 And it's absolutely a real honour to be with the Royal Philosophical Society of Glasgow. I'm sorry that as for the reasons we all know that this isn't in person but I hope I can do your society justice at this online event. I was really honoured to receive this invitation as Geraint mentioned the UN Climate Change Conference COP26 is coming to Glasgow in a matter of months now. So I hope you will find my theme of nature and climate and emergency response timely. So I'm going to start with a provocation and that provocation is that we humans are part of nature we are not apart from it and we need to tackle the nature and climate crises together or we tackle neither. Nature is in decline it is in crisis the climate emergency is imposing unprecedented change and is inextricably linked with the nature crisis humanity is courting disaster unless we can act on both and urgently. We need to get on the path of green growth so that nature is rich diverse and plentiful as well as supporting us economically socially and environmentally that requires transformation effort sacrifice even. Global action is required including in Scotland as well as in other industrial countries after all Glasgow is the cradle of much industrialisation across Europe triggering human influences on climate and Glasgow and Scotland can now lead us out of these twin crises particularly through COP26 later in the year. Now there's also a parallel COP happening in China just weeks before the Glasgow one that's COP 15 focused on nature together these two COPs will deliver international agreements which I hope will begin to reverse the startling trends in climate heating and nature degradation. Two reports published this year stand out as fundamentally game-changing reports that will frame the public policy debate and how we as individuals respond to the climate emergency and nature crisis. Some of you will have heard of the distinguished Cambridge University economist Professor Partha Dasgupta for those who haven't earlier this year Professor Dasgupta published an important and influential report which crystallised the vital dependence of our economy on nature. Professor Dasgupta's review of the economics of biodiversity flipped the traditional economic paradigm on its head. Instead of ecosystems being part of an economic system Professor Dasgupta demonstrated that economies are embedded in nature i.e. that people are a part of nature not apart from it. For many, maybe too many, it was a light bulb moment. We need much higher rates of understanding across society of the link between climate and nature. This will drive changes in how we manage the land and sea to shift away from dependency on fossil fuels, monocultures and over-exploitation. It will also drive much needed behavioural change. In addition, I'm sure you all saw the report from the international panel on climate change on Monday. This prompted the UN Secretary General to issue a Code Red for Humanity, warning global leaders that COP26 is last chance saloon for worldwide agreement on the need to limit warming to 1.5 degrees. It continues the general trend of their reports over the last 32 years of it's worse than we thought. It's happening sooner than we thought, and we know it with more certainty than we did before. For the first time, the wording is unequivocal. So let me develop some evidence to support the provocation. I'm going to cover four topics. Why nature and people are one, the climate nature crisis, nature at the heart of a green recovery and COP15 and COP22. But first, let me briefly introduce Nature Scott. As Grant said, Nature Scott is the lead public body advising government on all aspects of nature. We work to improve our natural environment in Scotland and inspire everyone to care about it. Our aim is that all nature in Scotland, our key habitats and landscapes, all our green space and our native species, is maintained, enhanced and brings us all benefits. It is the job of all of us to maintain a balance in the sensitive management of our natural world in order to maintain and enhance biodiversity. And in doing this, we work with arranged partners and put people and communities at the heart of what we do. Two of my favorite quotes touching on the sanctity of nature are from Crazy Horse, the 19th century Lakota war leader who fought encroachment by white American settlers on Native American territory. And James Lovelock, the environmentalist, futurist and proposer of the Gaia hypothesis of Earth functioning through self-regulation. In their different ways, as these quotes show, they reinforce the notion that humans are part of nature, not apart from it, that we need to be planet centered, part of nature, not masters of it. During this talk, as well as thinking about the climate and nature crises, I would also like you to consider nature itself and our relationship with it. So how critical is this? We are in a state of climate emergency. Scotland was the first nation to declare this. This all too familiar graph shows the steady increase in global surface temperature since 1850, showing unequivocally that the observed trend of 1.1 degrees warming mainly results from human activity, primarily from burning fossil fuels. We all need to take action. But in addition to not burning fossil fuels, nature has an essential role in the transition to a net zero economy, both in terms of reducing emissions of greenhouse gases and in building resilience to the consequences of a changing climate. So let's look at the global trends in climate change and how these will continue under different scenarios. First, the top thick gray line is the projected climate heating until 2100 under a business as usual scenario. This has over four degrees warming, just 80 years from now. Some have concluded that this will result in a largely uninhabitable earth. As we move down the graph, we can see that current policies get us to about three degrees warming, the blue lines, and major reductions in global emissions from 2020 onwards are needed to remain in the 1.5 to do degree range of the Paris agreement, those of the yellow and green lines. By major reductions in global emissions, I mean around 10% a year for developed countries from 2020 onwards. That would allow space for developing countries to grow and to establish some equity. The Paris agreement was to limit global temperature rise to between one and a half and two degrees. Why is that so significant? Because our best understanding suggests that if global temperatures increase beyond this, the results will be catastrophic. Beyond this, further increases become more difficult to control and the consequences of heat waves, fires, droughts, floods, pests, disease, and perhaps more pandemics will render large parts of the planet uninhabitable. At COP26, countries will set out their contributions to net zero and the actions they will take to get us into that 1.5 to two degree Paris range. But make no mistake, even if we limit climate heating to 1.5 degrees, there will still be significant effects, increased extreme weather events, wildfires, impacts on nature. Successfully limiting warming to 1.5 degrees is no cakewalk for humanity. And currently, the combined efforts of all countries will not get us close to that. In Scotland, we've done well so far, but inevitably there is still more to do. Scotland was the first country to set binding emissions reduction targets. Our target date for net zero, when we produce no more greenhouse gases than we remove, is enshrined in law as 2045, five years ahead of the rest of the UK. These are not arbitrary dates. They were recommended by the Climate Change Committee. The