Official Report 648KB pdf
09:00
The second item of business is an evidence session with NatureScot. This is a general check-in with the body about its annual report and corporate plan and strategic outlook. I think that we now have the right one, which was clarified on Friday.
I welcome to the meeting Nick Halfhide, the chief executive officer, and Professor Pete Higgins, board member, NatureScot. Thank you for attending this morning. I congratulate you, Nick, on your appointment as chief executive. It is your first appearance before us since your appointment. I would like to say that I hope that you enjoy it, but I hope that it will be rewarding for us and for you.
Nick, you are going to make a brief opening statement.
Good morning. Thank you very much for inviting us along. On behalf of my chairman, I offer his apologies. He had very much hoped to be with us today but, unfortunately, he has flu. We have Pete Higgins instead.
I will make a few opening comments. First, we are Scotland’s public nature agency, so we are your public nature agency. We want to halt the decline in Scotland’s biodiversity by 2030 and restore Scotland’s nature by 2045. This is of pivotal importance to us all, as we risk losing the beauty, value and benefits of nature because our natural world is still in crisis.
Our recently launched corporate plan for the next four years sets out how we will work to address this head on. The plan focuses on strengthening our resilience to the impacts of climate change by reconnecting people and nature. Our efforts will be bolstered by the passing of the pioneering Natural Environment (Scotland) Bill, which places Scotland on a path to statutory targets for nature, as well as by the recently approved Scottish biodiversity strategy.
I will say a little bit about us. As an organisation, we have grown significantly over the past four to five years. At the start of this parliamentary session, according to our own annual accounts for 2020-21, our budget was about £60 million and we employed just under 600 full-time staff. By 2024-25, the budget was closer to £90 million and we employed just over 750 staff. Our budget for this financial year is approaching £100 million.
During that time, our impact and reach has grown, too. The £65 million nature restoration fund is an unprecedented commitment to nature recovery that has supported more than 240 projects through the competitive scheme that we run. We have put more than 30,000 hectares of degraded peat on the road to recovery, which obviously reduces greenhouse gas emissions and provides jobs and economic opportunities.
The Scottish marine environmental enhancement fund—SMEEF—has distributed around £4 million, supporting 62 marine projects, up until the end of last year.
Taken together, this tells the story of a Government that trusts us to deliver and sees our growing relevance. However, the demands that are placed on us as an organisation, through new legal responsibilities and increasing demand, have grown significantly, creating resourcing challenges for us and leading to increased workloads for our hard-working and dedicated staff.
We also know that we continue to work in a challenging fiscal environment, which means that we must be more creative in how we deliver. Our work is complex and, at times, contentious, which is why we are investing considerable resources in working with, and listening to, people to find common solutions where we can.
However, equally, we cannot avoid what the evidence and science are telling us about the most effective ways to urgently address the nature and climate emergencies, even if that means that our decisions and advice may, sometimes, run counter to what is perceived as popular opinion. We know that that can prompt a strong response from some in the general public and in this Parliament and has, at times, led to comments that have, in our view, crossed the line. There appears to be some lack of understanding of our role and responsibilities and there is clearly more for us to do to bridge that gap in understanding.
We all have our own experiences of the many benefits that nature can bring to our lives and I remain confident that we can meet the challenge ahead of us and can secure a Scotland where nature thrives and where people and businesses can flourish too.
Thank you, Nick. I will give you an easy question to start with. You have developed a new corporate strategy to take you through to 2030 and you have told us about increased expenditure and some increases in your workforce. What are your key priorities and workstreams for the period between now and 2030?
We are focusing on five areas of work for the next four years and I will run through those if I may. They are all important and must be done together if we are to achieve the greatest progress towards our 2030 targets.
The first is about leading species recovery, connecting habitats and safeguarding at least 30 per cent of our land, rivers and seas by 2030, putting those into good ecological health. That meets a Government target that is an international obligation—I can go into further detail if you would like me to. The second area is about increasing support for nature-positive action through strengthened public connection to, understanding of and access to nature, which ties in with the point in my opening statement about reconnecting people and nature. The third area is to embed nature-positive practices across agriculture, other land and marine uses, working with farmers, fishermen and others to help them make a living from the land in a way that is nature positive. Fourthly, and really importantly, given the fiscal challenge, we want to achieve increased levels of high-integrity public and private sector nature investment, getting more private money to match the public and philanthropic money that we already see flowing. Finally, there is a real emphasis on place and on strengthening climate, economic and social resilience in all our communities. We understand that what happens where people live and work is important not only at national but at local level.
That is a run through, which I hope will help.
What are the key challenges to all of that? You have spoken a lot about the environment and ecosystems, but will you talk also about the thing that is sometimes forgotten, which is the people who are involved in that? They and their livelihoods are just as important as the systems that you are trying to protect.
I will say little about the economic side of things and then invite Pete Higgins to say more about health and social wellbeing.
The week before last, I spoke at the NFU Scotland annual general meeting in Glasgow and made a point that I make wherever I go, which is that the businesses that rely on the natural assets that we seek to protect absolutely understand that their lives are difficult and that they have to be profitable. Our job is to help them to do that so that they can run their businesses profitably, but in a way that is sustainable in the long term and protects the assets on which their businesses are based.
We have many examples of where that has worked, which I would be happy to send information to the committee about. I am thinking particularly of a farm that we have been working with in Sutherland, where we have done more than 900 hectares of extensive peatland restoration with the farmer. We have also worked on other changes on the farm, which mean that the farmer is running a more profitable business and has far fewer losses to her flock. There are many examples of where we are working to help people to run their businesses in a way that supports nature. That is just one example in farming. Pete, would you like to say a bit more about the work that we are doing on the social or health side?
I have been an observer of the work that NatureScot has been doing for a considerable time. Over the past 15 or 20 years, I have noticed that the trajectory moved away from engaging people with the natural world to focusing on landscape-scale restoration, but it has come back to recognising that people are at the core. There are many issues that are people issues and not nature issues, and there are no nature issues that are not people issues. Therefore, it is important to engage people who work in the kinds of jobs that you are referring to about the importance of nature. There is the much broader context of recreation, engagement and health-related benefits, which is a significant part of the public narrative that needs to be developed. That is now in the corporate plan.
There are 200,000 jobs in Scotland that relate to the natural world. Some of those are in agriculture, some are in fishing, and quite a lot are in a range of other areas. Without Scotland’s rich nature, we would not have those jobs and would not see the benefits for health, wellbeing and the economy. Beyond that, the evidence for specific health-related benefits in urban environments is very clear and there is some research on that that my colleagues and I have been involved in; there are some other themes that I might refer to. For me, understanding the relationship between what we might think of as the countryside and the wider landscape, and the urban environment is profoundly important. Taking the people of Scotland with us so that we all understand the importance of nature is significant. Without nature, the air that we breathe, the water that we drink, and the food that we eat would not be there. That narrative is part of the corporate plan. I see a real opportunity to provide an integrated approach to understanding the significance of nature across a range of areas. I can give you more examples of that if you wish.
We are going to move on to other questions. I know that committee members get bored when I say this but, for the record, because you have mentioned farming and agriculture, I remind members that I have an interest in a farm in Moray and have been managing the farm for more than 40 years.
