Official Report 1154KB pdf
The next item of business is a members’ business debate on motion S6M-13402, in the name of Audrey Nicoll, on invasive non-native species in Scotland. The debate will be concluded without any question being put.
I advise members that, as we are resuming business at 2 o’clock this afternoon, I will have to ensure that members stick to their allocated speaking times, to allow our staff sufficient time to clear the chamber in preparation for that.
Motion debated,
That the Parliament notes the publication of the Scottish Environment LINK report, Invasive Non-native Species in Scotland: A Plan for Effective Action, which collates the thinking of Scotland’s environmental non-governmental organisations regarding invasive non-native species; understands that invasive non-native species constitute one of the five principal direct drivers of global biodiversity loss and that invasive non-native species are among the most significant pressures on Scotland’s biodiversity; recognises the reported significant negative impacts that invasive non-native species have for Scotland’s marine, terrestrial and freshwater environments, including in the Aberdeen South and North Kincardine constituency; highlights reports of the financial impact of invasive non-native and non-native species on Scotland’s economy; notes the view that it is necessary to effectively tackle invasive non-native species as a prerequisite to successful nature restoration in Scotland; believes that the Scottish Government’s Nature Restoration Fund is providing critical funds to initiate and develop projects, working with communities and volunteers to prevent the establishment, and control the spread, of invasive non-native species, and considers that this is allowing the recovery of biodiversity across Scotland, including river restoration projects addressing invasive non-native plants, controlling invasive rhododendron in Scotland’s rainforest and safeguarding internationally important seabird islands from non-native mammals through island biosecurity action.
12:51
I am very pleased to bring the debate to the chamber. I thank every member who signed the motion, and every member who is speaking today.
The motion centres on the recent Scottish Environment LINK report, “Invasive Non-native Species in Scotland: A Plan for Effective Action”, which takes account of the current status of non-native species in Scotland, the part that they play in biodiversity loss and the urgent action that is required to tackle them. I commend all the organisations that contributed to the report, and I thank the report’s authors for producing a comprehensive review of the non-native species landscape in Scotland. I also thank all the organisations that have shared helpful briefings ahead of the debate, and I extend special thanks to Andrew Marks, Susan Madden, Dr Lorraine Hawkins and Jan Simpson for their insight and support.
As nature champion for the freshwater pearl mussel, I am pleased to have secured the time to debate this topic. The urgency of the work that is required to shift the dial on habitat and species decline, including tackling invasive non-native species, cannot be overstated.
Invasive non-native species, or INNS, are one of the five principal direct drivers of global biodiversity loss, alongside climate change, pollution, changes in land use, natural resource use and exploitation. Globally, natural barriers such as oceans and mountains restrict the mixing of species from different regions and allow global diversity to be maintained. INNS are species that have been introduced to a country, whether deliberately or accidentally, thereby breaking down those barriers and eroding biodiversity. International trade and the movement of people and goods are the most likely means by which INNS move across borders.
Not all INNS have immediate or detectable environmental impacts, but many of them do. There is no doubt that the pressure of INNS on biodiversity is intensifying across terrestrial, marine and freshwater environments. Many of us are familiar with Japanese knotweed, Himalayan balsam and giant hogweed, but there are many other INNS that cause issues, including the grey squirrel, American skunk cabbage and American mink, to name but a few.
The greatest threat to Scotland’s rainforest is the rhododendron, with which we are all familiar. It blocks sunlight from reaching the forest floor, stifling the growth of native flora and fauna, which in turn impacts mammals, insects, moss and lichen. In the north-east, the Dee Catchment Partnership has undertaken a number of targeted projects, including in my constituency of Aberdeen South and North Kincardine, to control giant hogweed, Japanese knotweed and piri piri burr.
Japanese knotweed is highly invasive in woodlands and on riverbanks, forming very dense clumps that overshadow native plants. Dispersal is particularly problematic for riverbanks because fragments of root wash downstream, only to spread further.
As well as the environmental cost of INNS, their economic cost is significant. The cost of INNS to the UK economy is estimated to be almost £500 million per year. The cost over the past 40 to 50 years is estimated to be more than £5 billion, which is one of the highest totals in Europe.
How effectively are we controlling INNS? The Scottish biodiversity strategy notes the spread of 190 INNS across Great Britain during the past six decades, with an estimated 10 to 12 new non-native species establishing themselves each year. Projects such as Saving Scotland’s Red Squirrels and the Alliance for Scotland’s Rainforest are working successfully to tackle INNS in Scotland. However, efforts to control and eradicate non-native species have been patchy, and work to control the spread has been largely inadequate. The existing Great Britain invasive non-native species strategy is not considered to take full account of the unique and, in part, vulnerable Scottish ecosystem.
