Seòmar agus comataidhean

Thank you for that.

I will move on to another question. I was interested to hear earlier that you are a forester by background. Can you say a little more about how municipal forests are helping to achieve Freiburg’s net zero targets and to restore biodiversity?

I think that we would call them nature networks. They involve the restoration of nature at landscape scale. What role does the municipality have in that? Are there issues with land ownership if some landowners prefer traditional agricultural use of land, rather than rewilding or creating new, large-scale habitats?

I have a final question about the links to your work on forests. I see that you are doing a lot of work to develop biomes. I think that, in English, we would interpret that to mean nature networks.

I am sorry—yes, “biotopes” is the word.

Can you give a specific example of where there has been conflict between the sustainable development goals and how that was resolved? Is it ultimately for politicians to resolve that conflict?

Do you see there being a role in a more sustainable supply chain for wood fuel biomass for heating, or is that a diminishing part of the energy mix?

It is really interesting to hear your evidence, Franziska. I will pick up on your last point about how engaged citizens are in Freiburg. Will you talk me through the formal mechanisms for engaging citizens? Is there a danger of what we call consultation fatigue, as a result of people being constantly asked about public policy? What sort of mechanisms do you have for engaging citizens? Are there citizens assemblies or particular referendums or discussions on particular issues? How does such engagement manifest itself?

I join other members in thanking Colin Smyth for his cross-party leadership on animal welfare at Holyrood, and also join him in thanking our animal welfare charities for their relentless work in this area.

I think that the ethical principles that we are discussing hold a mirror up to our relationship with the natural world. They highlight where wildlife management has moved on to a better footing but they also point to where traditional and often anti-scientific practices are unfortunately still the norm. They also reveal that the way that we treat our domestic animals can be dramatically different to the way that we treat some wild animals that are still, sadly, viewed as pests and vermin to be eradicated. The study from the League Against Cruel Sports, showing an estimated 250,000 wild animals killed each year on sporting estates, demonstrates how far there is still to go. The estimates that half of those animals are non-target species, such as hedgehogs or domestic cats, shows how cruel and indiscriminate practices such as snaring can be.

In recent years, we have seen numerous wildlife reviews led by eminent chairs—Poustie on wildlife crime and sentencing; Werritty on driven grouse moors; Bonomy on hunting with wild dogs—as well the critical report from the deer working group that is now being acted on through the Green-SNP agreement. Each of those reviews has moved the dial a little, but there is still a need for a consistent approach in relation to how we manage wildlife.

The position statement on wildlife management from Scottish Natural Heritage in 2014 and the later concordat that was signed were a really good first step. The SGA signed up to that concordat, as well, but, eight years on, I think that we are all agreed that there is a need for further reform. I welcome the debate on the principles, and the fact that the framework has already been adopted by Parks Canada tells me that it can probably work here too.

As Colin Smyth outlined, the seven principles are largely common sense. Take the first principle that we should look into the root causes of conflict of wildlife. It is obvious that, for example, many of the problems that we have gulls in town are due to rubbish and food waste collection issues. The gulls are really trying to tell us something about the need for a much more circular economy. The mentality of seeing certain species as pests is deep-seated and needs challenge. I was saddened to hear calls from the National Farmers Union Scotland recently for lethal controls on protected white-tailed eagles.

Although sea eagles can scavenge for dead lambs, it is a small proportion of their diet, and it is quite clear from the research that incidents of eagles taking live lambs are rare and that better husbandry, including lambing taking place under shelter, would address the real causes of the quite horrific levels of black loss that we see in sheep farming. Of course, many of the techniques to minimise that black loss are being trialled by farmers and crofters under the excellent sea eagle management scheme that is run by NatureScot, which is delivering welfare benefits to sheep as well as eagles. However, there is no need or justification for the culling of sea eagles, and those who persecute them illegally are quite clearly criminals.

The framework acknowledges that the culling of some species might, in some circumstances, be justified but it rightly demands systematic plans with clear objectives to be considered rather than the habitual culling of animals such as foxes that often results in populations just bouncing back again. Clear objectives are important and I think that OneKind is right to point out in its briefing for this debate that the badger cull in England failed to meet its objectives to curb bovine tuberculosis.

The debate on these principles is welcome and timely, and I very much look forward to hearing from the minister later about how the Scottish Government can embed them further into policy, practice and, ultimately, the law.

I was just reflecting on the point that Ian Forrester made about the European Union’s approach to developing policy, which involves in-depth working with scientific advisers, industry bodies, environmental non-governmental organisations and other stakeholders. Do you and the other witnesses see a mismatch or growing divergence between that well-established EU approach, which the UK was very much part of over many years, and the way in which policy is now being developed in the UK? Professor Barnard’s example of gene editing might be an interesting one to use to reflect on the robustness of the conversation that might be happening in the EU compared with what is being proposed here. Another example might relate to fisheries.

We perhaps underestimate how much work goes into hammering out agreements across the EU. There are lessons there for us across the UK.