In passing, I would say that many of the designations in Scotland, from sites of special scientific interest to special areas of conservation and special protection areas, are usually as a result of the management of those areas, because they are considered to be worth protecting. There are people who have kept them in the condition that they are in. Some need to be improved, but some are in good condition.
Staying on the theme of people, you are Scotland’s national access agency and yet, looking at your corporate plan for 2026 to 2030, I do not see a focus on enhancing public access. Could you say a little bit more about why that is and what your work will be going forward on that important issue?
As we were developing the corporate plan, we included references to access, so it is in there, but you are right that it is not our top priority. Our statutory role is to promote the Scottish outdoor access code, which we absolutely do. It is true to say that we are more focused on working with those who manage natural assets so that we get them into good condition, and on working with farmers, crofters, foresters, and others so that they can manage those assets in a way that helps them with their businesses, as I said earlier. There are a range of other organisations in the access space that we support, but I do not envisage that we will have significant programmes of work on footpath repair, for example.
Would you accept, though, that you are Scotland’s national access agency? If it is not you, who is it that maintains the strategic overview of access rights, makes improvements to legislation and works with other stakeholders who own land, so as to encourage proper public access and enjoyment of the rights and responsibilities?
09:15
We absolutely do that, and that is one of our many different functions. The point that I was perhaps not expressing very well was that we will be doing that, although we have not prioritised it in the way that you might be suggesting we should have done. We are trying to focus on the nature crisis end of our work more, over the next four years, as that is where the greatest priority lies.
I thought that you had a corporate priority around the public, public access to nature and that side of things. Education and engagement are really important for tackling the nature emergency.
Yes.
Do you see things through that lens?
I will bring in Pete Higgins in a minute, as this is his area of expertise. We absolutely do see that as important, although we are only one of many actors in that space.
So, you are not taking a lead on public access.
I turn to the subject of species licensing. It would be good to know exactly where you are with the species licensing review: what the headlines are coming out of it, and when we expect the review to be signed off.
We have submitted the species licensing review to ministers. It rests with them at the moment.
What are the headlines?
The headlines are that we feel that we should be doing some charging for it. That is one aspect. Our advice was clear: we think that we are following the various guidelines as necessary for how we should be doing it, particularly in relation to lethal control. That is just our assessment, however. Ministers will decide whether they agree with us.
Have you assessed the compliance of species licensing with international law and international conventions? I will give you an example of that. It did not get a lot of scrutiny, but an amendment to the Natural Environment (Scotland) Bill was passed that effectively allows the recreational hunting of mountain hares through falconry. The Parliament has approved that, but it begs the question whether that is compliant with international law. I am interested about the species licensing that you come under some political pressure to deliver. Who does the assessment, and is it compliant with international law? Is that you or ESS that does that?
I do not know the answer to that. Determining whether something is legally compliant is a role for the courts. In our implementation of the law, we will seek legal advice about aspects of how we implement it, but we do not make the laws, which is Parliament’s job, while the courts scrutinise whether something is legal or not. I am perhaps not understanding the question.
Let us use that example again, then. Would that practice be compliant with the Bern convention?
I do not know. I would have to seek legal advice.
Okay. It just seems odd. You are Scotland’s national nature agency as well as Scotland’s national access agency. If you do not assess compliance with international law and international treaties—from United Nations treaties to the Bern convention to Ramsar—who else will do that?
As I have said, we will seek legal advice on those things, just as the Scottish Government will do when it is proposing amendments. I am perhaps missing the point here. We obviously seek legal advice on a whole range of items all the time. I have to be sure that, when we are implementing individual elements of our work—
Let me ask you a straight question. When you were doing the species licensing review, did you review whether species licences that are currently issued by NatureScot are legally compliant with international law and conventions?
I will need to check. I assume that we did, but I do not have that detail to mind.
Okay.
I will move on. A key performance analysis in your annual report concerns the condition of protected areas. We know that woodlands are in serious decline. What work are you doing specifically on woodlands and other habitats that are in decline to try to reverse that? We are in quite a desperate state, so what is going to turn the corner on this? What kind of work are you leading to ensure that we are restoring habitats such as woodlands?
For our protected areas, we work closely with individual land managers through our area teams. We also work with a range of other public agencies. For woodlands in particular, we work with Forest and Land Scotland, where it owns the land, or with Scottish Forestry on how they can use the levers that they have to improve the condition of woodlands. We use a range of other levers, too, such as the nature restoration fund, to support work that is outwith the scope of other public funding mechanisms.
What is your assessment of the possibility of halting nature loss by 2030, specifically in relation to woodlands? Are the conditions in place to halt that and to start to reverse the decline? What do you see as the main drivers behind that?
Of all our habitats, woodlands are particularly challenging. The number of Roe deer are a significant factor in woodland conditions, particularly in the lowlands, although they are not the only factor. In the uplands, a range of grazers are factors, such as red deer, sheep and mountain hares. Woodlands are challenging because, as you know, it does not take a lot to affect them, unless they are fully fenced, which is hugely expensive and presents challenges for various grouse species.
It is really challenging, but there are some bright spots. I could point to the work that is going on, for example, not only on some of our nature reserves, but on private estates such as Corrour. It has an agreement with the University of St Andrews that allows it to maintain a level of stalkers and pressure on deer numbers that is enabling woodlands to recover.
I am aware of lots of good examples—I can see them on my back doorstep. The key issue here is that you have a target of halting nature loss by 2030. When it comes to woodlands, are we going to meet it?
I think that doing so will be really challenging.
That is a no, then.
That is not what I said—I said that it would be really challenging.
Okay—it will be really challenging.
Back to you, convener.
Thanks very much, Mark.
Before we leave the topic of licensing completely, I note that NatureScot now has a lot more powers and requirements in relation to licensing. One of the things that you said is that you are going to charge for licences, and that you will move very quickly on that. Will you explain that to me?
What I said was that, as part of the licensing review, we recommended that we start charging for some of our licences. Our view is that there are many licences for which that would be a completely pointless thing to do, because either there would be a very low value involved or people would stop applying for them. However, there are some licences that we would consider charging for, because we think that—
Which ones are those, Nick?
I do not have the full list in front of me, and it is still just advice to ministers, but it would be ones for which we feel that the business that is run on the back of that licence may be able to support some charge. We are using that basic concept throughout our consideration of charging.
Give me an example. Would that be for when Tesco or another supermarket applies for a licence to remove robins, or is it something more fundamental than that? Sorry, I meant to say removing robins from their stores.
I understand—and I know that you mean the birds, not the people called Robin. Probably not, although I do not know that—
Which one is it, do you think? You must have an idea of which one you are talking about.
At this stage, I do not, because we have a range of new functions that we are still bedding in.
One of the criticisms that I have heard consistently is that getting through NatureScot’s licensing department is difficult. It is particularly slow and unresponsive. Is that a poor representation of it?
I am sorry that you have heard that. Sixty per cent of our licence applications are now done online, making the process almost instantaneous. I can give you the example of how we have been dealing with gull licences, which I know is of particular interest to the committee. We deal with those within four working days, which to me seems to be a pretty quick turnaround. We do a lot of licences over the phone now, so that we have a very quick response rate.
Somebody wrote to me from, I think, the Dee regarding a licence for destroying a seal that had gone right the way up the river, and they said that they were finding it impossible. Is that something that you would expect to be charged for? If someone applied for such a licence, how long would you expect it to take for them to get one?
