Seòmar agus comataidhean

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.