Seòmar agus comataidhean

The point about hectarage that you and the Woodland Trust make is a good one. The Forestry and Land Management (Scotland) Act 2018 strengthened the law to cover woodlands of less than 0.5 hectares. Doug Howieson will correct me if I am wrong, but I think that felling permission is required for areas of 0.1 to 0.5 hectares. As I said, there are very few circumstances in which felling permission would be afforded in relation to ancient woodland.

Enforcement is important. I know from my ministerial and constituency roles that concerns are frequently expressed about felling being undertaken without regard to the rules or the enforcement action that might be taken as a result. Such felling is criminal offence and can result in a fine of up to £5,000. We strengthened the rules in 2018 to provide that Scottish Forestry does not require a successful prosecution to make a restocking direction. Scottish Forestry can step in and take action where the landowner is not doing so.

However, despite all of that, I understand the frustration that people feel when they see things going on that are not in line with the rules. Doug Howieson, I and our teams try to respond proactively to such cases. When they are raised with us, we investigate the circumstances. I remain open minded to any ways that we can ensure that the rules are complied with across the board.

You have described the two greatest threats that our woodlands face. On deer, I come back to the analogy about the grandparent tree standing alone in the forest, which brings the situation to life. We need to do something to allow the natural regeneration process, which our ancient woodlands are well placed to deliver, to flourish.

The Government received the recommendations of the deer working group and we responded last year. We committed to implementing the vast majority of the recommendations, save for one—because of welfare concerns, we do not support the recommendation on the close season for female deer. We can take non-legislative actions and we can take actions that will require primary legislation. We will take forward the non-legislative actions now through the biodiversity strategy, and we will have the natural environment bill later in the parliamentary session. I am not leading on that bill, but I expect it to contain any actions that need primary legislation. The issue is very much a focus for this session.

As with deer, dealing with invasive non-native species is laborious and requires boots on the ground for hard work to clear what is largely rhododendron. When I was in the west Highlands recently, I saw that consuming the forest floor. Our forestry grant scheme already supports landowners with funds to help with clearing rhododendron.

We are working with the Alliance for Scotland’s Rainforest as part of our commitment to protecting and restoring Scotland’s rainforest, and we are backing that with funds from our £500 million of investment in the natural economy. We have opened a nature restoration fund; I do not remember the exact figure, but I think that it is a multiannual fund of £60 million, from which £12.5 million is available this year. Bids are in for that and are being considered by NatureScot. I expect some of that to rise to the challenges of dealing with invasive non-native species; the bids will be confirmed in the spring.

It is good to be with you all to discuss this really important topic, as reflected in the number of signatories to the petition. I share their views on the importance of the issue.

I will split your question into two parts. The first relates to our efforts on new woodland creation and the native component of that, and the second is about the actions that we are taking to protect, restore and grow the remaining natural and semi-natural ancient woodlands.

The Scottish Government’s woodland creation objective is to manage our woodlands for the number of co-benefits that they can provide for the country. That spans economic and environmental opportunities, as well as social opportunities. Our challenge is to manage their creation in ways that reflect all those things.

We have ambitious targets for creation that reflect our ambitious climate change targets. We also have targets within that. For example, we had a target that, as a minimum, 3,000 hectares of all woodland planted in Scotland should be native broad-leaved woodland. We have been meeting and exceeding that target and therefore have taken action to increase it. We have moved the floor from a minimum of 3,000 hectares to a minimum of 4,000 hectares.

In our biodiversity strategy, which is currently being worked on, we have committed to look at the evidence, to see whether that target could be more ambitious still. We also carry out other activities. For example, the forestry grant scheme has supported 12,000 hectares of native planting in the past three years. That is about efforts to create, and if we think about—

That is a really good question. In so far as I can, I am taking an active role in the development of NPF4 to ensure that a whole range of objectives in the environment portfolio are facilitated through it. The protection of our woodlands is one of those objectives.

I said previously that the legal landscape is complicated, but I do not think that it is vague or ineffective. There are good reasons why, for example, you will not currently find in law a ban on the removal of certain trees in woodlands, although there are examples, which I mentioned, of when works might need to be done to support the woodland’s conservation as a whole.

We need planning documents to be direct and explicit, but we must be able to apply them right across the country, and the narrower the language in the documents, the more difficult it becomes to apply them. Having said that, I will repeat what the current draft of NPF4 that is being consulted on says. It says:

“Development proposals should not be supported where they would result in any loss of ancient woodlands”,

which is very pointed for a planning document. I am pleased about that. However, I am, of course, working with stakeholders and, if they think that the language needs to be strengthened, I will be an advocate for that.

