Seòmar agus comataidhean

Members will be aware that we have so many amazing rewilding nature restoration projects under way across Scotland, many of which have been funded by the nature restoration fund, and communities and non-governmental organisations are often involved in managing those sites. However, no current level of protection is given to those undesignated sites, such as community-owned woodlands, where considerable amounts of time, effort and money have been spent. If the ownership of those sites was to change hands in the future, little would prevent a new owner from undoing the restoration that has taken place.

Amendment 67, in the name of Ariane Burgess, requires ministers to review existing measures to protect sites where restoration and rewilding are under way and consider whether new protection or designation might be required to ensure that the gains for biodiversity can be retained in the future. Amendment 67A makes a small change to wording to clarify that restoration and rewilding are on-going processes.

Amendment 303, in the name of Ariane Burgess, picks up on an issue that was included in the Government’s initial public consultation on the bill. The Government proposed including new measures to increase the proactive management of protected areas. The bill consultation noted:

“Under the current legislative regime there is no general obligation on land managers to improve or restore features in unfavourable condition or to take action to prevent them from deteriorating to unfavourable condition.”

We can all think of examples in our regions and constituencies where protected areas are clearly not protected and continue to degrade.

At the time, the Government reflected on that and proposed a solution to amend the existing land management orders and nature conservation orders to clarify that provisions are to enforce active management of nature features in protected areas and to tackle issues such as invasive non-native species, which are absolutely degrading many of the sites. That issue cuts to the heart of what the bill is trying to achieve, because this is a nature emergency bill. Despite having protected areas, we see such degradation and loss continue.

Eighty-six per cent of respondents to the Government’s consultation supported proposals to address that. This morning, we have already heard about the importance of consultation and going with the grain of that. Measures to increase the proactive management of protected areas were not included in the bill despite public support. Amendment 303 seeks to add them in. Although I acknowledge that some revisions to the wording of the amendment might be required before stage 3, I hope that the cabinet secretary can give support to the policy in principle today, given that the Government consulted on it and found strong stakeholder and public support. I am interested to hear what the cabinet secretary says.

I move amendments 67 and 67A.

I want to continue my point. From discussions with estate owners who are developing land management plans at the moment, I know that there is not a hard line between moorland and woodland, for example. The best place to talk about the future of the planning of an estate and where the balance of conservation and different habitats lies is in a land management plan. We agreed provisions on land management plans in the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill. Those did not go as far as I would have liked, but I am quite hopeful that, in the land management plans, moorland will have its voice, and communities that have an interest in and a love of moorlands will be able to influence those plans in a way that recognises the importance of the future of that landscape. I understand the essence of what the member is trying to achieve, but I think that we got to where we got to at the end of the process of the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill, and I would like to see that being rolled out.

On energy infrastructure, I know that there is a campaign, but I go back to our discussions last week about part 2 of the bill: our system of environmental assessment is working and it is robust. I see communities using the concerns that ecologists are raising in environmental assessments to build the case for considering the refusal of renewable energy developments, to assuage concerns, or to focus concerns on areas where there might be an impact and to enter into discussions with developers at the pre-application stage on the siting of turbines and other matters. It offers a window on the potential impact of renewable energy development. If there is not an impact of renewable energy development, I do not see why it cannot go ahead, but that is for the energy consents unit to discuss. The more that communities can engage with the environmental assessment process and reveal that impact, the better, so I do not see the necessity for amendment 334.

No.

Amendment 67, by agreement, withdrawn.

Just to be clear, are you arguing that NatureScot should have a role in determining the level of livestock in a particular strath or area?

I hope that it will never happen.

I think that what is being put to us is more about incident reporting. If there was something like a Deepwater Horizon incident—God forbid—in Scotland, it would be about looking back and saying, “How did this occur, given that we have a permitting regime, and what could be learned?” rather than a wider assessment of whether the act is working.

I think that you are saying that there is no need for amendment of the 2014 act as it stands at the moment.

As the convener said, we had evidence from the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service that said, in effect, that, if it has to make a decision, it may go down the 2014 act route because the bar is lower and the chances of conviction are, on the face of it, much higher. It is a question of ensuring that options are available at any stage in the process, and that nobody is able to drive a coach and horses through the provisions.

If there had been a severe environmental impact and clear intent, and if the court had to decide whether to impose a five-year penalty or an eight-year penalty, would an eight-year penalty not feel more like the result of an ecocide offence?

Okay, I understand.