 ond gallai fel y cyffrediniddion i gael o'r ddкихon. The next item of business is a statement by Fergus Ewing on the publication of Scotland's forestry strategy 2019 to 2029. The cabinet secretary will take questions at the end of his statement. I will encourage members to ask a question, to press their request to speak as soon as possible. The cabinet secretary is very much in on the following. I have a clear ambition for forestry. I want Scotland to have more trees and woodlands. The passage of the Forestry and Land Management Scotland Act with new powers and the full devolution of forestry will help us to achieve that. To fulfil one of the key statutory requirements of that act, I am pleased today to publish Scotland's forestry strategy 2019-2029. The strategy signals the start of a new era for forestry in Scotland. We build on the success of over 100 years of effective stewardship and growth in forestry and woodlands. The UK Forestry Act 1919 laid the foundations for the thriving Scottish forest and woodland sector that we enjoy today. Forests and woodlands now cover nearly 19 per cent of our land and we plant more trees in Scotland than anywhere else in the UK. However, we want to do more and Scotland's forestry strategy now sets out our vision for the future. By 2017, Scotland will have more forests and woodlands, sustainably managed and better integrated with other land uses. Those will provide a more resilient, adaptable resource with greater natural capital value that supports a strong economy, a thriving environment and healthy and flourishing communities. We have developed the strategy in close consultation with others. That included a reference group comprising representatives from forestry, land use, environment and community sectors. It included a 10-week-long online consultation on a draft strategy that elicited more than 400 responses. Finally, a programme of meetings across Scotland involving over 250 people from over 120 different organisations. I would like to thank everyone who gave their time, expertise and views and knowledge to this process. I hope that it can be seen how those involved have helped to influence the content of Scotland's forestry strategy, and that will now help us to deliver its objectives. At the risk of stating the obvious, growing trees is a long-term business. We aim to deliver our 50-year vision through a 10-year framework, and that seeks to do three key things. First, to increase the contribution of forests and woodlands to Scotland's sustainable and inclusive economic growth. Second, to improve the resilience of Scotland's forests and woodlands, and to increase its contribution to a healthy and high-quality environment. Third, to increase the use of Scotland's forest and woodland resources to enable more people to improve their health, wellbeing and life chances. To achieve those objectives, we have identified six priority areas for action that provide Government and all its agencies a route map for identifying and resourcing activity. To deliver that vision will require sectors, businesses, communities and professionals to continue to work together. I can also announce today that we will establish a national group to advise on implementation. Our two new forestry agencies, Scottish Forestry and Forestry and Scotland, will also be focused on implementing the strategy. We will also develop a process for monitoring and reporting on progress. That process will chart actions taken and their impact as well as measure success. Progress and success will of course require funding. This Government remains absolutely committed to providing support for tree planting and woodland maintenance and creation, but we have had no such clarity from the UK Government on future funding streams. We know that contracts entered into by the end of 2020 will be honoured, so we are encouraging everyone planning to plant trees to apply for and agree grants now. Beyond that, we need the UK Government to share our commitment for forestry and agree in principle to provide the Scottish Government with the funds that it needs. I hope that this Parliament will support our efforts to achieve that. Forestry is undoubtedly a hugely productive land use. It contributes £1,000 million of gross value added to the economy. It provides a home to 172 protected species. It removes 12 million tonnes of CO2 a year from the atmosphere. It supports 25,000 jobs approximately and enriches the lives of the millions of Scots and visitors who live, work and play in Scotland's woods and forests. However, let me be clear. Future development must work in harmony with other land uses. One of the key points raised in consultation was the need to ensure that success in forestry does not come at a cost to other land uses. We have therefore ensured that the core principle of integrated land management, as specified in the land use strategy, is embedded throughout to ensure that forestry farming, tourism, conservation, community and recreational interests work together to help to get the best from our land. That requires appropriate leadership from Government. In my time thus far as Cabinet Secretary, I have taken the site of action to reinvigorate this vital sector, which is now seeking a period of great investment