 I can actually say with my hand on my heart and a hundred percent honesty that it is a huge pleasure and privilege for me to introduce tonight's speaker, Barbara Baroness Young of Old School, Old School. Over to you Barbara. Tonight, I wanted to talk about the twin crises of climate change and biodiversity and they are genuinely twin crises but I should give some caveats when talking and that is that first of all, these are my own views and you can't blame the Woodland Trust. Secondly, I suppose my life has been in public policy and lately in gently into politics, but so I'm not a scientist, so don't expect me to be great on the numbers. And thirdly, for some ridiculous reason way way back I got jobs in England and have lived there for quite a while so if I'm a bit rusty on Scotland forgive me that as well but I hope some of these insights will be helpful to you here in Scotland. My actual title. I'm now having difficulty getting this to forward here is is he doth bestride the narrow world like Colossus. Now this was spoken by Cassius in in Shakespeare's Julius Caesar. And of course you're all good Scott so you've all had a classical education will know that that's a reference to the Colossus at Rhodes and which was one of the seven wonders of the ancient world. I think it's a kind of appropriate. Sorry, my mice is doubly my mice is doubly sensitive right now. I'll try and get rid of it. I think it's an appropriate analogy, as it's increasingly clear that the most pressing and existential issues facing the world are not covered, or ISIS, or the growth of China or indeed, Indie ref to, but the twin and interlinked crisis of climate change and biodiversity decline. And at this precise moment this year we have a unique opportunity to influence world events on both these issues this autumn. The back end of this year sees at least parts of the global conference of the parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity taking place and coming in China it's only going to partially take part because the Chinese have got cold feet, having lots of people arrive there with COVID and so the conference will be mainly online and only deal with part of the agenda but it nevertheless is an important element of international debate on biodiversity. And of course it's racially known as as COP 15. COP 26 the conference of the parties on on the climate change convention is taking place, as you all know in Glasgow, under the leadership of the UK and hopefully with a strong role for Scotland. So this time is pretty key. And it's key for a number of reasons, apart from these conferences that we're beginning to see the front end of the sixth mass extinction, people are beginning to herald what's happening in biodiversity as that. The climate change the recent report from the intergovernmental panel on climate change warned of a red card for the globe with strong and sustained reductions in CO2 emissions needed if damaging thresholds of 1.5 degrees centigrade and two degrees centigrade of global warning were not to be reached. So the question really is will the UK and Scotland destroyed the world like Colossus and take a world leadership role and negotiate success flight comes to COP 15 and COP 26. So will our governments persuade global leaders that we're drinking in the last chance saloon and make a real impact on the twin challenges of climate change and biodiversity, both globally, and of course here at home. Or was private Fraser right. What do you know all doomed. He has eyebrows like my dad so I feel very warm towards him, but he was a bit of a party pooper. And the question really is, will private Fraser be proven right will one or both of the conferences be done squibs and fail to deliver on credible agreements. So tonight I want briefly to lay out the scale and nature of the twin and intellect challenges. I'm conscious that the two previous contributors to this webinar series went into detail about each. But I think I would like to give a sort of brief summary of my take on the two crises. Turn to what successful might look at for COP 15 and COP 26 and finish with some of the important UK and Scotland actions that we need to see happen. And what government needs to do here at home to deal with their share of the global challenges and to set an ambitious example to other countries. Because there's no way that the UK and Scotland governments will be able to exercise global leadership. If they're dragging their feet back home. So first to summarize the seriousness of the twin crisis. Recent estimates suggest that extinction threatens up to two million species of plants and animals, mostly as a result of human activity. And extensions are occurring hundreds of times faster than they would do naturally. In recent reports by the Natural History Museum and the RSPB was published in nature and reveals that the UK status in terms of a thing they call biodiversity intactness is well below the global average and is the 29th lowest out of 218 countries that were assessed. Now, it's possible that that sort of level of biodiversity impoverishment may well exceed the threshold below which ecosystems fail to meet society's needs so we may well be drinking in the last chance to learn in terms of biodiversity impoverishment in this country. The