Seòmar agus comataidhean

My amendment 18 is a simple change to current wording, from ministers “may” set targets to ministers “must” set targets. If we are to give the nature emergency the attention that it deserves, setting targets cannot be optional and ministers must have a clear duty to set nature targets.

Similarly, my amendment 24 would require ministers to lay a statement that will set out how they intend to achieve their targets. That would give the Parliament more reassurance that plans are in place to meet the new targets. After all, targets are only as good as the plans to deliver them. I am cautious about setting too long a list of criteria to include, but I have sought to include those that would give a sufficient indication of the Government’s intentions.

My amendment 49 would require ministers to publish catch-up reports if targets are missed, similar to what is required under the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009, in which ministers set out what additional steps they will take to catch up on a missed target. The credibility of nature targets in the bill depends on meaningful action, planning and scrutiny. Amendment 49 would strengthen accountability by ensuring that ministers must identify concrete measures to close delivery gaps, prevent drift and secure sustained progress towards recovery.

I acknowledge that Emma Roddick has similar amendments in the group. I will listen carefully to what she says and to the cabinet secretary’s comments.

I turn briefly to other amendments in the group. Maurice Golden’s amendment 182 would require Environmental Standards Scotland to have a role in reviewing the Government’s progress to meet targets. I will be interested to hear about that.

Conversely, Mercedes Villalba’s amendment 25 would allow ministers to transfer that responsibility away from ESS to another body in future. I am not entirely sure of the reasoning behind that, but I look forward to hearing about it.

Sarah Boyack’s amendments look to establish a citizens assembly to inform target setting. I absolutely see the value of citizens assemblies; we have seen that with the climate change legislation. I have a slight concern about our leaving the science behind when it comes to setting targets, but a citizens assembly would be valuable when it comes to how we deliver those targets. Again, I will listen to Sarah Boyack’s comments on that.

Finally, I urge members to support Ariane Burgess’s amendments 47 and 48, which would require that targets be ecologically coherent and align with other Government strategies. I look forward to Ariane Burgess explaining those.

I move amendment 18.

I am aware that a number of members have lodged amendments that seek to expand the provision to make targets beyond threatened species. My amendment is in the same space.

The bill says that ministers may make targets related to

“the status of threatened species”,

but we know that many species are on the edge of being threatened and that a changing climate might mean that unexpected species quickly become at risk. We all accept the need for a bit more flexibility than is in the bill as drafted, and a preventative approach would really help. Amendment 23 would broaden the target topic to cover

“any habitat or species, regardless of whether that habitat or species is rare or threatened.”

Reflecting on what members have said, I am aware that Evelyn Tweed has lodged an amendment on the matter, which Emma Roddick will move today. I assume that the Government will favour that amendment in this space, but I urge the Government to have a conversation with me, Evelyn Tweed, Emma Roddick and Mercedes Villalba ahead of stage 3 to see whether we can reach a consensus on the right way forward. I will not move my amendment today if others do not move theirs, and we could come back to the issue. We will hear from the cabinet secretary in a minute, but I accept that the Government’s intent will probably be to look again at section 1, and a conversation on that would be helpful.

Sarah Boyack’s amendment 103 is important, but there is a slight mismatch with Lorna Slater’s amendment 36. I urge Sarah Boyack not to move her amendment but to have a discussion about how it fits in with the really important UN biodiversity goals that Scotland has signed up to, which are not yet adequately reflected in the bill.

In summary, a few more conversations need to be had between stages 2 and 3, and I urge members not to move towards a solution at this point.

Will you take an intervention?

The committee has spent a long time debating the licensing scheme for grouse moors, and land managers have to bring in important considerations about how they enhance certain species. Amendment 31 is about tidying up an obvious loophole in the Wildlife Management and Muirburn (Scotland) Act 2024.

What I am bringing forward in amendment 41, about swifts, is a simple measure. It is not about difficult issues of land management, such as land management plans, or decisions that land managers have to make; it is about a brick—one brick—in our homes, that could give nature a home.

I can think of all the issues and tricky debates that have taken up the committee’s time, but this one is obvious. New houses have to be built to high building standards, have good insulation values and be airtight. That is squeezing out those birds, and the result is that they do not have a home. Put in a 30-quid brick—make that mandatory as part of building standards—and we will by and large solve that problem.

