Seòmar agus comataidhean

The point about hectarage that you and the Woodland Trust make is a good one. The Forestry and Land Management (Scotland) Act 2018 strengthened the law to cover woodlands of less than 0.5 hectares. Doug Howieson will correct me if I am wrong, but I think that felling permission is required for areas of 0.1 to 0.5 hectares. As I said, there are very few circumstances in which felling permission would be afforded in relation to ancient woodland.

Enforcement is important. I know from my ministerial and constituency roles that concerns are frequently expressed about felling being undertaken without regard to the rules or the enforcement action that might be taken as a result. Such felling is criminal offence and can result in a fine of up to £5,000. We strengthened the rules in 2018 to provide that Scottish Forestry does not require a successful prosecution to make a restocking direction. Scottish Forestry can step in and take action where the landowner is not doing so.

However, despite all of that, I understand the frustration that people feel when they see things going on that are not in line with the rules. Doug Howieson, I and our teams try to respond proactively to such cases. When they are raised with us, we investigate the circumstances. I remain open minded to any ways that we can ensure that the rules are complied with across the board.

You have described the two greatest threats that our woodlands face. On deer, I come back to the analogy about the grandparent tree standing alone in the forest, which brings the situation to life. We need to do something to allow the natural regeneration process, which our ancient woodlands are well placed to deliver, to flourish.

The Government received the recommendations of the deer working group and we responded last year. We committed to implementing the vast majority of the recommendations, save for one—because of welfare concerns, we do not support the recommendation on the close season for female deer. We can take non-legislative actions and we can take actions that will require primary legislation. We will take forward the non-legislative actions now through the biodiversity strategy, and we will have the natural environment bill later in the parliamentary session. I am not leading on that bill, but I expect it to contain any actions that need primary legislation. The issue is very much a focus for this session.

As with deer, dealing with invasive non-native species is laborious and requires boots on the ground for hard work to clear what is largely rhododendron. When I was in the west Highlands recently, I saw that consuming the forest floor. Our forestry grant scheme already supports landowners with funds to help with clearing rhododendron.

We are working with the Alliance for Scotland’s Rainforest as part of our commitment to protecting and restoring Scotland’s rainforest, and we are backing that with funds from our £500 million of investment in the natural economy. We have opened a nature restoration fund; I do not remember the exact figure, but I think that it is a multiannual fund of £60 million, from which £12.5 million is available this year. Bids are in for that and are being considered by NatureScot. I expect some of that to rise to the challenges of dealing with invasive non-native species; the bids will be confirmed in the spring.

It is good to be with you all to discuss this really important topic, as reflected in the number of signatories to the petition. I share their views on the importance of the issue.

I will split your question into two parts. The first relates to our efforts on new woodland creation and the native component of that, and the second is about the actions that we are taking to protect, restore and grow the remaining natural and semi-natural ancient woodlands.

The Scottish Government’s woodland creation objective is to manage our woodlands for the number of co-benefits that they can provide for the country. That spans economic and environmental opportunities, as well as social opportunities. Our challenge is to manage their creation in ways that reflect all those things.

We have ambitious targets for creation that reflect our ambitious climate change targets. We also have targets within that. For example, we had a target that, as a minimum, 3,000 hectares of all woodland planted in Scotland should be native broad-leaved woodland. We have been meeting and exceeding that target and therefore have taken action to increase it. We have moved the floor from a minimum of 3,000 hectares to a minimum of 4,000 hectares.

In our biodiversity strategy, which is currently being worked on, we have committed to look at the evidence, to see whether that target could be more ambitious still. We also carry out other activities. For example, the forestry grant scheme has supported 12,000 hectares of native planting in the past three years. That is about efforts to create, and if we think about—

That is a really good question. In so far as I can, I am taking an active role in the development of NPF4 to ensure that a whole range of objectives in the environment portfolio are facilitated through it. The protection of our woodlands is one of those objectives.

I said previously that the legal landscape is complicated, but I do not think that it is vague or ineffective. There are good reasons why, for example, you will not currently find in law a ban on the removal of certain trees in woodlands, although there are examples, which I mentioned, of when works might need to be done to support the woodland’s conservation as a whole.

We need planning documents to be direct and explicit, but we must be able to apply them right across the country, and the narrower the language in the documents, the more difficult it becomes to apply them. Having said that, I will repeat what the current draft of NPF4 that is being consulted on says. It says:

“Development proposals should not be supported where they would result in any loss of ancient woodlands”,

which is very pointed for a planning document. I am pleased about that. However, I am, of course, working with stakeholders and, if they think that the language needs to be strengthened, I will be an advocate for that.

As it stands, NPF4 is clear and unequivocal. We must now look at all the other pressures that bear down on our ancient woodlands, including deer, invasive non-native species, climate change and wildfires. I am happy and comfortable that, across the piece, we are trying to rise to those challenges. NPF4 is still in draft and is a moving document.