However, the forthcoming Scottish INNS plan, which was signalled in the draft Scottish biodiversity strategy, presents the Scottish Government with an opportunity to make key strides in the control and eradication of INNS. Scotland could look to the Kunming-Montreal global biodiversity framework for guidance when considering the forthcoming plan. The KMGB framework sets a target to reduce rates of introduction and establishment of INNS by at least 50 per cent by 2030, and it puts forward targets for significant progress on the eradication or control of INNS, particularly at priority sites that are susceptible to them.
On funding, financial support to date has derived from a wide range of sources including the Scottish Government nature restoration fund. It is disappointing that the Government has signalled that that fund is to be withdrawn. I hope that the recent United Kingdom budget affords some flexibility for that to be reconsidered, and I ask the minister to provide some clarity on that point in his response to the debate.
Looking ahead, I trust that the Scottish Government will engage closely with environmental non-governmental organisations to create a Scottish INNS plan that is both clear and comprehensive in addressing the impact of INNS on the ecosystem as well as on Scotland’s native species.
Biodiversity and healthy ecosystems play a key role in tackling climate change, and I am glad to have had the opportunity to bring this debate to the chamber to highlight the threat that INNS represent to Scotland’s biodiversity. I thank everyone who supported my motion and I look forward to listening to members’ contributions.
12:58
Presiding Officer, I apologise to you and members as I will have to leave the chamber shortly after delivering my speech.
I thank Audrey Nicoll for bringing this topic to the chamber for debate, and I thank Scottish Environment LINK, which produced the report that is highlighted in her motion. Both Audrey Nicoll, by bringing the topic to the chamber, and Scottish Environment LINK, by producing such a strong and compelling report, have clearly expressed the need for comprehensive action to be taken to combat invasive non-native species.
The invasion of non-native species is a serious threat to the environment and heritage of our country. To see the effects, no one need look further than their local patch of woodland. The rhododendron, which was brought to the UK as a decorative garden plant in the late 18th century, not only invades our local countryside but is even found in spectacular temperate rainforests. It flourishes, dominating the woodland environment to the detriment of native flora and fauna.
To many, the grey squirrel might seem harmless, yet this invasive non-native species is a great threat to our native red squirrel population. The grey squirrel’s size and aggressive nature allow it to dominate available resources and habitats. That has caused the native red squirrel population to plummet, with sightings of red squirrels becoming less and less frequent. Where forests full of native trees once grew and thrived, the Sitka spruce now invades our ancient woodlands.
I was reminded of that crisis when Audrey Baird and Fiona Baker submitted a petition to the Public Petitions Committee in 2020. As a member of the committee, I was inspired by their work to protect their local woodland. The petition calls on the Scottish Government to deliver legislation to give Scotland’s remaining ancient native and semi-native woodlands full legal protection. That led me to visit one of Scotland’s unique temperate rainforests, where I witnessed for myself the devastating effect of Sitka spruce and other invasive non-native species on our precious natural heritage.
Although the tangible and visible examples of the danger of invasive non-native species are compelling, they represent only the tip of the iceberg. Below the surface, aquatic life is arguably the most at risk. Managing invasive non-native species plays a major part in Scotland’s economy, because our rivers, wetlands and coastlands are particularly at risk of biodiversity loss and of coastal erosion that affects our local coastal communities. Invasive non-native species also pose a risk to our coastal industries.
Restoration Forth, which is a collaborative project funded by WWF, works in partnership to protect native species in our local waterways. That major marine restoration programme works with communities to restore seagrass habitats and the European flat oyster population in the Firth of Forth. The Ecology Centre, which is based in Kinghorn in my constituency, is a partner organisation on the project. I was pleased to visit the centre during recess to engage with the programme. With a focus on reintroducing native seagrass and oysters to the seabed of the Forth estuary, Lyle Boyle, the seagrass officer, knows only too well how important it is to carefully manage invasive non-native species.
One example of that is the project’s strict oyster biosecurity protocol. Lyle Boyle explained that, although oysters are native, individual oysters and oyster reefs can also be a habitat for a range of other species. To guard against invasive non-native species, the organisation trains volunteers to rid each oyster of any encrusted living animal before moving it to a new environment, thereby getting rid of any suspected hitchhikers.