I cannot answer either of those questions. What I would say, though, is that particularly complex licence requests that require evidence to be gathered will take longer—and when we are talking about one species against another, things become particularly complicated.
I imagine that, in that instance, we would be balancing seals against salmon, both of which are protected species and are particularly complicated.
Okay. Seen as we have ended up talking about salmon, I will also declare an interest in a wild salmon fishery. However, I have not applied for a seal licence, before anyone thinks that I have.
Douglas, you have some questions.
Yes, I want to ask about natural capital, which, in your annual report, you have defined as a risk. The report says:
“A complex balancing act is required to stimulate private sector investment into nature whilst ensuring there is sufficient governance, due diligence and effective communication to ensure our reputation is not adversely impacted on account of misjudged or poorly delivered interventions to influence private investment in nature.”
Will you briefly set out how private investment in nature currently functions, and how you see it changing?
Yes, I am happy to do so. First of all, let me give you a couple of examples of where we have been doing this quite successfully. I have already mentioned SMEEF, which is our marine investment fund; it has very successfully taken moneys from private sector organisations, held them in a central pot and then distributed them to marine projects that we think will have the greatest impact. For us, one of the key elements has been to ensure high integrity by putting in place a kind of ethics committee, as it were, to consider whether we can accept donations from those organisations. That element has worked really well and, indeed, has been quite thorough, but it is relatively small.
More broadly, we have been trying to stimulate private investment where there could well be a profitable return. That builds on the carbon code and the woodland carbon code, where individual land managers and investors can actually see a return, in time, on their investment. We have been seeking to de-risk the early elements of that by, for example, developing the natural capital tool, which helps land managers to look at all the natural capital on their holding and model how that might change. We are also looking to put forward a kind of shop window of investable opportunities for the private sector to invest in.
Is there a big enough demand to invest in nature just now?
The private sector tells us that huge money is interested in investing in this area, but we have not yet quite cracked de‑risking it enough to allow investors to see a long‑term income stream. There are pockets where that has worked, but I would not say that it was widespread yet.
When you talk about de-risking, you mean that NatureScot will take on some of the early risk. Is that right?
Yes, as in any new area of work—I know that that is a very broad statement—where the public sector will seek to de-risk the early development in order to make it market ready. However, we do that in discussion with a number of private sector organisations, which kind of guide us through the process.
Okay, but there is an appetite for people to invest in nature, as long as it is de-risked in the early years.
Absolutely. There is huge demand. That is what the private sector tells us, although I would say that that appetite has slightly diminished, because of international events that have spooked the market. Without being too explicit, I think that you know who I am referring to.
Yes. Pete Higgins, do you want to come in?
If I may. I am sure that you will come back to Nick in a moment, but one of the things that I am picking up is a degree of confidence that investors have in longer-term futures for their investments. This is not like making a short-term investment; when you deal with a land-related, or even a marine-related, issue, you want to put in money that you expect, over the long term, to get a return from or which you believe will have security—in other words, there is not going to be a policy change that will mean that you have made a mistake. That degree of confidence is, I think, quite significant, and it brings me back to my point about the narrative around the significance of nature being really important.
I am not sure whether you picked up on this, but the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services met in Manchester a week after you passed the Natural Environment (Scotland) Bill here. It makes an explicit link to the significance of nature for businesses globally. Without nature, our businesses would not survive. The more that we have a positive environment and welcome investment in nature in Scotland, the more it is in tune with that narrative—a very different narrative from the one that Nick Halfhide referred to, which has been negative.
09:30
There are other things that might go with this. Again, you may be aware that there was a national security briefing recently on the significance of nature globally. That was provided by the Joint Intelligence Committee, with the Joint Nature Conservation Committee supporting that work. That is now being developed at a European level, and some elements highlight the direct significance for the United Kingdom with regard to climate change’s negative impact on nature.
Those arguments are strongly in favour of investors making a commitment or philanthropists making an investment, as long as we provide a stable, long-term environment for them to give that support.
Is the drive to invest by investors about making money, or is it more of a conscience thing?
My take would be that it is a mixture. I work for the University of Edinburgh, which has put a significant amount of money into peatland restoration and woodland planting because it believes that it is the right thing to do, and that it provides a way of dealing with the emissions that it cannot tackle in any other way.
Universities are one type of organisation that can do that. I can think of other groups, such as philanthropists, who have said, “This is important for nature and I will do it for that reason.” I know of one sporting estate that has recognised the benefits of diversifying its work and investing in nature restoration, because planting trees nearby affects the salmon fishery and the river. Part of my research background is in that area as well.
That all sounds good, so why do we have to de-risk it?
I think that de-risking is about developing that narrative of confidence. When people are considering investing, they have, on the one hand, this option and, on the other hand, another. Let us give them that extra support to make sure that they make this decision rather than another one about where they want to put their money. Nick will probably have more to say about that, but I hope that that is helpful.
The de-risking aspect is interesting, because some businesses and some investors do not need that de-risking; they will just go for it. Those are the pioneers and those are the examples that we have seen.
However, to make this more mainstream, we need to help the majority, who are maybe more cautious, to understand how it works, because everyone has a different risk appetite. We have been trying to help to de-risk it for the majority and to give them tools to show how it works and point them to good examples, because that will help to mainstream this rather than it just being a few individuals.
Thank you.
Before I go on to my main line of questioning, in your opening statement, Mr Halfhide, you talked about some parliamentarians having made comments that “crossed the line”. Will you give us examples of that and how that has had an impact on NatureScot?
It has had an impact. I have not got the words to hand, but they are on public record. Some individuals are calling our organisation I think, the worst in the western world, and other individuals are questioning the competence of some of our staff. I raised that because I refute that. I have had staff in tears saying, “I have dedicated my life to this work,” so to be denigrated in public crosses a line. I must look after the welfare of my staff. I have not only a legal duty to do that, but a personal duty, so I take those comments very seriously and of course I react when I hear people making baseless comments.
It would be interesting for the committee to get examples of where you think comments have crossed the line and where they have had an impact on your staff. I would also ask you to recognise the difference between scrutiny and what you may think is crossing the line.
Absolutely—I understand that. I make that judgment, as do all of you, as to where putting stuff on the public record crosses a line. We are an evidence-based organisation, and being called the worst public agency in the western world, without evidence, is difficult for me. That creates an atmosphere, not only in Parliament but in wider society, in which members of the public can come up to one of my members of staff and their family in the local co-op and be abusive to them, as happened down in Galloway during the national park debate. Just this week, our headquarters in Inverness has been attacked and vandalised for the second time. That is deeply disturbing.
Sure—I well understand that. Given that you have made those comments, I think that it would be useful for the committee to have in writing where you think that folk have crossed the line. It would also be interesting to know if you have made any complaints about any individuals in cases where you think that comments have crossed a line.
I am happy to provide you with extracts from the public record.
On peatland and nature restoration—and on peatland restoration in particular—we have already heard from Professor Higgins, just a few minutes ago, about an example of the University of Edinburgh investing in peatland restoration. Are there other examples of private finance that you think can be used? Are there any changes to taxation that you think might be viable for peatland restoration? Given the importance of peatland restoration not only to Scotland’s climate change plan but to the UK’s climate change plan, do think that the UK Treasury should invest more in peatland restoration?