and optimism. Planting rates are on the upturn. We had the best year in decades for productive planting last year, while also supporting the delivery of over 3,000 hectares of new native woodland, meeting a key biodiversity commitment. I am committed to meeting our targets for new woodland creation and to ensuring that we continue to manage our 1.4 million hectares of existing forests sustainably. This critical renewable resource needs to be managed to sustain and increase the substantial environmental, social and economic benefits that it already provides, as well as to address some of the problems that may have been caused by poor planting in previous generations. In summary, there is great dynamism in forestry in Scotland at the moment. If Scotland's forestry strategy is to succeed, planting trees and maintaining and investing in woodlands and forests must become a shared national endeavour. I look forward to continuing to work collaboratively across all sectors to realise our vision and achieve our ambitions and to involving this Parliament. The act requires the Government to report back to Parliament on progress made with implementing the national strategy. I look forward to doing so and reporting on how Scotland's forest and woodlands are increasing their contribution to the success of our country and its people. Thank you very much. We will turn now to questions, beginning with Donald Cameron. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I begin by thanking the cabinet secretary for advance sight of his statement. He can also refer to my register of interests with regard to forestry. The Scottish Conservatives welcome the publication of the Government's new strategy. We broadly support its principles, its ambitions and its focus on a sustainable forestry sector. We welcome its long-term approach, and given the average lifetime of a commercial woodland that is 30 to 40 years, it is surely right to set a 50-year timescale. We recognise the importance of the industry and note that, in 2017, Scotland accounted for over three quarters of all tree planting in the UK. In relation to his comments on UK Government funding, I note the UK Government's commitment to protect the entire envelope of pillar 1 and pillar 2 funding until 2022 and suggest that he has the clarity that he claims he lacks. In any event, given that forestry is now fully devolved and that the Forestry Commission is wholly funded and that Forest Enterprise Scotland is partially funded by the Scottish Government, his portfolio budget is plainly important. Could I ask two questions? Firstly, given the Government's failure to meet planting targets in the past, such as in 2017, when Scotland failed to meet its 10,000 hectare a year target, is he confident that he can deliver 15,000 hectares per year from 2024-25? Secondly, as a result of the tension that increasingly exists between agriculture and forestry, is he confident that, with those increased targets, expansion of the forestry sector can occur without detriment to the livestock farming sector? First of all, I welcome the support from Mr Cameron and his party to the broad thrust of the strategy. That is welcome because I hope that we can proceed on a cross-party consensual basis. With regard to the point that he makes about funding, he says that the UK Government has guaranteed the envelope of pillar 1 and pillar 2 funding until 2022. With due respect, that is not the factual situation. The factual situation is that the assurances provided by the UK Treasury in respect to pillar 2 funding for forestry applies to contracts entered into by 2020. It does not extend to 2022. Indeed, that was the request that I made when I met Mr Gove at the beginning of January and pointed that out, arguing that this is impairing investment at the moment. My interpretation is that I understand it shared by Confor who wrote to Mr Gove. I am happy to share the correspondence that I have seen there on end. I hope that, because Mr Cameron thinks that funding is guaranteed to 2022, once he finds out that that is not the case, he will support my efforts to make sure that that, in fact, is made the case without further delay, because that is impairing investment right now. I think that that could easily be dispelled. Secondly, we spent about £40 million of grants from the Scottish Government, and I think that around about half of that comes from Europe. If Brexit takes place, then plainly that European proportion of the funding will need to be replaced. On our ambition, yes, I am working hard to achieve our targets this year. He is right to say that we fell short last year, and that is not good enough. That is why I am determined that we do better and determined that, with the various steps of action that we are taking, which I do not have time to enumerate now but which I think have been welcomed by the sector, we will do so next year. I have made that very clear to my colleagues Joe O'Hara and Simon Hodgson, the new chief executive of the FLS. Lastly, he asks about the interrelationship between farming and forestry. I think that he has got a point here. This is a concern to some farmers. There is no doubt about that. Others take a different view. Others have perhaps participated in agri-forestry