When working in the Forth, those working for the organisation protectively manage accidental spread using footbaths. Before planting and during the monitoring process, they actively search and remove invasive non-native species. Tank water is eradicated by ultraviolet light, seed-bearing shoots are quarantined and native species are planted and protected alongside a robust monitoring protocol.
As Audrey Nicoll highlights in her motion, the Scottish Government’s nature restoration fund has been pivotal in funding community-based organisations to combat non-native invasive species in Scotland. Continued funding is necessary to help those organisations to continue their efforts to improve Scotland’s biodiversity. Like many here today, I find great joy in the outdoors—
Mr Torrance, I need to ask you to conclude your remarks.
I camp with the scouts, holiday in the Highlands and explore the countryside with my dogs. Our environmental heritage is there for us to see, but a walk on a woodland path and a stroll on a beach is at risk from biodiversity loss caused by—
Thank you, Mr Torrance.
I remind members that those who speak in a debate but wish to leave early are required to seek prior permission from the Presiding Officer and to apologise to members in the chamber. In this case, I am not entirely sure whether the first step has been effected, but perhaps that matter can be pursued in writing with the Presiding Officer.
13:03
I thank Audrey Nicoll for lodging this important motion for debate. I will address two invasive species—grey squirrels and giant hogweed—that can be found in Aberdeenshire West and that significantly impact our community.
I am proud to be the species champion for red squirrels, the UK’s only native squirrel species. The introduction and subsequent rapid spread of grey squirrels—or the American tree rat, as it is more correctly known—since the late 19th century has had a devastating effect on red squirrel populations. Although there are more than 2.7 million grey squirrels in the UK, fewer than 287,000 red squirrels remain, and 75 per cent of those are in Scotland. It is very much our responsibility to protect that declining population, whose presence in our woodlands makes a major contribution to Scotland’s nature-based tourism economy.
Grey squirrels are larger, they eat more and they are essentially starving red squirrels out of their habitats. They also carry the squirrel pox virus. Although the greys are asymptomatic to that disease, it is devastating for red squirrels. Outbreaks can wipe out local red squirrel populations, as the disease is usually fatal within two weeks. The competition between red and grey squirrels is a man-made problem, so it is our responsibility to manage it by any means—even, as I did once, daring to cook and serve grey squirrels, Peking duck style, in an effort to encourage a culinary market. Sadly, it did not take off.
The most effective strategy—halting grey squirrels in targeted areas—is practised by groups such as Saving Scotland’s Red Squirrels. That group’s project, which has been running for 15 years, demonstrates that centrally co-ordinated, professional control and monitoring of grey squirrels are both effective and necessary.
However, it is no longer sustainable for that vital work to be delivered on short-term funding cycles, with a charity responsible for delivery. Can the minister explain how the Government plans to ensure that strategic grey squirrel control continues into the future? Will the new strategy, which is being worked on by the Scottish squirrel group and shared by NatureScot, contain a detailed delivery plan for how such control will be delivered over its 10-year lifespan?
I turn to the other significant invasive species, giant hogweed. That plant originated in central Asia and escaped ornamental gardens in the UK in the 19th century. Now widespread across the UK, giant hogweed can reach heights of up to 5m, often overshadowing native plants and disrupting biodiversity. It is also a public health hazard, as its sap can cause severe skin blistering, with symptoms that can reoccur for years.
It is crucial to eradicate giant hogweed in the UK. Large infestations generally require multiple treatments of herbicide, along with the removal of flower heads to prevent seeding. For smaller outbreaks, manual removal in spring can be effective. In my constituency, along the River Don, a multiyear programme has successfully controlled giant hogweed through annual treatment, starting at the top of the river. Across Scotland, the Scottish Invasive Species Initiative manages 753km of river to control giant hogweed.
However, eradicating it remains challenging due to the plant’s resilience and to budget constraints, so continued effort and resources are essential. Failing to spend money on its removal now will only lead to greater costs in the future. Worryingly, NatureScot has made no species control agreements in the north-east to deal with giant hogweed. It is essential that we address that and other invasive species in order to protect and restore Scotland’s natural heritage.
13:07
I thank Audrey Nicoll for bringing this important debate to the chamber. I also thank Audrey Baird and Fiona Baker, two of my constituents, who have been calling on the Scottish Government to deliver legislation to give Scotland’s remaining fragments of ancient native and semi-native woodlands full legal protection. Audrey and Fiona have been leading the campaign through the Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee since 2020. They are nothing if not determined, and their hard work continues. I believe that their petition is still open, so I thank members of the committee for their support.
