Seòmar agus comataidhean

I know that that is a very simplistic way of looking at it. In that case, I have a different question. Sorry about that, convener.

I am sorry that the witnesses do not have in front of them the table that I am looking at. I suppose that we will soon have estimates for 2023-24 under the woodland and peatland carbon codes. However, no one is citing what future investments might look like. If we were talking about housing, for example, we would know that there was £X million-worth of investment in the background, how many units that might represent, what the yield might look like and so on. How can we track what future investment might look like? Is that quantified anywhere?

Okay. I appreciate your trying to answer that question as best you could, based on what I was asking you.

I think that it is fair to say that members will be on a learning curve for some of this.

What levels of activity are there in natural capital finance in Scotland, and what impact is that having on land use? Convener, I have a supplementary question, which I will roll in due to time constraints, so that I do not have to come in twice on the same point.

My questions are about current levels of activity and the impact that that is having on land use. It would also be interesting for anyone who is watching the session to get an idea of your organisation’s interest in the sector, to give a context to your evidence. Perhaps Stuart Greenwood could start.

That is helpful, because, in evidence, we are hearing about modest numbers, but the activity with regard to woodland has trebled in four years. To an outsider, that looks like significant growth, but it is still relatively modest, given what we have to do.

I will move on. It was helpful to get everyone to set the scene, but it might be that not everyone will need to answer my next question. We are keen to know what is motivating different actors to engage in the area. What is making investors get involved? For example, what is motivating land managers to develop and certify projects, and what is motivating investors and buyers on the market side? What is getting those investors involved and land managers to come to the table and play games? What are the driving factors? A couple of witnesses might want to get some of that information on the record. Mr Paterson is nodding at me, so I suspect that he wants to come in.

On diversification, Mr Paterson talked about revenues. Does any witness have anything to add that is not already on the record?

I apologise, but I was talking about investment. We are looking at different outcomes and at how we leverage in finance to do some of the environmental work. I do not want to ask someone else’s question, convener, but I was clarifying that the trend appears to be up but that the level is still relatively modest in global numbers.

Thank you. I apologise for cutting you off, Mr Young.

It is always dangerous to ask a question when I am not quite clear on the context. You mention return. Is there a yield on that? Can you quantify it in percentage terms? Would 5 per cent be an impressive yield for such a financial investment? What are we looking at? I get that investors might want to do the right thing, but there is a financial imperative—they want to make money.

Thank you. Mr Young wants to come in.

This question almost takes us full circle back to my first line of questioning. I referred to investment in trading in carbon from 2018-19 to 2022-23. More than £3 million was invested in woodland in 2018-19, and the figure was £9.5 million in 2022-23. There were similar figures for peatland—investment rose from £19,000 to £1.6 million. Those are still relatively small figures, but we can see the increasing trend. I do not fully understand the numbers, but I can see the pattern in them.

During other lines of questioning, prior issues units—I apologise if I have got the terminology wrong—were mentioned. That got me thinking about the pipeline of future investment. Is that the best way to think about PIUs? We have estimates for each year, but lurking behind those is potential investment for future years. I want to be sure that that is what is meant by PIUs. Have I understood them properly? How can the committee see what potential future investment is lurking positively in the background, so that we can see the pipeline of potential investment based on incentives that might or might not be given and those kinds of things? Have I understood that correctly, Mr Paterson?