Chamber and committees

There are no further questions. Are members satisfied to delegate authority to me to sign off the committee’s report to the Parliament about the LCM?

Members indicated agreement.

Thank you, cabinet secretary. We will suspend briefly to allow a changeover of witnesses.

It is good to know that I learned something many years ago as a science graduate of the University of Aberdeen. Thank you.

I am quite surprised to hear that Scotland might not be affected to the extent that the ecology of the global south will be. We hear about coral reefs and whatever and about warmer seas being depleted, which makes the news headlines. However, here in Scotland, we are worried about our wild salmon populations, and we hear about the reduction in the food that is available to puffins and other birds and about sand eels moving further north. We hear that, year on year, our shoals of fish are moving further north to colder waters.

Therefore, Susan Davies, whether it is the rise in water temperature, global warming leading to the loss of oxygen or the increase in carbon dioxide, what will the impact be in Scotland? How do you see bird life being affecting, for example?

Are we likely to see more SSIs to allow inspections at the place of destination—rather than at border crossings—for other products?

Since there are no further questions, we move to formal consideration of motion S6M-01816, which is agenda item 3.

Motion moved,

That the Rural Affairs, Islands and Natural Environment Committee recommends that the Eggs (Amendment) (Scotland) Regulations 2021 [draft] be approved.—[Mairi Gougeon]

Motion agreed to.

Is the committee content to delegate authority to me to sign off a report on our deliberations on that affirmative instrument?

Members indicated agreement.

Excellent. That completes consideration of the affirmative instrument. I thank the cabinet secretary and her officials for attending.

We will move to our next theme, on forestry.

Before I bring in Susan Davies, I have a quick question. Professor Austin, you mentioned bottom trawling, which is an emotive point—you might regret mentioning it. You suggested that there was some evidence that the bottom trawling industry emits as much carbon as aviation, but you said that that was a weak argument. That is an issue in which science is crucial in ensuring that we address the big-ticket issues rather than the ones that produce an emotive response.

With regard to blue carbon, there are the physical disturbances that we have discussed and there is climate change, as well as land use and land management changes. Exactly how critical in that equation is physical disturbance in comparison with other climate change factors with regard to carbon dioxide in the ocean, the ability to sequestrate carbon dioxide and whether we are at the tipping point for that changing? Just how important is physical disturbance in the big picture?