Our Scottish historic landscape, which I know that we all value, has been overrun by invasive non-native conifers. The tree of the year competition that is run by the Woodland Trust was won this year by a tree in Scotland, in Lochaber. It is an ancient oak that is—guess what?—surrounded by dark spruces.
It is concerning that the prevention and control of invasive non-native species in Scotland has for so long been so inconsistent. In 2022, the University of Stirling published a report that helps to illustrate the problem, and I commend it to the minister. It discovered that a colossal 56 per cent of all trees that were recorded at the highest altitudes in Scotland are American Sitka spruce—a non-native invasive species. That growth has taken place in just a few decades. That is how fast-moving the issue is.
The report also underlines the fact that past and current efforts have failed to tackle the problem. For too long, we have allowed conifers to self-seed out of plantations, creating new seed sources, which further encourages the takeover of our ancient woodlands.
The reality is that there is a disconnect between what the Scottish Government says it will do to save ancient woodlands and its actions to reverse their disappearance. As Scottish Environment LINK rightly pointed out in its briefing,
“Eradications are not always seen to completion; success is not always assessed at the right ecological scale and best practice is not always followed.”
Given that the spread of invasive non-native species has an estimated economic impact of almost £500 million per year, that failure is costly and unforgivable.
It is time to take that crisis in hand and adopt new measures that actually work, including the recommendations that are outlined in the LINK report. The Scottish Government should quickly agree to a target to reduce the rates of introduction and establishment of invasive non-native species by at least 50 per cent by 2030. It should also outline whether it has any plans to remove those non-native invasive species from sites across Scotland, similarly to work that is being undertaken in other countries such as New Zealand. I agree with Audrey Nicoll that the Scottish Government’s nature restoration fund is critical, which is why it is so concerning that funding has been cut.
I hope that the Scottish Government will commit to having a national strategy for Scotland, with targets that reflect the negative impact on our ecosystems of non-native invasive species. It is vital that we take the steps required for successful nature restoration in Scotland. Nature is, after all, our greatest asset, and we must look after our natural assets so that we can protect Scotland’s biodiversity for future generations.
I call Beatrice Wishart, who is joining us remotely.
13:11
I thank Audrey Nicoll for bringing this important topic to the chamber.
On its website, the organisation the Wildlife Trusts estimates that wild pollinators are responsible for pollinating 85 to 95 per cent of the UK’s crops. It also anticipates that taking on the job ourselves
“would cost ... an estimated £1.8 billion a year.”
It really is no exaggeration to say that addressing climate change and biodiversity loss, and protecting our environment, is a matter of life and death that impacts our food sources, habitat and way of life.
Pollinators are under threat, with three bumblebee species having become extinct in recent decades. A recent European red list for bees reports that almost
“one in 10 wild bee species face extinction”.
Over the past 50 years, half the bee, butterfly and moth species that were studied in the 2013 “State of Nature” report have declined.
There are many reasons for bee population decline. Asian hornets are a growing threat to Scotland, with the Scottish Government’s pest-specific contingency plan highlighting them as
“one of thirty invasive non-native species identified as having a high risk of arriving, establishing and impacting biodiversity and ecosystems in Scotland in the next 10 years.”
Asian hornets can destroy western honeybee colonies, which have no defence against the threat. Japanese honeybees, however, evolved alongside Asian hornets and surround them in a ball of attack—the heat from the ball of bees overwhelms the hornet.
As has been highlighted, our greatest defence against invasive non-native species is to stop their introduction. However, we need best practice methods to better eradicate invasive non-native species that have already taken hold, such as rhododendron, which, as we have heard, grows in vast swathes of Scotland’s rainforest.
In Shetland, our waters face threats from many species, such as the orange-striped anemone, which has up to 100 long greenish tentacles, is found in brackish and inshore waters and can foul harbour and marina structures, boat hulls, mussel lines and oyster beds.
The Japanese skeleton shrimp is a red to cream-coloured shrimp-like animal with spines along its back. Those shrimps are widespread in Shetland and are found only on man-made structures, with little yet known about their impact. Among others, the orange-tipped sea squirt, which has a U-shaped gut, is found on man-made structures—which it, too, can foul—and in the wild, under rocks in Scalloway.
The Shetland Community Wildlife Group and UHI Shetland recommend that boats and structures be kept
“as free of fouling as possible”
and that personal gear be kept
“clean and dry ... when moving between areas.”