Nature Report in Scotland, the Scottish version of it produced by a consortium of UK NGOs found that that between 1994 and 2016 49% of Scottish species decreased in abundance and only 28 increased in abundance. Decrease tend to be those with special requirements with niche habitats and other requirements and those that increase tend to be those with general needs. So, a kind of verminous kind of species if one can look at it that way. But basically the complex ecosystems on which species, including you and me depend are a bit like a house of cards, a house of cards made up of species and it's so high you can't see the top of it and you can't see the bottom of it it's so wide you can't see the edges of it. We as mankind are gaily deplucking species randomly from this delicate edifice card by card species by species without understanding what this does to the strength of the overall edifice. And at some stage, we run the risk of collapse of vital ecosystems. On climate change, the recent report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change comprehensively indicated that warming will increase faster than previously estimated. I quote them in saying climate change is widespread rapid and intensifying and the report finds unless there are immediate rapid and large scale reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, limiting warming to close to 1.5 degrees centigrade, or even two degrees centigrade will be beyond reach. So that's pretty grim. At the current rate of emissions. It's estimated that we will exceed 1.5 degree sentiment grade of warming within five to 12 years. So this is very, very much sooner than had been anticipated. And the impacts of climate change are already affecting millions of people around the world in 2020 alone, Australian bush fires scorched 11 million hectares of land and caused hundreds of deaths in California. 9200 fires burned millions of hectares and turned the golden state black and across Africa hundreds of thousands were displaced by devastating floods. While record setting locust storms destroyed crops and threatened food security. Temperatures hit 38 degrees centigrade in the Arctic and summer ice levels were the second lowest on record. In 2021, as if 2020 wasn't bad enough North American experienced one in 10,000 year heatwave and temperatures soared to 47 degrees centigrade in Vancouver. The UK is having substantial implications in the UK for heatwaves for storminess for flood events on the water cycle on agriculture on forestry on sea level rise on soils and biodiversity. And the UK and Scottish governments have quite rightly declared climate emergencies. There's a bit more in the private Fraser territory than striding the globe like colossus were doomed were all doomed. Now the interrelationship of biodiversity and climate change is close, and it's not sufficiently recognized. Nature based solutions are vital in tackling climate change. It's been estimated that they could meet a third of the Paris agreement targets in very short order. There's no way we can stay below one and a half degrees centigrade without nature and vice versa. If we don't stay below one foot five degrees centigrade nature will decline even more rapidly. So the two crises need to be challenged tackled together. And we hope for from these two important conferences and the parties, COP 15 on biodiversity and COP 26 on climate change well let's turn to COP 15. My previous biodiversity convention conferences have not exactly been covered in glory. Over the last 10 years the biodiversity targets set at the conference, he in 2010 failed dismally to be delivered. A range of underlying causes. The COP file agreeing targets which was good failed to develop a mechanism to determine what each country would deliver, which was bad. There were no enforcement mechanisms agreed, and the richer countries failed to provide finance for lower income countries to help with implementation of the agreement. So what can we hope, and is it possible to hope for more from COP 15. Now the Chinese are presidents of COP 15, this time ranked, and they're pre organized, and have openly said they are committed and I use the words carefully to ambitious practical and balanced targets. And watch the weasley nature of the practical and balanced words because it may well be that that waters down the ambitious part of their commitment. On the other hand, you can't deny the need for stuff to be practical and balanced but if we're drinking in the last chance saloon for biodiversity as well as climate change. We have to push the boat out a bit further. They're also committed to a clear and simple means of evaluating progress and to strong mechanisms for implementation so that that's encouraging from the presidency. But some of the more detailed stuff is not in their lexicon at all. The Chinese president is totally silent on the 30 by 30 ambition held by the UK and many developed and emerging countries worldwide, that's the aim of bringing 30% of land and sea into protected status by 2030. The lower income nations where most of the global biodiversity is still comparatively intact are unwilling to play ball at all unless the deal is reached on ensuring that they gain benefits from the digital sequencing of the genetics of their biodiversity. So