schemes, as in fact more are doing. I am pleased to assure Mr Cameron that those matters are dealt with in the strategy. I believe that interalia at pages 23 and 41, and the emphasis on integrated land use—the right tree in the right place at the right time. It is not appropriate that trees should be planted, for example, on prime arable land, by and large. Therefore, I am sure that that is something that would be recognised by all. That is an important matter, and I am pleased that Mr Cameron has raised it. I am happy to give him the assurances that he has sought in that regard. Rhoda Grant, to be followed by John Finnie. Can I also thank the cabinet secretary for the advanced sacrifice statement? There is nothing to disagree with in it, but there is very little detail on how it will be implemented in it. It is an overview rather than a strategy. It is a strategy on how to form a strategy. The Scottish Government has missed targets on planting and on biodiversity, but the strategy shows little leadership as to how we meet targets in the future. The only thing that is new is the national group that is set up on the implementation of the strategy. Therefore, could I ask for some more detail on that? What is its remit? Who will sit on it? Will it be permanent or transitional? How will it react with Scottish Forestry and Forestry and land Scotland? More importantly, who will turn the overview into a strategy that will make a lasting difference to Forestry and Scotland? I was heartened by the first sentence that Rhoda Grant uttered, so let's focus on the positive. I think that, in all seriousness, this is a strategy document. It is not an action plan, it is not a framework for action. The inner leaf of the Forestry strategy sets out three objectives that I have read out today, but also six priorities for action. Plainly, I have agreed that we will report to Parliament as we are obliged to do under the active Parliament as to progress we make. As to the group that the formation of which I announced today, we will look to make an announcement in due course, and that group will include all relevant key voices in the forestry world. The purpose will be to help to inform, shape and benefit the action plan. I am delighted that we have made substantial progress over recent times in Forestry. Last year, we saw the largest plantings for some considerable time decades, I believe. I expect that we will surpass that next year. I am confident that, provided that we can get a fair and reasonable settlement with the UK Government on funding and that the doubt is dispelled about funding beyond 220 as quickly as possible, and that we remove that question mark overhanging the industry as it has argued, provided that we can do that, I would be confident that we would expect to meet our targets in future years. John Finnie to fill by Mike Rumbles I thank the cabinet secretary for advance copy of his statement and welcome this positive document, particularly when we get as far as page 2 and the increased native woodland covers mentioned. That is very positive. Cabinet secretary, I would like to ask you about reinvesting money from the disposal of public forests back into the forest sector. There are several mentions of the contribution to sustainable economic growth. That is not specifically covered. There is an oblique reference in page 40, which talks about any funds received that, as a result of disposing of land, will be solely used for the purpose of carrying out the Scottish minister's function. Can you give some indication what that money would be used for, please? I am grateful for the broad welcome of the strategy document from the Green Party, and I was pleased that the strategy specifically contains the targets to which it alluded. The strategy sets out a number of objectives and a number of priorities, which encapsulate a whole range of activities. Obviously, planting trees and restocking is perhaps the principal objective, but, alongside that, we have activity in recreation, in tourism, in renewables, in health and wellbeing, in mental health work. It is reasonable to assume that the funding that is available to Forest and Land Scotland and Forestry Scotland can be used for all those purposes, not only for the repurchase of land, but for mental health programmes to build on the good work there, to expand the renewable potential of our estate. Obviously, funding must be used for the purposes of the body that is set out in statute and in the strategy. However, I can certainly give a commitment that it would not be siphoned off elsewhere and used for other purposes, and we very much welcome the fact that we are able to focus on those other areas, as well as the core objective of Forestry. Mike Rumbles, before by Stuart Stevenson. The Liberal Democrats support the Scottish Government's Forestry strategy. It is the right way forward, and we wish him well in implementing it. On the wider issue of future financial support, will the cabinet secretary ensure that a forestry organisation is asked to take part in the new group? I know that he is being set up to advise him on the long-term future of financial support for our wider rural economy post-Brexit, because this is an important sector? Stuart Stevenson, followed