Scottish date is deliberately ahead of the date for the whole of the UK because of the makeup of Scotland's land and sea. Scotland's ability to store or sequester carbon is significant, not least because of the amount of peatland across our lands. And I'll say more on that later. If Scotland misses its 2045 date, the UK as a whole is likely to miss its 2050 target. We've made significant progress in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. This has largely been down to transition to renewables in the energy sector and other technological changes. This has been relatively, and I use that term advisably easy, significantly harder challenges remain with heat, fleet and food. Harder because they are about who we are and how we project our success and identity. This challenges what does it mean to lead a good life, the very heart of philosophy. Catastrophic is a strong word, but we are already seeing impacts and they're expected to increase in both frequency and severity. As well as the headline making increases in flooding, coastal erosion and wildfires, there are some less well known but equally important changes arising from climate warming. These include the growing incidence of droughts, disease outbreaks, human suffering due to heat stroke and power outages. The image on the slide is a summary of research carried out by one of Nature Scott's fabulous graduate placements, Fairlead Patrick Bird. On the incidence of drought in Scotland, you see her maps on the right hand side. The work shows that droughts will increase in both frequency, intensity and duration in the next 20 years. Turning to Nature, the data supports the conclusion that we are in a crisis. The State of Nature report published in 2019 by Nature Scott and other conservation organisations showed that we have seen a reduction by 25% in the average abundance of species since the early 1990s and by almost 15% in the average range of species recorded since the 1970s. So we may have been living the good life since the 1970s, but at what cost? Out of all of this, there are what I find some quite startling figures. Of the earth's living weight of terrestrial vertebrates, 9% is us humans and our livestock. With all the rest of terrestrial wildlife, all those herds of wildebeest and reindeer, everything squeezed into the remaining 5%. So what you might say? Well, the so what is that not long ago, it was the reverse with wildlife dominating. My point is that the planet is seriously influenced by us and the headlines point to us overshooting what can be sustained for us and the rest of nature. Instead of being part of nature, being planet centred, we became unruly and untrusted masters of it. We have in effect been running an ecologically Ponzi scheme, robbing nature and future generations to boost our incomes and profit in the short term. So we have a challenge. Boy, do we have a challenge. We need to bend the curve on nature's decline, first to halt it, and then to stage a recovery. An influential report by it best published in 2019 stated that the health of the earth's ecosystems is declining faster than at any point in human history, with 1 million species at risk of extinction. And this graph published in the journal Nature last year sets out the challenge. It shows the loss of biodiversity over decades. The grey line shows ongoing decline, the 1 million species lost if we continue our current rates of consumption and exploitation of the natural environment. The yellow line shows improvement if we increase our efforts to restore nature. That's good. The curve begins to bend, but it is still below previous levels of species abundance. The green line is really what we want to see. It takes us to a future where our nature is resilient and able to provide the benefits on which we all rely. This would be akin to the 1950s to 1970s, before the oil-based economy took off. You will see that this relies on more sustainable consumption and more sustainable production. Perhaps challenging to our very notion of success, but a challenge we must address if we aren't to affect change. The dusk up to review which I referenced earlier highlights that we are currently stretching the earth's natural systems beyond sustainable limits. The natural environment has tended not to feature prominently in economic strategies. Nature's worth to society is not reflected in market prices. This leads to under-investment in protecting nature. Many aspects of nature are mobile, invisible, or silent. This means that the effects of many of our actions go unaccounted, and the benefits of nature are often invisible and silent too, meaning they're not recognised. Governments around the world are faced with an invidious scenario of markets paying people more to exploit nature than to protect it. Correcting that market failure is no easy job. Our nature is as important as physical, social, and human capital. In driving economic performance and continuing to protect, restore, and enhance it will provide multiple benefits to society. So the case for urgent action is, I believe, clear. In Scotland, as for much of the rest of the world, as we emerge from the pandemic, we want a green recovery to build back better. In doing so, we face a triple challenge or perhaps a triple opportunity through green recovery to transition to a net zero economy with more sustainable land and sea use with positive benefits to the state of nature. To adapt to climate change that is already happening, which will also require major changes in the use of land and sea, and improve the state of nature by tackling the main drivers of nature loss, which include climate change. All three have to be done over the same period of time from now to 2045 and forevermore, and on the same areas of land and sea. And given the IPCC's code read for humanity this week, front loaded. And this is now all the more important because COVID-19 has exposed the most extraordinary vulnerabilities and inequalities in society. One tiny virus evidently arising from fragmented ecosystems in China has torpedoed our so-called business as usual wave line. So in addition to the climate emergency and the nature crisis, we need a green recovery to haul us out of the awful fall out of the pandemic. So our climate is heating. We're coming out of the global pandemic and nature is in decline. Clearly we need to bend the climate and nature curves. What is the solution? Of course there is no one single answer. There is no silver bullet. I've already mentioned the positive shift to renewable energy, which has reduced Scotland's emissions significantly. Technological and engineering solutions will help us further. But nature, as well as being imperiled by the changing climate, can also be the solution to rising global temperatures. So-called nature-based solutions, which are less well known than technological solutions, but no less essential, need to enter mainstream thinking and public conversation. Nature-based solutions are cost effective and are estimated to be capable of achieving approximately 30% of the emissions reductions needed for global net zero. Their transformative effect in the landscape are generally cheaper than engineering solutions, delivering multiple complementary benefits for society. So let's get into a bit of the detail to show what nature-based solutions can deliver. In a net zero economy, sources of emissions have to be balanced by removals or sinks, for example in vegetation and soils. So how does this work? The slide shows amounts of carbon expressed as carbon dioxide equivalent in four key ecosystems in Scotland. Much carbon is already stored in the ground or trapped in sediments in