this valuable data is not simply stolen from them by rich global companies and no deal on this appears to be on the Chinese agenda at all. The top 15 will also not succeed unless it's owned by the parties rather than by the convention secretary or the presidency. Previous convention outcomes have been very much creatures of the presidency and the secretary and the parties themselves have been a bit semi detached, which accounts for lack of delivery since 2010. Alas, the UK is not in a good place to influence the Chinese leadership, as every time the UK mentions Hong Kong or human rights issues. China resents the UK interfering in what it regards as China's internal affairs and basically does the Chinese equivalent of going off on one. And telling tales at a school that the briefing for my select committee when we were interviewing the Chinese ambassador was faintly hilarious in that the list of things we weren't supposed to raise was longer than the list of the things we were supposed to raise it was very much. Don't talk about the war. So the UK government needs to be very proactive with we're going to get an outcome from COP 15. They need to ensure that they reach out to international partners to promote agreements on a whole range of things, first of all on a clear ambitious and measurable set of targets, along with strong mechanisms for implementation including from monetary monitoring countries progress now all of that. The Chinese will accord with to some extent. They need to ensure that their international commitments to more biodiversity funding, and they need to get out of the hole that it's in the compromise on digital sequence information. And they need to very much harness partnerships with global businesses and make sure that global businesses across many sectors, especially those involved in agriculture and international trade are required to report on their biodiversity impacts and to make sure that biodiversity is integrated into multilateral and bilateral trade agreements. So the UK government can play a role from the sidelines that can act as a cheerleader. But alas, it's not going to have the welly with the Chinese that it will need to really help shape the way that the presidency is going to take this forward. At the end of the day, both the UK and the Scottish government will need to demonstrate credibility and commitment by implementing policies like these at a national and local level. There's been a recent report by Dasgapta who reviewed the economics of biodiversity, which put forward a number of recommendations rather to recommend a too many recommendations I suspect, but they're pretty clear. The main thesis is that nature is going to be embedded in economic and financial decision making right across government departments. There are some government departments where I'm totally convinced that they think biodiversity is a washing powder. And they wouldn't know it if it was swimming across their soup, or we can't continue to live with that. A clear test of government resolve in terms of implementing the key premise of Dasgapta will be the re-engineering of agricultural subsidies. It's clear that we've brexited and the common agricultural policy measures are beginning to expire. Agricultural subsidies need to be re-engineered to ensure they deliver for biodiversity and for climate change and for a whole range of other public goods, not just for food production and the farming industry. That would be the first and one of the most important tests of embedding nature into economic and financial decision making across all government departments. So achieving all this for COP 15, especially when we aren't in the driving seat, is quite a tall order and so is ensuring it all happens post-conference and is integrated with the COP26 climate change actions. So I guess I'm more in the private Fraser camp for COP15, more doom than colossus. But we are in the driving seat as president of COP26 in Glasgow and climate change is a much more trendy issue in international and UK terms. Governments, businesses, local authorities in the public, especially young people are increasingly convinced that urgent action on climate change is important. My previous international agreements have had some success and a better record than the biodiversity conference outcomes. The previous COP, which forged the Paris Agreement, was a comparative success with some pretty stunning high level political mobilisation. A very clear and motivating single number ambition in the warming targets, very easy thing to latch on to 1.5 degrees centigrade, 2 degrees centigrade, unambiguous and simple. The agreement, including a ratcheting mechanism to ratchet up ambition as part of the implementation and negotiate an agreement on how to unlock resources for implementation and mobilise the whole series of non-government actors, especially businesses. So it was a pretty good success. And there has been some success in the early part of this year in the work up to COP26. The G7 meeting which the UK chaired said all the right things. There's been developed a high ambition coalition of key states. And they are in place and ready to act. The two biggest emitters China and the USA have committed to action. The business sector is incredibly active