Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee

Meeting date: Tuesday, March 14, 2023

Official Report 743KB pdf

---

COP15 Outcomes

Thank you. I will now pivot back again to the subject at hand. Thank you again, minister, for your opening statement. The first questions are from Jackie Dunbar.

Good morning, minister. The new global framework requires us to take urgent action to halt and reverse biodiversity loss. Last week, we heard that there is a need for speed, given that we now have ambitious targets for 2030, which is only seven years away—only seven growing seasons. How can that urgency be realised in Scotland? What do we need to do in this parliamentary session for the work to get on track and remain on track?

That is an excellent question. Jackie Dunbar is right that we need to start early to ensure that we make the impact that we need to make in the necessary timescale. I think of the work as being done in two streams. First, there is the stream of urgent actions that we are already taking and that we now need to scale up, including our nature restoration fund and the peatland restoration work that we have started and in which we are world leaders. Then there is the biodiversity strategy, which represents the longer-term vision to 2045 and the actions that we need to take on that. As, I am sure, Jackie Dunbar would agree, those actions need to be joined up across Government and all sectors of society and include land use, agriculture and so on.

I am happy to go through in detail some of the things that we are doing now urgently to tackle the nature crisis. We are scaling up our peatland restoration rates with the aim of restoring 250,000 hectares of degraded peatland by 2030. Our groundbreaking £65-million nature restoration fund is providing multiyear funding to drive restoration at scale. Recently approved grants include funding for Cairngorms Connect to restore natural rivers and flood plains in the Insh marshes, and funding for the Argyll and the Isles Coast and Countryside Trust to restore Argyll’s Atlantic rainforest.

In October last year, we announced a new package of Scottish Government support totalling more than £2.9 million to focus on conservation, research and connecting people with nature. The aim is to accelerate the response to the biodiversity and climate crises. That includes £1.3 million to restore Scotland’s rainforest, £500,000 for the five-year species on the edge partnership project and £200,000 to support the Green Action Trust’s work with local communities to create and restore woodlands. We have created more than 10,000 hectares of new woodland in the past year, with 42 per cent of it being native species.

As well as that investment, we are ensuring that biodiversity is embedded in our policies. Our new vision for agriculture aims to make Scotland a global leader in sustainable and regenerative agriculture, with nature and climate at its heart. We have committed to highly protect 10 per cent of our marine areas, and our new national planning framework signals a turning point for planning, with responding to the global climate emergency and nature crisis being central to its objectives.

Will the Scottish biodiversity list be reviewed, moving forward?

Yes.

Who will take the lead on that, in Government and in its partners?

The matter of recovering and protecting vulnerable and important species is one of the five themes that the biodiversity strategy covers. The strategy has 26 actions that we are taking for nature, grouped into those five themes. Theme 4 is to recover and protect vulnerable species, and one of the actions there is to

“Revise the Scottish Biodiversity List of species and habitats that Scottish Ministers consider to be of principal importance for biodiversity conservation in Scotland”.

Perhaps Matthew Bird or Lisa McCann can add some detail on that process.

The process will be led by NatureScot, probably in consultation with our group of stakeholders with whom we worked closely in developing the strategy and delivery plan. NatureScot has a scientific advisory committee. Together with stakeholders, NatureScot will make recommendations on the relevant species, which will be put to the scientific advisory committee and, ultimately, to ministers for agreement.

You mentioned stakeholders. Who are they? Are they statutory bodies, non-statutory bodies or charities?

There is a Scottish biodiversity programme, which oversees the work that we do to produce the strategy and the delivery plan. In support of that, there is both an advisory group, which comprises external academics from a wide range of sources, and a stakeholder engagement group, which includes about 75 representatives. There is a wide range of non-governmental organisations included, as well as academics and representatives from the statutory public bodies, and so on.

09:15  

Okay. It would be helpful to see who is on that list. I would be interested to see that, so maybe you could drop a line to the clerks after the committee meeting.

Jackie, are you finished? If so, I will bring in Liam Kerr.

Yes.

Good morning, minister. You said that the Scottish biodiversity strategy was published in draft form so that it could be updated following COP15 and the GBF. Now that we are beyond them, what areas in the draft strategy need to be strengthened as a result of the COP15 outcomes?

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.

When do you expect the strategy and delivery plans to be finalised?

The strategy will be finalised first and the delivery plan will come after it. Matthew Bird might have timelines for that.

We anticipate that there will be a further round of consultation in late spring and early summer, for the strategy and the delivery plan together. An analysis of the responses to the consultation will then be needed. We will look to publish both together as a package in late summer or early autumn.

It will be late summer, but the committee heard last week that we have less than seven years to meet the targets. We are obviously talking about delivery plans. Following Jackie Dunbar’s questions, something that concerns me is that we surely cannot meaningfully make delivery plans unless the strategy is finalised.

Also, minister, you listed a huge number of impressive Scottish Government investments in biodiversity. However, there is no strategy underlying the investment, and there will not be one for at least another six months. I could reflect back to you that that means that you are funding a load of things without a strategy for why you are funding them. Is that a fair criticism, minister?

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.

Jackie, back to you.

On the need to join actions together to make them work, I heard about that just last Friday at a meeting with the John Muir Trust and the Scottish Wildlife Trust while going up the river Don—I declare an interest as the Parliament’s nature champion for sea trout. They were explaining to me the problems that the sea trout has, because it goes from the sea right up the estuary and it needs the correct landscape to breed. What are the plans in holistic terms? How are we going to bring it all together?

I will ask a very cheeky question as well. We have a strategy for wild salmon. Brown trout and sea trout, which are two different species, have a life cycle that is very similar to, or the same as, that of wild salmon. Are you thinking of bringing those species into the same strategy so that they are protected as well?