We should definitely invest more in peatland restoration. That is the bottom line. As you know, the Scottish Government has committed to doing that, or is committed to doing it, through the climate change plan. Our position is that we could do more if there was more money. It is a tricky situation: we do not want to overstimulate demand that we then cannot meet, but we feel that, if there was more money, we could stimulate demand and work with industry to meet it.
The key for us is not only the quantum of extra money. There are many other areas to consider, in fact, including the certainty of the long-term funding, whether it comes from private or public sources, so that the businesses involved in peatland restoration are willing to invest in the skills and the machinery required. There is also a need to recognise that there is a lead-in time. If we fund some design work on a piece of ground at the moment, it may be 18 months before the project comes through.
We increasingly require a greater level of private investment for peatland action. Previously, we might have funded nearly all peatland restoration; now, we require individual landowners to pay for some of it. As that market develops around the carbon code, we might expect that to be more attractive for private investment.
I return to my point about whether the UK Treasury should be investing more. You said that we need continuous multiyear funding in order to get this right. Do the funding streams need to change from the HMT level to become multiyear in order that we get this right?
It would be really helpful to have guaranteed multiyear funding. We have three-year funding in the pipeline. If we are to meet the targets to 2040, it will be very helpful to have long-term funding.
I am not a tax expert, so I cannot answer the point about taxation, but I am sure that there are changes that would be helpful.
Let us move on a little bit, to marine planning. Is marine planning working effectively at a more strategic level to guide sites towards areas of lower ecological sensitivity?
Are you referring particularly to offshore wind?
Offshore wind is probably one of the main areas, so let us start with that.
I would say that that has improved significantly in recent years. The ScotWind approach has been very helpful—it has involved a far more strategic approach than is applied on land, and that helped to guide most wind farms and most marine energy projects into more suitable places. As you know, we struggled with one of the larger developments pre-ScotWind. Our role is to give advice on the potential impact of all the marine energy proposals that are put forward.
One of my colleagues will probably go into more depth about this, but are there conflicts of interest with some of the assessments that you are carrying out because you are also a statutory consultee?
I do not understand what you are asking.
I am asking a general question. Do you feel that there are any conflicts with where you stand as an organisation on some of these issues?
I have never quite understood the argument, because we provide advice and evidence across a range of issues. There will be times when our advice about one species may need to take into account the impact on another species. We provide advice on a range of issues, such as the impact of a wind farm on a bird species or of the acoustic noise on cetaceans, or we might consider the impact of cables on the seabed. We look at, and provide advice on, a range of topics.
I am not trying to trap you in any pitfalls here, Mr Halfhide. You said that you do not understand the question, but the question about conflicts is asked by a number of people. I would have thought that you might have tried to find an answer for those folks who are sceptical and think that conflicts exist.
Our role is to protect and restore nature and to provide advice to decision makers. We do not have a business conflict of interest; we have an interest in helping decision makers to have all the evidence in front of them so that they can make decisions that are in the public interest. They will be gathering evidence from a range of other areas, particularly on the impact of any decisions on businesses and people, and we provide evidence about nature. We do the job that is asked of us. I do not feel that there is a conflict of interest.
Professor Higgins, as a board member, can you counter some of the folks who question your role and say that there may be conflicts?
I can give a simple answer. In my experience as a board member, I have never encountered that as an issue. It may be in a public narrative, but I have not encountered it. My answer would be the same as Nick Halfhide’s. I have nothing to add, although I wish that I had. If I knew more about it, I would give you more of a response.
We have moved on to the theme of marine and offshore planning. I have some questions on natural capital, which I will come back to, as we will stick to the marine theme at the moment.
You mentioned offshore wind and the strategic compensation policy. What are your views on moving away from the like-for-like compensation that we have in place to a system in which compensation could be granted somewhere completely different and for something completely different?
We welcome that. In the offshore environment, if we insisted on like-for-like compensation, there would be very little development. Standing back from it, we see that offshore wind and other renewables are really important for the nation. We look forward to seeing how we can invest more broadly in nature through the compensation scheme.
How would you see the scheme working? For example, if there was a new wind farm off the coast of Kent, who would decide what the compensation could be in parts of Scotland?
Kent is obviously beyond my jurisdiction. We have already seen that happening on a voluntary basis, but that could be the forerunner of its becoming a requirement. One offshore wind farm has put significant sums of money into onshore work in order to reduce the impact of invasive non-native species. It has allocated more than £1 million to help to reduce mink predation on the mainland and some of the islands. That is a way of relieving some of the broader pressure on nature, even though the wind farm is more likely to impact seabirds.
09:45
What would you see as NatureScot’s role in that process?
We would have a number of different roles. First, we would help to assess the impacts that a development might have, to see what damage would be caused. That is at one end of the process. At the other end, we would work on the ground with land managers and those who manage the sea to come up with measures that could be invested in that would have a real impact from that compensation. That is important.
One of the challenges of the current development process, which requires that compensation is like for like and often that it is very close by, is that the work that is being funded is of little ecological value. We can make that funding have a much more strategic impact.
If the compensation is not like for like, how would you make that assessment? How would you say that a given measure was the best equivalent, in terms of nature restoration, of any damage that a wind farm might cause?
It is really challenging, and that is work in progress. We have biodiversity metrics, which might be more developed further south for on-land developments, which we use to give a certain value. It is very complicated and there will be a lot of judgment involved. That is why we are taking our time to work that through with others.
Thanks.
Monica Lennon has some questions in this area.
On the same theme, I want to drill down into the governance arrangements and what you anticipate the role of NatureScot will be.
You have said that it is complex and that sites in England and other areas outwith Scotland are not within your jurisdiction. Let us say that an offshore wind farm has been consented, the compensation measures have been agreed and they are set out in conditions or legal agreements. Oversight of that would involve ensuring that the compensation measures are implemented properly and that the project is monitored and evaluated. How would the governance around all of that look?
My understanding is that, with any development, the authority that gives the permission and sets the conditions has the responsibility to ensure that those conditions are met. We would be an adviser to that end. We would help, for example, by saying what monitoring on the ground might need to be done or, if new projects needed to be found in order to help with the compensation, we might help to stimulate that. I suspect that the strict monitoring of the conditions will rest with the authority that gives the permission. In offshore wind, that authority will be with ministers and the marine directorate.
Do you anticipate that decisions will be made at a ministerial level, whether by UK ministers or Scottish ministers? Will that impact on local planning authorities?
My understanding is that, for offshore developments, decisions are made by ministers. The wind farms are offshore, obviously, but there is clearly an onshore component involved, because the energy has to come onshore at some stage. The local authorities are involved, through the planning lens, in deciding where the cables come onshore, where substations and the like might be needed, and where the pylons that cross the country will go. Although the wind farms are offshore, there is definitely an onshore component.
Then there are the huge local economic opportunities. I live up north, near Buckie, and I can see the change that is happening in that town already through the setting up of offices there for maintaining all of that. That is not my department, though.
That is helpful. I am just trying to understand the role of NatureScot in all of this, because it sounds as though there might be some joint working and a need for good communication, record keeping and data.