with Mark Carney, who was the former governor of the Bank of England leading this effort on a global basis. However, there are some downsides and it's going to be increasingly necessary that civil society that's showing increased commitment, particularly amongst young people to the whole needs to combat climate change keeps that momentum going to keep our politicians honest. The things we left here for about COP26 are that the signatories for the Paris Agreement committed to limiting warming well below two degrees C into pursuing efforts to limit it to 1.5 degrees C. But since 2015 when that was agreed emissions have continued to increase. The levels are too low to keep the target within reach. The national commitments that do exist are not backed up by totally credible plans and resources haven't been released to the low income countries for implementation. The UK presidency is going to have an uphill struggle but it absolutely needs to get caught 26 to deliver ambitious targets backed by delivery plans. Two thirds of the global economy is now covered by net zero targets, but the early trajectories for the next 10 years are not yet ambitious enough, and are not supported by credible and realistic delivery plans. The presidency needs to ensure that nature based solutions are incorporated into the agreement. And a pathway needs to be developed for low and middle income countries that supports financially their route towards not just decarbonisation and climate resilience, but in the spirit of fairness and equity, access to energy that doesn't damage the climate industry and the potential for economic growth that does not look the poor and middle income countries into an undeveloped position. The government also needs to make sure that there are strong partnerships with the business activity that's already showing promise. That the climate change is positioned in mainstream politics across the globe, and that the public consciousness and civil society active action that's growing is continually fostered and built on. So how confident am I that the government will actually just before I go on on civil society action in public consciousness. I suspect in Glasgow you'll see quite a lot of things that represent attempts to wind up public consciousness in the run up to cop 26. You could call them stunts, and many people will, but there's no doubt about it we do need a bit of a razzama taz for the public around cop 26 so that while the dry stuff that I've been talking about is going on in the formal conference sessions. The engagement of people of all sorts from right across the world is enabled through the NGO program that's planned, and through some of the stunts that I know the UK and Scotland government are planning to pull off. So, will we succeed. Will the UK pull off this leadership role, apart from intense diplomacy and the lines building in the run up to the conference success will to some extent depend on the UK showing commitment to action at home. While at world leading climate change legislation in Scotland and England and Wales, but now let's look at some key issues for domestic delivery for both climate change and biodiversity that are of particular importance in Scotland. The issues I'm going to cover they're far from comprehensive I mean I've said nothing about transport or energy but I particularly want to focus on those that are the things that I spend my time on and the things that are uniquely important in Scottish terms. First of all, who delivers well, the answer is pretty well everybody. It isn't just about governments. It's comforting that increasingly responsible businesses taking a lead role globally and locally. They're not only under any illusions they're partly responding to public opinion about climate change and biodiversity. They're partly seeing new business opportunities that they the twin challenges, open up. And the search for innovation that will prompt. And they're partly seeing the writing on the wall for the old ways of doing things. Are vital across the four nations of the UK key players in delivering zero carbon and biodiversity recovery and are far more in touch with people and communities than any national government ever can be. Many local authorities have themselves declared climate emergencies and have developed practical nature recovery strategies. And governments can't do it without these two key groups government, local government and business. It is, however, possible to imagine a situation where business and local government galvanization could go a long way to delivering in spite of national governments we saw that in the states with Donald Trump, where individual states decided that irrespective of the government, they're going to get their state to deliver on climate change. Now in an ideal situation national governments provide the legislative and economic frameworks that enables that local action. For example, we are having endless areas of happy fun in the House of Lords, putting through the environment bill for England. And it sets a parliament and it will set the framework for local authorities to deliver nature recovery strategies through nature recovery networks which will be on a local spatial level. And also it sets the framework for local authority planning to require 