Minister, before you comment on that, I want to say that, last week, I made a voluntary declaration of my interests, in that I own and manage land through my farming partnership. As Jackie Dunbar has mentioned salmon, which is a subject that is close to my heart, it is right that I refer members to my interest in a wild salmon fishery on the River Spey, which I own jointly with my brother. I say that just so that there is no dubiety, and note that I am not asking the question. Minister, I am sorry to interrupt your response, which was forthcoming.

That is no problem. I will tackle both of Jackie Dunbar’s questions.

The Scottish biodiversity strategy ties in with other strategies. It is essential that biodiversity considerations are mainstreamed in all our policy development, and that is one of our key aims. Given the breadth of matters that the Government deals with, there is a wide range of strategies and plans to address issues in particular sectors. The biodiversity strategy provides a clear vision and set of outcomes that all of our policies must help to achieve. The environment strategy for Scotland presents a whole-of-Government approach to tackling the climate and nature crises by creating an overarching framework for Scotland as well as strategies and plans on the environment and climate change, and by strengthening the connections between environmental policies and policies across Government. It helps us to identify priorities and opportunities and to drive the transformative change that we need.

We know that healthy biodiversity underpins our prosperity, wellbeing and ability to reach net zero. I know that all the committee members are aware, because of the evidence that you have taken, that we need to mainstream this piece. Tackling biodiversity cannot be done in a silo; it needs to be done across all of society.

Specifically on wild salmon, they are an indicator species, so things that we do to protect wild salmon will also protect other species that have similar life cycles or share their natural environment, such as those that Jackie Dunbar mentioned.

As members will know, wild salmon are in decline. In response to the decline of those populations, in January 2022 we published Scotland’s wild salmon strategy, which is a collective vision for flourishing populations of wild Atlantic salmon. In that, we set a high level of ambition and a direction of travel. We followed up the strategy with an implementation plan, which was published last month, and which sets out more than 60 actions that we will take over the next five years to protect and restore salmon populations. The strategy and plan were developed in close collaboration with stakeholder groups, including representatives from Government, NGOs and agencies. We are clear that positive outcomes can be achieved only through a co-ordinated and collaborative approach.

I have been lucky enough to visit some of the nature restoration work that is being done along some of the rivers, such as removing weirs and, where the weirs cannot be removed, putting in passes to allow the salmon past, and of course those will apply to other species as well.

I want to mention another great river restoration project. One problem that some rivers in Scotland have is that they are too clean—there are no trees along the banks, there is nothing in the water, and they run too fast, too clear and too hot, because the sun shines on them all the time. This particular project takes fallen trees and embeds them in the riverbed. That not only slows the water but creates shaded spots and eddies where fish can spawn and invertebrates can breed. That is the kind of practical on-the-ground action on which the nature restoration fund is having an impact and that specifically targets those important species.

Two notable targets for the global framework agreement are the 30 by 30 target and, as you mentioned, the restoration target, which call for restoration to be completed or under way on at least 30 per cent of degraded terrestrial inland waters and coastal and marine ecosystems. What scale of challenge do those targets present for us in Scotland? What kind of programmes—one of which you have just mentioned—will we need in future?

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.

Local authorities can also help. I heard that Aberdeen City Council has a plan to plant 1 million trees in the next five years. It was also interesting to hear about the Denburn, which runs through the city centre. Many years ago, it was straightened and flooding has occurred because of that, but plans are now in place to get it back to what it was originally.

I am sorry, convener, but I am rambling a bit.

I was wondering when the question was coming.

I have no further questions.

That might have been a statement.

It was a comment.

Thank you. The next question will come from the deputy convener, Fiona Hyslop.

Good morning, minister. You have talked about the need for mainstreaming, and we have heard from other witnesses that there are a number of areas in which biodiversity needs to be mainstreamed. There are opportunities in agricultural payments, the proposed land reform bill and circular economy bill, and the reviews of forestry policy, to name but a few. Are you satisfied that the opportunities for nature recovery are being given the right level of priority in those areas?

I would always say that they need more. Of course I would say that, because I am the minister for biodiversity. However, I can certainly outline some of our vision in this area.

The biodiversity strategy is a starting point. It sets out clearly what we need to achieve to halt and reverse biodiversity loss. It also provides us with the evidence that human activity has accelerated biodiversity decline. The member is therefore quite right: biodiversity needs to be mainstreamed across all our policy developments, our business practice and wider society. The Government cannot do this on its own. Nature does not belong to us, it belongs to everybody, every business and every person.

I am therefore working closely with other ministers to make sure that our collective policies will deliver the positive outcomes that we need. Some good examples of that are our national strategy for economic transformation, which, for the first time, recognises the importance of our natural capital as an asset to the country that we need to maintain.

Our vision for agriculture puts nature restoration at its heart, alongside climate mitigation and food security. It also recognises the importance of that sector in delivering for biodiversity, and that farmers and land managers are stewards of our land.

Interestingly, our national planning framework 4 and its supporting guidance have significantly greater emphasis on the importance of conserving our natural environment. I actually have an excerpt here, entitled “Developing with Nature guidance”. This is for anyone who is making a planning application, and it sets out very clear and quite practical steps by which people can take account of nature in a planning application. They can, for example,

“Apply the mitigation hierarchy ... Consider biodiversity from the outset”

and

“Take a place-based and inclusive approach.”

09:30  

The guidance covers other practical things such as what plants are suitable as pollinators, how to plant a wildflower meadow and how to incorporate trees, scrub and woodland into developments. It is a really good example of mainstreaming, and anyone applying for planning permission for a development in Scotland has access to all that information. It even sets out how to incorporate homes for bees and bugs into development planning, how to manage water with nature and so on. It is an excellent example of mainstreaming that will make a difference as we go forward.