Yes, there is, and we are already closely involved. By the time a development comes forward for permission, we will have been talking to the developer for probably three or four years. In that pre-application period, they will come to us and ask what data they need to gather, and we will tell them what data they need to start gathering over a number of years and that we will go with them every step of the way. There are seven stages that we map out with them, right the way through to decommissioning, which seems a long way off. As we know from the oil and gas sector, you need to think about decommissioning now, because it is something in the future that has to be planned for.
There is that long-term approach. Pete, do you want to comment?
There is also a UK perspective, and the Kent example is a good one because migratory species coming to Scotland might be impacted by a wind development in Kent, and vice versa. New developments, such as Berwick Bank, will have impacts on England as well, so the role of the joint nature conservation committee is to have broader oversight. Some elements are clearly Scottish, but others refer to Natural England and to the JNCC. There is a complicated range of discussions that need to take place on some issues. I hope that helps.
Is that change likely to be part of a broader shift to strategic biodiversity compensation approaches? What are your views?
That is an interesting question, because we see that happening in England already. In effect, developers can put money into a bank that our sister organisation, Natural England, then administers. We could go down that route in Scotland, but we have not ventured there yet and it could be quite challenging to do so, because there are many different elements. It is probably useful that we have dipped a toe in the water with offshore development, where there is significant work and opportunity. If we were doing like for like, the compensation just would not exist.
I can give some colour by explaining some of the ideas that have come from industry already, before we move down the compensation route. One idea was to pay fishermen in Portugal to change the nets they use, because some of our migratory species were getting entangled in those nets off the Portuguese coast. Some of the thinking about interventions went as wide as that.
I will stick with the subject of your role as a statutory consultee in the consenting and planning process, initially with regard to on-land projects and developments. In the course of the past year, have any projects that went to planning been delayed as a result of NatureScot not having the capacity to respond within the timescale for consideration of the planning application?
I do not have that information to hand, but I can provide it if that would be helpful. I can also give you a general comment, but I cannot think of any specifics.
Let me hear your general comment first.
My general comment is that we aim to meet the timescales required by local authorities or by the Scottish Government for larger applications, and my understanding is that we succeed in most instances. However, there may be cases in which we cannot meet the timescale because the evidence has not yet been given to us by the applicant.
The examples that I know of where we have met the timescale concern some of the major wind farm applications and, crucially, the major transmission lines. We met the timescale for that development, which required a considerable investment of our time. We had to understand the importance of that work to balance the grid and ensure that all that renewable energy could start flowing.
Are there times when you do not make it?
Historically, we have not always made it, and in some instances, although very few, we have asked for an extension.
Are you able to quantify on how many occasions you have not been able to meet the timescale?
Not off the top of my head, but I can provide that information in writing if that would help.
It would be good if you could provide that in writing.
How does your organisation, with the resources that you have, respond to the challenge that you face when you are unable to meet the timeframes for planning applications for which you are a statutory consultee? What happens? You are the chief executive and you are in charge, so the buck stops with you. What do you do to ensure that your agency is taking action to prevent that happening in the future?
Most of it predates me, but we have taken action over many years to ensure that we have the right people in the right place to deal with the highest-priority applications. I will give you a few examples of what we have done. We have introduced a new system called InformedDECISION, which is an artificial intelligence system that allows planning authorities and developers to know at the outset what information about nature with regard to their application is available in the public domain, so that they can provide the information that we require. Because the machine provides that, we not have to, which frees up staff to go on to the front line. We have also slightly increased our number of staff working in this area, so that we can deal with the tighter timescales required by Government and the increasing demand, both onshore and offshore. I know that your comment was about onshore, but we will be starting to charge for our offshore services from 1 April, so that we can increase our capacity to deal with the exponential increase in marine energy cases.
It looks as though, on occasions, you do not meet the timeframe. You are not clear about exactly why that is the case, and you do not know the figure for the number of cases in the past year in which you have not been able to meet the timeframe as a statutory consultee for local planning matters. Pete Higgins, what sort of discussion takes place at the board in relation to the executive team’s oversight of these matters?
I have not encountered that matter at board level. Nick Halfhide’s response to your question implied—to me anyway—that there may be issues, which may be historical, but he does not have the information. I have not seen anything relating to that at board level, so my assessment would be that no information has come to the board, therefore I cannot comment. If there were issues of slippage, the board would want to know why and what could be done about it. Following this meeting and Nick’s written response to the questions that you have asked, I would hope that something would come to the board, so that we could ask the appropriate questions at board level. I hope that that helps.
We are in a situation where the chief executive does not know the figure for the past year but we do know that there are delays that have an impact on live planning applications, for which you are the statutory consultee, and, to date, the board has had no oversight of that. Is that correct?
I have no recollection of the board having oversight of that. That does not mean that my memory is quite what it should be, but I have no recollection of that.
Nick, you made reference to being a statutory consultee to the energy consents unit when it is considering applications. Over the course of the past year, have you been late in responding to the energy consents unit when it is considering an energy application? At any point, has that delayed consideration by the ECU?
My answer is the same, but I will elaborate if I may. I do not have that information to hand, but none of my colleagues has flagged an issue with regard to our being late, or any concerns from the ECU or local authorities. I am interested in the information that you have, deputy convener. You are clearly concerned that we are not meeting the timeframes, whereas my organisation is telling me that we are meeting them.
The buck stops with you. You confirmed earlier that there are cases in which you are not able to make it on time, but you were not able to give us the details. We know that it happens. I know that it happens. I am asking you for details of the oversight that you have as the chief executive of the organisation in making sure that you are addressing these issues when they arise, how you go about doing that and how you make sure that the board has proper oversight of the issue. I ask that because it is an on-going issue for the industry that you do not have the necessary capacity to deal with the demand that you face for dealing with energy consents.
If that is your view—
No, it is not my view. You have already confirmed that there are cases in which it does not happen.
There are cases of every statutory body asking for extensions, but that is not always through a lack of capacity. It is often because the information provided by the applicant has been insufficient for us to make the assessment within the timeframe.
Can you give us a breakdown of that data? I know of specific cases where that is not the case.
10:00
I am absolutely happy to give you that data. I just do not have it in my head.
I know of specific cases in which it is just that you did not have the internal capacity to deal with the application.
We are really stretched, but we deal with the highest-priority ones, and we prioritise energy—both on and offshore—and energy transmission.
Okay. It would be interesting to see a breakdown of the cases that go to the ECU—against local authorities—for which you are not able to meet the timeframes, what the reasons are for that and what actions you have taken, as well as how you ensure that the board has proper oversight of those issues when they arise.
I am happy to take that away.
Will you come back to the committee with those details?
I will come back in writing.
Thank you.
I will keep going with the flow, saving my question to the end as a quickfire. Monica Lennon has the next questions, which are on biodiversity.
I want to briefly ask something that is supplementary to the deputy convener’s question. Nick, in your opening comments, you talked about the complexity of your organisation’s work but also said that, at times, it can be contentious. It is important that we see in writing some of the data behind what has just been discussed. I am going back a long time to when I worked as a planning officer but, often, the quality of information determines how quickly a decision can be made or a response given. It will be important to see that in writing. Given what you said about some of the abuse that has been levelled at your staff, we need to take the heat out of the issue and deal in facts.
I turn to the biodiversity delivery plan. We have heard about the nature and climate emergency and the need to halt the decline of biodiversity by 2030. You did not sound entirely confident that targets would be met in relation to woodlands. Will you talk us generally through the key milestones that need to be delivered early in the next parliamentary session if Scotland is to have a chance of halting the decline of biodiversity by 2030?