10% net biodiversity gain from all developments. Climate change legislation in each of the four nations set rolling carbon budgets and the framework for actions at both a national and a local level on climate change mitigation. And so it's great if we can get genuine partnership between government local government and business, but civil society will play an increasing role as public concern mounts. And young people take it as read that biodiversity and climate change are important and want to act to save the world they're inheriting. Let's move on to land use this is my, this is my favorite pastime of the moment land use in the UK, well land in the UK is, is precious and finite. And we aren't making anymore. But it's under huge pressure demands for land are multiple, and they're increasing. We need land for agriculture and healthy food production for forestry and timber production for access to recreation and the health. We're going to be able to produce for nature recovery. We're going to need land that land can help with flood risk management and water protection. And a growing population we're going to have 10 million more people in the UK, allegedly needs more land for housing and built development. And carbon sequestration in land is growing rapidly. And big questions are being asked about whether we need to become more self sufficient in food and in timber. The majority of UK timber is currently imported. Now, the University of Cambridge Institute for Sustainability Leadership conducted a demand supply analysis on land and they found that to meet a growing UK populations food space and energy needs, while increasing the area needed to protect and enhance the nation's natural capital. And I need to find, as a whole, another 7 million hectares of land. Now, we only have 24.25 million hectares at the moment. So that means finding almost a third again of the land that we currently have. And you may not have noticed, but we aren't making any more land right now. So that's a big, big challenge and means two things. One, land needs to be multifunctional and deliver multiple benefits at the same time. And many of our current processes for making decisions about land, the spatial planning system, the forestry and agricultural policy frameworks, individual decisions by landowners, farmers and foresters. They all need to be more effectively integrated rather than operated in silos at the moment. Land use decisions are often made that are wildly contradictory. Now, you can be really proud in Scotland because you have a land use framework. In fact, you're on the version number three, I think, and the same as the case for Wales and Northern Ireland where they are very different in each of the countries. And they all set principles for optimising the use of land. England doesn't even have a framework. It's being dragged kicking and screaming towards developing one. I am doing most of the kicking. I might say about the Scottish land use framework that they haven't really yet been implemented, though I'm sure the Land Commission would assert differently. But at least there is a debate well underway on the principles and values that should inform decisions on completing land use and how to optimise multiple benefits from the same patch of land and how to encourage the best land use in the most appropriate place. Scotland is by far the key player in the UK for contributing land for carbon sequestration for nature based solutions. Scotland has extensive peatlands existing forests and space for further for a forest station for carbon and biodiversity. We all welcome the Scottish government's commitment to a major peatland restoration program of 250 million over 10 years. We look forward to the prohibition of plowing on peat, but arguments are, however, breaking out over the science of carbon and land. Scotland is 25% peat, peat is more effective at sequestering carbon than a newly planted woodland, which will in its early stages emit rather than sequester carbon. But planted woodlands can have other benefits. We need to be more self sufficient in timber both softwood and hardwood, and native woodlands are best for biodiversity so we need the right tree in the right place, and also to understand the carbon balance of natural regeneration of woodland, which takes me to woods and you couldn't really expect me as chairman of the woodland trust to do this presentation without getting a plug in for woods. Trust last year published a state of UK woods and trees, which was a stock trick on native woods and trees, their status for threats to them and the benefits and was intended to inform action on nature recovery and tackling the climate emergency. The key findings include the fact that although woodland covers increasing gradually woodland wildlife is decreasing woodland birds have declined by 29% since 1970 butterflies by 41% since 1990 and plants by a staggering 18% since 2015. UK woodland cover has more than doubled in the last 100 years, but from very low baselines and much of the increase is in non native species. Existing native woodlands are isolated and poor ecological condition with only 7% of all native woodlands in good overall condition. And there's widespread loss of what we call trees outside woods trees in hedgerows trees in built