The first time that natural capital was included in an economic recovery plan, it was not the national strategy for economic transformation, but the Covid economic recovery plan, which was published almost three years ago in 2020. I am interested in the action that has been taken in those—dare I say it—two and a half years rather than what has happened in the national strategy for economic transformation.

Moving on, we have talked about the more obvious areas with regard to mainstreaming. As we know, most Government agencies and departments understand the need to embed net zero, as that is one of the crises that we are seeking to address, but what about biodiversity, which is the other crisis that we are dealing with? Have you compared the extent to which it and net zero have been embedded as mainstream activities in other agencies? Do you have forums for bringing together public agencies to discuss what they are doing to tackle nature loss and biodiversity? How does this work in the not-so-obvious areas?

The member is quite right. Globally, there seems to be—and has been for a long time—a good understanding of the climate crisis with regard to carbon emissions and reaching net zero, but people might have been slower to grasp that the nature crisis goes hand in hand with that and, indeed, is part of how we are going to tackle it. The Scottish Government has made some really good progress in understanding how biodiversity and natural capital fit in across the piece.

Indeed, you can see that not only in the things that I have outlined already with regard to the national strategy for economic transformation, our national planning framework and the vision for Scottish agriculture but in our circular economy bill and the other work that we are doing in that respect. Of course, much of that is the answer to the how question, but what if your problem is the plastics in your oceans? Last week, I met a stakeholder who said that they had evidence that the otter kits in the Water of Leith consume plastics with their first ever meal, because the food has plastic in it. If that is your problem, your solution is to take that plastic waste out of the environment and make things more circular.

In everything that we are doing, from the deposit return scheme right through to our national planning framework, we are considering biodiversity, and I am really pleased that we are taking those steps. I think that we are going in the right direction but, as minister for biodiversity, I will always say that we can do more.

Finally, is there some forum in which you bring all ministers together to discuss biodiversity, nature loss and so on? Has that happened at any point?

The two things—the climate and nature emergencies—have now been incorporated and are being considered together, and there is a variety of forums in which that work is happening. There is, for example, the sub-committee on the climate emergency, which is meeting this morning, unfortunately—obviously, I am here and not there—and there is also the First Minister’s environmental council, which is another good forum that is attended not only by ministers but by experts from the field.

Thank you.

Mercedes, you are up next. Fiona, if you want to come in on the back of this question, we will see if we have time.

I had a supplementary to Fiona Hyslop’s question on mainstreaming. Is it okay for me to ask that first?

Absolutely.

On the land reform bill, which has been mentioned, it is accepted that Scotland has an unusually concentrated pattern of land ownership. I know that the Scottish Government has expressed a desire for more diverse patterns of rural land ownership, but can you explain how addressing such a concentration of land ownership can improve biodiversity and nature restoration? Do you have any examples that you can share of best practice with regard to nature restoration on publicly owned land, whether that be land owned by councils or other public bodies?

Absolutely. On the second point, regional land use partnerships and the national parks incorporate that approach of having different land managers under different business and ownership models working together on nature restoration and land management. The best example of that is the globally recognised Cairngorms Connect, which covers a mix of public and private land and involves people working together to achieve regeneration in the national park.

The member is right that land reform is part of the toolkit for addressing ownership patterns, which is part of the Scottish Government’s policy. Some good work is being done, as we move towards our land reform bill, on how it can work for nature. I went with Ms McAllan on her road show on the land reform bill, so I got to hear from stakeholders at first hand about land reform and about their hopes and dreams in supporting biodiversity. The purpose of the land reform bill is to help land go into community ownership where there is a public interest, particularly where it is for the common good and the benefit of nature.

The key aspect is the land management plans, which I hope we can use as a tool to ensure that land is managed well. Biodiversity is absolutely intended to be part of that, so that we can help to move the dial toward responsible land ownership around the country. There are already some really good examples of that.

The new global framework agreement requires all land to be

“under participatory integrated biodiversity inclusive spatial planning and/or effective management processes addressing land and sea use change”.

I am interested in how the Scottish Government is interpreting that requirement. What does that requirement mean in practice in terms of land use spatial planning?

Spatial planning, both terrestrial and marine, is about balancing competing interests so that we have a thriving economy and thriving nature alongside it. It is clear that, in the past, the balance between competing interests has been wrong, to the serious detriment of our natural environment. Our strategy is clear that our high-level goals of being nature positive by 2030 and substantially restoring nature by 2045 will require that whole-of-society approach.

As regards spatial planning in the marine space, Scotland’s national marine plan provides the guiding framework for decision making in the sustainable management of marine activities and resources in Scotland’s waters. I might ask Lisa McCann and Matthew Bird to provide more detail on spatial planning in both those spaces.

NPF4 provides the overarching framework for how we use our land. As the minister just outlined, it provides high-level ambition for biodiversity. I am not a marine expert but, as the minister has outlined, the marine plan is where we set out the overarching framework. The “Blue Economy Vision for Scotland”, which has recently been published, provides a synergy with the marine plan, which helps ensure that planning in marine areas provides the outcomes that we are seeking for biodiversity.

When it comes to balancing those interests on land and at sea, there is the requirement for food as well as energy; on land, there is also the requirement for housing. What practical steps are you taking to ensure that all those interests are balanced and that no one misses out in order for us to reach our targets?

You have identified three very important areas—food, energy and housing—and that is exactly the kind of mainstreaming that we are considering. Reform of the agriculture subsidies is to do with environmental matters as well as food security. The different interests are not necessarily competing—agriculture is part of the solution to the climate crisis, and regenerative farming and crofting have an important role to play in how we do this while ensuring that the sector thrives. Those matters are dealt with under land reform and agricultural reform.