As it stands, NPF4 is clear and unequivocal. We must now look at all the other pressures that bear down on our ancient woodlands, including deer, invasive non-native species, climate change and wildfires. I am happy and comfortable that, across the piece, we are trying to rise to those challenges. NPF4 is still in draft and is a moving document.

Doug, do you want to come in?

That was very much about new woodland creation. I have previously thought hard about woodlands that already exist, and even more so before coming in today, and I admit that it is a complex set of rules and regulations that determines the protection of ancient and native woodlands. For example, we have a system of sites of special scientific interest where native and ancient woodlands of a particular size or antiquity are protected by those environmental designations. If there was an application to fell something in an SSSI, felling permission or an SSSI consent would have to be sought.

The Forestry and Land Management (Scotland) Act 2018, which strengthened the relevant legislation, provides for the management of potential felling of those woodlands. Again, that means that any felling between 0.1 and 0.5 hectares would have to get felling permission.

Both of those routes therefore take us to felling permission, and we might ask in what circumstances felling would be allowed in our ancient woodlands. Ultimately, there are very few circumstances in which felling of any ancient woodland would be approved. The regulations are in almost the strongest possible terms without providing for a total ban. You can understand why there is not a total ban when you consider the exceptional circumstances in which felling might be approved. Doug Howieson can correct me if I am wrong, but it could be in relation to breaking up the canopy of the forest to allow light in to support the woodland floor and growth of the ancient woodlands. It could also be about removing invasive non-native species.

There is a very robust, albeit complex, web of protections, which, when they operate correctly, should absolutely protect our ancient woodlands. However, there are threats. I am sure that we will come on to this, but there are threats from overgrazing, invasive non-native species and climate change generally. I will pause there, but we can come on later to talk about how the Government is trying to rise to some of those challenges.

Yes, I think that they probably are. As MSPs, we probably all feel that, across the areas that we represent, there are some exceptionally active communities that are able to advocate on their own behalf and get organised, whereas there are others that are not able to do that. I think that we all need to address that disparity.

Last week, I visited Loch Arkaig with the Woodland Trust Scotland and the local community development group, which are undertaking a joint venture for the restoration of the woodland at Loch Arkaig. That is a prime example of communities that are really organised and doing exceptionally well, which you just talked about. You are also right to say that there are other communities that are less well organised, although not for the want of trying, I suspect. As I mentioned, I am really keen to ensure that communities are supported. I take that very seriously.

There probably is a lesson for us in how accessible much of this is. I talked about the complex networks of rules. I am comfortable that those protect the woodlands but whether they are accessible is a different question. The work that we are trying to do on the register should help to open that up and make it something that everyone can be involved in.

I will make a couple of points and then hand over to Doug Howieson, who can give a more technical overview of the existing rules and the extent to which they might already be akin to what you ask for.

You mentioned the community nominating woodlands that folks would like to be protected. I am enthusiastic about community involvement in the management and co-development of woodlands not least because any kind of development that is happening on people’s doorsteps ought to involve them and they ought to benefit from it. Also, as we move in the next 20 or 25 years towards our net zero targets, the way that we use Scotland’s land will change and I want communities to benefit from that. Therefore, I am always mindful of how I, working with officials, can build in greater community engagement, ownership and development.

On the question about to what extent the system that we have already is akin to the schedule of ancient monuments, I will hand over to Doug Howieson. I suspect that it is similar to, but dealt with differently from, some of the schemes that we have been talking about.

That is a really interesting point, which applies here, as it does across the piece in relation to many of the actions that we need to take when faced with a climate and nature emergency. Over the next generation and beyond, the magnitude of our task will be enormous, whether in relation to the natural environment, with the funds that it will take to do what we need to do, or in relation to homes and buildings or the decarbonisation of transport. The costs are eye watering, and the public sector cannot support that itself. We need to find ways of leveraging responsible private investment: that is a big factor of the resourcing question, because we cannot do it ourselves.

Going back to the point about community empowerment and community benefit, I am keen to ensure that private investment is responsible private investment, but it has to be leveraged, and we can do that through carbon markets. That applies to woodlands, as it does to peatland restoration, which is a really important action, although it is very expensive.

On a different subject, in the Government, we are trying to provide funding for peatland restoration that will bring confidence into the market, which will allow others to come in and support that work. That applies across the piece.

Of course.