the sea. It sounds obvious, but the best way to manage this carbon is to keep it there by not releasing it into the atmosphere or burning it. There is significant effort underway across Scotland to ensure that our natural carbon stores remain in place and increase. These stores include peatland, woodland, marine and coastal environments and uncultivated uncultivated soils. Storage can be considered to be the long term, for example peatlands and marine sediments which accrue very slowly. Medium term, for example woodland or short term, for example agricultural land where changes in farming practices can change the carbon equation quickly. Soils are a bit of a Cinderella subject in both climate and conservation. It's time they got the attention they deserve. We literally can't live without them. When healthy they lock up carbon and prevent emissions, but when unhealthy they can actually emit carbon as I'll discuss later. Changing how we manage our land and sea to increase how much carbon is held in vegetation, soils and seabeds is central to climate change mitigation. Richer and more diverse vegetation and soils are critical to enable nature to adapt to the warm and climate. Richer nature can also help us adapt by reducing the warming in cities through the shade of trees and the absorption of heat by vegetation. Richer nature can protect our soils and coastlines. Richer nature can support enhanced food production. The benefits from maintaining and increasing these natural carbon stores go beyond the climate benefits vital as they are. They include enhanced biodiversity, flood management, sustainable economic development and improved health and well-being. Nature-based solutions really do deliver multiple benefits. So nature-based solutions are vital for addressing the climate nature crisis. About 50% of the effort will be by protecting and enhancing nature, with the other 50% from looking at the other ways we use land in farming, forestry and development. All land and sea everywhere can play a part, not just bits of it here and there, and those uses have to create the diversity needed for resilience to the effects of a change in climate, the triple challenge again. So let's move from the songs and theories to some practical examples. I'll give you three examples of nature-based solutions. I mentioned earlier that Scotland's net zero is five years ahead of the UK's as a whole because of its natural resources. A key driver of this is peat. 25% of Scotland is peatland. We have over 2.3 million hectares of blanket bog, which stores 7 billion tons of carbon dioxide. Absolutely fantastic. Well, it would be, but currently 80% of this peatland is degraded and actually emitting carbon dioxide at the rate of 7 to 10 million tons of carbon dioxide equivalent every year. This is around the equivalent of annual emissions from Long Annett coal fired power station when it was operating, of about 20% of Scotland's annual emissions. So to meet our net zero challenge, we need to turn this around, stop our degraded peatland emitting carbon and turn it back into a natural carbon store. The Scottish government has set an incredibly ambitious target of restoring 250,000 hectares of peatland by 2030 and provided significant funding of 250 million pounds to do so. But we need to go further with restoration. As I mentioned, 80% of Scotland's 2.3 million hectares of blanket bog is degraded. A reasonable estimate is that allowing for difficult to reach sites and areas which are frankly too far gone, there is the potential to restore 1.3 million hectares of peatland. To achieve that, we need bold new innovative solutions and different sources of finance. The public purse cannot bear this alone. This is a subject which Nature Scott is investigating with some urgency. Along our coasts and at sea, an integrated approach is needed. Blue carbon is a tremendous carbon store, not far off the potential of peatland and the amount of carbon it can lock up. The key task is to keep it there. We must safeguard our carbon rich marine areas, as well as reducing pressure on marine habitats and species. Working with communities, we want to support sustainable fisheries to help keep the carbon where it needs to be and to support our diverse marine life. In our towns and cities, nature-based solutions offer highly effective ways to help communities adapt to the effects of changing climate, whilst also delivering a wide range of co-benefits to health and wellbeing, the quality of life, biodiversity and providing a connection to nature. So let me turn now to the revival of nature and the term rewilding that is so in vogue at the moment. Here is a brilliant example of rewilding, or in other words, the revival of nature, in Caryfran in the Scottish Borders near Moffitt. Led by a remarkable community, since 2007, the Wild Wood team has planted more than 700,000 trees, with 75,000 planted by volunteers. It is brimming with nature and one of the great successes of this work has been the effort that has gone into painstakingly recording progress. The images here show the state of the woodland in 2004 and 2020. The pictures speak for themselves. But what is rewilding and what is it not? A recent scientific paper published this year in Conservation Biology sets out principles for rewilding. I agree with many of these principles, particularly around a rich nature and allowing natural processes to run their course. For example, rewilding is the rebuilding of a natural ecosystem by restoring natural processes, says the paper. Rewilding involves a paradigm shift in the relationship between humans and nature. The ultimate goal of rewilding is to restore the functioning of native ecosystems containing the full range of species at all trophic levels. Absolutely. However, there are a couple of elements of the paper, which I find more challenging, including reducing human control and pressures, and that rewilded ecosystems should, where possible, be self-sustaining, requiring no or minimum intervention management. So the reason I find this a bit challenging is that it is inevitable that people will interact with nature because we are part of it. Getting that part of rewilding right so it works for nature, climate and people is vital. Beavers are a classic example of an ecosystem engineer. They transform narrow channels into wide wet meandering water courses with graded channels and ponds, fundamentally changing water flow hydrology and water quality. They provide natural flood management for free, but as the report published by Nature School earlier this week showed, in some places they can be problematic and a human intervention is still required. So whilst beaver introduction has been a fantastic success story and you might argue a fantastic example of rewilding, it cannot take place without people. This takes me to some of my own perspectives on rewilding. The underlying ideas of rewilding are about working with natural processes, minimum intervention and the creation maintenance and restoration of habitats on a large scale. In Nature Scott we focus primarily on working with people in nature to address the climate nature crisis. I believe that local communities have to be integral to any rewilding initiatives and their progression. For some people rewilding places a spotlight on restoring large predators and species, which were once roaming Scotland's wild places. I feel this risks being a narrow perspective. We must formulate ideas based on the nature of the future, arguably the past is a foreign land. So you've heard that we face twin crises, that the COVID-19 pandemic has exacerbated all of this, that a green recovery is needed to