Even the smallest pieces of invasive non-native species should not be put back into the water, as
“some can grow back from tiny bits.”
If people encounter any invasive non-native species, they are asked to contact the Shetland Community Wildlife Group and UHI Shetland, with a location reference and timings, noting what the specimen was attached to. That will help to limit the spread of such species, which can impact businesses and ecological balance.
We may not be able to avoid species habitat expansion as our climate changes, although we should not shy away from the challenge of tackling the climate emergency. We can work together to limit the problems of invasive non-native species that are caused by human actions.
13:15
I thank Audrey Nicoll for lodging the motion and for securing the debate, which has been quite fascinating. Members have underlined that non-native invasive species are one of the main drivers of nature loss in this country, but there is also synergy with climate change—the two work together to damage our environment.
In a week in which we have been intensively discussing the budget in the chamber, the issue gives us one of the clearest examples of the impact of preventative spend. If we can tackle non-native invasive species early, we will save society a huge amount of money further down the line.
A number of members have celebrated the work of volunteers, charities and partnerships. David Torrance mentioned the amazing work that is happening with restoration Forth. We are making progress. For example, big progress has been made in controlling grey squirrels, and there is good progress on tackling rhododendron and giant hogweed. All that work needs co-ordination and support, and it needs organisations such as the Forth Rivers Trust in my region, which does amazing work in bringing together landowners and volunteers to take action and tackle issues such as the expansion of giant hogweed. It has done that successfully in the Allan Water, but that has taken a huge amount of effort.
That takes me back to the point about funding that a number of members have underlined. This is about spend to save. If we spend money on tackling non-native invasive species now, we will save later. It is disappointing that there has been an in-year cut to the nature restoration fund, which was established when the Greens were working in government with the Scottish National Party. The minister needs to consider how we can reinstate funding, particularly the council funding strand, which has been cut. The £5 million is an absolute drop in the ocean in comparison with the public pay settlement, and we are stacking up costly problems unless we can empower councils to restore nature and tackle invasive species. It is really important that we do not lose momentum on that.
Members have received briefings from a number of charities that have called for multiyear funding, because we cannot tackle invasive species in only 12 months. Invasive species do not follow budget cycles. We need to look at growing cycles and ecological cycles. That means that multiyear funding is needed, otherwise the money that we spend in one year will be erased by the growth and distribution of species in the years that follow.
I will mention two species very briefly. According to a briefing from Woodland Trust Scotland, 140,000 hectares of rhododendron ponticum need to be treated, predominantly on the west coast, because the species is continuing to invade.
Funding is important, but it is not just about funding. We have an opportunity in the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill to place a duty and responsibility on landowners to deal with the species. We could also introduce a national register of ancient woodland. Of course, the Scottish Government could work with the UK Government to put in place a retail ban for the species, which would really help.
We also need to widen the debate. We have a list of non-native invasive species, but there are questions about non-native game birds, such as pheasants and partridges. More than 40 million game birds are released into the environment across the UK every year, yet we know from the science that there are concerns about the spread of bird flu and predation of reptiles, and that there is an ecological imbalance when we so many of these birds are roaming around our countryside and interrupting our natural ecology.
There is much to consider, particularly in the context of the proposed natural environment bill. The minister could and should consider licensing, particularly in relation to non-native game birds. I look forward to the issue coming back to committees of the Parliament and to our considering ways in which we can take on some of the challenges and provide some certainty.
13:19
Like Mark Ruskell, I think that this is an interesting and important topic, given the £500 million of damage that is caused to the environment per year by the species in question. First, though, I thank Audrey Nicoll for bringing the debate to the chamber, not least because I have learned that Jackie Baillie is a defender of ancient woodlands. Her talents are extensive.
Invasive species are, as we know, introduced either directly or indirectly by man. Trade, transport, travel and tourism can move species around the world. Many species have been introduced intentionally for commercial purposes, such as for ornamental gardening, for farming or for forestry or as pets, only to escape and become established in the wild. Other species simply hitchhike, moving to new countries via people and transport. The most recent hitchhiker I can think of was a scorpion that had innocently taken shelter in a pair of trainers ordered online. The lesson is this: we should check inside our shoes, just in case. I once found a dead mouse in one of mine.
But I digress. It is easy for invaders to move around in a world of international trade, at both private level and commercial level, but I want to talk about plants. Plants or seeds that we buy from the garden centre will have undergone tests and certification that are pretty stringent and which have become even more stringent since our leaving the European Union. Before, there would have been, as I understand it, one biosecurity certification at the point of departure; now there is one from the EU export source, one on arrival in the UK and another at the wholesaler. That all comes with additional costs, which are all passed on to the consumer.
