Chamber and committees

Perhaps Ian Dickie might like to comment.

We are running out of time, so we will move to final questions from Beatrice Wishart.

There is a supplementary question from Rachael Hamilton.

We can certainly do that. We can write to the Scottish Government with any queries.

I will write to the cabinet secretary with the questions that have been raised on the instrument.

That concludes the committee’s public business.

I get the feeling that investors are treading water at the moment. There is a bit of a pause. It is not entirely clear where money should be invested to get the best return for climate change and biodiversity. Professor Helm said that we need to base some of our work on river catchments. and non-native invasive species play a role in that consideration.

Ian Dickie has done a lot of work on the state of natural capital in the Borders. That involves baselining a range of things including woodland creation, habitat creation, flood management and farmland management. Do we need to do that across the country before we know where we should invest?

There has been a fairly critical report from the Climate Change Committee that suggests that there is no detail of the policies that underpin the Scottish Government’s ambitions to reach net zero by 2045. That is also creating uncertainty. Does the Government need to do some baselining and put some meat on the bones of the policies before we invest in the right areas?

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.