address the systemic underlying issues of nature and climate, as well as building back better from the devastating effects of the pandemic. Where will the future take us? Next year the Scottish government supported by Nature Scott will publish an ambitious new strategy for biodiversity. This builds on Scotland's environment strategy which set out as a vision for 2045, by restoring nature and ending Scotland's contribution to climate change our country is transformed for the better, helping secure the well-being of our people and planet for generations to come. One of the strategy's six outcomes relates directly to nature. Scotland's nature is protected and restored with flourishing biodiversity and clean and healthy air, water, seas and soils. A new biodiversity strategy during 2022 will meet the targets agreed at COP15, but won't be limited by them. International targets by themselves are unlikely to be sufficient to meet Scotland's ambition. So finally returning to my provocation, the idea that we are part of nature, not apart from it, should not be provocative at all, but perhaps for too many it is, even if unconsciously so. How often do we link our behaviour to the impact that it is having? How clear is our understanding of that impact? Our decisions, whether in public service, in business or in private, need to be framed by understanding the long and short-term impacts on our planet. After all we only have one and we are consuming its resources at an ever faster rate. So let me offer six sentiments and in doing so let me make a plea that we seize the moment to revive nature for us and the planet. Nature is not just a nice to have, it is fundamental to human life. Nature will only be prosperous if it is sustainable in the widest possible sense. Sustainable land and sea use supports increased biodiversity and people's well-being. We can't achieve net zero without nature. Actions to improve nature will almost always have a beneficial climate effect, but the reverse isn't necessarily true. Nature and climate are intrinsically linked, tackle both together or tackle neither. And maybe the central challenge is to rewild ourselves, to see us as a part of nature. And this brings me to what you, as the Royal Philosophical Society of Glasgow, can do as part of this journey. Having received your royal charter almost exactly 120 years ago on the 23rd of August 1901, you have grown into a great society which encourages discourse. It would be marvellous if, as we enter the final months leading to COP26 here, you raise a roof on the entwined climate nature crisis. The world's eyes are on Scotland, on Glasgow, and as history has shown, Glasgow is never shy of making its indelible mark on the world. Thank you. Thank you very much Francesca for that very stimulating talk and for setting out the task ahead of us and also the call to arms for the society. We're going to take a five-minute break now and an opportunity for the audience to enter questions for the Q&A session that follows. So you should find a Q&A tab that you can use and so if you want to click onto that, enter your questions there and then we'll go through those. In the meantime, if you're new to the society or maybe you're a guest and haven't joined us before or just want to learn more about us, then you can always have a look at our websites which is royalfield.org. We'll put a link to that in the chat in a moment. Or if you want to join the society or give any donations or so on. We'll take a five-minute break for now and a chance for you to enter your questions. Thank you. Okay Francesca, if you're ready, then we can begin the Q&A. Yeah, I'm still here. I haven't run away. That's great. Excellent. We've got a range of questions coming in on different topics. So I'll start with the first question that came in. Humanity tends to become a human activity, human influence on the environment. What do you make of this? In the IPCC report, there wasn't much to distinguish emissions from individuals, which of course varies between the global north and the global south, and the emissions from, say, petrochemical industries. It strikes the questioner as a particularly Western viewpoint to elide difference in race, class, gender, location, etc. in this way, whenever many indigenous activists have been on the front line of the climate crisis for decades. Yeah, I mean really good question. And I think the IPCC report kind of recognises in the fact that 195 nations signed up to it, that there is work to do across developing and developed nations. And that is exactly what COP26 is there for, for all nations to confirm their nationally declared contributions, and to set out their plans to achieve the Paris Agreement, or indeed, you know, let's be hopeful even better. It does enable national and regional variations, and I think one of the really interesting issues that I've been looking at recently is the role of indigenous communities in supporting and conserving nature. And I think looking at that, but recognising the fact that economically developed nations have benefited from frankly exploiting carbon fuels up to now, means that we have to build in a degree of equity and fairness in relation to the NDCs that will be discussed COP26. And I'm sure as the question is alluding to, that's going to be a key point within the negotiations is how you balance the different contributions of different countries to emissions reductions. Okay, thank you. And on a related question, aren't our emissions reductions also the result of exporting emissions through imports of manufactured goods from China and other countries? So are we really going to net zero if we're continuing as we are? Yeah, I mean, to be blunt, yes, you know, that and that, you know, the exporting of emissions, exporting of carbon is a real challenge. And I think, you know, one of the points I mentioned in the talk was about sustainable consumption and production and, you know, challenging ourselves to think about, you know, different models for ourselves or consumption production. How do we amend our behaviour? And should we have a system of carbon taxation, which, you know, would mean that imports would be more expensive? I don't know the answers to these questions that I'm just throwing out there. But what I am recognising is that, you know, as again, as I said in the talk, there's no easy answer here. And it does require us all to fundamentally think about our individual behaviour, our organisation's behaviour, and obviously governments are thinking about the, you know, a nation's behaviour and policies so that we can reduce our emissions, get to net zero, address the nature crisis. But hopefully as well, and this is one area that I think the Scottish Government is really strong on, is moved to a well being economy. And so the kind of notion that we're always measured by stuff maybe is beginning to recede. Again, that's more perhaps a question than an answer, but that's where I've seen some of the challenges coming through in the discussions at COP26. Okay, so you mentioned the idea of sacrifice there and, you know, carbon taxes potentially. And we also said that we're a part of nature, not apart from it. So we've got a question, again, on conflict, but how can we balance the standards of living of billions of humans versus wildlife and the Earth's natural systems? Yeah, and I mean, again, a great question. And and I think that comes to my sort of fundamental point is that we only achieve that balance if we recognise that we're part of an ecosystem and we're not, we don't sit separate from it. We're not masters of nature, as I said, but we are integrated with it. And that is