The issue was raised at a recent meeting of the cross-party group on gardening and horticulture, of which I am a member. Indeed, a joint letter from the Fresh Produce Consortium and the Horticultural Trades Association called for a meeting with the UK Government over the continued problems that their members face when importing plants, including trees and cut flowers, under the current border system. Notwithstanding that, biosecurity is crucial, and it is endorsed by the HTA.
However, some plants have escaped in the past and are now invading. Some have already been mentioned, but I will repeat a couple of them. The notorious Japanese knotweed, which was once considered an ornamental garden plant, has become established in woodlands, on riverbanks and in coastal areas. Its dispersal is due to both deliberate and inadvertent human activity, as a result of which fragments of the aggressive root system get washed downstream, spread and propagate, changing the habitat structure of riverbanks and thereby impacting on biodiversity, ecosystem structure, conservation efforts and even salmon fisheries. I recall seeing the plant with more friendly eyes some decades ago as it flourished along the riverbank at the bottom of my garden, before we knew that it was up to mischief.
Rhododendron ponticum—the purple rhody—is another non-native garden escapee plant that has become established and has spread across large swathes of Scotland, overwhelming other plants and preventing natural woodland regeneration. Again, I can recall seeing that in my youth just a few decades ago, when it was thought to be really pretty. How times have changed—and it is not the first or last example of a plant moving from being admired to being despised.
Then there is the American skunk cabbage, which is, yes, skunk by name and skunk by nature. It is very smelly. Years ago, when I visited Dawyck botanic garden near Peebles, which is one of the Royal Botanic Garden Edinburgh’s gardens, I thought that the yellow flowers growing in the streams were stinky, although that could be overlooked, because they were beautiful, and I selected one from the gift shop. A few years later, the Royal Horticultural Society told me to destroy it.
I thank Audrey Nicoll for bringing the debate to the chamber. I have found the research engrossing as well as worrying. Grey squirrels are more infamous, through no fault of their own—we brought them in—but we must also consider seeds, plants and the wee beasties that travel on them.
13:23
I thank Audrey Nicoll for bringing the debate to the chamber.
As we have already heard from Christine Grahame, curiosity can be a strange thing, especially when it comes to plants. Many plants from various corners of the world have found their way into Scotland’s botanical gardens. For the gardeners among us, some have successfully flourished, despite our challenging weather. However, many of them fall by the wayside and cannot cope with the rain, sleet or freezing temperatures.
Unfortunately, a few do conolise, and we have heard about some conolising the bottom of Christine Grahame’s garden—in Newton Stewart, I presume.
Minnigaff.
Absolutely—Minnigaff. I cannot call it Newton Stewart. It is definitely Minnigaff.
The term INNS—invasive non-native species—is not restricted to plant species; it can cover plants, animals and fungi. In areas that INNS conolise—I cannot even say the word; it is “colonise”—the negative impacts range from damage to the ecosystem and reduction in biodiversity to disruption to human activities and, more worrying, damage to our health.
For the past two years, the Galloway Fisheries Trust in my constituency has been running a control programme that covers the whole of Dumfries and Galloway, apart from the River Nith. It was initially supported by the nature restoration fund before funding was cut, even though it scored highly and NatureScot was keen to support it. Thankfully, the programme has now secured funding for the next three years from the National Lottery and Kilgallioch wind farm community trust. The project, which is called the Scottish Solway invasive non-native species control and knowledge programme, has been delivering strategic and co-ordinated control of American skunk cabbage, Japanese knotweed and giant hogweed, as well as some limited Himalayan balsam control. It does that by working with local communities and stakeholders. Having initially controlled the INNS and got them to a manageable level, stakeholders are now encouraged to make long-term commitments to control the species. The Galloway Fisheries Trust is prioritising that work because it is clear that INNS are having serious biodiversity impacts on local habitats and ecology, particularly around fresh water.
If we are to get anywhere near our ambitions to reverse biodiversity loss, it is critical that adequate funding is provided to support INNS control programmes across the country. The Scottish Government needs to help. I will give an example from my own patch—which is probably at the bottom of Christine Grahame’s old garden. The Galloway Fisheries Trust has raised concerns with Amey, the trunk road maintenance company, that knotweed is rife along the A75 and that control has been undertaken, even though it is a notifiable plant and INNS control is supposed to be a Scottish Government priority. The Galloway Fisheries Trust has now surveyed the A75 from Stranraer to Castle Douglas and mapped all the knotweed. On completion of that work, Amey agreed that it will undertake the necessary control from this year.
