���˿���

I thank the cabinet secretary for her detailed response to my amendments in this group.

As I said in my opening remarks, it may be that some of the work that my amendments seek to bring about is already being undertaken or is at least possible in the current legislative landscape. However, as the RSE’s inquiry has shown, that work is not happening at the scale, or with the effectiveness, that we need in order to tackle the escalating challenges that are presented by the climate emergency.

I very much welcome the cabinet secretary’s positive response in acknowledging some of the issues and committing to further discussions with me and with other members ahead of stage 3. There seems to be cross-party agreement between the Government, myself and other members on our commitment to address these issues in a way that will benefit not only the people of Scotland, but our natural environment and our wider contribution to global biodiversity. On that basis, and given that the cabinet secretary has committed to discussions with me ahead of stage 3, I seek to withdraw amendment 11.

Likewise, I will not move my other amendments in the group, on the basis that the cabinet secretary has offered to meet with me to discuss the principles behind them, so that these complex issues can be addressed in a sustainable way.

Amendment 11, by agreement, withdrawn.

Amendment 75 not moved.

Sure.

I am happy to agree with the member on that point. As I have said, the amendment seeks to address the risk of displacing the problem instead of its being tackled. It is not saying that all deer fencing is a problem, in and of itself, but that alone, and without other measures, it can exacerbate existing problems.

Moving on to the topic of urban afforestation, amendment 13 seeks to introduce requirements for Scottish Forestry to partner with local authorities to plant urban trees in towns and cities—for example, in streets, squares and parks and on other local authority-owned land. Again, these amendments come from the recommendations in the RSE’s report that

“Scottish Forestry should provide targeted grants to Local Authorities to plant trees in existing urban locations”

and that

“Local Authorities should require all new built developments with road frontages to incorporate trees in the road or on their frontages.”

Scottish Environment LINK, as well as the Royal Society of Edinburgh, has highlighted the positive social, economic and environmental impacts of such spaces, particularly their promotion of good air quality in urban areas. Beyond the benefits to us, urban afforestation is vital in ensuring species connectivity and flood management. Again, this is a probing amendment, and I am keen to hear from the cabinet secretary about any partnership working that might already be in place between Scottish Forestry and local authorities, and how any best practice is being promoted across the country to encourage more of that joined-up working.

On the issue of sustainable forestry, the RSE’s report highlights that 61 per cent of Scotland’s coniferous woodland comprises Sitka spruce, and what lies at the heart of this particular set of amendments is an attempt to shift the balance towards native tree planting. For each area being amended, I have brought forward two options to amend the Forestry and Land Management (Scotland) Act 2018, either in or after section 11.

I will not go through every amendment in detail, in the interests of time, but I can take questions on specific amendments. Broadly, they seek to increase instances of mixed native broadleaf planting, incorporate shrub cover, improve biodiversity, create mixed native woodlands, and ensure that any public financial support goes to schemes that improve biodiversity and increase native woodland planting.

There are also the amendments that the convener highlighted—that is, amendments 304A and 304B. Amendment 304 and the amendments that amend it seek to require an environmental impact assessment to be completed before any public funding can be used for tree planting, with the requirement applying to land of 50 hectares or above, or where the cumulative area of land held by the person receiving support would be 50 hectares or above, if the land adjoins or is adjacent to existing land held by the person receiving support and if support is being provided for the same activity across the cumulative landholding. Within that, there are provisions for sensitive areas relating to heritage and conservation.

The difference between the amendments relates to deep peat soil. The RSE has been proactive in highlighting the role of peat soil in sequestering carbon. Globally, soils contain three times more carbon than vegetation, particularly when the soil is peaty. Each of the amendments recognises that and seeks to ensure that deep peat soil is considered in environmental impact assessments. However, amendment 304 specifies a thickness of 30cm, amendment 304A a thickness of 50cm and amendment 304B a thickness of 40cm. Of those, a thickness of 30cm would be my preference. However, although I think that that would be incredibly beneficial, there are other options for consideration.