Yes, I am happy to do that, and I am sure that Pete Higgins will come in with his expertise.
The Scottish biodiversity delivery plan has more than 100 different actions. That in itself shows the complexity of the activities that need to be undertaken across land, sea, freshwater and coastal activities. We have just started the delivery. Some elements are delivering well but others are more challenging.
I will start with those that are delivering well. We are particularly pleased with some of the nature restoration work, whether that is peatland restoration or some of the landscape-scale work that we and others have funded. A lot of good stuff is going on.
In the more challenging middle ground is the aspiration to have 30 per cent of our land and seas protected and in good condition. More than 30 per cent of the sea is already protected, but I would not say that it is in good condition. On the land, we are at about 18 per cent. We are introducing a new approach, called nature30, which allows a range of private landowners and community owners to put their land into a long-term stewardship that is slightly less constricted than some of the formal designations. That is the middle ground.
More challenging areas probably concern the pace of reform on agricultural support, which I imagine the new Parliament will want to look at very closely.
Another area to highlight is deer and species management, including invasive non-native species, on which we estimate we need to spend around £40 million a year. We are not spending anywhere near that.
Some of the challenges that others have alluded to concern species that elicit challenging responses. No one has mentioned beavers yet, or white-tailed eagles. Those are challenging for the individuals who may have them and be struggling to run a business—not all of those, but some—but the situation also puts a dampener, for want of a better expression, on some of the wider public debate about just how important it is to engage with nature and get it right.
Deer management continues to be challenging. Again, that is an area where we have some incentives at the moment. We have dedicated staff working on it, and we have a huge contribution from the voluntary sector, but in an ideal world, if we had another £5 million a year to provide incentives, we could make more of an impact on reducing red deer numbers in the open range and, what is actually slightly harder, roe deer numbers in the lowlands. That would have a significant benefit for biodiversity.
I think that I have talked too much. Pete, did you want to come in?
I will add a few points, primarily about the multiple benefits of doing certain things. We have talked a little about the significance of peatlands as carbon stores and the ways in which rewetting and restoring peatlands has benefits from the point of view of ensuring that we are not releasing COinto the atmosphere. Even with the numbers that we are talking about in the programme of work that is going forward, even if we succeed in all those areas with peatland, we will be dealing with only a sixth of the area of Scotland that is currently releasing CO. However, there are also benefits for wildlife in doing that work. You are not just stopping the release of CObut providing benefits for wildlife.
The same is true of INNS, which cost the economy about £240 million a year or something, but the amount of money going into dealing with INNS is a fraction of that. If you deal with invasive non-native species, you enhance our biodiversity status across a range of different species and habitats. That also makes those habitats more enjoyable for people to spend time in. We relate that to public benefit in other ways, including the access issues that you were talking about earlier.
My point is that we have the knowledge and the mechanisms to improve biodiversity across the piece. Are we going to meet the 30 by 30 target across the whole range of environments? As Nick said, I would love to think that we will, and staff are working hard to do so, but it is a real challenge. We are dealing with, make no mistake, a very highly degraded environment in many of our habitats in Scotland. There is so much to be done. I hope that that helps a little.
Yes, it does. Thank you, Pete. Some of the earlier comments from Nick were obviously important for us to hear today, and they are now on record for the next Parliament to pick up the baton. It is clear what the ambition is and what the milestones are, but there are a number of risks that could hold us back.
I will ask you about skills. We have talked a lot about people in your organisation and about people who work in various industries in Scotland in both the public and private sectors. Is there a risk around skills? Do we have the right people doing the right jobs, and do they have the skills to take us forward to 2030 and beyond?
We work with nature—I say that in the broadest sense. Farmers work with nature, as do nature conservationists and people in the renewables sector—it is a real growth industry for Scotland. We have been working closely with colleges in particular to try to stimulate the market in that skills sector.
I have said this before in public, but one of the things that holds us back is housing in rural areas. We need more people in the countryside, not fewer, and we need more affordable housing, particularly if people in the nature sector are competing for those houses with folk who either have much better-paid jobs or who are not using them on a full-time basis. There is a direct link with housing. I have seen in my time how hard it is for our staff to live at Beinn Eighe, one of our nature reserves near Kinlochewe. Partly as a result of that, the primary school has closed. We want the communities in rural areas to be vibrant and to have more work, not less.
Historically, part of my work has been in the world of education at university level, with people who become teachers and so on. I have attended committees in the past to talk about learning for sustainability and the environment. It is an educational construct that we developed in a previous parliamentary session.
The idea that education in Scotland has strong links with sustainability and the environment is in place, but it is not in place enough for young people to really believe that there will be jobs across the wide range of areas that Nick is referring to—and to be confident that they will get jobs—and that restoring peatlands is a worthwhile career opportunity. To address that requires a public narrative that says that we care about nature and that it is part of our national identity. The more that we can do that, the more people will look towards those jobs.
For example, restoring peatlands is problematic because there are not enough people out there to do it—there is a job shortage. How do you deal with that? You provide training courses, but you also make sure that, as Nick said, the necessary broader environment, including housing, is in place in those areas. We are starting from a low base and we have a lot to do.
I strongly agree that we need a joined-up approach.
I am watching the clock; the convener is sitting right there. I just have one more question, convener, about the progress that we need to make on the 30 by 30 target. What progress has NatureScot made in assessing potential areas for other effective area-based conservation measures—OECMs—and how have you been engaging with land managers? When might we see the first OECMs put in place?
I am happy to talk about that. We have been working very closely with a whole range of stakeholders. The cabinet secretary launched the first of the OECMs, which we relabelled “nature30” for convenience. I was actually there because it is just by my house in Findhorn.
The four first sites were the Loch Arkaig pine forest, the Findhorn Hinterland, Loch Wood, which is the Blackwood Estate Community Association project, and some of the Forestry and Land Scotland site down in Knapdale. We have been working with the public sector, but mostly with the private sector and community groups, to have a pipeline of new areas coming forward.
It is worth reflecting that when I talk about this in the rest of the UK and abroad, people look with envy at what we have done here, because we have taken such a collaborative approach. The International Union for Conservation of Nature has applauded our approach in Scotland as world leading, because we are working with people who own and manage the land and who want to run businesses and have communities there, but in a way that is nature rich.
I am optimistic, but we need to move at pace to move, on land, from 18 to 30 per cent. I do not have the figures in my head, but we need to shift a lot of hectares into that accolade space where we say to people, “You are doing such a good job that we want to reward you with the accolade of nature30 status”.
That is encouraging. Thank you.
Bob, you have some questions.
I do. I want to ask about your biodiversity delivery plan, which mentions that there will be a new action plan on invasive species, which came up a little bit earlier.
I had a look on the internet to find out what previous action plans looked like. I think that the previous one was the Scottish invasive species initiative, which ran to 2023—I do not know whether there was something after that. Listed as priorities were giant hogweed, Japanese knotweed, Himalayan balsam, American skunk cabbage, white butterbur and American mink. Is the new plan out yet? What are the priorities?
Ministers are hoping to launch the national plan, I think, before the end of the session, and we have just consulted on that national plan.