Energy and housing will come under the national planning framework, which contains clear guidance on having biodiversity built in as well as specific guidance on national development and the development guidance that I have just outlined. I think that we are well covered for biodiversity in those areas.

Clearly, NPF4, with its hierarchy, puts biodiversity in a far stronger place than it has been in previously. That is in relation to land use change for planning purposes, but land use management has been happening on some land for generations. In many places, the stewardship of that land has been done very well. It concerns me when I hear about the idea of competing interests.

I was interested in what you said about shared interests, because that must be the solution—if it is a mixed market solution. Yes, there will be some public or community land, but most of this land is in private hands. Therefore, how will that work in practice? You talked about Cairngorms Connect, which was showcased at the Arctic Circle assembly in Iceland as a really good example of how that can be done. Is that the model that you hope will be used elsewhere, or will there be different solutions in different parts of the country, depending on land ownership but also the use of the land? Can you explain a bit more how you see that working in practice?

Yes, absolutely. Our land is such a mosaic that there is not one solution that would be suitable everywhere. Cairngorms Connect is a very successful project, but it is only one project. Of course, private land is owned for many uses, including farming, forestry and all the businesses that we have in Scotland, which is why we need to look at solutions across the piece.

We are looking at how agriculture subsidies can be reformed to support agriculture. We are looking at minor adjustments to grouse moor legislation to ensure that that land is managed well. We are looking at how we can improve public transport. We are looking at all the pieces across the board. There is no one-size-fits-all solution for managing land. It is about ensuring that each individual farmer, crofter and land manager has the tools available to them, so that they know how to apply for the right grants and support in order that they can manage their land in the way that is right for it.

Landowners know what they need and what to do, so I see our role as facilitating and signposting people by saying, for example, “Here’s the nature restoration fund. Here’s how you get the agricultural subsidies that will allow you to do what you need to do. Here’s how you apply for forestry grant schemes.” All those things together incentivise land use for biodiversity. They also mean that land managers have those choices, so they can look at their land and decide what is best for them and what will work for them.

What is the biggest challenge to making that work effectively?

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.

I will follow up on that. It was not many years ago that vast tracts of Aberdeenshire countryside that was good arable land were bought up and planted in trees. That was done because the grants were such that they encouraged tree planting and discouraged agriculture. We have seen bits of Scotland planted in wind turbines, if that is the right description. I looked at the figures for 2021, I think, for the deaths of birds of prey, and, if I remember rightly, something like four buzzards, four sea eagles and eight ospreys had been chopped up by wind turbines.

Therefore, we cannot use land for all purposes; there must be more of a zonal approach. As you have indicated, what works in the Cairngorms might not work elsewhere. Has the Government considered taking a more zonal approach to land use? Land resource is finite, but the uses are not.

09:45  

In relation to the convener’s comment, it is important to remember that the biggest threat to wildlife and to birds is climate change. When you get colony collapse, whereby a colony of tens of thousands of individual birds collapses down to only a few members, that is due to climate change. That is the biggest threat to birds, and our energy transition is an important part of how we protect all species, including birds.

Before you go on, minister, I note that some people might argue that one of the biggest threats to birds at the moment is avian flu. However, I understand that, in the long term, it may be climate change. I just wanted to put that on the record.

As the convener knows, the pattern of land ownership in Scotland is such that it is largely in private hands, and private landowners have the right to manage their land as they see fit. It is for the Scottish Government to use incentives and guidelines to try to ensure that land is managed in the best way possible and in pursuit of Scottish Government goals, but the use of privately owned land is, of course, the concern of the person who owns it.

I was suggesting a zonal approach. I was not talking about land ownership. A zonal approach is not limited by who owns the land; it is about directing the support and grants to encourage people to carry out activities on that land. That is something that the Scottish Government can do, is it not?

I do not know whether we have any comment on that.

The convener is absolutely right. One of the key commitments that the Scottish Government has made is to deliver nature networks. We are clear that those need to be driven by local agreements and through the development of local forums. It is also for local authorities to use their convening powers to bring those partnerships together and identify the proper land uses in the proper places. The concept of the right tree in the right place is a key part of the UK forestry strategy and the Scottish forestry strategy. It is a shame to hear about that experience in Aberdeenshire.

I will push back on that, minister. The concepts of the right tree in the right place and the right crop in the right place indicate a zonal approach. Are you in favour of a zonal approach?

The phrase “zonal approach” has not come across my desk. However, ensuring that local communities are involved is important. With any investment in natural capital, we have to empower local communities. We cannot have a just transition through imposing things on communities; it needs to come from them. The convener is right in saying that we need to consider who is benefiting from land and how we invest in it. I am happy to take that away and consider it.

I am happy to meet with you to discuss that, minister, if you wish.

I would like to take on some of the questions that we have just heard about funding and investment. In particular, the deputy convener brought up farming. I note that there is a commitment in the draft strategy to shifting half of all funding for farming and crofting from unconditional to conditional support by 2025. Minister, how much is half of all funding and what are the likely new conditions that farmers will have to meet? Is a lead time of presumably fewer than 18 months from finalisation long enough to allow farmers and crofters to adjust?

As Liam Kerr knows, implementing that commitment to a 50 per cent shift and the conditionality around it is on-going work in agricultural reform. I believe that the cabinet secretary made an initial announcement on the direction of travel a couple of weeks ago to the national annual meeting of the NFUS. However, it is a matter of on-going consultation with stakeholders to make sure that we get it right.

The number 1 priority is to make sure that that 50 per cent is not only delivering for biodiversity but is practical, workable and accessible for farmers and land managers, so that they can get that money in a way that supports their business models.