development trees standing alone in the landscape trees in wood pasture. All of which add to tree biodiversity and include important ancient trees which are incredibly rich in biodiversity. Now trees and woods are subject to, excuse me, a huge range of threats. And Scotland's got its fair share. There are now more diseases waiting to invade the trees of Britain than there are trees. And also we suffer from invasive plants like rhododendron. Ash die back in England is disastrous. Many of the trees outside woods in hedgerows are ash. It's going to change the landscape of England dramatically. It's not bad enough to have diseases and plants. We've also got deer and squirrels with varying performance on deer management and the search for a contraception for squirrels continuing climate impacts have an impact on woods and trees themselves as as well as forest as air pollution. And of course, developments and my favorite carbon reducing transport mechanism HS to drives a coach and horses through a very large number of ancient woodlands. So it's not a great success. When we heard in the run up to the English election, each of the political parties trying to out do each other on ambitious planting targets it became faintly hysterical. Every every manifesto that came out had a bigger number. And governments have set these ambitious targets for planting, particularly in England to meet the Committee on Climate Change carbon budgets requirements. If we're going to meet net zero by 2050. And of course similar targets are being set in the four UK nations but these planting targets generally are not being met. The greatest achievement is in Scotland, but the majority of planting is non native conifers and though it's contested I believe that they deliver less benefit for biodiversity and probably less carbon benefit over their life cycle. So what needs to happen. Well, here's just a small short list. First of all, we need to expand the woodland cover we're still a very low base. I believe there needs to be a concentration on native woodland creation. Otherwise the risk is that commercial softwoods will dominate. And I think that would be a real pity, because the biodiversity case for native woodland is, I believe, more powerful. We need to make sure that the trees that are planted are UK and Ireland sourced and grown so that we don't run the risk of bringing in any new pests. We need to take opportunities to see trees that aren't in woodlands but incorporated into new built developments for example to give health and quality benefits in settlements. We need more trees outside woods. There needs to be support and subsidy for improving the condition of existing woodlands. We need to foster those links between people and woods which very genuinely already exist. I was amazed when I became chairman of the Woodland Trust that I could not find somebody to walk up to and say do you like trees who wouldn't immediately say, I love trees. There's still affinity between people in the UK and their woods and trees, even if they never go to see them they simply believe they're a good thing. And we need to make sure that those links are fostered and develop. And last but not least we need a mix of public and private finance and the right sort of incentives to get all the aforesaid to happen. So let me turn to agriculture. 25% of all global emissions come from food production and agriculture, particularly animal products and especially beef and lamb. 18% of Scotland's emissions are from agriculture. The UK climate change committee says we need to cut meat and dairy consumption by 20% and focus on a more plant based diet. So in all of that there are actions for farmers and indeed for individuals as consumers. Agriculture also has a huge impact on biodiversity. In the UK, much of the decline in our biodiversity over the last 70 years has been caused by habitat loss due to agricultural intensification driven by inappropriate subsidies. So if we're going to make net zero and reverse biodiversity decline, we need to define a different pattern of agriculture, focused on healthy and affordable food production, the protection and recovery of biodiversity and carbon reduction. So we need to enable a fair and just transition for farmers and food producers with financial incentives still in place, but redesigned. Sorry, I've got very high so large computers are very sensitive as you may have gone. That just transition we talked about redesigned financial incentives still being in place we need to see them delivering public goods by payment of public money. We need to see advice in place and reskilling initiatives to help farmers take up these new roles. And there needs to be equitable retirement schemes and benefits to allow those substantial number of older farmers who simply want to give up a fair and just transition needs clarity from government as to what subsidy schemes are an offer. And how agriculture and forestry and tree planting and carbon subsidies fit with each other. And that information needs to be available soon, because the land management decisions that need to be made, need to be made well in advance, and maybe about changing the use of land for several decades so they're very, very important but at the moment farmers are wading through porridge