On the detail, you talked about the SISI, which is an on-going initiative to tackle all those species. We have just received additional funds from both the nature restoration fund and, as I alluded to earlier, one of the offshore wind farms to help to sustain that project and expand it so that it can tackle some of those invasive plants and species.
In addition, we have really big programmes to try to deal with invasive species on some of the islands, where the impacts are considerable if those species get out of control.
I am fine with that. I am trying to understand whether there has been a gap. Did SISI run beyond 2023? Your website says that phase 1 concluded in 2023.
Sorry—I need to update our website. The initiative has continued and expanded. It relies heavily on volunteers and is really engaging locally.
10:15
Some species that are noted on your website are not listed as part of the project, such as the signal crayfish, the carpet sea squirt and the good old rhododendron. How does NatureScot determine which invasive species become priorities? What action do you take? How can we, as a parliamentary committee, measure the impact that NatureScot has had?
There is a multipronged element to that. The priority depends on what the local priority is. We often work with local communities and actors to determine the priority in their catchment.
On the west coast, the priority might well be rhododendron. We have a number of big projects to try to reduce the impact of rhododendron. In some of the main salmon rivers, the priority is more likely to be controlling mink and dealing with some of the plant species that you mentioned.
In each individual case, we use a series of measurements to see whether what we have done has been successful, and we think about how we can sustain that success over subsequent years.
How would our successor committee have a conversation with you about that this time next year? You might tell us in February 2026 that the emerging priorities are X, Y and Z. After a year has passed, how can we find out how you have got on by looking at the data and the measurements? I think that you are saying that the local action plans are separate from the national priorities.
The national plan, on which we have been consulting recently, will pull all that information together so that, quite rightly, we can judge whether we are having an impact at a national level. We will measure our impact by looking at the sum of the individual projects, as it were, and at what is not happening.
That is all very general. Do you want to come in, Professor Higgins?
There is an element of cost-benefit analysis to prioritising. How much return can you get from the investment that you put in when you have limited staff and resources? Recently, an INNS paper to the board has gone to the scientific advisory committee for review.
In essence, we take a triaging approach. In medical terms, that is about how to prevent further harm. For example, in relation to signal crayfish, which you mentioned, we used a freshwater ecologist and a salmon biologist. Signal crayfish are not seen but, if you allow them to come into certain areas, they will have a major impact on existing crayfish and other species.
We might say that preventing a species from arriving somewhere in the first place is the number 1 priority. The number 2 priority might be how to get the best return for the investment that we can make. The number 3 priority might be considering the degree to which, some way down the line, a long-term solution might be necessary, such as a project that might last for five or 10 years to, for example, eradicate mink from an island.
I hope that that answer helps in setting out how NatureScot staff think about such issues. They think of it as triaging.
That answer does help, and I hope that my line of questioning will help in relation to precise examples that our successor committee might ask about next year.
I sometimes go on to the internet—which is not always very reliable—to cross-reference what it says on NatureScot’s website. It is said that the nature emergency and the impact of non-invasive species can have an annual economic cost of tens of millions of pounds, or £100 million-plus. I do not understand how that works in practice, but someone has quantified the economic impact, and the primary nature impact is obviously substantial.
I would like to see specific examples—such examples might exist; I might just not have done enough preparation for the meeting—that quantify the investment that has been made and the action that has been taken. I know that this is your field, Professor Higgins, but what you do will not always work. You will get some things right, and some bits will not go so well. You will learn from that, and a new strategy will emerge. Our committee would like to touch, feel and smell some of that work, so that we can scrutinise it.
Absolutely—I get the point. The plan will provide a national picture, and I can provide you with local examples. For example, on Orkney, where we have invested significantly in removing invasive non-native stoats, we can see nature returning. We have quantified that. I understand your point about wanting to see how that entire sum adds up.
The danger of being asked a question at the end of an evidence session is that it gives the member time to look online for additional information. That is good, because it leads to a more informal line of questioning. I would like to be able to go beneath some of the headline narrative to look at actions and quantify what has been done.
My final question is on a topic that might have been partly covered. The biodiversity delivery plan set out that, by 2025, NatureScot would develop an approach to targeted peatland restoration investment. We have heard about that already. Are you able to say anything about the outcome of that work? What opportunities are there for peatland restoration funding to be better targeted at climate and nature goals? There are some good examples out there of peatland restoration simultaneously boosting farming opportunities and nature restoration. In other words, it is not an either/or. Can you provide any more details?
Yes, I can give a good example of what we are trying to do. I mentioned a farm earlier, and I will move on to a different example. The River Peffery, which runs through Dingwall, has a history of flooding. We have targeted peatland restoration and the planting of trees along the riverbank, and we have worked with one of the farmers to re-wiggle—that is not a technical term—the river. All those measures combined have reduced the flooding risk to the extent that it is now possible to do further development in the business park, which was not previously possible because of the flooding. That is an example of where we wanted to target our work on peatland so that it complemented all the other work. Does that help?
It does. That is a positive thing. I asked for a case study and you have given me a specific example, which is very helpful. However, my underlying question was about whether we can do more of that targeted work and how we can roll that out and quantify it.
You are absolutely right. We are now well into the peatland restoration process, but when we started that work, it was a question of doing it where we could, where we had someone who was willing to work with us and we knew that it would all work. As the peatland restoration work has developed and become more sophisticated, we have started to use a greater range of evidence and material to work out not only where peatland restoration is easy but where it would have the best impact.
We are beginning to look at criteria such as where peatland is emitting the most and where restoration would reduce the risk of flooding or drought the most, taking into account climate change projections. Therefore, we probably need to do far more work in the east, where it is projected to be drier, with the result that erosion rates will increase. We are also looking at linking peatland restoration with deer management far more than we did previously. We no longer fund if deer numbers are too high, because that will just undo the restoration work.
Peatland restoration is beginning to be a much more sophisticated and targeted intervention that takes account of other interventions locally and of where the benefits would be greatest.
You say that there has been greater targeting, which has been a success. To ask the question another way, are you able to quantify that? You assert that there has been greater targeting and that that has been successful. I have no reason to doubt that, but what is your baseline? How do we know that there has been greater targeting, case studies aside? How is that quantified?
That is a really good question. I do not know the answer. I will have to take that away and think about how we can show that we have taken a more targeted approach.
I have no more questions.
I will let Mark Ruskell and Douglas Lumsden ask a couple of brief questions, and then I will ask some questions at the end.
What are the implications of the provisions of the Natural Environment (Scotland) Bill that feed into your major workstreams?
There are many, but I will focus on two. One of the implications relates to the statutory targets. When they come into force, they will be a significant driver for us. As well as helping us to provide evidence to support the measurement process, we are expecting the statutory targets to drive co-ordination across Government, as has been the case in other fields of public life. For us, that is really significant, because we know—as you will all know—just how busy Government is doing individual things. Having statutory targets really helps to concentrate the mind. We will support that with evidence and with conversations right across Government in order to help that adjustment and the benefits that we think that it will bring.
The second point, out of many, to which I will draw the committee’s attention is around deer management. The extra powers and responsibilities in the legislation will help. Although we know that regulation is a pretty blunt tool, it can be effective in influencing behaviour in the deer management sector, which is, as we all know, largely voluntary—and you regulate a voluntary sector at your peril. Regulation is not the be-all and end-all, but it can be useful, and it will help to shift the balance for many deer managers; it will help them to make the shift and do what many of them already want to do.