I understand that, and I understand that it is a complex question, but it is part of the draft strategy, which I think is under your remit, minister. I therefore wonder, again, whether you are able—although perhaps it would be fairer to ask whether you are unable—to tell the committee at this stage what half of the funding is, what the conditions are, and whether there will be a substantial lead time despite the fact that it is in the draft biodiversity strategy. Is that the case?

Biodiversity colleagues are feeding in to that process. The process of agricultural reform is on-going and addressing biodiversity is one part of it. We are feeding in to that, and officials and NGOs in that area are feeding in to that process, but, of course, other stakeholders in that space, such as farming stakeholders, are working together as part of the on-going process to define what that 50 per cent is and how that will work for farmers.

I will stick with funding. Framework target 19 requires a significant upscaling of finance for biodiversity, and it talks about “leveraging private finance”. Part of the draft strategy is an investment plan. Will that plan be produced, consulted on and finalised in the timeframe that we heard about earlier in which the delivery plan and the strategy will be finalised? Matthew Bird might answer that question.

Broadly, yes, that is the intention, although there are a lot of moving parts in relation to the investment plan.

Mr Bird, I will press you on “broadly”. Earlier, you told me—I cannot remember your precise words—that the delivery plan and the strategy are being consulted on in the spring and summer and will be finalised around the autumn. The investment plan is very much a part of the strategy, so will it be concluded in the same timeframe or is it likely to slip?

Going back to one of your earlier points, one of the reasons that we published a draft of the high-level strategy in December was so that the sector and the people who are delivering for biodiversity on the ground have that indication of the direction of travel and the steer that they need to start delivering for biodiversity.

Both the strategy and the delivery plan are being delivered out of our team, and I can make that commitment. The biodiversity investment plan involves bringing in a range of different partners to deliver it. I am happy to say that, broadly, it is being delivered along the same lines, but I cannot be more specific than that.

However, in line with my earlier answer to the question that Jackie Dunbar raised, that does not mean that we have not got started. As with the rest of the biodiversity matters, there are two streams—the urgent, evidenced actions that we are already taking and the long-term strategy to join them up—and so it is for the finance. We absolutely will deliver that finance plan along with the strategy, but that does not mean that we have not got started.

For example, we know about our finance gap in natural capital. In 2021, a report from the Green Finance Institute assessed our finance gap for nature in the UK, which is defined as the difference between the required spending and the committed, planned spending. Central estimates of our finance gap for the next decade are £20 billion for Scotland, which is about £8 billion for biodiversity protection enhancement and £9 billion towards climate change mitigation. That information is already with us.

We have already spoken about our nature restoration fund, which is public money that is being put directly into nature restoration—the member will be aware of the pilot agreement between NatureScot and Hampden & Co to invest in natural capital. We all know that we need to bring private investment into the sector to fill the finance gap, and that pilot is the first step. Again, we have not waited to get started; we have already started, but that strategy will still be forthcoming.

The particular private finance deal that NatureScot has signed—I think that it is around woodland and is worth up to £2 billion—is a very interesting model. Quite rightly, the minister talks about the need for £20 billion of private investment for forestry and woodlands. Can we leverage private investment for what we need for heat in buildings? Given the interest in that model, when does the minister intend to publish the full detail that underlies the deal, so that we can see exactly what private investors are getting out of the deal and whether it is applicable at scale and in other areas?

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.

Will you commit to publishing it, minister? Alternatively, could you come back to me with an answer as to whether it will be published and, if so, when?

We certainly hope to gain learnings from that project, and I am happy to write to the member to let him know the timescale for sharing those learnings.

I am not asking about the learnings; I am asking about what investors will get out of it and the detail underlying it. Will that information be published, minister?

As it is a partnership between NatureScot and private companies, I do not know which aspects of that information will be in the commercial, confidential space and which aspects will be in the public space, so I am unable to commit to the member exactly how much will be shared publicly. However, I am happy to commit to sharing the learnings from that project, so that we can take those forward into what I hope will be other, similarly successful projects.

Minister, I understand your reticence about committing to doing that, but I believe that it would be helpful for the committee to receive correspondence from you that clarifies what you can share.

Absolutely.

I note that the learnings are part of that, but I think that the member was specifically asking about what the deal involved. We would be grateful to hear that detail if you can share it. A written letter to the committee would be absolutely perfect.

Absolutely. I can provide a little bit more detail now, but I am also happy to correspond.

The investment model that is being looked at is based on a bridging loan provided by Hampden & Co to the landowner to create woodland, both through planting and through natural regeneration. That loan bridges the gap between the initial investment and the flow of carbon revenue. The carbon credits that are generated can then be retired—so, that is offset to collect those carbon credits. That is the general model, but I am happy to write to the committee with more detail on what is available.

I think that Liam Kerr wants to come back in briefly.

Very briefly, what interest rate will that bridging loan be subject to?

I do not have that information.

Truthfully, Mr Kerr, I have allowed you to push that quite a long way. I have asked the minister to write to the committee, because I think that the subject is of interest to us, as will be understanding who will shoulder the obligations. It will be a short-term loan to allow something to happen, but it will have long-term consequences and costs relating to managing the environment beyond that. The committee would like to know more about that. So, the more you can share with us, minister, the more grateful we will be.

I will bring in Collette Stevenson, who lost her question in the cut and thrust of that exchange.

Good morning from a snowy East Kilbride, and a warm welcome to the minister and her team.

During the evidence session last week, the committee heard about a decision that was adopted at COP15 that takes forward aspects of the Edinburgh declaration, which sets out areas for action for local authorities, as well as subnational governments, and recommends that the management of biodiversity be decentralised. What role will local authorities need to play in the delivery of biodiversity targets? In practice, how will local authorities and communities be more empowered in that area?

