Chamber and committees

In relation to the convener’s comment, it is important to remember that the biggest threat to wildlife and to birds is climate change. When you get colony collapse, whereby a colony of tens of thousands of individual birds collapses down to only a few members, that is due to climate change. That is the biggest threat to birds, and our energy transition is an important part of how we protect all species, including birds.

Yes. We expect it to be published this year.

That is absolutely an approach that I would welcome. It is not necessarily a question of competing interests, particularly in the sea space. One of the groups that I met at COP15 was the representatives from California. They have had no-take zones for many years, which is the equivalent of our highly protected marine areas. When they implemented those zones, there were concerns from fishers about how they would impact on their work and business, but they have found that the no-take zones allow for species to breed and thrive uninterrupted, which improves their yields as fishers.

This is not necessarily an either/or thing. The member is absolutely right that we need to consult, to ensure that we put such areas in the right places and to ensure that stakeholders and communities are absolutely engaged.

It is not necessarily part of the vision that such things are in conflict. Highly protected marine areas, with a no-take zone, give fish a place to breed, thrive and increase their numbers. As they move out from those zones, they are then available to fishers. Such areas can be an advantage that works for everyone.

We would have to consider exactly what would happen in that situation. I am happy to write to the member with details on exactly how that would work.

Clearly, the business registrations process has to be on-going, because new businesses start up all the time, so that is necessary, but I am happy to write to the member with detail on exactly how that will work and on what the delay will be between being registered and being able to sell on the Scottish market.

You can register at any time. However, that also means that, if businesses are not sure that they will be ready for 16 August or they have not decided, they can apply for an exemption, if that is applicable to them. For example, if the owner of a small cafe thinks that they cannot deal with the scheme this year and they apply for an exemption, they could reapply later to be a return point. It is not a permanent decision.

The member is absolutely right. The scheme has to work for every person in Scotland because every person in Scotland will pay their 20p and so they need to be able to get it back easily and conveniently. That is how the scheme is intended to work.

At the moment, exemption is an opt-out process. By default, all businesses that sell the containers are obliged to be return points. Therefore, any convenience store in a small town or on an island where you can buy drinks also has to be a return point unless it is exempt.

It is absolutely the intention that that will be the mechanism in small rural and remote areas. The place where someone buys their juice should also be the place where they return the item. The proximity exemptions are much more likely to apply in urban areas where a group of shops are close together. They will not apply in rural areas where there is only one shop, for example.

Circularity Scotland and Biffa are very conscious of “black spots”, which is the industry term. As the registrations for return points come in, they will monitor the situation very closely and engage with any businesses that appear to be in a black spot to ensure that there are adequate return points. I believe that Biffa is also looking at the possibility of mobile return points to collect from very rural areas.

The issue is common to how schemes around the world work.

I do not.

I would always say that they need more. Of course I would say that, because I am the minister for biodiversity. However, I can certainly outline some of our vision in this area.

The biodiversity strategy is a starting point. It sets out clearly what we need to achieve to halt and reverse biodiversity loss. It also provides us with the evidence that human activity has accelerated biodiversity decline. The member is therefore quite right: biodiversity needs to be mainstreamed across all our policy developments, our business practice and wider society. The Government cannot do this on its own. Nature does not belong to us, it belongs to everybody, every business and every person.

I am therefore working closely with other ministers to make sure that our collective policies will deliver the positive outcomes that we need. Some good examples of that are our national strategy for economic transformation, which, for the first time, recognises the importance of our natural capital as an asset to the country that we need to maintain.

Our vision for agriculture puts nature restoration at its heart, alongside climate mitigation and food security. It also recognises the importance of that sector in delivering for biodiversity, and that farmers and land managers are stewards of our land.

Interestingly, our national planning framework 4 and its supporting guidance have significantly greater emphasis on the importance of conserving our natural environment. I actually have an excerpt here, entitled “Developing with Nature guidance”. This is for anyone who is making a planning application, and it sets out very clear and quite practical steps by which people can take account of nature in a planning application. They can, for example,

“Apply the mitigation hierarchy ... Consider biodiversity from the outset”

and

“Take a place-based and inclusive approach.”

The guidance covers other practical things such as what plants are suitable as pollinators, how to plant a wildflower meadow and how to incorporate trees, scrub and woodland into developments. It is a really good example of mainstreaming, and anyone applying for planning permission for a development in Scotland has access to all that information. It even sets out how to incorporate homes for bees and bugs into development planning, how to manage water with nature and so on. It is an excellent example of mainstreaming that will make a difference as we go forward.

You have identified three very important areas—food, energy and housing—and that is exactly the kind of mainstreaming that we are considering. Reform of the agriculture subsidies is to do with environmental matters as well as food security. The different interests are not necessarily competing—agriculture is part of the solution to the climate crisis, and regenerative farming and crofting have an important role to play in how we do this while ensuring that the sector thrives. Those matters are dealt with under land reform and agricultural reform.

Energy and housing will come under the national planning framework, which contains clear guidance on having biodiversity built in as well as specific guidance on national development and the development guidance that I have just outlined. I think that we are well covered for biodiversity in those areas.