by Edward Mountain. The strategy sets out a very welcome vision for 50 years and high-level objectives for the next 10. Clearly, there is a lot of work to be done, particularly between now and 2070, when I will be 124 years old. How will the cabinet secretary monitor the delivery of the plan and monitor achievement of its objectives, and perhaps in particular, to look to the 2030 to 2050 shortfall in softwood that is referred to in page 20? I doubt that I will be around to listen to the excellent speeches that Mr Stevenson will make in his 123rd year. That will be my loss. It must be apparent to everybody, but seriously, how will progress be monitored? It will be monitored in numerous ways. I will receive and I do receive reports regularly from the senior management of forest enterprise and forestry commission. That will continue to be the case. Secondly, there are statutory duties that are incumbent upon the Government, as set out in the act where we must report back to Parliament, so there will be continued democratic scrutiny. He also raises the problem of the dip in the total output that is expected in the 2030s. That is something that has happened because of insufficient planting in the past. The best way to rectify that now is to meet the targets, to improve our planting rates, to meet our environmental targets. That is precisely what we are setting out to do. I would like to declare an interest in a farming partnership that has an element of timber on the land. I did not think that I would be standing up to ask the same question as John Finnie, but I am delighted to do so. Cabinet Secretary, I would like to push you on acquisitions and disposals on page 40 of the document. At the moment, currently, we are disposing more land than we are acquiring, and the money is going into daily running costs. Can you confirm to me when we get to a level, a percentage, when you will stop the sale of lands—when we only own 60 per cent of what we have today—whether you will stop the sales, because the rest of the strategy I broadly welcome? I hear what Mr Mountain says, and I would be very interested to receive from him, preferably in writing, an analysis of the facts that lead him to reach the conclusions that he has voiced, because they are not as I would expect them to be, and I would be very interested to see his analysis. I can say that we must allow the statutory bodies freedom to act in order to go about their business, both of disposals and purchases. The forest estate comprises broadly 650,000 hectares of that. Around 450,000 is made up of woodland, so not all the land that is owned in the forest estate is actually uncovered by trees at the moment. Moreover, that land is used for various purposes. It is used for recreation, for community sales, so some of the sales will be accounted for by more than 40 community sales. We would not expect to get that land back. The whole point is that it is sold for the benefit of communities. Land is made available for renewables, for communities, for recreation, for many purposes. Indeed, the strategy recognises that it is correct that we do so. I am very happy to come back to this issue, as I expect we will. If Mr Mountain would care to go to the trouble of putting something in writing to me and setting out the facts, which basis conclusions, I will certainly look at it carefully, and I will reply to him at that point. Gail Ross will be followed by Claudia Beamish. I thank the cabinet secretary for his statement, and I also welcome the publication of the strategy. Can he tell me what consideration has been given to the report by Comfor, which recommends funding a study to assess the benefits of a strategic approach to significant new and continued investment in infrastructure and targeted funding for restocking and new planting in the north of Scotland? Yes, I welcome the suggestion from Comfor, and I welcome it in particular because I think that it is right that there should be a particular focus on the northmost part of the mainland of Scotland, Gail Ross's constituency. That is because there is existing forestry there, but some of it is entrapped because of timber transport issues. I am very pleased that we have provided substantial support to address some of the pressures on timber transport, and that is appreciated by the sector. It is allowing access to mature forests, which otherwise would become windblown and, in some cases, potentially valueless. The study will also recognise the potential for future planting and restocking in the north of Scotland, and what would be required in order to do that. I very much look forward to working with Comfor and Gail Ross, who has championed the issue for her constituents over the coming weeks and months. During the progress of the Forestry and Land Management Scotland act, there was constructive engagement with unions from the benches about the complexities of the bill. Union engagement, however, does not feature in the statement or the strategy. How has the cabinet secretary engaged with the unions on the national reference group? How does he intend to involve unions in the national group to advise on the implementation of both the strategy and the further development of the land use strategy, which underpins the way