Rural Affairs and Islands Committee 10 December 2025 [Draft]
I am happy to agree with the member on that point. As I have said, the amendment seeks to address the risk of displacing the problem instead of its being tackled. It is not saying that all deer fencing is a problem, in and of itself, but that alone, and without other measures, it can exacerbate existing problems.
Moving on to the topic of urban afforestation, amendment 13 seeks to introduce requirements for Scottish Forestry to partner with local authorities to plant urban trees in towns and cities—for example, in streets, squares and parks and on other local authority-owned land. Again, these amendments come from the recommendations in the RSE’s report that
“Scottish Forestry should provide targeted grants to Local Authorities to plant trees in existing urban locations”
and that
“Local Authorities should require all new built developments with road frontages to incorporate trees in the road or on their frontages.”
Scottish Environment LINK, as well as the Royal Society of Edinburgh, has highlighted the positive social, economic and environmental impacts of such spaces, particularly their promotion of good air quality in urban areas. Beyond the benefits to us, urban afforestation is vital in ensuring species connectivity and flood management. Again, this is a probing amendment, and I am keen to hear from the cabinet secretary about any partnership working that might already be in place between Scottish Forestry and local authorities, and how any best practice is being promoted across the country to encourage more of that joined-up working.
On the issue of sustainable forestry, the RSE’s report highlights that 61 per cent of Scotland’s coniferous woodland comprises Sitka spruce, and what lies at the heart of this particular set of amendments is an attempt to shift the balance towards native tree planting. For each area being amended, I have brought forward two options to amend the Forestry and Land Management (Scotland) Act 2018, either in or after section 11.
I will not go through every amendment in detail, in the interests of time, but I can take questions on specific amendments. Broadly, they seek to increase instances of mixed native broadleaf planting, incorporate shrub cover, improve biodiversity, create mixed native woodlands, and ensure that any public financial support goes to schemes that improve biodiversity and increase native woodland planting.
There are also the amendments that the convener highlighted—that is, amendments 304A and 304B. Amendment 304 and the amendments that amend it seek to require an environmental impact assessment to be completed before any public funding can be used for tree planting, with the requirement applying to land of 50 hectares or above, or where the cumulative area of land held by the person receiving support would be 50 hectares or above, if the land adjoins or is adjacent to existing land held by the person receiving support and if support is being provided for the same activity across the cumulative landholding. Within that, there are provisions for sensitive areas relating to heritage and conservation.
The difference between the amendments relates to deep peat soil. The RSE has been proactive in highlighting the role of peat soil in sequestering carbon. Globally, soils contain three times more carbon than vegetation, particularly when the soil is peaty. Each of the amendments recognises that and seeks to ensure that deep peat soil is considered in environmental impact assessments. However, amendment 304 specifies a thickness of 30cm, amendment 304A a thickness of 50cm and amendment 304B a thickness of 40cm. Of those, a thickness of 30cm would be my preference. However, although I think that that would be incredibly beneficial, there are other options for consideration.
In conclusion, the findings of the RSE’s report “Inquiry into public financial support for tree planting and forestry” are stark. It says:
“Based on the evidence, the report concludes that subsidising commercial conifer planting is not justified and the potential for the forestry sector to deliver multiple benefits has not been fully realised.”
Clearly, although work might be being done in this area, it is neither successful nor efficient enough for the scale of the challenge that we face.
09:15I am keen to hear from the cabinet secretary the Government’s response to these amendments before I decide whether to move them. However, based on those findings, I feel that, at the very least, there are grounds for the Scottish Government to carry out its own inquiry into the issues that are highlighted in the report.
I move amendment 11.