I reflect on the issues by saying that of course the debates on the grouse management legislation have been hard, but the idea in amendment 41 is really easy, and I hope that we in this Parliament can get to a consensus on it—if not today then between stages 2 and 3—which, unfortunately and sadly, Westminster has failed to do. It is a very simple thing for those birds.

I am not going to attempt to sum up the discussion, but I will offer just a few points. Clearly, we are in a nature emergency as much as we are in a climate emergency. I recognise that the question of setting nature targets is different from that of setting climate targets, but I feel that there is a lot that we can learn from the existing climate change frameworks and the legislation that we have in place, including what has worked well and what has not worked so well in delivering action on the back of stretching targets.

What we have learned from the climate debate is that there is an absolute need to engage with stakeholders and the public on action. The science of climate change is irrefutable, and I think that the science on the nature emergency should be irrefutable, too. If good science shows that species and habitats are in decline and that we need to invest in recovery, that information is what should be used to set the targets. However, I now understand that Sarah Boyack wants to bring a citizens assembly to the table to look at how we would interpret nature targets, take action on them and get consensus on what we might call the “how” of nature restoration. That will be important, as will the timing, and the idea perhaps needs a bit more reflection between stages 2 and 3.

When I moved an amendment to the Climate Change (Emissions Reduction Targets) (Scotland) Act 2019 to require there to be a citizens assembly, the Government said at the time, “Oh no, it’s okay. We’ll just have a general requirement for consultation.” That is very similar to what the cabinet secretary has said today. At the time, though, we did not feel that that was enough, and the Parliament agreed to an amendment that required such an assembly to be set up. The amendment and what has come out of it have been beneficial.

I do not think that support for Sarah Boyack’s amendment 15 precludes support for what Alasdair Allan is trying to achieve with amendment 113. I feel that it is very important that we have consultation, as well as a wider assembly.

Tim Eagle has tried to emphasise the importance of land managers, and that is part of it, but I feel that what Alasdair Allan has suggested in amendment 39 makes sense. Of course, we will want to listen to land managers who are investing in natural capital. There are estates near to where I live that are reducing herbivore numbers, both deer and livestock, and they are doing so, because it is a business decision. We should always—always—listen to business. That is very important.

As for other areas of the framework, we have discussed what catch-up plans could look like. Various amendments have been lodged on that issue, and I think that it would be better if the Government were open to discussing the possible options for such plans ahead of stage 3 with the members who have lodged those amendments. However, if the advice is that we should vote on the issue today, that is, clearly, where we will end up.

On the setting of targets, I note that amendments changing “may” to “must” are well used in this Parliament. I will be pressing amendment 18, because I feel that there is a need not just to set one target, or at least one target, but to move forward comprehensively on the nature emergency. It is important that we give the bill real strength of purpose, and that we underline that, so I will press amendment 18.

The goal of the Paris agreement is to keep well below 2°C, and even then there will be a significant global impact. Quite frankly, I am horrified at what you are saying about 3°C, and even the prospect of 4°C. It is easy for these numbers to slip off the tongue, but can you say in a nutshell what 4°C would mean globally?

Do you think that the Scottish Government’s current infrastructure investment plan recognises that scenario of 3°C or 4°C? Is that baked into it?

You inspired me, convener. Richard Millar, the CCC puts forward different pathways. You have a balanced pathway and a high ambition pathway. Given what you have said about 3°C and 4°C, should we not be going for the high ambition pathway? Given the threats that you have outlined today, the tipping points and the catastrophic impacts of potentially going above 2°C, should we not be going for a higher ambition rather than balancing things out?

It is a big change.

You used quite unemotional language there, but if anybody sits back and thinks about what that would actually mean for people, nature and the entire global community, they will realise that it is a vast impact.

It is interesting that the CCC has moved away from a tightly constrained discussion about 2°C and 1.5°C and towards starting to think about tipping points. I guess that your advice is that policy makers should start thinking about the world that we would live in post a tipping point such as the collapse of the north Atlantic conveyor and a completely fundamental shift in our climate, which would effectively be unprecedented.