.

It will allow us the flexibility, in the future, to adapt to changing technologies, changes in evidence and environmental impacts that we see that need a quick response. I cannot predict what those will be. That is why the power is not prescriptive—we do not know what will happen. We are talking about nature and biodiversity, and others have mentioned invasive species and the threats that they pose to particular habitats.

We know that climate change, in particular, is having a severe effect. Look at the overwintering geese—they used to overwinter in the south of Scotland and now they overwinter in Orkney and Shetland. Maybe I do not want to get in to the geese situation—

I heard that mentioned.

Yes, I am.

That has kind of been bottomed out in the negotiation with the UK Government on what it proposes for the Electricity Act 1989 through the Planning and Infrastructure Bill. However, that does not account for other developments outwith offshore wind, which include the development of the transmission infrastructure that is associated with offshore wind. There is not much point in having offshore wind if you do not have the means to get the energy from it into the grid.

We have identified that there has been a gap there, but that is not the top-line reason for the powers in part 2 being in the bill; the top-line reason is to enable us to be responsive to a changing climate. With those two pieces of legislation, the UK Government has given us the flexibility in relation to offshore wind developments, but there is still a gap in relation to ancillary developments that would get that energy into the grid. There are technologies that are not to do with offshore wind that are nascent and could develop. Again, we are interested in a future-proofing element.

I want to emphasise the point that we have two exciting but nascent technologies in Scotland—wave and tidal—that are not accounted for in any of the UK legislation that we have mentioned.

You are right that we did consult. When it comes to tackling the biodiversity crisis, the provisions proposed in that consultation would address some immediate known issues, such as inflexibility and the wider constraints on protected areas, but they would not address some deeper-rooted concerns that we have about the legislative framework and its gaps, and we need to future proof legislation to allow us to be adaptable. We also felt that bolting additional measures on to an existing framework could have unintended consequences and would make it extremely complex to navigate.

For example, we took the decision not to progress protected areas as part of the bill but to look at the issue in future parliamentary sessions—with the caveat that this will depend on our priorities and who is in Government—and at that point undertake a more fundamental review and then reform the legislative framework in a way that covers nature conservation, including protected areas.

A lot of what we do in the net zero and energy portfolio is about assessing the efficacy of what has been done in the past and whether it is working, which comes back to the whole thing about dynamism.

Yes—absolutely.

I will keep it short, convener. Thank you for inviting me to give evidence on the Natural Environment (Scotland) Bill. I am not going to list what the bill does, because the committee knows that, and I will receive plenty of questions that will allow us to delve into detail.

I will set out the wider context for the bill and why it is important. There is an indisputable body of evidence that biodiversity, both globally and in Scotland, is in jeopardy. Just like climate change, the loss of species and the degradation of our natural environment are an existential threat to humanity. The actions that we take to address that threat are fundamental to our wellbeing and survival as a species.

The Scottish biodiversity strategy sets out a clear ambition for Scotland to be nature positive by 2030 and to have restored and regenerated biodiversity across the country by 2045.

The Government cannot tackle this crisis alone. We know that local authorities, farmers, crofters, environmental non-governmental organisations and national park authorities, to name but a few, are already undertaking vital actions to support our precious wildlife and repair and enhance our natural habitats. Although our combined efforts to address the crisis to date have generated some successes, if we are to meet our ambitions, we urgently need to accelerate and scale up those efforts.

The Natural Environment (Scotland) Bill both underpins and builds on the vision that is set out in the biodiversity strategy, driving the actions that we need to take to enable nature recovery on a national level. Tackling the climate emergency is a long-term endeavour that will not be achieved during any single parliamentary session, but, by placing the duty on Scottish ministers to set and report on targets, the bill will enable us to hold future Governments to account and ensure that they continue to develop, support and deliver the lasting outcomes for biodiversity that we need to see.

Other powers that are contained in the bill update environmental impact assessments and habitats legislation, modernise the way in which national parks are managed, and reform deer management. They are all designed to support that high-level ambition and help us to deliver the more than 100 actions that we have committed to in our biodiversity plan.

I am grateful to the committee for the scrutiny of the bill to date and I have paid close attention to the views that witnesses expressed in earlier evidence sessions. I know that some stakeholders disagree with some of the powers in the bill and that others are frustrated that we have not been able to go further, but I hope to address their concerns today. I am, of course, meeting stakeholders throughout the summer, and I meet ENGOs regularly.

I look forward to discussing the issues that the committee raises and to taking members through parts 1 and 2 of the bill.

The delivery plan and all the other policy strategies around it have been set out with the bill in mind. This part of the bill covers the statutory target-setting aspect, which reflects the work that we have done on strategy and policy. The biodiversity delivery plan is a living document. Everything to do with biodiversity, by its very nature, has to be iterative, because it responds to evidence and data, as I mentioned in my previous answer, and to changing circumstances. We have to consistently monitor issues that affect particular species and habitats or which result from climate change and other impacts. If some areas of the plan are not strong enough to address the evidence that comes through, of course they will be changed.

Once the targets have been set, we will look to see whether the actions in the delivery plan and the policies in the biodiversity strategy will be sufficient to enable us to deliver on them.

I think that I am saying yes, but in a very roundabout way. I am giving you an idea of how agile we are in this area.

They have to. It goes back to my point that the Government cannot do this alone. The reach of public bodies and local authorities extends throughout Scotland, and their actions affect the whole of the country. They make decisions that affect biodiversity. References to councils’ duties on biodiversity and emissions reduction are woven throughout the national planning framework. In planning cases, councils are not allowed to make decisions that would threaten the climate change objectives or the biodiversity objectives. In fact, they actively have to build in action to improve resilience in relation to biodiversity and to reduce their carbon footprint.

We are keen to continue to review that. As I said to Beatrice Wishart, the biodiversity delivery plan is an iterative piece of work. Everything to do with nature, climate change and the environment cannot be set in stone and put on a shelf for ever, because things change. The nature of those issues is such that we must be adaptive.

I am always looking to ensure that the duty that we have placed on public bodies is as effective as possible. We did not think that legislative changes to that duty were needed, because it already exists, but we must scrutinise the effectiveness of the action plans associated with the reports on compliance with the biodiversity duty. That is work that we need to do.

It goes back to the convener’s central point that we have not been able to halt biodiversity loss through other methods. The biodiversity strategy has been in place since 2011, and we need to ensure that it is strong and robust, and that it focuses on delivery.