because they haven't got sufficient clarity from governments right across the UK. If you want to read some good stuff on the just and fair transition. I'm a commissioner on the commission on food and farming and the countryside and they're working in all four nations to design the sorts of agricultural systems and the sorts of transition arrangements that we need. In England, the environmental land management scheme has been designed to replace the European common agricultural policy payments. It's been under development for several years consists of a basic level scheme that delivers some environmental benefits a more ambitious scheme, delivering specific local biodiversity objectives, and a more heroic scheme for groups of land managers to deliver a landscape level working together. It's still at the pilot stage pilots have been piloted and more pilots have been piloted and I hope that the piloting comes to some conclusions soon. In, because in all four countries the existing scheme of payments begins to reduce from 2024 so we haven't got long to go. A big question of course is whether the cap subsidy will remain in place in full in this new definition of agricultural support, or will the Treasury as treasuries are want to do get its shuffle in because that's what it's always wanted to do with that common agricultural payments and I suspect that they will have the same sentiments now. But at a time when land management has to deliver on a growing set of multiple objectives I honestly hope that treasuries and governments can see the multiple benefits of maintaining the level of subsidy but making it work differently for its living. I'm going to finish shortly. Let me just talk about trade. I'm sorry about my dribbling news. I had a very difficult brush with a lateral flow test. And my sinuses have never recovered. So, in agricultural terms we all welcome a focus on healthy and affordable food locally produced. Of course, we import and export much food. We can't yet grow pineapples in the Cairngorms, and the world loves Scotch whiskey. And in 2019, the UK supplied just 55% of its own food that was consumed in the UK. We import significantly more fruit, veg and meat than we export. And so trade is a seminal issue for climate change and for biodiversity. Too often the richer nations have ostensibly cleaned up their act domestically on carbon and biodiversity by exporting the impacts to poorer nations. The government as part of the COP 15 and 26 processes is laying a requirement on UK companies to ensure that international supply chains are forest friendly, but at the same time, we need to be wary of a chain of successive free trade deals that could reduce environmental and indeed animal welfare standards and risk undercutting UK farmers bound by higher UK standards. The Australian trade deal was always likely to be small scale, but gave little comfort on standards and the US free trade deal will be a much more serious challenge. In their preparations for the 2021 ministerial meeting of the UN conference for trade and development governments have highlighted climate and the environment crisis is one of three key themes. The WTO not everybody's cup of tea has initiated structured discussions on trade and environmental sustainability so at least they're conscious of the need to do so. Companies are recognizing the array of environmental threats to supply chain resilience and the importance of improved environmental performance to their long term business prospects and their license to operate the business potential of global markets for green products. So the political momentum in favor of green trade is building, but we need now to ensure our approach to international trade diplomacy both multilateral and bilateral builds on that foundation. So, what's the conclusion then will we lead the world to successful outcomes from the cops this autumn. Is it best riding the narrow world like Colossus or did private Fraser get it right. Of course it's perhaps not he does prescribed the narrow world like Colossus. Perhaps it's she does prescribed the narrow word like Colossus. We should all remember that twin crises won't go away after the cops. We've got to be in this for the long run but not too long for time is running out UK and local action is going to be really important and we've got to use the cops to get maximum leverage on our own governments. I think the bright light of hope and all this is our young people. William Greta Thunberg may not be your cup of tea, but young people know what sort of natural world they want to inherit. And I have confidence in their enthusiasm and their wish for action, and their willingness to undertake it themselves. So, as all conservationists and environmentalists. I'm optimistic. We will find a way we will continue to fight. And have fun in Glasgow. I'm very pleased to have been able to share these thoughts with you tonight. I look forward to taking your questions. Barbara is a tragedy that we can't hear applause with this system because I'm sure it would be loud and that was a fabulous tour to force thank you thank you very much indeed. Just to reiterate how things are going to go now. We're going to take a five minute break. During which people people can comfort themselves. And also please