In conclusion, the findings of the RSE’s report “Inquiry into public financial support for tree planting and forestry” are stark. It says:

“Based on the evidence, the report concludes that subsidising commercial conifer planting is not justified and the potential for the forestry sector to deliver multiple benefits has not been fully realised.”

Clearly, although work might be being done in this area, it is neither successful nor efficient enough for the scale of the challenge that we face.

I am keen to hear from the cabinet secretary the Government’s response to these amendments before I decide whether to move them. However, based on those findings, I feel that, at the very least, there are grounds for the Scottish Government to carry out its own inquiry into the issues that are highlighted in the report.

I move amendment 11.

Good morning. I want to start by thanking the Royal Society of Edinburgh and the Parliament’s legislation team for their support in drafting these amendments.

I have 17 amendments in this group, covering three areas: deer overgrazing, urban afforestation and sustainable forestry. All have been inspired by the Royal Society of Edinburgh’s report “Inquiry into public financial support for tree planting and forestry”, which concluded that

“subsidising commercial conifer planting is not justified and the potential for the forestry sector to deliver multiple benefits has not been fully realised.”

With that in mind, I have lodged these amendments to probe areas that the RSE report found would benefit from Scottish Government intervention.

First, on the issue of deer grazing, amendment 11, in my name, seeks to address the environmental damage caused by the overgrazing of deer while protecting other wildlife habitats. The RSE report identified a concern about

“expensive fencing around planted areas resulting in red deer being displaced to adjoining areas where browsing and grazing pressures then increase, together with capercaillie and black grouse mortality caused by collisions with fences”.

Put simply, deer fencing is expensive and, although those who can afford it are able to erect it, it simply moves the problem of deer overgrazing to areas without fencing, without addressing the problem of unsustainable deer numbers. At the same time, it poses a risk to wildlife, which might become trapped or injured in the fencing.

If the cabinet secretary believes that there are unintended consequences with amendment 11, I am sure that she will explain them. However, I ask that she outline how the Scottish Government will address the heart of the issue—that is, how it will support those without deer fencing whose plots adjoin areas with fencing to control deer numbers on their land. As, I am sure, she will agree, deer overgrazing is a national concern that no landowner or tenant should be left to shoulder alone.

I will continue.

I have covered the point about how we already import timber. Sadly, a lot of the timber that we grow is used for compound materials or wood-fired heating. We are not growing the large ancient trees that we once did to produce things. That is just not the case.

The cabinet secretary said that the industry contributes £1.1 billion to the Scottish economy. That sounds like a healthy and vibrant business that does not require public subsidy. It would be better to redirect public subsidy to industries that are struggling but which provide a higher level of sustainability for the country and help us with our transition. We should not be rewarding industries that harm and pollute.

We publicly subsidise healthy industries, and the results of those industries lead to environmental degradation that the public then pays to clear up. Something is going wrong there.

The cabinet secretary referred to the issue being included in forthcoming forest plan guidance, and it would be interesting to hear more about that, especially ahead of stage 3, because I would be reluctant to drop the issue and leave it out of the bill without some assurance that it will be addressed.

You say that it is an ever-increasing percentage without providing any figures. An ever-increasing percentage of not very much is still not very much, and we need to go much further and faster.

With that, I will conclude. I will not press amendment 54 today on the ground that I will be working with the cabinet secretary ahead of stage 3.

Amendment 54, by agreement, withdrawn.

Amendments 55, 56 and 195 not moved.

I thank the member for taking my intervention, which actually concerns her earlier amendments relating to goats, if that is okay—I was not quick enough to come in then. I was trying to follow what you were saying, and I am unclear as to the mechanisms that your amendments would leave for the management of goat herds. As far as I am aware, there are no natural predators, and it appears that your amendments would make it impossible to manage herds of non-native feral goats. Are the goats that you are referring to non-native?

I appreciate your saying that the goats are wild and that they descend from goats that have been here a long time, but I heard you acknowledge that they are not a native species and that management and culls are necessary, but I have not heard why that needs to be brought into primary legislation. Are there not any pre-existing methods to control the species?

On a point of clarification, the member seems to think that my amendments are targeting all game shooting, but they are focused in particular on invasive non-native species.

Of non-native species.