As we have already heard, the prevention, surveillance, eradication and control of invasive non-native species in Scotland has been inconsistent and, sadly, best practice has not always been followed. Historically, Scotland has suffered a high level of nature and biodiversity loss and, unless we get our act in gear, we will face further species loss in the future. Invasive non-native species remain one of the top drivers of overall biodiversity loss in Scotland and I am sure that members will agree that that needs to be addressed sooner rather than later.
13:27
I thank Audrey Nicol for lodging her motion and for providing this opportunity to discuss and welcome the Scottish Environment LINK plan.
As we have heard, invasive non-native species are one of the key drivers of biodiversity loss across the globe. The level of intactness of Scotland’s biodiversity is one of the lowest worldwide, with one in nine species currently at risk of extinction. Not every non-native species is established and not all have an immediate damaging environmental impact, but many do, and that has to be managed.
I want to focus on the impact and how we manage one particular species, which is highlighted as a case study in Scottish Environment LINK’s plan—Sitka spruce. Just over a century ago, 5 per cent of Scotland’s land was forested. Today, forest and woodland cover 19 per cent, but that varies across the country.
In Dumfries and Galloway, 31 per cent of the land is covered with woods and forests, making it the most forested part of Scotland. The geography—close to the motorway and with rail links to the market—means that the 211,000 hectares of forest have a disproportionate focus on tree species that meet the demand for timber; it is primarily Sitka spruce. I recognise the consequential positive economic impact that that has on direct employment in forestry and wood-processing jobs in the area and, crucially, on meeting growing demand for timber when we continue to import so much. However, the scale of planting in such a concentrated area puts pressure on inadequate infrastructure, including on roads that were never built for the 40-tonne-plus wagons that are used to remove the timber. It results in pressure on communities that fear the loss of natural habitats, as one particular area of countryside is planted with more and more Sitka and other non-native conifer species that are being grown for commercial reasons.
A consequence of that growth in such planting is the challenge of those species invasively seeding in neighbouring habitats. In his response to the debate, I ask the minister to outline how the Government intends to respond to the issue of non-native commercial conifers—according to the Botanical Society of Britain and Ireland plant atlas, Sitka spruce is the fastest-spreading plant species in Scotland. It seeds from plantations into neighbouring peatland and native and community woodland habitats.
Will the minister say what analysis has been conducted on how and to what extent the seeding of non-native conifers is impacting on carbon sequestration, storage functions and the biodiversity of peatlands and native woodland habitats? I urge the minister to set out who he believes is responsible for removing non-native conifers that have seeded from commercial plantations into neighbouring habitats if they cause ecological or carbon storage damage. Does he believe, for example, that the polluter pays principle should apply to invasive non-native species in Scotland? What is the minister’s response to the recent Royal Society of Edinburgh report on forestry, which recommended that Scottish Forestry should require tree-planting schemes to consider how the spread of invasive tree seed to adjoining land, especially peatland, can be prevented, and should require appropriate steps to be taken to reduce such spread, and, where necessary, impose conditions to remove seedlings when it occurs?
I appreciate that I have asked the minister several questions, which I hope he will address in his closing comments, but if he is not able to do so, I hope that he will write to me to set out the Government’s response. I recognise that commercial forestry has a positive economic impact and that it is vital to meeting a demand for timber, but the concentration of planting in some areas has consequences. There will be an opportunity in forthcoming legislation to consider what more we can do to support commercial forestry in managing the impact of Sitka spreading from its important operations on to neighbouring land.
13:31
I, too, thank Audrey Nicoll for bringing this fascinating and important debate to the chamber, and I thank members for their speeches. I also thank the organisations that were involved in producing the Scottish Environment LINK report, “Invasive Non-native Species in Scotland: A Plan for Effective Action”.
It has certainly been an interesting and useful debate. I never thought that I would find myself mentioning Mr Burnett of Leys and Elvis in the same sentence, but it seems that they have something in common in their alleged taste for eating squirrels. In any case, the debate is timely, given that the 16th conference of the parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity is currently taking place in Colombia, where countries are working together to ensure that the global biodiversity framework is effectively implemented.
That framework recognises the need, as members have done, for urgent action to tackle the current impacts of invasive species and to prevent the establishment of new ones. It is really important for us in Scotland, as it requires the eradication or control of invasive non-native species in priority sites such as islands—in my constituency, for instance, I am very aware of the protracted efforts to remove mink from the islands and hedgehogs from Uist.