I will be brief. I have a question for you on your annual report and accounts. Under losses, there is a section on “claims waived or abandoned”, which totals £675,000 over the past two years. It states that:
“This represents claims paid to Third Party Grantees which were then subsequently rejected by Scottish Government as part of the Final Claim.
It also states that that relates to the ERDF structural funds. If I am reading it correctly, that is money that you have paid out, but which people were not actually entitled to, so the Scottish Government is not then pushing that money across to you. Is that right?
Those were European funds, as the committee knows. Claims that have been rejected by the Scottish Government represent a very small percentage of the overall amount.
As I said, it is a very small amount of money where, for example, we will have made up that difference to the applicant, because we have accepted the claim in good faith. I think that there was also one example where the applicant had made an error and therefore they had to carry that. That is where we would have to make up the shortfall, because the European rules were incredibly complicated. With all the good faith and double and triple scrutiny, there was a very small number of cases where the claim that we had assessed was then rejected.
You say that it is a small amount, but it is still £675,000 of public money. Have you tightened up the criteria? Have you looked at the governance arrangements to make sure that it does not happen again?
The programme is now complete. It was European money, which is why the rules were so tied up.
Is there no way of getting that money back?
No. We have tried—we have given that the utmost scrutiny. However, the European rules are complex, they change and they are open to interpretation. That is why we had those considerable—but, percentage-wise, small—losses.
I have some quickfire questions for you, Nick.
The Scottish outdoor access code, which Mark Ruskell referred to, is just over 20 years old. It is probably time for a review—nothing lasts for 20 years without needing some review. We have seen less money going into rangers, core paths and footpaths from local councils, and collapsing local access forums. How can you say that it is not time to review it, and that that is not one of your priorities?
We have been undertaking refreshments as it has been going along. The Scottish outdoor access code has been one of this nation’s great successes over the past 20 years—
I would not disagree with that, but to keep it relevant, you have to keep reviewing it.
We do that. I had not finished answering. We do not think that the whole thing needs reviewing. However, we keep updating individual elements of it as new things, such as paddle boarding, come forward.
Pete, you are an expert in this field, so I defer to you.
The first time that I was in this room, which was 25 years ago, I was giving evidence on the Scottish outdoor access code. My view then is the same as my view now, which is that there is nothing wrong with the code or the legislation that is associated with it. However, as the convener highlighted, there is a changing resource environment, as a result of both increased access to the countryside—which is, on the whole, a good thing—and changing perceptions.
10:30
The push for a review has come to the board and we have agreed that there is no real case for it at the moment. If I were to make a plea, it would be for the outdoor access code to be part of Scottish children’s education from the day that they start school. This has been my world, but the difficulty is ensuring that it is properly understood and that investment goes into it.
I have a point to make about legislation. I was involved in advising on the Schools (Residential Outdoor Education) (Scotland) Bill, which went through Parliament recently. If we are not careful, that legislation will focus primarily on what happens in residential centres, although we need to get young people to understand, from a very early age, that they can walk out the door and experience certain rights and responsibilities that will continue through the rest of their lives whenever they go into an environment beyond the local.
In addition, there is the issue of increasing numbers of people who come to Scotland—and, of course, bring money into our economy—but do not understand the outdoor access code, which creates a resource issue for Nick Halfhide to deal with.
Nick, I will take you back to 2023, when there was a great fanfare and a memorandum of understanding with Hampden & Co and Lombard Odier about releasing £2 billion to be invested in the environment. That was all to do with carbon credits. At a meeting last night, I heard the carbon credit market being described as the wild west. How much of the potential £2 billion that was announced in 2023 has actually materialised?
Not very much of it so far, because it is taking longer than we thought. As I mentioned earlier, the markets are less confident than they were and, although it is not harder than we thought it would be, it is really difficult. There are some successes and those are building. There will be a big conference next Thursday, involving a load of investors looking at that. You are right that we have not got as far or moved as quickly as we would have wanted. We talk about “patient capital” and we are having to be quite patient in our efforts to develop that market.
There is some concern that money is being invested to build portfolios to be released into the carbon credit market when it actually matures.
I turn to your report, which says that you have 12 board members and that you extended the service period for seven members whose first term ended on 31March 2025. They are supposed to serve a four-year term but appear still to be in place. Can you confirm that none of them will serve more than the eight years that the legislation entitles them to?
That is not my decision. In making those appointments, ministers will have a eye to the rules regarding board members.
It is not good to spend too long in one job and it is good to have some churn, but to have seven board members stepping down at the end of 2028 when their term is up would be quite a big churn, especially with another four members going the next year. That would be a huge churn, would it not? It might not be good, although it might be good to have some new blood. Pete, you are one of those people whose term has been extended. Can you tell me why that is a good idea?
I would love to say that it is because I am good at my job.
I had a conversation with our chair about my extension. I was aware that, for a range of reasons, a number of board members were appointed at the same time as me. By April, I will be into my fifth year, and my term has been extended to the maximum, which is eight years, according to the framework that Nick Halfhide just provided. In that conversation, I said that I could go now, or after one, two, three or four years, because I realise that change should take place throughout that period rather than NatureScot losing all its board members at once and getting another bunch in.
A new bunch of board members have been appointed and the current chair will ensure that there is a review at the end of their first term regarding how long each will stay. That will depend partly on their responsibilities and, probably, on their performance, although that is not my remit. You can be assured that the issue is on the mind of our chair, Colin Galbraith.
I am just concerned that it seems to be a huge churn at one stage. Any proper organisation, when planning ahead, would look to change two or three every couple of years.
That is precisely what he is doing.
I understand that that is what you are saying, but it is not possible to read that from the report. It just seems like an extension.
Turning to valuations, plant and equipment, the land values that are held by SNH have dropped. Those must be the only land values in Scotland to have done so. Why have they dropped?
I am not sure why they have dropped. I cannot think why. I will need to check that for you.
I would not be so impertinent as to suggest that it was to do with the management. I am sure that there must be a reason, on which you will get back to the committee.
Yes. As you know, we do not run our land as a commercial operation, but it is worth pointing out, as an aside, that we have peatland credits on one of our reserves, so we are actually doing one of the things that we have been talking about, which is to look at alternative approaches. We also have a hydro scheme, which generates nicely for us.
That will probably all go up in value, then.
That is why I am surprised. I will need to look into it, to see why.
Maybe there was a sale in there somewhere.
I have another thing to ask, for clarity. I think that the average pay for employees in your organisation is about £40,000, and your predecessor was on something between £115,000 and £120,000. Are you in that range?
The post was advertised at £115,000.
That did not answer the question. I am asking whether your pay is within the range of £115,000 to £120,000.
Yes, it is.
Thank you. That was a simple answer.
That is all our questions. You have agreed to come back to the committee on some things. The committee has a fairly short shelf life—that is the nicest way of describing it. Before we go into election mode, our last meeting is almost literally the day before the end of business this session—I think it is 27 March or something like that. Will you respond as quickly as possible?
Yes.
The clerks will prompt you with the questions to which we seek answers, just to make sure that we get them on time. Thank you for giving evidence this morning.
I suspend the meeting, to allow a changeover of witnesses.
10:37
Meeting suspended.
10:46
On resuming—
Air adhart
Subordinate Legislation