Hansard

I am very pleased to bring the debate to the chamber. I thank every member who signed the motion, and every member who is speaking today.

The motion centres on the recent Scottish Environment LINK report, “Invasive Non-native Species in Scotland: A Plan for Effective Action”, which takes account of the current status of non-native species in Scotland, the part that they play in biodiversity loss and the urgent action that is required to tackle them. I commend all the organisations that contributed to the report, and I thank the report’s authors for producing a comprehensive review of the non-native species landscape in Scotland. I also thank all the organisations that have shared helpful briefings ahead of the debate, and I extend special thanks to Andrew Marks, Susan Madden, Dr Lorraine Hawkins and Jan Simpson for their insight and support.

As nature champion for the freshwater pearl mussel, I am pleased to have secured the time to debate this topic. The urgency of the work that is required to shift the dial on habitat and species decline, including tackling invasive non-native species, cannot be overstated.

Invasive non-native species, or INNS, are one of the five principal direct drivers of global biodiversity loss, alongside climate change, pollution, changes in land use, natural resource use and exploitation. Globally, natural barriers such as oceans and mountains restrict the mixing of species from different regions and allow global diversity to be maintained. INNS are species that have been introduced to a country, whether deliberately or accidentally, thereby breaking down those barriers and eroding biodiversity. International trade and the movement of people and goods are the most likely means by which INNS move across borders.

Not all INNS have immediate or detectable environmental impacts, but many of them do. There is no doubt that the pressure of INNS on biodiversity is intensifying across terrestrial, marine and freshwater environments. Many of us are familiar with Japanese knotweed, Himalayan balsam and giant hogweed, but there are many other INNS that cause issues, including the grey squirrel, American skunk cabbage and American mink, to name but a few.

The greatest threat to Scotland’s rainforest is the rhododendron, with which we are all familiar. It blocks sunlight from reaching the forest floor, stifling the growth of native flora and fauna, which in turn impacts mammals, insects, moss and lichen. In the north-east, the Dee Catchment Partnership has undertaken a number of targeted projects, including in my constituency of Aberdeen South and North Kincardine, to control giant hogweed, Japanese knotweed and piri piri burr.

Japanese knotweed is highly invasive in woodlands and on riverbanks, forming very dense clumps that overshadow native plants. Dispersal is particularly problematic for riverbanks because fragments of root wash downstream, only to spread further.

As well as the environmental cost of INNS, their economic cost is significant. The cost of INNS to the UK economy is estimated to be almost £500 million per year. The cost over the past 40 to 50 years is estimated to be more than £5 billion, which is one of the highest totals in Europe.

How effectively are we controlling INNS? The Scottish biodiversity strategy notes the spread of 190 INNS across Great Britain during the past six decades, with an estimated 10 to 12 new non-native species establishing themselves each year. Projects such as Saving Scotland’s Red Squirrels and the Alliance for Scotland’s Rainforest are working successfully to tackle INNS in Scotland. However, efforts to control and eradicate non-native species have been patchy, and work to control the spread has been largely inadequate. The existing Great Britain invasive non-native species strategy is not considered to take full account of the unique and, in part, vulnerable Scottish ecosystem.

However, the forthcoming Scottish INNS plan, which was signalled in the draft Scottish biodiversity strategy, presents the Scottish Government with an opportunity to make key strides in the control and eradication of INNS. Scotland could look to the Kunming-Montreal global biodiversity framework for guidance when considering the forthcoming plan. The KMGB framework sets a target to reduce rates of introduction and establishment of INNS by at least 50 per cent by 2030, and it puts forward targets for significant progress on the eradication or control of INNS, particularly at priority sites that are susceptible to them.

On funding, financial support to date has derived from a wide range of sources including the Scottish Government nature restoration fund. It is disappointing that the Government has signalled that that fund is to be withdrawn. I hope that the recent United Kingdom budget affords some flexibility for that to be reconsidered, and I ask the minister to provide some clarity on that point in his response to the debate.

Looking ahead, I trust that the Scottish Government will engage closely with environmental non-governmental organisations to create a Scottish INNS plan that is both clear and comprehensive in addressing the impact of INNS on the ecosystem as well as on Scotland’s native species.

Biodiversity and healthy ecosystems play a key role in tackling climate change, and I am glad to have had the opportunity to bring this debate to the chamber to highlight the threat that INNS represent to Scotland’s biodiversity. I thank everyone who supported my motion and I look forward to listening to members’ contributions.