That was a really interesting aspect of the Edinburgh process. Members might recall that, during the 26th UN climate change conference of the parties—COP26—subnational actors such as Scotland, some American states and some European regions were frustrated that members of the United Nations might not have been as ambitious as subnational actors wanted them to be. The same concern was expressed in the biodiversity space during COP15, which is why the secretariat asked Scotland to lead the process for subnational bodies. In Montreal, I met the mayor of Kunming, the deputy mayor of Paris and some amazing people from Sao Paolo, Quebec, California and other parts of America, and it was interesting to talk to them about what they were doing in that ambitious space.

The member is absolutely right that regional governments can do so much, because they are on the ground and are at the coalface of how things happen. I am happy to outline some of the things that we are doing. A lot of stuff will need to be delivered by local authorities, so I meet the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities regularly, and NatureScot works closely with a network of local authority biodiversity officers on those matters.

10:00  

The nature restoration fund has a specific Edinburgh process stream, which is for local authorities to use to take on projects. We are providing direct funding to local authorities—£5 million was allocated during 2021-22 and £6 million was allocated during 2022-23.

Another interesting initiative for local authorities in Scotland is our nature networks. In October 2022, we announced an additional £200,000 for the expansion of nature networks in Scotland. The vision is that each local authority will have a nature network, which will address the problem of habitat fragmentation. As human activity has encroached on nature, nature has retreated to sort of islands. That is a problem for resilience because it means that species cannot move between those islands and, therefore, cannot keep their genetics healthy by intermingling. It also means that species are less able to adapt to climate because they cannot relocate or move as the climate changes around them. We can tackle habitat fragmentation through nature networks, which will be delivered by local authorities in Scotland. That is very exciting because it means that each local authority can decide what will work for it and what is right for it. I am interested in how we join up those networks across boundaries so that we have a continuous network of nature throughout Scotland. Some really interesting work is happening in that regard.

Can I come back in, convener?

Yes—keep going. I will stop you when we run out of time.

Thank you. I am proud and honoured that my constituency is home to Langlands Moss, which is one of the biggest peatland mosses in Scotland. The volunteers there have done remarkable work, but a lot of biodiversity is at risk if we do not take action. That includes indigenous species, particularly some newt species. Can you drill down into those issues and tell us what action is being taken? It is a beautiful nature reserve on the outskirts of East Kilbride.

You are right to recognise the work of volunteers in protecting and restoring nature. Indeed, Matthew Bird and I went to the launch of the UK’s plant atlas, after an estimated 8,500 volunteers went around the UK, over a 20-year period, counting every flowering plant. It is an incredible achievement, and that is exactly the kind of data that we need in order to understand the challenges that native species—such as those at Langlands Moss—face and how at risk they are. Unfortunately, the plant atlas shows that our native species numbers have declined significantly, but introduced species numbers have increased significantly. You are absolutely right that the challenge is enormous, and protected areas make such a difference.

As I outlined to Jackie Dunbar, one of the streams in the biodiversity strategy, under actions, is to

“recover and protect vulnerable and important species.”

That is exactly the focus that we need. We need to manage existing and emerging pressures so that species can continue their recovery, and we should reintroduce species when that is needed.

Lisa McCann or Matthew Bird might have some specific information on newts.

It does not look like you are going to get an answer on newts, Collette. Perhaps the minister could write to you about that afterwards, or you could write to her about that constituency-specific issue.

We have no specific newt knowledge, but we are happy to write to the member on that issue.

Thank you.

Minister, I want to ask about an issue that cuts across to the other side of your portfolio: consumption. Last week, we heard about some of the global impacts that consumption and supply chains have on biodiversity. We recognise that that is reflected in the new global biodiversity framework, but it is not reflected in our environment strategy. How will the new biodiversity strategy and delivery plan start to address our understanding of the twin issues of the impact of consumption on biodiversity and what we do about it, given that there is a mixture of reserved and devolved competences around the issue?

That is a serious matter and a really big question. You are right that one of the outcomes detailed in the Scottish Government’s environment strategy is that we need to be responsible global citizens and have a sustainable international footprint. If everyone on earth consumed resources as we do in Scotland, we would need three planets. Our consumption relies on resources—including water, land and biological and mineral resources—that are extracted or used in other parts of the world.

Our environmental impact is so significant that it does not just impact our own country; the impact extends far beyond it. The impacts from how much we overconsume are complex. Some of the commodities that we import are associated with deforestation, water stress and other ecological pressures.

To be good global citizens, we need to make sure that we manage our own consumption here. A big part of that relates to the circular economy, which, as the member rightly points out, is the other part of my portfolio. We need to move to an economy in which we do not tolerate waste of energy or materials, so that we reduce to the bare minimum our extraction from the natural environment. Where possible, we should re-use materials over and over again and use materials that have a long life. That is how we can reduce our impact.

As I touched on earlier, in relation to the impact of plastics on wildlife species, for example, we need to look at how we manage plastics, how we reduce their use and how we make sure that we recycle them when we do need them. We can tackle a lot of our problems in this area by looking at the “how”.

In the biodiversity strategy and delivery plan, should we expect to see something specific on consumption?

It is part of the cross-Government work that we do. Addressing consumption, which relates to the other part of my portfolio, will be covered largely through the circular economy bill and the route map for waste in Scotland. It is about bending that route around. However, that does not mean that the issue of consumption does not relate to biodiversity. These things are always artificially put into categories, but the member is quite right to point out that our work on the circular economy will be important in relation to biodiversity, too. I am absolutely confident that we will reference consumption in the strategy, because it is an important part of how we deal with the issue.

