Rural Affairs, Islands and Natural Environment Committee

Meeting date: Wednesday, September 29, 2021

Official Report 542KB pdf

---

Subordinate Legislation

---

Forestry (Exemptions) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2021

Good morning, and welcome to the sixth meeting in session 6 of the Rural Affairs, Islands and Natural Environment Committee. Before we begin, I remind all members using electronic devices to turn them to silent. I must also apologise for the delay—we had a technical issue. I thank the minister and the witnesses in the following evidence-taking session for their patience.

Agenda item 1 is consideration of a set of amendment regulations, which are subject to the affirmative procedure. I refer members to paper 1. I welcome to the meeting Màiri McAllan, Minister for Environment, Biodiversity and Land Reform, and her officials: Tim Gordon-Roberts, regulations manager, Scottish Forestry; and Amy Hogarth, solicitor, Scottish Government.

I invite the minister to make an opening statement.

Despite the delay, I would still like to make some opening remarks, just to give the committee an overview of our proposal.

Thank you for having me along to discuss the Forestry (Exemptions) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2021. The Forestry (Exemptions) (Scotland) Regulations 2019 set out the felling activities that can be carried out without a specific felling licence from the regulator, which in this case is Scottish Forestry.

The first proposed amendment to the regulations is to correct a minor typographical error in the definition of “statutory undertaker”, where the word “power” will be amended to “pier” as originally intended.

The second and more substantive amendment seeks to respond to an unintended consequence that has arisen from new planning regulations laid earlier this year that created a permitted development right for peatland restoration projects. If not corrected, it could potentially result in the tree-felling component of peatland restoration schemes not being given the full consideration and proper scrutiny by Scottish Forestry that is supposed to happen, and, at its worst, it could result in large-scale tree felling as part of a peatland restoration project without sustainable forest management principles being applied.

That unintended consequence was identified during the development of the PDR for peatland restoration, and the proposed response that we are laying before the committee today was agreed on as a pragmatic way of ensuring that sustainable forest management will be fully integrated with peatland restoration permitted development rights.

Applicants for peatland restoration schemes that propose deforestation are already required to obtain an environmental impact assessment from Scottish Forestry and to apply to the local authority for the permitted development right. The effect of this amendment will be that they will also need to apply to Scottish Forestry for felling permission. Such permission can be applied for at the same time as requesting the environmental impact assessment that I mentioned, and we would advise that that be done prior to applying to the local authority for the permitted development right. With regard to the planning period for a peatland restoration PDR, the process is a rigorous one, requiring in-depth surveys and data analysis, and I am comfortable that the process contains sufficient time to cover this additional step of obtaining a felling licence.

I do not want to speak for too long, so, in summary, Scottish Government policy, including Scottish Forestry policy, supports the restoration of peatlands involving deforestation where it can be shown that the change of land use is in line with public benefit and can produce a public good. The obvious example is emissions reduction, but there are others including biodiversity gain and community benefit.

I hope that that explains our proposals, and I am content to take members’ questions.

Thank you, minister. I invite questions from members.

On the basis of what you have just said, minister, would it be fair to say that this is an uncontentious piece of legislation?

I think that that is right. It is uncontentious because it is only intuitive that anyone undertaking a peatland restoration project that requires deforestation should apply for a felling licence. Indeed, that has been borne out in the behaviour of those who have sought to use the peatland PDR provisions. Something that I have been thinking about is the extent to which, in the interim period while this amended system has not been operating, people have been applying for peatland PDRs. I am aware of two such projects; one has already begun to prepare to apply for the felling licence, even though it was not strictly required, and the other is considering whether such a move is necessary. These amendment regulations are intuitive and uncontroversial.

I agree, minister—I do not think that this is controversial in any way. However, I note that no impact assessment has been carried out, and I seek your reassurance that you have the capacity and resource to deal with applications for felling licences in these circumstances.

You make a good point. The impact assessments were carried out across the board during the development of the peatland restoration permitted development right, and I am content that this small amendment, which puts in place the course of action to redress the matter that was agreed during the earlier process, is bound up with all that and that the previous assessments still apply.

Was there any suggestion that there were bodies out there that were looking to use this loophole to fell trees without going through the proper process? Is that why these amendment regulations are being put in place?

I do not think that that is the case. This was recognised from the very beginning as an unintended consequence. Indeed, given that the course of action to redress it was decided at that point, too, it has always been understood that it should not happen. I have no evidence that people have sought to exploit it. In fact, as I said to Alasdair Allan, there are two live applications, and one of those applicants is already applying for the felling licence, even though it is not strictly required at the moment.

Given the push for peatland restoration to tackle climate change, do you foresee other legislation being introduced to ensure that the drive to restore more peatland is not abused in ways that might be harmful to the environment?

I am not entirely sure what you mean, convener, but we will both agree that one of the reasons why we have these exceptionally stretching climate targets is that we have in our natural world an ample opportunity to sequester carbon. One of the biggest questions that we will all have to grapple with over the next five, 10 or 15 years is land use and the changes in land use that will best take us towards those targets fairly and in a way that is good for dealing with the nature crisis and for communities. In fact, what we are discussing is the epitome of that in the way these two issues have come together and the need to strike a balance with regard to public benefit.

Thank you for coming to talk to us about these amendment regulations. I am curious about any burden that might be put on Scottish Forestry. I know that it is already processing felling applications, but will this create any more of a burden for the organisation?

Moving on to the underlying point of my question, I know from my other committee that the whole area of licensing and granting permissions is very much stretching planning departments. That concerns me, given that, in this parliamentary session, we will be shaping Scotland for the next 20-plus years, and departments must be staffed and resourced properly to do that work.

Thank you for those points. I agree with you; as peatland restoration grows in popularity and as we do what we need to do in forestry and planting, the pressure will mount on the folks who consider the applications. In these circumstances, I am absolutely confident that Scottish Forestry has the capacity to take on what it will be required to do. In fact, this approach will take some weight off the local authorities. Because in the interim period applicants were not required to apply to Forestry Scotland for a felling licence, the issue would have fallen to local authorities for consideration. This correction allows the matter to go back to Scottish Forestry, which I am confident can manage things.

As there are no further questions, we move to item 2, which is formal consideration of motion S6M-01170, to approve the regulations.

Motion moved,

That the Rural Affairs, Islands and Natural Environment recommends that the Forestry (Exemptions) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2021 be approved.—[Màiri McAllan]

Motion agreed to.

Is the committee content to delegate authority to me to sign off our report on our deliberations on this affirmative SSI?

Members indicated agreement.

That completes our consideration of the instrument. I thank the minister for her patience and her officials for their attendance.

I briefly suspend the meeting.

10:55 Meeting suspended.  

11:20 On resuming—