Seòmar agus comataidhean

Before I move on to Jo Pike, from the Scottish Wildlife Trust, and Dr Snowdon, I ask them also to consider the comments that Dieter Helm made about the need to get the approach to natural capital right and to assess and baseline it. For example, we need to ensure that we do not plant tens of thousands of hectares of Sitka spruce if, in the long term, that is not the best investment. Potentially, we need to do all the planning before we bring forward policies. Do we need to pause right now, even though we are in a climate emergency, and ensure that we make the best investment for the long term to get the best from our natural capital?

Sorry—we lost connection for a minute. I ask Jenni Minto to repeat what she said.

For some time, the principle of public money for public goods has been suggested as the way forward south of the border. Some policies are now being introduced, but some people do not view them as a particularly good move. In Scotland, the direction of travel for rural support is still quite unclear, particularly in relation to the replacement for CAP. Is there anything in what is being introduced south of the border that should be adopted up here, and what should we avoid when it comes to future rural payments?

I will come in on the back of that with a question for Eilidh. I know that you said that the matter is above your pay grade or whatever, but should the National Investment Bank be looking at ethical decision making? There might, for example, be an economic argument for cutting down rainforests in Brazil and creating cattle lots. In the same way, and in the long term, should the bank be looking at investments in forestry planting? There is, absolutely, private sector money to be invested in that, but, in Scotland right now, land is overpriced and farmers are being priced out of the market because of the astronomical amounts that those private investors are willing to pay to plant trees. Jim Fairlie touched on land grades. Land classified as 3.2, which would normally be for agricultural production, is now assumed to be suitable for planting trees. Is that not something that you should consider when deciding on the investments that you might make? I put that question first to Eilidh and then to Ian Dickie.

Thank you. We will now move on to the theme of public funding.

That is interesting. My next question is whether the horse has bolted. Targets have already been set for tree planting and peatland, and we are racing down that road. Some of our routes to reaching net zero by 2045 are already based on trees, which will generally be Sitka spruce. Is it still possible to put the brakes on and do the work that you are talking about to ensure that we get the right outcomes and do not have Sitka spruce planted on agricultural land that would be better put to other use? What methods should we employ? How can we get Government to slow down a bit and look at the long-term implications rather than grab the low-hanging fruit?

Good morning, and welcome to the 14th meeting in session 6 of the Rural Affairs, Islands and Natural Environment Committee. I remind members who are using electronic devices to turn those to silent.

Our first item of business is an evidence session on the role of funding and finance in the climate and nature emergencies, particularly in relation to the rural economy. I am delighted to welcome our first witness, Professor Sir Dieter Helm, professor of economic policy at the University of Oxford. We very much appreciate your finding time in your busy schedule to join us. We have until 10.30 for this session.

I will kick off with the first question. We have previously heard your views on natural capital. Exactly what is meant by the terms “natural capital” and “public goods”, and how can natural assets be properly accounted for and embedded into our economies?

I welcome our second panel of witnesses, who are Ian Dickie, the director of the Economics for the Environment Consultancy; Eilidh Mactaggart, the chief executive of the Scottish National Investment Bank; Jo Pike, the chief executive of the Scottish Wildlife Trust; and Dr Pat Snowdon, the head of economics and woodland carbon code with Scottish Forestry.

Again, we have approximately 90 minutes for this evidence session. I will kick off the questions. To what extent has the overall conventional economic thinking changed in relation to the climate and nature emergencies? How does the concept of natural capital now play a part in your thinking about the way forward? What opportunities does it bring for the rural sector?

That was very useful.

As I cannot see anybody else wanting to come in to address the concept of taxes, fees and levies being used, I will move on.

Is it not really difficult to talk about such things, including regulations, particularly when it comes to agricultural strategy, when the CCC has said that there are big ambitions but there is nothing to demonstrate that we might deliver on them because there is no clear strategy in place for achieving them? We cannot really start talking about fiscal measures if we do not know the direction of travel. Is the issue that we do not actually know what the policies are to deliver on climate change and biodiversity loss, as the CCC quite clearly pointed out at the beginning of this week?