not just for a point in time. It's actually over time. And so, you know, our natural environment is a huge asset. And we've been depleting that asset. And what we need to see more of, I think, is recognising our environment as something that needs to be nurtured and invested in, like any other asset. Again, you know, me saying that doesn't make it easier to do, but what I have seen in the last few years is a growing recognition of, you know, natural capital in economists speak, the desktop to report, which really, I think, challenges some of the traditional notions of economics as well as I was taught it many, many years ago. And so that recognition and being able to recognise nature for what it delivers is what's going to help address that balance. Okay, on the desculptor reports, there's no earlier TEB reports on the economics of the environment and biodiversity. Why do you think that failed to build awareness of the needs of work with nature and can the desculptor review be more successful? And so I don't know why the previous one didn't land. I would say two points in favour of the desculptor review. One, this was led by the Treasury. And actually, I thought when they announced the review, that was fascinating in itself that the Treasury was saying, right, we need to think about how biodiversity and economics are intertwined. And in the same vein, we've heard Mark Carney, former governor of the Bank of England, talk about the importance of climate risk featuring on balance sheet. So there's that kind of government led and not just a small department in government, but the Treasury leading that, I think, gives it clout. I think the other factor is timing. It is of a time. This is a moment that we all need to seize and I think the currency of these issues and how we address them is much more prominent than the previous report. And that's that will help the desculptor review land and indeed events like this, where we're talking about it and giving it prominence can can only help as well. So on the policy side and the government, how do we achieve the kind of holistic systems based approach that's required to get recognition of the multiple benefits of, for example, greening or urban spaces, incorporating active travel infrastructure with associated benefits for health and well being and therefore the associated reduced cost for the health service, reduced heat island effects, encouragement by diversity. Why won't politicians and economists recognize this? Well, I think the beginning to actually in one of the areas of work that NatureScots involved in is a program called the Green Infrastructure Fund, where we've administered, I think, over five years around 35 million pounds worth of funding to support green infrastructure to develop and deliver some of the benefits that you've mentioned. And I think essentially what the question or what the question is getting at apologies to the question if this is a wrong interpretation, but is the need to move to invest to save type model and actually investing in nature and nature based solutions, which, as I said, are often cheaper and provide more provide wider benefits than engineered solutions is an invest to save, whether it's flood defenses, whether it's green roofs, we've got a fabulous example of a project we're supporting in Edinburgh, whether it's active travel, all of that I think is now beginning to filter through. And we're beginning, I think, importantly, in terms of politicians and economic economists recognizing this, and we're beginning to get good data and being able to say, actually, these are the benefits measured financially if needed to convince decision makers. I think another fundamental kind of shift occurred with the advisory group on economic recovery that the Scottish government set up last year to advise on recovery coming out of the pandemic. And a really strong theme in that was natural capital. So again, I think this notion that a nature needs to be nurtured and nature can help us, both with recovery and with economic growth, is really beginning to take hold. You touched on engineered solutions there, and sometimes reducing carbon emissions from the counter to nature conservation. For instance, dams and water extraction associated with hydropower schemes are damaging to river biodiversity. So how do we balance these conflicting demands? Yeah, it's really interesting, isn't it? And one of my kind of closing six sentiments was that mostly, and I've not been able to find an example where this isn't true, but maybe the audience will find one, if you improve nature, if you invest in nature, there will generally be a climate payoff. The converse isn't necessarily true, and some of the examples that were given in the question of construction of engineered solutions to combat climate change might have a negative impact on nature. How do you balance that? I would come back to looking first at nature-based solutions. So interestingly, I was involved in a piece of work with the Institute of Chartered Engineers, and again, that was about educating the engineering community on the need to think broadly about solutions, not just the maybe slightly traditional, dare I say I'm not an engineer, engineered solutions, but think broadly. So there's an education piece. There's also, I think, the need to think about how we weigh up different benefits, but also different costs, when is the kind of flooding imperative greater than a nature imperative? Again, I don't know the answer to that, but I think it's something that we maybe need to think about and develop the tools to do so. Okay, there's a couple of questions on the nature of the nature, if you like. So Kate's asking, we talk about the importance of nature as part of the climate solution. How do we get the right nature in the first place? And someone has asked, you mentioned enhancing nature. What does enhancing the state of nature entail? To pick one example, we know there are concerns about inadvertently reducing biodiversity by planting trees which were never part of the native ecology of a place. In what ways does enhancing ensure that these kind of issues are avoided? And is there an inherent risk that enhancing nature simply replicates existing models of capitalist growth? Yeah, again, really interesting topics. And, you know, can I just say, I don't know if all of the attendees are members of the Royal Philosophical Society of Glasgow, but boy, they're certainly keeping me on my toes tonight, so you've got a great membership base. Yeah, kind of, you know, right nature, right place. And I think I would, my central response to that would be about diversity. And indeed, the very word biodiversity gives you the clue to the fact that, you know, resilient nature requires diversity, whether it's diversity in, you know, planting, avoiding monocultures, whether it's diversity in woodland planting. So, yes, you know, a lot of the work that we do in conjunction with Scottish Forestry is about balancing, you know, some of the, you know, really ambitious planting targets with the need for a diversity of species and ensuring that we have native and broadleaf species. I think the other point I would just make on, you know, enhancing nature, enriching nature, and, you know, fundamentally making nature better, you know, how do you how do you measure that? It's not as easy as with climate change. We've got a very defined metric there, haven't we? We've got, you know, global warming as measured by the earth's temperature in degrees Celsius. So we don't have the same for nature. We can measure species abundance in different places. You can measure populations. But what I find