³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

Thank you. Those of you who are observant will have noticed that I have not asked a question yet. I have saved my question for the end, but, interestingly, it leads directly on from the previous question, so it is perfectly placed.

Having spent 40 years of my life doing environmental management, one thing that I have learned is that you cannot be all things to all people—and you cannot be all things to all species. For example, managing capercaillies in Abernethy forest cannot be done without control of pine martens, which are the biggest threat to capercaillies, and we have spent millions of pounds on that.

Similarly, I am taken by Deborah Long’s comments about deer. It is about carrying capacity, and the capacity not being the one that damages the environment. Sheep are as big a threat in my mind, as are hares on the high montane places of Scotland, where they will clip the heather and blueberries to such an extent that they cannot grow. Therefore, management is a difficult balance.

On the basis that I do not want to make Scotland—or see Scotland being made—exclusive for any species, I think that there is room for zoning, where we accept that we can achieve things for different species in different zones and therefore achieve something for all of Scotland nationally. A quick yes-or-no answer would suffice, but I suspect that I might not get that from the witnesses. I will quickly go around the table to ask whether the witnesses believe that zoning could play a part in ensuring species and habitat enhancement across Scotland. Ruth Mitchell, I will start with you.

Good morning and welcome to the eighth meeting in 2023 of the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee.

The first item on our agenda is to make a decision on whether to take items 4, 5 and 6 in private. Item 4 is consideration of the evidence that we will hear today on the outcomes of the 15th United Nations biodiversity conference of the parties—COP15—item 5 is consideration of a draft report on the Energy Bill and item 6 is consideration of the committee’s work programme. Do members agree to take those items in private?

Members indicated agreement.

There are still quite a few questions to go and time is short—it flies when you are having fun. We have some questions from Jackie Dunbar, followed by Mark Ruskell and Mercedes Villalba.

I think that Jackie Dunbar’s question is for Deborah Long, so I will bring her in to see whether we can tie the questions together.

Mark Ruskell and Jackie Dunbar have supplementary questions on this issue, and then we will move on to Mark’s other questions.

Given that Deborah Long mentioned agricultural subsidies, it is only fair that I remind the committee that I am part of a family farming partnership. We are in receipt of agricultural subsidies, and we manage land, including woodland. I have made that declaration to the committee previously, and it is noted in my entry in the register of members’ interests, but I just want to point it out so that there is no dubiety.

Our next item of business is evidence on the outcomes of COP15. I refer members to the committee papers.

At the summit in Montreal, a new global framework was agreed for halting and reversing biodiversity loss across the world. To take stock of COP15 and what its outcomes mean for Scotland, the committee will hear from a panel of Scotland and United Kingdom-based experts in biodiversity policy.

On behalf of the committee, I am pleased to welcome Dr Daniela Diz, who is associate professor of international ocean governance at the Lyell Centre, which is based at Heriot-Watt University and Professor Colin Galbraith, who is the chair of the Joint Nature Conservation Committee. I would have liked to have welcomed Professor Peter Hollingsworth, but he is unable to attend because of a family bereavement. I am sorry for him and I am sorry that we will miss his evidence. We are also joined by Dr Deborah Long, who is the chief officer of Scottish Environment LINK. Joining us remotely we have Dr Ruth Mitchell, who is head of the biodiversity and ecosystems group at the James Hutton Institute.

Thank you all for accepting our invitation. We are delighted to have you here. We have a series of questions for you, the first of which will come from the deputy convener, Fiona Hyslop.

Looking around at committee members, I think that we are agreed that we should write to the Transport Committee to make it aware of the petition and our concerns in this area and ask it to inform us of the outcome of the inquiry so that we can consider that. The petition has come to a natural conclusion and, therefore, we should close it. Obviously, we should write to the petitioner to ensure that they are aware of what we are doing and why we are doing it. Is the committee agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

That concludes the public part of our meeting.

I would like to apologise. My good manners deserted me at the start of the session; I should have welcomed Mercedes Villalba, who is joining the committee today. I will give you a chance to ask questions at the end, Mercedes, and I am sorry for not introducing you earlier. That was my mistake.

The next questions are from Liam Kerr.

We are fine for time.