Seòmar agus comataidhean

I have a question on the fertiliser and lime plan requirements. Why are you bringing in those plans and those changes?

I hear the cabinet secretary’s point about what has happened in Ireland, but I do not know the broader context. It is difficult to mix apples and bananas and say that they are the same thing, so I would be interested in knowing more about the context.

I brought the proposed provision back because I am working with stakeholders who have raised a concern about the environmental impacts of large-scale conifer plantations. I started my contribution to today’s stage 2 proceedings by saying that I want Scotland to be a forest nation. However, we need to achieve that in a way that ensures that conifer plantations do not have a detrimental impact on all the other things that you just listed.

I would appreciate having a conversation with you, and maybe we can consider doing something. That might not be for this bill, but I am keen to take the issue forward and ensure that the environmental impacts are taken into consideration, because they are considerable.

At the root of what I am trying to do are the facts that we have a limited public purse and there are climate and nature emergencies. The question is where we deploy the funding. I would like the public sector to be much more supportive of what we are trying to do regarding the climate and nature.

I am certainly aware of great examples of farmers and crofters who are already leading the way on ecological restoration work, such as the Moray Farm Cluster, up by me. Paul Neison, you have described your thinking on how farmers can engage with ecological focus areas and so on, but how will farmers be supported to get going with the establishment of an EFA?

What are you doing to reassure farmers who have concerns about making the changes?

Will the whole-farm plans be taken forward as part of that process?

I will be brief, minister. We were talking about this SSI around a year ago, and you made a commitment to bring in the scheme. It is great to see that that has happened, but it has taken a long time and I have a bit of a concern.

I hear, in a lot of what has been said this morning, that we are taking the community, and farmers and crofters, with us. However, my concern is that, if something is overlooked, it takes a long time to sort the situation out. People—crofters, in this case—are concerned that they have been waiting for quite a long time to see this happen. I remember when you made a commitment in the chamber to do it.

I am flagging that up as a concern. As we make these changes, we need to ensure that we have everybody covered, otherwise it could take a while to pick up people who have been forgotten.

If we keep part 2 of the bill, I will move my amendments, but my concerns about part 2 align with those of Mark Ruskell and Sarah Boyack.

My amendments 58 and 60 pick up an issue that was raised in evidence by the Royal Society of Edinburgh. I have a strong vision for Scotland being a forest nation, but that must be ensured in a way that recognises the very challenging context that we face, which is a severely depleted natural environment.

Amendment 58 proposes that new commercial forestry plantations over 50 hectares in size be required to carry out an environmental impact assessment. I lodged a similar amendment to the Agriculture and Rural Communities (Scotland) Bill. We need further scrutiny to ensure that trees are planted in the right places and that the creation of new commercial plantations is weighed against alternative activities such as natural woodland creation.

My amendment would also ensure that public consultation as part of the EIA process was widespread, structured and transparent. Tree planting, for whatever purpose, needs to consider the wellbeing of Scotland and all its living inhabitants. Formal consultation allows all interests to be considered and helps to legitimise the outcomes of the application process. I had lengthy discussions with the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs, Land Reform and Islands about the issue during scrutiny of the Agriculture and Rural Communities (Scotland) Bill, and I believe that the Natural Environment (Scotland) Bill is an appropriate place to include such an amendment.

My amendment 59 would give statutory protection to Ramsar sites, which are designated under the Ramsar convention as wetlands of international importance. In Scotland, the sites are currently protected by a policy that treats them as if they were European sites for the purpose of land use planning and environmental assessment. However, that protection is not enshrined in law, which creates potential uncertainty—having heard from stakeholders, I think that it is more than just potential—and an inconsistency in decision making. Putting Ramsar protection in law would give legal certainty and ensure consistent application across Scotland. It would strengthen our compliance with international environmental obligations to keep pace with environmental standards now that we are outwith the European Union. I appreciate the work that RSPB Scotland has done to support the amendment.

Will the minister take an intervention?

Are you facilitating any peer-to-peer exchange?

So, between now and 2028—when whole-farm plans will be fully required—there will still be mapping requirements for fertiliser and lime plans, but they will need to be produced in only one way. You are talking about coherence.