Chamber and committees

As it is a partnership between NatureScot and private companies, I do not know which aspects of that information will be in the commercial, confidential space and which aspects will be in the public space, so I am unable to commit to the member exactly how much will be shared publicly. However, I am happy to commit to sharing the learnings from that project, so that we can take those forward into what I hope will be other, similarly successful projects.

However, in line with my earlier answer to the question that Jackie Dunbar raised, that does not mean that we have not got started. As with the rest of the biodiversity matters, there are two streams—the urgent, evidenced actions that we are already taking and the long-term strategy to join them up—and so it is for the finance. We absolutely will deliver that finance plan along with the strategy, but that does not mean that we have not got started.

For example, we know about our finance gap in natural capital. In 2021, a report from the Green Finance Institute assessed our finance gap for nature in the UK, which is defined as the difference between the required spending and the committed, planned spending. Central estimates of our finance gap for the next decade are £20 billion for Scotland, which is about £8 billion for biodiversity protection enhancement and £9 billion towards climate change mitigation. That information is already with us.

We have already spoken about our nature restoration fund, which is public money that is being put directly into nature restoration—the member will be aware of the pilot agreement between NatureScot and Hampden & Co to invest in natural capital. We all know that we need to bring private investment into the sector to fill the finance gap, and that pilot is the first step. Again, we have not waited to get started; we have already started, but that strategy will still be forthcoming.

We certainly hope to gain learnings from that project, and I am happy to write to the member to let him know the timescale for sharing those learnings.

Absolutely. I can provide a little bit more detail now, but I am also happy to correspond.

The investment model that is being looked at is based on a bridging loan provided by Hampden & Co to the landowner to create woodland, both through planting and through natural regeneration. That loan bridges the gap between the initial investment and the flow of carbon revenue. The carbon credits that are generated can then be retired—so, that is offset to collect those carbon credits. That is the general model, but I am happy to write to the committee with more detail on what is available.

That was a really interesting aspect of the Edinburgh process. Members might recall that, during the 26th UN climate change conference of the parties—COP26—subnational actors such as Scotland, some American states and some European regions were frustrated that members of the United Nations might not have been as ambitious as subnational actors wanted them to be. The same concern was expressed in the biodiversity space during COP15, which is why the secretariat asked Scotland to lead the process for subnational bodies. In Montreal, I met the mayor of Kunming, the deputy mayor of Paris and some amazing people from Sao Paolo, Quebec, California and other parts of America, and it was interesting to talk to them about what they were doing in that ambitious space.

The member is absolutely right that regional governments can do so much, because they are on the ground and are at the coalface of how things happen. I am happy to outline some of the things that we are doing. A lot of stuff will need to be delivered by local authorities, so I meet the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities regularly, and NatureScot works closely with a network of local authority biodiversity officers on those matters.

The nature restoration fund has a specific Edinburgh process stream, which is for local authorities to use to take on projects. We are providing direct funding to local authorities—£5 million was allocated during 2021-22 and £6 million was allocated during 2022-23.

Another interesting initiative for local authorities in Scotland is our nature networks. In October 2022, we announced an additional £200,000 for the expansion of nature networks in Scotland. The vision is that each local authority will have a nature network, which will address the problem of habitat fragmentation. As human activity has encroached on nature, nature has retreated to sort of islands. That is a problem for resilience because it means that species cannot move between those islands and, therefore, cannot keep their genetics healthy by intermingling. It also means that species are less able to adapt to climate because they cannot relocate or move as the climate changes around them. We can tackle habitat fragmentation through nature networks, which will be delivered by local authorities in Scotland. That is very exciting because it means that each local authority can decide what will work for it and what is right for it. I am interested in how we join up those networks across boundaries so that we have a continuous network of nature throughout Scotland. Some really interesting work is happening in that regard.

We have no specific newt knowledge, but we are happy to write to the member on that issue.

That is a serious matter and a really big question. You are right that one of the outcomes detailed in the Scottish Government’s environment strategy is that we need to be responsible global citizens and have a sustainable international footprint. If everyone on earth consumed resources as we do in Scotland, we would need three planets. Our consumption relies on resources—including water, land and biological and mineral resources—that are extracted or used in other parts of the world.

Our environmental impact is so significant that it does not just impact our own country; the impact extends far beyond it. The impacts from how much we overconsume are complex. Some of the commodities that we import are associated with deforestation, water stress and other ecological pressures.

To be good global citizens, we need to make sure that we manage our own consumption here. A big part of that relates to the circular economy, which, as the member rightly points out, is the other part of my portfolio. We need to move to an economy in which we do not tolerate waste of energy or materials, so that we reduce to the bare minimum our extraction from the natural environment. Where possible, we should re-use materials over and over again and use materials that have a long life. That is how we can reduce our impact.

As I touched on earlier, in relation to the impact of plastics on wildlife species, for example, we need to look at how we manage plastics, how we reduce their use and how we make sure that we recycle them when we do need them. We can tackle a lot of our problems in this area by looking at the “how”.

As the member will know and the committee will have heard in the evidence session last week, there absolutely need to be mechanisms for bringing private finance and investment into this space. Carbon credits are an established tool, and work is being done on biodiversity credits and so on. They are under development, but the finance that they bring in is absolutely needed. There is no question but that we must have private finance to develop those areas, and that is one of the tools for bringing in that finance.

I do not have any particular comment on that. I am not aware of any particular work in that policy space.

The matter of green lairds does cause concern, to me and to my ministerial colleagues. It is really important that we balance the need for investment in our natural capital with work that we are doing to empower local communities, so that we do not have the situation of problematic green lairds.

A suite of existing measures are in place to mitigate the impact of that rapidly evolving market. For example, in the last session of Parliament, we implemented legislation to extend community right to buy, including the right to buy land in order to further sustainable development. We also introduced a new register of persons holding a controlled interest in land.

Fears were raised at the time that our measures would deter inward investment but, as the member knows, that has not been the case, as we can see from substantial rises in land values over the past few years.

I share the member’s concern around so-called green lairds on the land concerned, and that is why we are putting in place frameworks for ethical investment in land and nature restoration, with private finance.