All those efforts are why we are embedding key actions on biodiversity, including controlling and preventing the spread of INNS across Scottish Government policy. We are finalising our Scottish biodiversity strategy and delivery plan for publication later this year. In that delivery plan, we have committed to developing and implementing a Scottish plan for INNS surveillance, prevention and control, and securing wider support measures to enable long-term, effective INNS removal at scale. We are working hard on developing our Scottish INNS plan, which will set out in detail what we intend to do to tackle INNS. We will ensure that resources are better focused on preventing and controlling those species where possible.
As we undertake that work, we will engage with a wide range of stakeholders and delivery partners. We will also look carefully at the recommendations in the LINK report. Many of those recommendations are already under consideration or in train, but we recognise that more action is needed. However, Government cannot do that alone. We must work in partnership with and use the expertise of those who manage our land and who know it best. We will need an inclusive, whole-of-society approach that engages communities, businesses and decision makers alike.
I will pick up on Ms Nicoll’s question about funding. We know that tackling INNS requires significant investment, which is why commitments such as our £65 million nature restoration fund are essential. Since its launch in July 2021, the fund has provided more than £7.6 million to support projects to tackle INNS.
I should emphasise that the nature restoration fund has not been withdrawn. There is a continued commitment to the £65 million figure during the current parliamentary session. It is true to say that the local authority strand of the fund has been repurposed under pressures, but I hope that I can reassure Ms Nicoll about the Government’s continued commitment in that area.
Will the minister acknowledge the critical role of councils in co-ordinating the work and creating partnerships to do that work? Co-ordination is important here. Without that co-ordinating function, we can do a little bit of work on removing INNS in one area of land, but it can be undone by the extension and expansion of INNS to another area of land.
I am happy to acknowledge the important work that local authorities do in that area. I would also mention the £2 million for phase 2 of the Scottish invasive species initiative for tackling invasive plants and mink across the north-east of Scotland, for instance, as well as more than £1.5 million for the Orkney native wildlife project to eradicate stoats, and the £1 million going to the saving Scotland’s red squirrels project to control grey squirrels and reinforce protections for our iconic native red squirrel, as many members have mentioned today.
I will make one specific point about the yellow-legged hornet. Although no sightings have yet been officially recorded in Scotland, we are not complacent about that. My understanding is that we have contingency plans in place should sightings be confirmed.
The nature restoration fund also actively supports a range of other projects, including tackling rhododendron ponticum across areas that are important for nature and enhancing biosecurity for Scotland’s seabirds.
On the point that Jackie Baillie and Colin Smyth raised about Sitka spruce, the Government is aware of the concerns about the self-seeding of the species and it is now reviewing the guidance about buffer zones to seek to address the issue. We appreciate the point being made.
In the interests of keeping to my time, I did not mention Sitka spruce, but I lived in Galloway 40 years ago when Sitka spruce was being planted hell for leather all over the place. Could the rest of us be copied into the answer that you give to Mr Smyth about regulation and everything else, which you are not at fault for, because you did not plant them 40 years ago? They are acid forests, though.
Speak through the chair, please.
I appreciate the point that Christine Grahame makes, and I will undertake to copy her and others in on the work that is being done on reviewing guidance in that area.
We know that all those measures, important as they are, are not enough on their own to address the problem of established INNS in Scotland. Securing responsible private investment alongside public funds will be critical in supporting long-term plans to tackle invasive species such as rhododendron, giant hogweed and mink more widely and effectively.
However, it is not just about tackling those INNS that are established in Scotland. We must take action to enhance prevention and surveillance for new INNS and to develop robust and rapid response measures to tackle incursions effectively. We have been working closely with other UK Administrations on finalising five GB pathway action plans to raise stakeholder awareness of INNS and of what can be done to prevent them from becoming established in the UK. We are also developing a Scottish angling pathway action plan, which is relevant in that respect. We know that we need to improve prevention and surveillance, which are especially critical to the eradication of predators on Scotland’s seabird islands and in the marine environment, where control becomes challenging.
The Scottish Government welcomes the debate and the insightful report that has been produced by Scottish Environment LINK, and we look forward to working closely with Scottish Environment LINK and our other stakeholders as we develop and implement our INNS plan.
Thank you, minister, and thank you to all members for their co-operation in giving the security and other staff sufficient time to clear the chamber.
13:39 Meeting suspended.Previous
Point of Order