I think that you are quite right. That is another aspect of the fact that we are dealing with an emergency. We can never stop, pat ourselves on the back and just say that what was good a year ago is still acceptable now. That will not be the case up to 2045, and it will not be the case beyond 2045. We need to keep reviewing what we are doing. A good example might be our targets for the percentage of our planting that must be native, which I talked about at the beginning of the evidence session. I mentioned that we had the 3,000-hectare minimum, which we were meeting and exceeding, so we raised that minimum. As part of our biodiversity strategy, we will now do an evidence-based assessment of that minimum to see whether it needs to be upped again.

We are always challenging ourselves to ensure that what we are doing is up to speed. If we are not sufficiently challenging ourselves, Parliament and the stakeholders we work with will challenge us. That is all the better, as we do not have time to mess about.

That is fine. Do you want me to talk about—

In the natural environment bill that we hope to introduce, we expect to include statutory targets for nature recovery and nature growth, akin to the climate targets, which I think we would all agree have been a turning point for action on emissions reduction. Within that, we are also committed to protecting 30 per cent of our land for nature by 2030. In both of those pieces of work—I am not leading on them; my colleague Ms Slater is—I will be arguing strongly for the inclusion of the greatest possible protection for our ancient woodlands.

If you do not mind, I will use this opportunity to respond to Ms Baillie’s points, all of which I note and think helpful.

She asked about some specifics, and I will start with the community engagement point. I have been in post for approaching a year, which I can scarcely believe. In that time, I have tried to stress the community element of the portfolio. Officials and I have been working with the Scottish Land Commission to understand exactly how best we can embed community engagement, development, management and ownership within our ambitions for woodlands. Of course, I hope to take forward a land reform bill in this session. As well as continuing Scotland’s land reform journey, specifically, I will be trying to rise to the challenge of what are colloquially termed “green lairds”. We are all conscious of that issue, as the value of Scotland’s natural capital rises in the climate emergency.

Ms Baillie asked about what action is currently being taken on clearing the ancient woodlands that are potentially planted with other species. I am not sure whether I said this before, but I confirm that FLS, which manages land on behalf of Scottish ministers, is currently undertaking restoration of 60 per cent of plantation on ancient woodland sites—PAWS—and I expect that to increase when it is possible.

Ms Baillie made a point about the extent to which the forestry grant scheme is supporting those who could readily afford to undertake work in any case. I will correct this if I am wrong, but I think that, in recent years, 60 per cent of all the scheme’s grants have been for projects of fewer than 20 hectares. For example, we have a real focus on working with farmers, to help them stitch woodland into their farming business. Therefore, there is a focus on the smaller players as well, although, in the support that we offer, our mantra is “right tree, right place, for the right reason”.

Finally, I understand the point about the extent to which everything that we have discussed today—and what the Government is doing—feels at odds with what communities are experiencing, because, as I said, in my constituency capacity, I have experience of that occasionally being the case. However, in this role, I see the national picture and, when I look at the national picture, I am comfortable that the rules, as they are, are robust.

However, as with anything, there are circumstances in which people will not comply with the rules. Very frequently, when that happens, people get in touch with me and Forestry and Land Scotland. We try to get actively involved, often by visiting sites to see what is happening and what we can do to help.

Doug Howieson and I discussed this before coming to the meeting today. We would like to offer visits—with Doug, NatureScot officials or a local conservancy officer—to any sites where Jackie Baillie and her constituents would like us to see what has potentially gone wrong in that circumstance.

David Torrance is absolutely right that one of the first points in anything is identifying location, conservation status and threats. Developing the register of ancient woodlands is in our programme for government, and we will be taking that forward through the summer. It will be a parallel exercise with the biodiversity strategy.

There is a number of existing registers or archives showing where ancient woodlands and native, natural and semi-natural woodlands are. However, for the reasons that David Torrance gave, it is important to bring those together so that local authorities and all those who have a responsibility for looking after them know exactly where they are.

However, it is also important that we know where ancient woodlands exist in relation to landowners. I would like to see that knowledge down to very small pockets, because everything requires to be conserved. We can use that knowledge to support, encourage and incentivise landowners even more than we already do. I hope to see that being developed in the summer.

That is an excellent question, and something that officials and I grapple with all the time. We are in a fortunate position in that woodland can deliver across many objectives, such as carbon sequestration, biodiversity growth and socioeconomic outcomes, including the creation of good jobs in rural areas.

The types of woodland that we create have to be balanced across that. For example, we need to plant fast-growing commercial species, because they provide the greatest opportunity for carbon sequestration, and allow us to prop up the successful timber industry, which supports many jobs in rural Scotland. Then there are the types of trees that support our biodiversity objectives: native broad-leaved trees that will help us to reverse the decline in biodiversity.

There are other objectives that we build into the picture. For example, there is a requirement that 10 per cent of new woodland should be open space. That serves the socioeconomic objective of supporting wellbeing, as it allows people to spend time in forests and to enjoy the health and wellbeing aspects that come with that. We must start from a position where woodland can deliver, and we have to judge how best to match the objectives with the types of trees that we grow and the types of forests that we develop. All that is underpinned by the United Kingdom forestry standard, which is about all those things and managing forests for their multiple values.