useful is to think about what's challenging nature and the best report, which I mentioned in the talk, talked about five really strong drivers of nature loss, which are the, you know, kind of unsustainable use of land and seas, direct exploitation of species, pollution, invasive non-native species and climate change, which kind of exacerbates the impact of the other four. So actually enhancing and enriching nature for me is part, you know, is about addressing all of those challenges. And if we can do that, if we can reduce our invasive species, if we can reduce pollution, if we can move to more sustainable land and seas, then nature will be enhanced. But I would come back to the diversity point and the person who was asking the question about woodland planting, absolutely, the diversity there is really important. Okay, I think you've maybe just preempted the next question, one from Babsir, but she's asking very specifically, you mentioned forest in the borders. Hopefully it will be a mixed woodland of native trees rather than monoculture of spruce seen so frequently. Yes. Excellent advice up to there. She also asked, can you please give a bit more detail on how badgers improve the environment? I can see there'll be a responsible for new species coming into the area, but there could be a huge conflict with humans use of the land. And I thought it would increase flooding already problems since we're building houses and flood plains. I think maybe that's beavers rather than badgers. So the conflict with humans, how is that to be managed or can you explain how they do improve the environment? Yeah, absolutely. I think that probably is beavers and I'll answer it as if it is beavers, but if it's badgers, then the question, please get back in touch. So what beavers do is they create dams by dropping down trees. I mean, they're kind of absolutely amazing what they do. Somebody did tell me the figure for the number of trees. This is from North America that the average beaver was able to excavate in a year. And it was phenomenal. And so they create these dams which effectively turn kind of channels into wetland. And what that does in terms of flooding is if you can imagine a hard sided stream, if the volume of water is too much, it spills over the side and you get immediate flooding. Whereas by the creation of wetlands, you get a more diffuse pattern of water retention, which generally acts as a way of preventing flooding. Of course, there are some are preventing kind of damaging flooding. There are some areas, and particularly on prime agricultural land, where doing that kind of risks crops, although it disperses the water, probably disperses the water in a way that is really unhelpful to farmers. And that's some of the conflictual situation that we have seen particularly in Tayside. And we work with landowners on different mitigation schemes. So blocking up dams to prevent that damage, looking at different ways to maybe encourage beavers to move to different areas. We do look at translocation, which means moving beavers to a different area at the moment. The policy is that we will move beavers, but only within the range that they're currently established. And in certain circumstances, we do allow the lethal control of an animal, and that's absolutely a measure of last resort. All of this is really important to be done in consultation and engagement with landowners and with the local community, which is what we do. And in that way, back to the conflict question that I think the questioner was posing, we try and reduce that conflict. And as I said, you know, tenet of what I'm saying is that nature and people have to coexist together. So part of our role is de-complicting any conflict that exists. Okay, slight change of subject. We've had a few questions on Pete. The first one from Robin. Can you explain more about Pete? I didn't fully understand why some of it was degraded. Oh, okay. Yeah. So in terms of the degradation of Pete, a lot of it comes from historical land use. So for example, one of great expanse of Pete is at the Flanders Moss National Nature Reserve, which we manage. It's near Stirling. I'll just give a little plug for that. It's a really nice place to visit and walk. And when we kind of took over that area of land, what had happened is previous land management practices had essentially drained the Pete and dried it out to support generally agricultural grazing or just that was the landowner's kind of desire at the time. So that's why it becomes degraded. It effectively dries out and much of the restoration work is to rewet it to ensure that artificially inserted drains that are draining the water and therefore not helping with the carbon sequestration are kind of removed to remove any excessive planting that has been again gone against the sort of natural formation of the Pete and by rewetting and returning a bog to a bog. That is the restoration effort. Okay. And related to that, what's the biggest challenge that Nature's got faces in working with landowners who have drained Pete? So I think most landowners that we work with really want to do the right thing. And that, you know, we work through a sort of network of, you know, a network of landowners and more and more everybody's getting it. So some of the challenges are, you know, what is it going to mean for me? Is it expensive? I mean, we obviously provide grants and we support landowners financially for peatland restoration. But, you know, it's still disruption. The landowner has to put in, you know, a bit of effort to get the grant. We help them, but there's, you know, there's that cost. Is it going to kind of change the nature of the land in a way that, you know, is going to be difficult for them in the future? So, you know, I suppose, you know, what does that boil down to shifting attitudes maybe and making the process easy and, you know, yeah, kind of thinking about the financial incentive. Okay. And why hasn't Scotland banned peatland garden compost? And so that is a commitment, I think, in the SMP manifesto. There has been a commitment from the Programme for Government to ban domestic peat extraction. And I think that was in the Programme for Government 2018, but you're testing me. And I think the SMP manifesto gave that commitment. I think, you know, yes, absolutely, kind of, you know, regulate a point of sale back to choices, you know, as individual consumers and gardeners, we can make choices in terms of buying non-peat free compost. Okay. Also on extraction, should Scotland stop extracting oil from the North Sea even before it's exhausted? And how can we justify the developments at the Campo oil field 75 miles off the West of Shetland Islands? Yeah, again, one of these real, I suppose, issues in terms of, you know, how we make the transition. And so, you know, I think, you know, if people have been tracking what Scottish Government Ministers have been saying about the move to net zero, one of the really strong themes that I think has come across is the need for a just transition. And that, you know, we know moving to net zero, both in terms of personal choices, but in terms of industry is not going to be easy. And it needs to be a transition. And I think one of the, either Mary, I think it was Mary McCallan, was quoted as saying, you know, she didn't want Scotland to suffer the same kind of industrial type shock as has suffered in the past in a move to a just transition. So we do need to, I think, in a sense, we need to move along the curve. We can't just jump down the curve in terms of fossil fuel use. Yeah, I also, you know, some of these decisions in terms of yeah, oil exploration, oil extraction, fossil