Seòmar agus comataidhean

I am not going to make a commitment like that in this forum, because I am not a scientist or an ecologist who would be tasked with considering the characteristics of woodlands throughout Scotland and determining whether they ought to be protected under an SSSI or special area of conservation designation. As a Government minister, I am not going to pre-empt the views of scientists and ecologists in that regard. However, I can commit to being open minded to all suggestions about how we can strengthen the protection of ancient woodlands and rise to all the challenges that are bearing down on them just now.

I listed some of the challenges, but I would like to go into a little more detail. Deer pressure is accepted across the piece as one of the greatest threats to ancient woodlands. The issue has been described well to me. We have ancient trees but, because of activity on the ground over decades and centuries, as grazing has increased, the saplings that the trees have tried to produce have been consumed. The grandparent tree is left, but the rest of the family has not managed to become established, because of the overbrowsing by deer. Dealing with that issue is critical if we are to protect and grow trees.

Clearance of invasive non-native species—in which we are investing heavily—is also critical, as is combating wildfire, which is a threat to our woodlands. I will take through the Parliament a separate piece of legislation on grouse moor licensing, as part of which I will consider the licensing of muirburn. Given that we are due to have warmer summers, you can imagine the immediate threat that is posed by fire ripping through the countryside.

I will not commit to the SSSI point just now, Mr Sweeney. It would not be appropriate for me to do so. However, I commit to doing everything that I can to protect the precious trees and woodlands that we are talking about.

Yes, I think that they probably are. As MSPs, we probably all feel that, across the areas that we represent, there are some exceptionally active communities that are able to advocate on their own behalf and get organised, whereas there are others that are not able to do that. I think that we all need to address that disparity.

Last week, I visited Loch Arkaig with the Woodland Trust Scotland and the local community development group, which are undertaking a joint venture for the restoration of the woodland at Loch Arkaig. That is a prime example of communities that are really organised and doing exceptionally well, which you just talked about. You are also right to say that there are other communities that are less well organised, although not for the want of trying, I suspect. As I mentioned, I am really keen to ensure that communities are supported. I take that very seriously.

There probably is a lesson for us in how accessible much of this is. I talked about the complex networks of rules. I am comfortable that those protect the woodlands but whether they are accessible is a different question. The work that we are trying to do on the register should help to open that up and make it something that everyone can be involved in.

I will make a couple of points and then hand over to Doug Howieson, who can give a more technical overview of the existing rules and the extent to which they might already be akin to what you ask for.

You mentioned the community nominating woodlands that folks would like to be protected. I am enthusiastic about community involvement in the management and co-development of woodlands not least because any kind of development that is happening on people’s doorsteps ought to involve them and they ought to benefit from it. Also, as we move in the next 20 or 25 years towards our net zero targets, the way that we use Scotland’s land will change and I want communities to benefit from that. Therefore, I am always mindful of how I, working with officials, can build in greater community engagement, ownership and development.

On the question about to what extent the system that we have already is akin to the schedule of ancient monuments, I will hand over to Doug Howieson. I suspect that it is similar to, but dealt with differently from, some of the schemes that we have been talking about.

That is a really interesting point, which applies here, as it does across the piece in relation to many of the actions that we need to take when faced with a climate and nature emergency. Over the next generation and beyond, the magnitude of our task will be enormous, whether in relation to the natural environment, with the funds that it will take to do what we need to do, or in relation to homes and buildings or the decarbonisation of transport. The costs are eye watering, and the public sector cannot support that itself. We need to find ways of leveraging responsible private investment: that is a big factor of the resourcing question, because we cannot do it ourselves.

Going back to the point about community empowerment and community benefit, I am keen to ensure that private investment is responsible private investment, but it has to be leveraged, and we can do that through carbon markets. That applies to woodlands, as it does to peatland restoration, which is a really important action, although it is very expensive.

On a different subject, in the Government, we are trying to provide funding for peatland restoration that will bring confidence into the market, which will allow others to come in and support that work. That applies across the piece.

Of course.

Yes. Although I remain open-minded to all and any suggestions about how we strengthen and improve the protection of our ancient woodlands and rise to emerging challenges, the system as it stands, including the environmental designation and the forestry and land management route, where operating correctly, ought to be sufficient. There is a whole series of protections but we are not complacent. The Government is trying to identify all the threats to those incredibly precious trees and woodlands and we are taking action across the board.

I am particularly pleased to see the development of national planning framework 4 and some of its provisions for protecting our woodlands. They are explicit planning laws that will determine what happens throughout Scotland. The draft, which is being consulted on, says:

“Development proposals should not be supported where they would result in any loss of ancient woodlands, ancient and veteran trees, or adverse impact on their ecological condition”

or if they would have

“adverse impacts on native woodlands, hedgerows and individual trees of high biodiversity value”.

When it comes to potential felling or removal, a suite of rules is in place that ought to protect our woodlands. When that does not occur, Scottish Forestry has enforcement powers, which were strengthened in 2018 so that, for example, we would not need a successful prosecution for Scottish Forestry to step in and undertake restocking.

When the rules operate, they ought to protect woodlands, but we are always looking for new ways to do that such as through NPF4 and our work on deer and invasive non-native species, which we can come on to.

We are already accommodating it through our forestry grant scheme. Doug Howieson will have more information on that at his fingertips. That scheme already supports landowners with funding to undertake management of their woodlands for conservation and other purposes. There are opportunities coming down the track to look again at how well we are doing that. For example, there is the design of post-European Union exit agricultural policy, and I hope to introduce a land reform bill during this session of Parliament. In all those ways, we can assess both the incentives that are available to landowners and the requirements.

A big part of the land reform portfolio is the land rights and responsibilities statement, which makes clear that with rights come responsibilities. In an emergency, perhaps we could do more to make clear to landowners their rights and responsibilities and our expectations about how land is managed.

Those are two important, technical questions. I will try to answer them, but I would also like to go away and get you a fuller answer. I will ask my colleague Doug Howieson whether there is anything that he would like to add. We will come back to you with a response that is detailed enough to reflect the questions.

I will quickly pick up on the point about the contamination by different species of trees and the extent to which that is a threat to our ancient woodlands. For our part, Forestry and Land Scotland, which manages the public forests and estate on behalf of Scottish ministers, is undertaking restoration on 60 per cent of the sites that they manage where there has been historical planting on ancient woodland. That often means removing the non-native species that are planted in and around an ancient woodland site to prevent that cross-contamination and to allow the ancient woodlands to develop as they naturally would.

I will now hand over to Doug Howieson and we will both come back to you with further detail in response to your questions.

If the committee indicates its support for the draft SSI, we will be on track to fulfil the legislative requirements well in advance of the deadline of 23 March, which was to have the initial version of the balance sheet formally established in law. That is what we will do. As I said in my opening remarks, the process will include annual review and updating Parliament on the balance sheet, which will begin from next year.

Yes, it is helpful, but I would suggest that we probably cannot take it down to that granular scale at this point, particularly as regards the 25 per cent baseline figure. That is a high-level figure. The data sets are not at regional or farm level. We might hope to develop something like that in time, but what we have established right now is a high-level Scotland-wide and economy-wide picture from which developments will come.