Seòmar agus comataidhean

The issue is common to how schemes around the world work.

I do not.

I would always say that they need more. Of course I would say that, because I am the minister for biodiversity. However, I can certainly outline some of our vision in this area.

The biodiversity strategy is a starting point. It sets out clearly what we need to achieve to halt and reverse biodiversity loss. It also provides us with the evidence that human activity has accelerated biodiversity decline. The member is therefore quite right: biodiversity needs to be mainstreamed across all our policy developments, our business practice and wider society. The Government cannot do this on its own. Nature does not belong to us, it belongs to everybody, every business and every person.

I am therefore working closely with other ministers to make sure that our collective policies will deliver the positive outcomes that we need. Some good examples of that are our national strategy for economic transformation, which, for the first time, recognises the importance of our natural capital as an asset to the country that we need to maintain.

Our vision for agriculture puts nature restoration at its heart, alongside climate mitigation and food security. It also recognises the importance of that sector in delivering for biodiversity, and that farmers and land managers are stewards of our land.

Interestingly, our national planning framework 4 and its supporting guidance have significantly greater emphasis on the importance of conserving our natural environment. I actually have an excerpt here, entitled “Developing with Nature guidance”. This is for anyone who is making a planning application, and it sets out very clear and quite practical steps by which people can take account of nature in a planning application. They can, for example,

“Apply the mitigation hierarchy ... Consider biodiversity from the outset”

and

“Take a place-based and inclusive approach.”

The guidance covers other practical things such as what plants are suitable as pollinators, how to plant a wildflower meadow and how to incorporate trees, scrub and woodland into developments. It is a really good example of mainstreaming, and anyone applying for planning permission for a development in Scotland has access to all that information. It even sets out how to incorporate homes for bees and bugs into development planning, how to manage water with nature and so on. It is an excellent example of mainstreaming that will make a difference as we go forward.

You have identified three very important areas—food, energy and housing—and that is exactly the kind of mainstreaming that we are considering. Reform of the agriculture subsidies is to do with environmental matters as well as food security. The different interests are not necessarily competing—agriculture is part of the solution to the climate crisis, and regenerative farming and crofting have an important role to play in how we do this while ensuring that the sector thrives. Those matters are dealt with under land reform and agricultural reform.

Energy and housing will come under the national planning framework, which contains clear guidance on having biodiversity built in as well as specific guidance on national development and the development guidance that I have just outlined. I think that we are well covered for biodiversity in those areas.

The phrase “zonal approach” has not come across my desk. However, ensuring that local communities are involved is important. With any investment in natural capital, we have to empower local communities. We cannot have a just transition through imposing things on communities; it needs to come from them. The convener is right in saying that we need to consider who is benefiting from land and how we invest in it. I am happy to take that away and consider it.

You are right to recognise the work of volunteers in protecting and restoring nature. Indeed, Matthew Bird and I went to the launch of the UK’s plant atlas, after an estimated 8,500 volunteers went around the UK, over a 20-year period, counting every flowering plant. It is an incredible achievement, and that is exactly the kind of data that we need in order to understand the challenges that native species—such as those at Langlands Moss—face and how at risk they are. Unfortunately, the plant atlas shows that our native species numbers have declined significantly, but introduced species numbers have increased significantly. You are absolutely right that the challenge is enormous, and protected areas make such a difference.

As I outlined to Jackie Dunbar, one of the streams in the biodiversity strategy, under actions, is to

“recover and protect vulnerable and important species.”

That is exactly the focus that we need. We need to manage existing and emerging pressures so that species can continue their recovery, and we should reintroduce species when that is needed.

Lisa McCann or Matthew Bird might have some specific information on newts.

It is part of the cross-Government work that we do. Addressing consumption, which relates to the other part of my portfolio, will be covered largely through the circular economy bill and the route map for waste in Scotland. It is about bending that route around. However, that does not mean that the issue of consumption does not relate to biodiversity. These things are always artificially put into categories, but the member is quite right to point out that our work on the circular economy will be important in relation to biodiversity, too. I am absolutely confident that we will reference consumption in the strategy, because it is an important part of how we deal with the issue.

Absolutely. The Scottish Government has already committed to maintaining broad alignment with EU environmental standards, and we have been monitoring with interest the development of the EU’s ambitious nature restoration law. In fact, our strategy sets out the metrics that we would use to measure against the targets that the EU has set out.

At the moment, the EU law and the targets are proposals, and they are subject to negotiation between member states and amendment by the European Parliament. Our approach is not to wait for them but to develop our own targets and delivery proposals; however, we will take account of what is going on in Europe as those developments emerge.

I am very happy to take that under consideration. I can write to the member on that point.

The member is referring to the NatureScot agreement with Hampden & Co. As he suggests, that is an investment model that is based on a bridging loan from Hampden & Co to a private land owner to support that private land owner in creating woodland. The loan bridges the gap between the initial investment and the flow of carbon revenue. That is a way of helping private land owners do that woodland generation.