fuel use, they come from a consenting process which happened, you know, years and years ago, and that's not meant to sound like an excuse. I think it's just a reality of the process is that we will need to take time to, you know, work some of this through. And again, I think, you know, because of the current context, because, you know, industries are waking up to the fact that actually they need to change. Hopefully we can speed some of that up, but we do need to ensure that as we move to net zero, we're not leaving communities and different industries behind. And still on the energy transition, Andy asks, what's your view of the promotion of biofuels or biomass as sustainable energy sources, given the negative impacts involved? So this is going to be really terrible. It depends, answers. So some can be, you know, some can be beneficial. I think, you know, back to some of the points that I said earlier, I think you need to consider some of this in the round of carbon, nitrogen cycles, we need to think about how, you know, biofuels and biomass, you know, are used and ensure that removal technologies, if I can call it that, don't result in in monocultures for carbon saving. And it's a back to the diversity. And, you know, back to my soil is a Cinderella subject point. Again, you know, I think we would want to exercise, you know, a little bit of care in terms of thinking about how these technologies impacted on soil health. And also on soil and cycles, do we need to move to a different form of agriculture and land management, just one that's less energy intensive, you know, to restore habitats on the uplands and lowlands? Yes, I think we are actually. And one of the pieces of work that NatureScot has involved in is been working with different farmer led groups set up by the Scottish government to think about that transition to net zero. Again, it has to be a transition. So we can't go, I think, overnight from, you know, a kind of set of farming practices to a completely new set, you know, these are individuals, livelihoods and, you know, we do need to eat. But actually, again, when you talk to farmers as I have, and I'm sure many, you know, many of your members have, they want to do the right thing for nature and for climate. And so a lot of the work that we've been involved in is thinking about how we do that, how we incentivize that we administer a scheme called the Agri environment climate scheme, which supports, you know, kind of farming for nature, if you like. And we know that there's great work done by the Nature friendly farming network. So I think, you know, again, as we transition both to net zero, but also out of the EU in terms of the CAP system, then we've got a real opportunity to think about how we manage our land in a different way and reward, you know, public goods, i.e., you know, caring for nature appropriately and value nature by our land land managers. Okay. In fact, Docus asked something very related to that. England's gone down this public money for public goods approach to replacing agricultural CAP schemes. Do you have any encouraging news that Scotland might follow that lead? I'm encouraged by the positive conversations that I have with farmers, crofters and their representative bodies. I know that, you know, the comparisons are made with what's happening in England. And what I would observe is that in Scotland, we're very good at taking a very broad view and making sure that we're considering all the different aspects of, you know, of a particular issue, in this case, you know, land management. So the conversations that I have with the Scottish government, with farms and crofters, I think we've, you know, we've all got our eye on the same prize and it's worth taking a bit of time to make sure that we come up with the most appropriate response and future compensation scheme. Okay. Given the crisis we're in, is it a luxury to be spending money on conserving conserving individual species? Shouldn't all nature scouts be money spent in proven habitats, such as sequestered carbon? Conserving individual species can resume once we save the world? Maybe a provocative question there. Yeah. So I haven't got the graph which would, or the pie chart, which would show you kind of, you know, how nature scot spends its money. But actually, a lot of our direct work is on habitat, whether it's looking at the condition of protected areas and trying to improve them, whether it's working with landowners and land management, as you know, as I said previously, to move to a more sustainable land and indeed, sea management regime. I think the point about species is, you know, is interesting, isn't it? And I think it's going to become more interesting as the climate changes. We actually, you know, there are some headline species which are iconic, which, yes, were involved in supporting, you know, Beaver I've mentioned, Wildcat is another. And there, you know, Beaver, great success story in terms of reintroduction since 2009. Wildcat, more challenging in terms of conserving that genetic purity. I think in terms of, again, back to the diversity point, we make some really finely judged decisions on how to, you know, spread our resources, which are relatively limited into different projects. It's also worth noting that often our, you know, nature scots contribution in terms of that type of work financially can be relatively small, but what we can gain in terms of our small contribution is leverage from other funds, whether it's, you know, heritage, national lottery heritage fund, whether it's EU funding or whatever replaces it, whether it's funding from, you know, private foundations and trusts. So actually, our investment can, you know, reap significant rewards in terms of levering other funders to support, you know, whatever the project is. Okay. You mentioned a number of species there. Joanna thinks the elephants in the room, so to speak, is deer. As high browsing pressures impact on plants to establish new woodlands and trampling damages peatland further or prevent restoration. So will, when will deer management in Scotland be recognised as a key barrier to habitat restoration, she asks. Yeah, I mean, I think it has been so the report of the deer working group, which the Scottish Government Commissioned was published in in March, and what that recommended affected, I mean, 98 or 99, 99, I think, recommendations of the deer working group. And effectively that added up to a more assertive deer management approach, recognising the issues that, you know, the questioner has put forward. And we will, you know, we're working with the Scottish Government on how we implement the recommendations of that review, which would mean that we'd move into a bit more of a potentially a bit more of a muscular regulatory approach, as well as like come back to working with our key partners, so Scottish Forestry, Forestry and Land Scotland, and a whole range of deer management groups. So for those in the in the call that don't know in the Highlands, it's divided into effectively a series of areas which are kind of managed in terms of deer, and all the land owners in that area will come together in a deer management group to agree deer management targets, and that's a voluntary approach. But actually over the years, it's, you know, it has delivered significantly in terms of deer management, and we will continue to work with deer management groups, the Association of Deer Management Groups, and others to yeah, to do exactly what the questioner said, because we need to manage deer, their iconic species, they're also an economic, you know, they provide income to many estates, so we have to