I will pick out one specific area in relation to consumption: food waste. There is a particular target around consumption and reducing waste in the global framework, and we have an important target to reduce our food waste in Scotland. How is that going? How can we make more progress on that?

Conversations on food waste are continuing as we work towards the target of a 33 per cent reduction by 2025. Action so far has included running a school food waste reduction pilot with Glasgow City Council and conducting food waste audits of more than 100 hospitality and food service sector businesses. NHS Scotland has also been working with Zero Waste Scotland to tackle food waste in healthcare settings. We have published our consultation on our route map for our ambitious waste and recycling targets, one of which relates to food waste prevention.

Food waste reduction is a global effort, and we are signatories to WRAP’s world-leading Courtauld commitment to reduce food waste. Through that forum, we engage with the UK’s biggest food and drink businesses and other devolved Administrations, and we have access to best practice, research and interventions.

A full review of progress against the commitments on food waste will be published this year. There has been a bit of a delay due to Covid. Since 2019, we have run two consumer and household-focused food waste reduction media campaigns, and we are providing £100,000 of funding support for FareShare’s surplus with purpose scheme, which follows on from £200,000 of funding in 2021-22. Scottish potato supplier Albert Bartlett recently announced that it has redistributed the equivalent of 5 million meals through its FareShare partnership, so that is a great success story.

When exactly do you anticipate the review on food waste being published? Will it be this year?

Yes. We expect it to be published this year.

Okay. The committee will obviously take a great deal of interest in that.

We have another question from the deputy convener.

Is the Scottish Government looking to other international developments in finalising the biodiversity strategy? Are there implications arising from the recently agreed UN high seas treaty? If Màiri McAllan is the lead minister on marine issues, how is she influencing the biodiversity strategy? How is the development of the European Union’s nature restoration law being factored into the final version of the strategy or into the version that will go out for consultation with the delivery plan?

Okay—I was taking some quick notes. I will go through the UN high seas treaty and the EU law aspects.

The Scottish Government welcomes the UN high seas treaty. A historic agreement has been reached after more than a decade of multilateral negotiations. We have been at the forefront of ensuring protection for the high seas throughout the UK’s membership of the OSPAR Commission—it is responsible for implementing the Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North-East Atlantic—which has been adopting a series of high-seas marine protected areas in the mid-Atlantic since 2010. Scotland has designated MPAs covering 37 per cent of our national waters, and 10 per cent of our waters will be highly protected marine areas by 2026.

We are already doing some excellent work in the marine space, and I absolutely welcome the work that is being done outside our territorial waters. As the treaty has just been agreed to, we have not yet incorporated it, but our strategy is still in draft, which gives us the opportunity to incorporate that new bit of work into our strategy.

Is that Màiri McAllan’s area of responsibility, or is it yours?

We are very much working together. The biodiversity strategy covers many types of land use, including forestry and agriculture, so it is not just me contributing to or working on it; other ministers with relevant portfolios are contributing, too. Indeed, officials in that space, including those at Marine Scotland and NatureScot, are working with all of us together; they are not separated in that work. That is one of the nice things about having overlapping portfolios between me, Ms McAllan and Ms Gougeon: we are very much able to work together on these matters.

The UN treaty covers the 30 by 30 pledge for both land and sea. My understanding is that Scotland already has 37 per cent of its marine area covered. The sensitivity of ensuring that we live with local economies while addressing marine protection—certainly in inshore areas—is therefore of particular concern, and we know of, for example, Western Isles Council’s concerns on the proposed HMPAs.

I am not expecting you to deal with that today, as that topic is for another minister, but we should register the point that marine spatial planning must be very sensitive and sensible. We would be looking for a commonsense view to be taken. That will be a key aspect of what we will be looking for in the biodiversity strategy. There must be a balance and a sharing of responsibility, so that what we heard must apply to the land must apply very much to the sea, too. Is that an approach that you would welcome?

That is absolutely an approach that I would welcome. It is not necessarily a question of competing interests, particularly in the sea space. One of the groups that I met at COP15 was the representatives from California. They have had no-take zones for many years, which is the equivalent of our highly protected marine areas. When they implemented those zones, there were concerns from fishers about how they would impact on their work and business, but they have found that the no-take zones allow for species to breed and thrive uninterrupted, which improves their yields as fishers.

This is not necessarily an either/or thing. The member is absolutely right that we need to consult, to ensure that we put such areas in the right places and to ensure that stakeholders and communities are absolutely engaged.

It is not necessarily part of the vision that such things are in conflict. Highly protected marine areas, with a no-take zone, give fish a place to breed, thrive and increase their numbers. As they move out from those zones, they are then available to fishers. Such areas can be an advantage that works for everyone.

I would suggest that, from what we have been hearing, the Western Isles situation is a bit of a conflict zone just now, but I will leave that there for now.

I also referred to the proposed EU nature restoration law. Is that something that you would be looking to keep pace with to ensure that the biodiversity strategy embraces some of that thinking?

10:15  

Absolutely. The Scottish Government has already committed to maintaining broad alignment with EU environmental standards, and we have been monitoring with interest the development of the EU’s ambitious nature restoration law. In fact, our strategy sets out the metrics that we would use to measure against the targets that the EU has set out.

At the moment, the EU law and the targets are proposals, and they are subject to negotiation between member states and amendment by the European Parliament. Our approach is not to wait for them but to develop our own targets and delivery proposals; however, we will take account of what is going on in Europe as those developments emerge.

I am looking round the table to see whether anyone has any other questions. As no one else does at the moment, I have a couple of questions for the minister.

Are you happy with the use of carbon credits and their being attached to land across Scotland?

As the member will know and the committee will have heard in the evidence session last week, there absolutely need to be mechanisms for bringing private finance and investment into this space. Carbon credits are an established tool, and work is being done on biodiversity credits and so on. They are under development, but the finance that they bring in is absolutely needed. There is no question but that we must have private finance to develop those areas, and that is one of the tools for bringing in that finance.

