Seòmar agus comataidhean

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

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.

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.

Doug, do you want to come in?

That was very much about new woodland creation. I have previously thought hard about woodlands that already exist, and even more so before coming in today, and I admit that it is a complex set of rules and regulations that determines the protection of ancient and native woodlands. For example, we have a system of sites of special scientific interest where native and ancient woodlands of a particular size or antiquity are protected by those environmental designations. If there was an application to fell something in an SSSI, felling permission or an SSSI consent would have to be sought.

The Forestry and Land Management (Scotland) Act 2018, which strengthened the relevant legislation, provides for the management of potential felling of those woodlands. Again, that means that any felling between 0.1 and 0.5 hectares would have to get felling permission.

Both of those routes therefore take us to felling permission, and we might ask in what circumstances felling would be allowed in our ancient woodlands. Ultimately, there are very few circumstances in which felling of any ancient woodland would be approved. The regulations are in almost the strongest possible terms without providing for a total ban. You can understand why there is not a total ban when you consider the exceptional circumstances in which felling might be approved. Doug Howieson can correct me if I am wrong, but it could be in relation to breaking up the canopy of the forest to allow light in to support the woodland floor and growth of the ancient woodlands. It could also be about removing invasive non-native species.

There is a very robust, albeit complex, web of protections, which, when they operate correctly, should absolutely protect our ancient woodlands. However, there are threats. I am sure that we will come on to this, but there are threats from overgrazing, invasive non-native species and climate change generally. I will pause there, but we can come on later to talk about how the Government is trying to rise to some of those challenges.

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.

The first and foremost point is that nitrogen is one of the fundamental building blocks of life; it is present everywhere. As we have said, it is the vital underpinning of food production, and we can all agree that we need to eat. However, the balance sheet shows us that nitrogen is important not only for food production but for other economic processes such as the production of natural fibres and forestry materials, as Tom Russon just referred to.

In some situations, nitrogen can present real challenges, including in the greenhouse gas nitrous oxide, and in its impact on water quality, but it cannot always be viewed just as a problem. We need to be prepared to take a nuanced approach to what the balance sheet tells us.

For example, as I mentioned, nitrous oxide is a greenhouse gas, emissions of which we know contribute to climate change. This is a helpful data set that demonstrates nitrogen across the economy and nitrogen coming into and out of Scotland; we need to be prepared to understand that nitrogen is ever present and it is not always a negative thing. We need to identify where it is and work on those areas. I mentioned in reply to Mark Ruskell’s question that policy work is happening right across the Government—most particularly through the climate change plan update—to seek to pull all the levers to reduce the negative effects of nitrogen as a greenhouse gas.