forward? Claudia Beamish is correct that I made a point of engaging with the workforce representatives, the FCTU and the variety of unions that comprises. In fact, the member will be pleased to hear that I had a lengthy meeting with the trade union representative just last week, where we had a very useful discussion indeed. I looked forward to continuing, and I undertook to continue with that engagement. My approach, as a minister, has always been to have sufficiently regular engagement with the trade unions to make sure that their concerns are properly heard in the Scottish Government. That is exactly what I shall continue to do, and we shall give careful thought about what additional role they may be able to play. Generally speaking, my approach to that is that their participation is not a liability but an advantage. We have five more questioners and only two and a half minutes, so succinct questions and answers, please. John Mason, to be followed by Peter Chapman. Thank you very much. At the direct committee, we have had some evidence that there was traditionally quite a solid line between farming on the one hand and forestry on the other. Does he think that going forward that maybe the two can be more combined, because sometimes hill sheep farmers would benefit from having some trees in their land? Yes, I do. I think that there is a substantial role for agri forestry. Although I am not a farmer, I understand that that includes the creation of shelter belts that can protect against, in cold weather, the risk of hypothermia for livestock, which is a very serious problem on some exposed land. It can also provide for flood management options, and it can also provide on an economic level a form of diversification for farms. There is a lot of scope for more being able to be done in terms of agri forestry. I am determined to see what opportunities there are to make this as swift, as smooth as it possibly can be. I welcome the statement and its commitment to planting more trees and to improving the sustainability of forestry in Scotland. As the Forestry and Land Management Bill went through the committee, I pushed for an amendment to place a duty on ministers to make arrangements for research in relation to tree health and promotion of sustainable forest management across the border. Despite the amendment passing, there is no reference to what research will be carried out to ensure that our trees remain healthy, particularly across the border. Can the cabinet secretary tell us what arrangements have been made in relation to tree health research? As we undertook in the course of the debates in the forestry legislation, we dealt with and are on course to fulfilling our obligations in respect of co-operating with other parts of the UK and its Governments in relation to forestry and tackling disease. I draw attention to Mr Chapman of page 33 of the strategy, which deals with the importance of tackling all those matters. He is absolutely right to allude to the importance of those, because there are many serious diseases that can have a significant impact on forestry and have done in the past. That is why it is important that we have a clear strategic overview about how we do that and, indeed, we have precisely that. The excellent support that FCS staff have given as a partner in the delivery of branching outcourses in forestry commission moods, for example at the Tirebagger near Aberdeen, has highlighted the benefits of woodland spaces to people's mental health. How, cabinet secretary, have you ensured that the voice, views and experience of people working in forestry and woodlands, as well as the general public, who benefit from access to it, have influenced the development of the strategy? We have sought to listen to those voices. Maureen Watt is quite correct to point to them, and I think that it is covered at pages 26 and 35 of the strategy. I agree that the mental health programme branching out has been successful in the popular one, and she refers to a particular course of branching out near Aberdeen. That is something that we have included in the strategy as an element of the work, which is relatively new for the forestry commission. I have spoken to some of the staff, I believe, in their Perth Office, who have been rolling out this. They were really enthused about how recreation in the forest has been able to provide improvement and a sense of wellbeing for those suffering from mental health issues. That is really an example of new ways in which we can use our forest estate to good effect, and I would like to work with others to see what more we can do to build on this successful programme. I apologise to Colin Smyth and Richard Lyle, who have waited patiently throughout to ask the questions, but I am afraid that we have run out of time. We have gone more than two minutes over. The cabinet secretary said that he was not clear that his recollection was that the forestry commission had sold more land than it had purchased. From the forestry commission's own figures that were published earlier, since 1999 the purchases were £79 million, the disposals were £147 million. That is clear that there was a position, and I would not want the cabinet secretary to be in a position to have misled the Parliament.