Seòmar agus comataidhean

The current regulations have no powers to remove certain features from the reasons for designating a site—that is the issue. The bill will give us the ability to do that and to be responsive to changes in the environment. The example that I have just given is a real-world example of how a site being designated as a European site freezes it in time; that designation was fine for then, but, 20 or 30 years on—whatever it might be—the forest is adapting to climate change, and adapting more generally, too. This is not a case of there being an invasive species; these are naturally occurring changes in the forest. That is a real-world example of where we could be quite fleet of foot in changing the designation of a site, instead of having to wait years to do that. After all, nature itself does not wait.

It will allow us the flexibility, in the future, to adapt to changing technologies, changes in evidence and environmental impacts that we see that need a quick response. I cannot predict what those will be. That is why the power is not prescriptive—we do not know what will happen. We are talking about nature and biodiversity, and others have mentioned invasive species and the threats that they pose to particular habitats.

We know that climate change, in particular, is having a severe effect. Look at the overwintering geese—they used to overwinter in the south of Scotland and now they overwinter in Orkney and Shetland. Maybe I do not want to get in to the geese situation—

Public bodies already have duties in this area. The Wildlife and Natural Environment (Scotland) Act 2011 made it a requirement for public bodies to report on their compliance with the biodiversity duty. That has been happening for 14 years. Every three years, all of Scotland’s public bodies have to produce such a report, together with an associated action plan. Bodies such as Scottish Water, SEPA, Scottish Enterprise, Registers of Scotland and all the local authorities already have that duty.

If we found that the action plans were not being delivered on, I would be open to investigating that further. My team regularly scrutinises those action plans and the policies that public bodies have set out to address the biodiversity situation. We need to address delivery on the action plans, but public bodies already have a duty in relation to biodiversity.

I am willing to explore that. If committee members do not feel that the protections that we are putting in place are robust enough we can talk about that, because this is the first stage of the bill process. However, I do not believe that a non-regression clause would be particularly workable or that it would enable us to respond to each case as it comes before us.

Let me take that away.

It is not just nice to have; it is important to work towards it, but it is in setting the topic targets that the action actually happens. Let me take that idea away. As I said, Environmental Standards Scotland can already advise us on bringing forward any review of targets.

I do not think that they need to be. The goals are already in the biodiversity strategy and they are stated intentions in all the policy documents. They are part of the ambition that we are working towards. My initial reaction is that I do not think that goals and ambitions fit well in legislation, which is the place to put the actions that are associated with those goals.

I am open to suggestions that references to the global biodiversity framework could be part of the criteria for target setting and to suggestions about adhering to standards, but I am not sure how appropriate or meaningful the idea of ambition is.

On the basis of one or more of them, yes. However, the Parliament needs to scrutinise that and decide whether it can be done. I am open to having a conversation about whether those processes can be strengthened, but that is where we have put the safeguards for the use of that power.

Could a future Government that does not believe in climate change and that does not think that biodiversity losses are a threat to the very existence of human beings come in and be full of people who are climate change deniers? That is a possibility that we always need to take into account in a democracy. They could do anything—they could rip up any legislation that they wanted to. However, I do not believe that the Scottish Parliament will be like that and I do not believe that the Scottish Parliament is like that now.

Statutory targets are not a silver bullet. As I said in my opening statement, it is important to keep successive Governments’ eyes on the ball by requiring them to meet the targets and take the actions that underpin the targets.

The committee will know intimately the range of workstreams that we have designed to provide policy and action, because that is what there must be. If we just have targets, we will not achieve anything, but, if targets are statutory, that means that there has to be reporting associated with meeting them.

The targets cannot exist in isolation. They are underpinned by the strategic framework, which was published in November last year and includes the biodiversity strategy, which sets out the goal to be nature positive by 2030 and to have sustainability restored and regenerated by 2045. There are also six-year rolling delivery plans, which will have cross-sectoral action.

Plans exist in other Government portfolios as well. Mairi Gougeon has been taking on work under the Agriculture and Rural Communities (Scotland) Act 2024, including the whole-farm plan and work with the agriculture reform implementation oversight board, or ARIOB, and she has been implementing policies from the fisheries management strategy in the marine environment. We are also doing work across the marine protected areas network, for example. There is also the budgeting that is associated with those things, such as the nature restoration fund in this year’s budget, and other historical pieces of work that have been done to hold planners and those who make planning decisions accountable, such as national planning framework 4. There is a raft of policy areas and duties on public bodies—councils, for example—that will underpin this work.

It will not be easy. I am setting out that, by 2045, we will have regenerated and restored biodiversity. That is only 20 years away, so there is an urgency, and we have got to the point where we need statutory targets. Statutory targets hold to account not just Government but Parliament, public bodies and future Governments. Biodiversity is far too serious a matter for us to leave it to chance or place hope in policies alone. As the convener rightly said, the “State of Nature 2023” report did not make good reading, which is why urgency must be associated with the actions that are set out in the bill.

I am open to exploring that if you want to take it forward. I think that you are right. The nature of climate change means that species are arriving in Scotland that we have never seen before. The danger is that some of them might be causing a threat to biodiversity; some of them—some insects, for example—might even cause a threat to human beings. There are also pathogens associated with some of the smaller species that arrive; for example, there are the various strains of bird flu that have been adapting and changing. If you want to speak to me about something like that, I would be open to exploring it with you, and my officials can take it away and look at it.