recognise that too, but getting the balance so that we can ensure that particularly our woodland via diversity flourishes is really important. I think we've probably got time for just a few more questions, if you don't mind. Two on funding. Jeff asks, a number of countries are adopted in remunicitisation initiatives in which privatised industries such as water are taken into collective community ownership. Do you think such an approach is necessary and will be advocated in Scotland? And James asks whether the Green Infrastructure Fund is close to new applicants? And if so, when or if it will be opened again? Sorry, I just muted myself while I was pouring my noisy water. I'll take the Green Infrastructure one first. You might have to remind me on remunicitisation, if I can even say it. On the Green Infrastructure Fund, yes, because it is an EU fund, and we are looking at how we or it wasn't a EU fund. We are looking at how we replace that, because as said earlier, I think Green Infrastructure, it is a nature-based solution. It is incredibly powerful within our towns and cities. So, by all means, if the question wants to get in touch after this meeting, if they've got a particular project they're thinking of, we can look at how we can support that, because certainly we want to continue our support for Green Infrastructure. On remunicitisation, is it a good idea? I don't know if I know enough about it to be able to judge. Can you just maybe recap that one a little bit? Yes, so taking privatised industries such as water, and obviously water in Scotland isn't privatised, but it is in England, but what we've got other industries that have been privatised is bringing these back into community ownership, maybe not necessarily nationalised, but community ownership. Is that something that should be advocated? I don't know if you could think maybe for energy companies, for example, could own by councils or local communities. Yes, that's really interesting. It's not something I've given a lot of thought to, actually. What I would say is that we do work with a number of communities in terms of land asset transfers, and indeed some of our own land. We have transferred to community groups because of the reasons that the question is set out. Again, repeating a theme here, getting the community involved in the management of land or the management of a small hydro scheme, which is another example from Nature's Got. Actually it's really powerful because the community is making the choices based on its needs and wants, not the needs and wants of a fairly large organisation. I'm sure there is potential for that, but I would need to know a bit more about the model, but certainly community asset transfer is something that Nature's Got has supported in the past. There's a question here on, there's been a bit of controversy lately about grouse shooting and it being damaging both biodiversity and the climate. Do you have any views on this? Yes, the Warrity Report was another report commissioned by the Scottish Government on grouse moor management. A little bit like the Deer Working Group that I mentioned, it came up with a series of recommendations that effectively move us to a more muscular approach on licensing of grouse moors, to manage them more effectively. I think in terms of, is grouse shooting damaging to Nature and to the climate? Again, slightly rubbish. It depends, question, it depends how it's done. It depends on the actual land management techniques that are being used on the grouse moor, but we do need to, and again, back to land management generally, need to weigh up the benefits both in terms of the carbon cycle as well as Nature, and I think what the Warrity Report has done is really just, yeah, kind of set us on a path of thinking more fundamentally about that in terms of grouse moors. And if I just combine a couple of questions into the final question, I'm 25, not me, the question is 25. Are you confident that we will see the worst of the ecological crisis in my lifetime? And Sam asks, fortunately, we're in a position to get our house in order by 2045. What responsibility do we have to support those places which don't have the resource to achieve these targets? Yeah, so will we see a solution to the kind of climate nature crisis in the lifetime of a 25 year old? By the way, you definitely look 25. I hope so, I hope so. So the target that has been set for net zero, as I said, is 2045 in terms of ecological restoration, certainly within NatureScot, we're thinking of that and the interim target on climate change is 2030, so we're thinking about targets in terms of addressing the nature issues for 2030. The curves that I showed, which I'm not technologically adept enough to be able to bring them back up on the screen, but we do need to be bending those curves within the lifetime of a current 25 year old. And actually, I suppose a message that I'd want to leave is despite some of the alarming reports that I mentioned, despite Code Red for Humanity, despite the at best report in 2019 on the state of nature globally and a million extinctions, all of these reports actually have a message of hope. And all of them say, if we act, we can turn this around, it is not a hopeless situation. And I think we really need to hang on to that. And I'm encouraged, certainly, you know, I've been the last couple of days at an induction event virtually for NatureScot and the kind of passion of new entrance coming into the organisation. And I think the movement in terms of young people to address these issues is phenomenal. So, you know, there's another message of hope for us. Getting our house in order supporting other places, which are perhaps not as fortunate of us. Yes, of course we should. And, you know, knowledge transfer, for example, how we share our expertise and skills is a really key part of that. How, you know, back to the negotiation piece, then I think that has to be recognised is that, you know, developed nations, you know, have a responsibility to lead here, but also to support those that are not able to address these issues as readily as, you know, countries and nations like Scotland. And so I think we absolutely should help those, you know, through different means to do so. Thank you very much. We've still got other questions, but I think we've held you long enough. Thank you so much for, again, very stimulating talk today and also a message that's very positive and one that can instill hope that, yes, we can do something to solve both the climate emergency and the nature emergency. You've covered a wide range of questions from a large number of people. I'm sure they could keep you here all night. But thank you so much. You've been a fabulous speaker and it's been really great to learn about the work that you've been doing with NatureScots and across that range of work that you've been doing. Right. No, thank you very much and thanks to everybody for coming along. And I've really enjoyed the questions, which we will have captured somewhere has certainly been really thought provoking. And that's a great thing for a Wednesday evening, even if it's sitting in my little room at home rather than kind of in a live audience. So thank you very much to you and the Society for the Invite. Thank you. For anyone, a few as well Francesca, anyone who would like to join our next lecture on the 1st of September, Baroness Young, the chair of the Woodland Trust, will be talking on the topic, is striding the world stage like a colossus or doomed, we're all doomed. So we'll get Baroness's young view of whether she has such hope as well. Thank you all for joining us and wish you a very good evening. Goodbye.