Would you be happy to see parts of the land and estate that are owned by the Scottish people through the Scottish Government being used to generate carbon credits and finance for the Scottish Government?

I do not have any particular comment on that. I am not aware of any particular work in that policy space.

You do not have a view on it. Has it been discussed at all? It seems quite fundamental, given the forestry estate that we have, that the Government should be considering or discounting the use of that.

I am very happy to take that under consideration. I can write to the member on that point.

The issue has not been discussed.

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.

Before I bring in Mark Ruskell, I will ask one more question on that issue. My concern is that carbon credits come with a sting in the tail, because we do not know what their ultimate cost will be. If firms are buying up or giving bridging loans, that might be for carbon credits, which is an interesting concept. Therefore, I find it odd that the Government has not discussed their use and discounted it or agreed that they should be used.

The member is referring to the NatureScot agreement with Hampden & Co. As he suggests, that is an investment model that is based on a bridging loan from Hampden & Co to a private land owner to support that private land owner in creating woodland. The loan bridges the gap between the initial investment and the flow of carbon revenue. That is a way of helping private land owners do that woodland generation.

I absolutely understand that, but that help comes at a cost. I am trying to identify whether the help is attached to carbon credits.

I will bring in Mark Ruskell, and then I might follow that up a little more.

I actually want to go back to the issue of marine protected area designation.

Can I finish on my carbon credits question, then come back to you on marine protected areas?

Yes. I would be very grateful for that, convener.

I will push the issue a little bit more. We have seen large tracts of Scotland change hands, at very high prices, to allow firms to attach their carbon output to that land by getting a carbon credit. That has caused some concern. Does it cause you concern, minister?

The matter of green lairds does cause concern, to me and to my ministerial colleagues. It is really important that we balance the need for investment in our natural capital with work that we are doing to empower local communities, so that we do not have the situation of problematic green lairds.

A suite of existing measures are in place to mitigate the impact of that rapidly evolving market. For example, in the last session of Parliament, we implemented legislation to extend community right to buy, including the right to buy land in order to further sustainable development. We also introduced a new register of persons holding a controlled interest in land.

Fears were raised at the time that our measures would deter inward investment but, as the member knows, that has not been the case, as we can see from substantial rises in land values over the past few years.

I share the member’s concern around so-called green lairds on the land concerned, and that is why we are putting in place frameworks for ethical investment in land and nature restoration, with private finance.

Just for the record, I am surprised and concerned that the Government does not have a policy on carbon credits and its land, or on whether that should be the right way of generating capital. I am not expressing a view on that either way; I am just concerned that there is not a policy on that.

On the issue of MPA designation, environmental NGOs and communities have a long-standing concern that, although we might designate areas as such, they might end up as paper parks because of a lack of enforcement and monitoring.

What is your response to that? How might we ensure that highly protected marine areas are adequately monitored in future, with the right management measures associated with them and with enforcement in place?

The development of highly protected marine areas is still under way. We are carrying out a consultation to get the areas in the right places—which was rightly pointed out as being important. There is certainly a challenge in ensuring that we have engaged stakeholders at all the key stages when locating and selecting the sites for those areas.

I turn to the enforcement of HPMAs. MPAs and HPMAs are different beasts. MPAs will have marine management plans in place, which say how the areas are to be used, while HPMAs are much stricter as no-take zones, given the restrictions on commercial activities in those spaces.

I might have to get Lisa McCann or Matthew Bird to support me on the detail of how exactly those restrictions would be enforced.

It is recognised that there are a number of enforcement challenges, because of the significant areas that are covered and the large number of fishing vessels. My understanding is that effective compliance will be carried out by extending the requirement for vessel tracking and monitoring systems across the whole commercial fishing fleet by the end of the current session of Parliament.

We recognise that illegal activity in MPAs is caused by a small number of operations that cast a shadow over most of the law-abiding fishing community. If further detail is required, I am happy to obtain that from the relevant officials and to provide it to the committee.

Thank you.

I think that Mercedes Villalba wishes to ask a question.

Yes. It is in response to your point, minister, about the need to address the issue of green lairds. You seem to suggest that part of the work to do that involves expanding community right to buy. However, the carbon credit model has the inadvertent consequence of increasing the price of land, so communities are then priced out and they are even more reliant on Government funding to buy land. It strikes me as quite a short-term solution to go down the route of a private financing model. In the long term, that increasingly prices out communities and the public from land.

Would it not be more prudent to adopt a community wealth building model that uses public funding but that locks that into the local area, so that the whole community and, by extension, the country benefit rather than overseas private finance companies, potentially?

As the member will know—or she might not have been present for the committee’s evidence session—

I was.

—the need for private finance for nature restoration is unquestioned.

That is debatable.

There is absolute consensus on that.

It is ideological.

The finance gap is £20 billion. There is absolutely no way that that can be fully funded from the public purse; that simply is not possible. What we need to do, and what we are working on doing, is to put in place the framework for ethical investment in the places concerned for nature restoration. That means managing the different interests and incorporating community wealth building and local input into the schemes. However, we absolutely cannot meet our targets for the climate and nature restoration without private finance. That simply would not be possible. We have to find a way of doing that ethically that supports communities.

This is an interesting subject, which will continue to vex us. The problem is that short-term gain could come at a long-term cost, whether for individuals, communities or whoever is sold the obligation and takes it on. That was a very interesting question.

We have come to the end of this evidence session, and I suggest that we have a pause until 10.35 before starting the next one, which I am sure will be equally interesting.

10:25 Meeting suspended.  

10:35 On resuming—