Chamber and committees

Yes, and it is about being responsive to changes in nature and better data collection, better evidence gathering and improvements in some of the technology that is associated with that.

There are already criteria associated with target setting. I will take you through that. The 2023 consultation was used throughout the development of targets. The criteria to be taken into account in the selection of targets are alignment with the Scottish biodiversity strategy high-level goals; alignment with the global biodiversity framework; alignment with European Union environmental standards, including those on nature restoration; and synergy with existing and forthcoming Scottish legislative frameworks and strategies.

I refer back to my point that targets do not exist in isolation but follow a lot of other policy development. We want to align with the global biodiversity framework and with European Union environmental standards. We are mindful that our targets have to galvanise cross-portfolio work across Government and cross-sectoral work across Scottish society, and they have to be measurable, achievable and realistic.

Those are the target-setting criteria that we have been using. Will we continue to develop the criteria? Yes. I come back to the words “agile” and “responsive”. I am not quite sure what Open Seas was thinking, but perhaps it has particular things in mind that it wishes to see as the criteria. I am, of course, happy to meet its representatives and those of any ENGOs about what those could be.

This is where I need some legal advice. If it is okay, I will hand over to Stewart Cunningham, who has the detail on that.

—but it is an indicator. Look at the fish species that we do not see in the more southern Scottish waters but that we see in Ms Wishart’s constituency—things that we are finding in different parts of Scotland. That is an indication that climate change is real. If we have the flexibility that part 2 of the bill gives us, we will be able to respond to it in an agile way.

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.

The current regulations have no powers to remove certain features from the reasons for designating a site—that is the issue. The bill will give us the ability to do that and to be responsive to changes in the environment. The example that I have just given is a real-world example of how a site being designated as a European site freezes it in time; that designation was fine for then, but, 20 or 30 years on—whatever it might be—the forest is adapting to climate change, and adapting more generally, too. This is not a case of there being an invasive species; these are naturally occurring changes in the forest. That is a real-world example of where we could be quite fleet of foot in changing the designation of a site, instead of having to wait years to do that. After all, nature itself does not wait.

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—

Public bodies already have duties in this area. The Wildlife and Natural Environment (Scotland) Act 2011 made it a requirement for public bodies to report on their compliance with the biodiversity duty. That has been happening for 14 years. Every three years, all of Scotland’s public bodies have to produce such a report, together with an associated action plan. Bodies such as Scottish Water, SEPA, Scottish Enterprise, Registers of Scotland and all the local authorities already have that duty.

If we found that the action plans were not being delivered on, I would be open to investigating that further. My team regularly scrutinises those action plans and the policies that public bodies have set out to address the biodiversity situation. We need to address delivery on the action plans, but public bodies already have a duty in relation to biodiversity.

I am willing to explore that. If committee members do not feel that the protections that we are putting in place are robust enough we can talk about that, because this is the first stage of the bill process. However, I do not believe that a non-regression clause would be particularly workable or that it would enable us to respond to each case as it comes before us.

Let me take that away.