Seòmar agus comataidhean

You are right that we did consult. When it comes to tackling the biodiversity crisis, the provisions proposed in that consultation would address some immediate known issues, such as inflexibility and the wider constraints on protected areas, but they would not address some deeper-rooted concerns that we have about the legislative framework and its gaps, and we need to future proof legislation to allow us to be adaptable. We also felt that bolting additional measures on to an existing framework could have unintended consequences and would make it extremely complex to navigate.

For example, we took the decision not to progress protected areas as part of the bill but to look to at the issue in future parliamentary sessions—with the caveat that this will depend on our priorities and who is in Government—and at that point undertake a more fundamental review and then reform the legislative framework in a way that covers nature conservation, including protected areas.

A lot of what we do in the net zero and energy portfolio is about assessing the efficacy of what has been done in the past and whether it is working, which comes back to the whole thing about dynamism.

Because it is a goal.

Our interpretation is that we need to have the flexibility in law.

The team is working on secondary legislation on targets; that work will not wait for royal assent and is already in train—we are looking at it. The words “agile” and “iterative” seem to be my catchphrases. That work is happening because we want—at the start of the next parliamentary session, I imagine—to be able to put the targets out for scrutiny.

I remember our discussions about that when we were on the committee together in the previous session. Private organisations can volunteer to give us their data. You spoke about the marine environment. We have been involving more fishers in collecting data that is associated with marine protected areas and fisheries management measures, and the Scottish Government is working on vessels with fishers. We also have connections with offshore wind developers and others who work in the marine environment.

You are absolutely right that no holistic system really exists, but I will probably be able to get back to the committee about how we look to manage that data.

The costs that are associated with the bill do not reflect the spend across the whole of Government on critical endeavours in the rural affairs space. We will take away your point that there is lots of data out there but it is not co-ordinated. To go back to what Lisa McCann said about indicators, it is critical that we have robust data in order to develop the indicators for targets.

The bill says

“one or more of the purposes”.

That is pitting net zero against biodiversity—

I will keep it short, convener. Thank you for inviting me to give evidence on the Natural Environment (Scotland) Bill. I am not going to list what the bill does, because the committee knows that, and I will receive plenty of questions that will allow us to delve into detail.

I will set out the wider context for the bill and why it is important. There is an indisputable body of evidence that biodiversity, both globally and in Scotland, is in jeopardy. Just like climate change, the loss of species and the degradation of our natural environment are an existential threat to humanity. The actions that we take to address that threat are fundamental to our wellbeing and survival as a species.

The Scottish biodiversity strategy sets out a clear ambition for Scotland to be nature positive by 2030 and to have restored and regenerated biodiversity across the country by 2045.

The Government cannot tackle this crisis alone. We know that local authorities, farmers, crofters, environmental non-governmental organisations and national park authorities, to name but a few, are already undertaking vital actions to support our precious wildlife and repair and enhance our natural habitats. Although our combined efforts to address the crisis to date have generated some successes, if we are to meet our ambitions, we urgently need to accelerate and scale up those efforts.

The Natural Environment (Scotland) Bill both underpins and builds on the vision that is set out in the biodiversity strategy, driving the actions that we need to take to enable nature recovery on a national level. Tackling the climate emergency is a long-term endeavour that will not be achieved during any single parliamentary session, but, by placing the duty on Scottish ministers to set and report on targets, the bill will enable us to hold future Governments to account and ensure that they continue to develop, support and deliver the lasting outcomes for biodiversity that we need to see.

Other powers that are contained in the bill update environmental impact assessments and habitats legislation, modernise the way in which national parks are managed, and reform deer management. They are all designed to support that high-level ambition and help us to deliver the more than 100 actions that we have committed to in our biodiversity plan.

I am grateful to the committee for the scrutiny of the bill to date and I have paid close attention to the views that witnesses expressed in earlier evidence sessions. I know that some stakeholders disagree with some of the powers in the bill and that others are frustrated that we have not been able to go further, but I hope to address their concerns today. I am, of course, meeting stakeholders throughout the summer, and I meet ENGOs regularly.

I look forward to discussing the issues that the committee raises and to taking members through parts 1 and 2 of the bill.

Let me have a look. [Interruption.]

The delivery plan and all the other policy strategies around it have been set out with the bill in mind. This part of the bill covers the statutory target-setting aspect, which reflects the work that we have done on strategy and policy. The biodiversity delivery plan is a living document. Everything to do with biodiversity, by its very nature, has to be iterative, because it responds to evidence and data, as I mentioned in my previous answer, and to changing circumstances. We have to consistently monitor issues that affect particular species and habitats or which result from climate change and other impacts. If some areas of the plan are not strong enough to address the evidence that comes through, of course they will be changed.

Once the targets have been set, we will look to see whether the actions in the delivery plan and the policies in the biodiversity strategy will be sufficient to enable us to deliver on them.

I think that I am saying yes, but in a very roundabout way. I am giving you an idea of how agile we are in this area.