Seòmar agus comataidhean

Both of the amendments in this group relate to delivering nature networks. As the Government rightly highlights, nature networks deliver multiple benefits beyond biodiversity: they store carbon; they mitigate floods; they regulate temperature in our towns, villages and cities; and they improve our mental and physical health. They are a keystone of the Scottish biodiversity strategy, because fragmentation of nature is a key driver of its decline.

Amendment 76 would introduce a requirement for ministers to report on progress towards the establishment of nature networks and on their effectiveness. Embedding a reporting requirement at ministerial level would ensure co-ordinated delivery that complements the bottom-up approach at council level. We are all aware of the excellent work that councils are doing on the ground to establish nature networks and to embed them in local planning. Without amendment 76, we risk nature networks being overlooked. The Government has set ambitious goals for the planning system to deliver positive effects for biodiversity and for private finance to support the ambitions of the biodiversity strategy, but, unless a strategically co-ordinated pipeline of projects is identified through nature networks, we risk missing those opportunities.

Amendment 77 would add a requirement for the forthcoming land use strategy to consider the ecological connectivity that is delivered through nature networks. The land use strategy provides the context for the major land use decisions that are needed to meet Scotland’s climate ambitions. Given that a key principle of the bill is the need to tackle climate and nature together, it makes sense to explicitly include ecological connectivity in the land use strategy. The strategy also underpins regional land use partnerships, which engage communities in shaping the land use changes that are required to meet climate targets. Elevating nature to the same level as climate in those discussions would ensure that communities are involved in the decisions, especially those on nature networks.

I move amendment 76.

I do not have an answer to that question, but we could certainly explore that in discussions with the minister.

I think that there is scope to reflect on the situation ahead of stage 3. Would you like to come back in, minister?

Thank you—that is helpful. I think that it adds to the evidence that we have taken already. Before other colleagues come in, I will move on to briefly discuss the definition of ecocide. The committee has spent a bit of time looking at the terms in your bill, such as “widespread” and “long-term”, the latter of which has been defined in the bill as 12 months. There is no definition of “serious adverse effects”. I am interested in your reflections on the evidence that we have taken, particularly in relation to the concerns around those specific terms. What is your response to those concerns, as you head into stage 1?

You might have seen that we took evidence from NatureScot in which it suggested that 12 months is not an ideal definition of “long-term”, because it is very difficult to see how any ecosystem can recover, even from a relatively minor environmental impact over that timescale, so there are some questions about particular definitions in the bill. The question for us as a committee is whether we have the opportunity to think through a lot of that detail ahead of stage 2, which could come quite quickly on the back of stage 1. Therefore, your response to those questions at this point is quite important.

I appreciate that. I go back to my original question. Part of the argument that you make for creating an offence of ecocide is that it forces us to look from the top of that regulatory pyramid down at the regulatory framework, and there are questions that emerge from that. If we put a permitting defence into the bill, does that mean that we are totally okay with everything else in the regulatory framework that protects the environment and sits underneath that defence?

If we accept a permitting defence—there are a lot of other ifs in that regard, such as if the bill gets to stage 2—we are effectively creating a protection for regulators, consenting bodies and those who have permits. That leads to the question whether we are okay with that and whether we think that any potential ecocide events could happen under the current permitted regime. What I am getting from your answer is that the current regime is fine, but culpability and intention remain at the top of the pyramid and are not captured by the strict liability offence at its highest level. I will leave it there, but it is on the record.

We have received some evidence on the bill’s provisions being a deterrent. Will you expand on that? I am interested in what has been put in place in the European Union. As you say, there is now more emphasis on ecocide as a criminal offence. How has that changed the conversation—or not—with regulators and corporations? What is the impact of having ecocide in legislation? Is it a deterrent? What evidence do you have on that?

I can see that it is about the ecological coherence with the continental shelf and how it extends beyond that. I think that that is a good example.

You mentioned notification, storage, access and reporting around marine genetic resources, as well as co-ordination of potential area-based management tools. How do you anticipate that being organised? Would the UK Government lead on it, or would the Scottish Government want to feed in? I am just trying to picture what the activity is and the reality of the Scottish Government’s function within that.

Cabinet secretary, can you say a bit more about area-based management tools and how you anticipate the legislation working in a devolved context? What is the potential fix or amendment, or negotiated outcome, that you are looking for in relation to those tools? I am just trying to picture what, in practice, this all actually means.

Thank you.

I am picking up the point that there is now consensus on a permitting defence, which would potentially extend to consenting bodies. Everybody would covered by that. Can ecocide still occur, even within that regime? I am aware that there is a provision on overriding public interest in the habitats regulations, which are designed to protect species and habitats. A consenting body can effectively allow environmental damage to occur if it is seen to be in the wider public interest, whether because of climate change or some other issue. Have you considered that? We are considering the creation of a defence for consenting bodies, but a consenting body could intentionally and wilfully allow environmental damage to take place because it is in the wider public interest to do so.

It feels like the ground has shifted a little bit with respect to the bill, which I think is good, given the evidence that we have heard on the impact on consenting bodies and on those that have been granted permits. Within that space, however, I am now wondering whether that has been or needs to be considered.

I hope that that question is clear—it is probably not.