Hansard

I will start by echoing what has been said about the unfortunate coincidence in the timing of the debate, which is taking place on the day that Forestry Commission Scotland's report is published. I was able to see the report briefly at lunch time, online. I would make more of a fuss about the timing had it not been for the fact that I am very pleased with what I saw in the report. I was gratified to note that much of what is in the report was contained in the amendment that I lodged, but which was not selected for debate. I am even more gratified to have heard the minister indicate that the Executive is looking to implement the report's recommendations.

It is true that we have not made the most of our forests. Too much of our tree cover is poor-quality, single-species conifer that has little or no market, conservation or amenity value. Our forest cover stands at 17 per cent, which compares badly with figures of 29 per cent in Norway, 66 per cent in Sweden and the European average of 36 per cent. The picture worsens when we consider that four fifths of our forest resource is commercial conifer plantations—although we should use the term "commercial" with a bit of care, as a combination of poor quality, inaccessibility and low prices means that much of the softwood that is ready for harvesting would cost more to extract than it would command at market. Worse still, our ancient woodlands, which should be the pinnacles of our native biodiversity and landscape, nowadays cover only 1 per cent of our land. Those woodlands should have 100 per cent protection.

Limited though our current forest resources are, they offer huge potential for the fuel wood that is required for heating at the domestic and community scale. Other members have spoken on this subject. To some extent, this is happening already in the Highland area. For example, Scottish Natural Heritage has recently installed a woodchip boiler in its Aviemore office. There are also proposals for district heating schemes using waste wood in other areas.

Estimates based on our existing forest resource suggest that wood fuel could provide between 1,500 and 2,000 sustainable rural jobs. Again, on the subject of making the most of our forest resource, we should be looking at how to use our low-quality wood for heating at the domestic or neighbourhood scale instead of seeking to use it for the generation of electricity.

I believe that we should also look at capital grants for wood-fuel heating systems. We should do so because of the fact that we are way behind the rest of the United Kingdom, and in particular Wales, on that issue.

Although I have noted that Scotland's forest cover is amongst the lowest in Europe at some 17 per cent, we should remember that Forestry Commission Scotland's estate amounts to some 10 per cent of Scotland's land mass. We should also remind ourselves of what the forestry strategy says. Our objective should be to increase Scotland's forests and woodlands to one quarter of our land area by the middle of this century. The quality of our woodlands and timber will be at least as important to future generations as our forest area will be. Although we have been making progress in extending forest cover, at current rates it could take us closer to a century to achieve that 25 per cent goal.

We should praise Scottish forestry for being a world leader in some ways, not least because of Forest Stewardship Council certification, ecological restoration and community forestry. However, the UK as a whole imports 80 per cent of its forest products. Our overseas forest footprint is massive and highly destructive. We need to do more to ensure that our future built heritage features fine Scottish hard and softwoods. We need to ensure that planning guidance is issued, architectural awards are made for timber buildings, funding for training is found, awareness is raised in the construction industry about the use of wood, and so on.

I welcome the 70 partnership agreements with communities that are mentioned in the motion. We should remember that the Forestry Commission Scotland's estate accounts for some 10 per cent of Scotland's land mass. As the commission proceeds with its disposal programme, community ownership becomes ever more important. Currently, communities can register an interest in ownership, but can only buy if land becomes available on the disposal list, which can, in effect, mean that it is the poorest land. The commission has made land available for affordable housing, which is a welcome step, but we need to think more about housing in forests, rather than housing or forests.

The strategic timber transport fund, which was mentioned earlier, offers a good opportunity to tie in infrastructure developments, which typically will mean forest roads, to opening up land for crofting. We are still awaiting the crofting reform bill, which will allow new crofts to be created. Some of them should be forest crofts. I am glad that the minister appeared to be sympathetic to that. That could provide a new and appealing opportunity for living and working. The Executive should also consider forest crofts as an opportunity for making more of Forestry Commission land outwith the crofting counties.

Community owned and managed forests are hugely important, and for far more reasons than the community benefiting from products such as wood fuel. In Assynt, the community-run Culag wood is used as a placement for people on community service orders. In Abriachan, in Inverness-shire, the award-winning community wood is seeking funding to set up a forest school, and it already provides a valuable learning environment for nursery pupils. The social benefits of community woodlands are immense. I agree with the Community Woodlands Association that all new forestry developments should have a set of underpinning principles on local community economic development and involvement. I hope that that principle will be accepted by the Executive.

Members would be disappointed if a Green made a speech in this chamber without mentioning climate change. Climate change is associated with extreme weather events, such as flooding, but so is poor land management. Sensitive afforestation can do a lot to reduce flood risk, which is yet another of the multiple benefits that arises out of making the most of our forests.

I do not have enough time to go into the carbon cycle again, but much has been made of carbon sequestration. The jury is still out on whether it can be of any benefit. What is certain is that we cannot afford to plant a few trees then go about business as usual with fossil-fuel emissions. Reducing pollution is better than trying to sequester it. Burning wood for domestic or community-scale heating offers one ideal fossil fuel-free and efficient way of using the resource.