consider putting questions into the Q&A box we already have four questions in there. Please try and keep them brief if possible. We then have have the question session where Barbara Barbara will give her views on the points that are made. And after that we will have a short closing session. Just to wind up these three lectures on environment climate and biodiversity. I'm going to bring the theme of which Barbara's is the last one from the chair of the Royal Philosophical Society of Glasgow, Professor Pat Monan. So, but for now, George, if you'd like to put up a clock on the screen so we can see five minute, five minute break during which please do consider adding questions to the Q&A box. Thanks again, and we'll see you in a few minutes. Hello again everybody. I hope you can hear us okay. Thank you very much for staying with us. I'm now going to have a look at the Q&A box. I see there are 15 questions there. That's a lot of questions. I hope questioners will forgive me for perhaps paraphrasing some of the longer ones, just so that we get through as many as possible. In fact, there seem to be 17 questions now. So, I'll make a start if that's all right Barbara. And the first question we have is from Sheila O'Reilly and this question is really about the prospect of the UK actually providing support in terms of funds for biodiversity conservation and also for climate change adaptation and mitigation. And the light of the recent and highly controversial cuts that were made in terms of overseas development assistance funding from the UK. What really are the prospects that will play a constructive role with regard to those lower income countries that you covered quite extensively in your talk? The ODA cuts for me were a bit of a wild card. I mean, I just think that there was absolutely no sort went into the wider ramifications. They've had a disastrous effect on a whole load of things, including British global collaborative research and a whole variety of fields. That's been appalling. And I think, to be honest, it was just one of these decisions that governments didn't think about. It looked like an easy target. It looked like something that the public would like, you know, not giving money away all these foreigners. The reverse side of that is that Britain has got quite a good track record if it does forge international agreements on funding arrangements, they actually forks out. Whereas there are a whole load of countries who enter into these international funding agreements and don't pay their share. So I'm moderately hopeful that if there can be an international agreement reached, that we will do our bit. The big problem will be getting a sufficiently ambitious and comprehensive agreement over the finishing line in the first place. OK, thanks. Thanks, Barbara. And I hope that that paraphrasing was fair in your view. Sheila, if not, you can shoot me. Shoot me later. The next question is from Andy clan warn. And he asked him, given your concerns about the pressures for land use, should increasing areas of productive land be given over to solar farms? I must admit, I'm a bit of an iconoclast about solar farms because I do look at them and think what better I could be doing with that land. And I think we need to look at different technologies for solar power. We've got acres of building space, roofs, walls, and there are new technologies that can allow for solar power to be generated on buildings in a much more effective way. And it does seem to me that using land extensively for solar power is a contradiction. You're absolutely right. That when we're going to be short of land, we should be thinking of how we can use land in ways that produces multiple benefits and doesn't wipe out everything else because really there's a lot of evidence about being able to combine solar farms with biodiversity is a little touch. Okay, press com. I always like press com, although the professor Monham probably doesn't. The question comes from Jill Matthews and it's more of an observation if that's fair Jill what she's she's she's focusing on the sergeant Fraser paradigm. We're doomed and how do we how do I actually make progress and she's just making the observation it's extremely hard to stop people doing stuff that they like doing, including using fossil fuels consuming meat and being over consumption in industrial and Jill's view is that the law is often the best way to stop people doing things that they don't like, but are we ever going to persuade people to vote for governments that will introduce unpopular legislation. I think that's why I term a basket of instruments is usually the right way forward. I legislation is more effective. When I was a regulator at the environment agency. I used to constantly tell people that that we needed to be content that on occasions. The legislation and regulation was actually a good thing because it drove change in the most straight line and also gave clarity to businesses and individuals who are to adjust to it rather than leaving them in any any doubt but there's no doubt about it you need to that also to be in need of with changing public opinion with education with financial incentives as well as legislative sticks and by trying to construct win-win situations that produce benefit for people as well as downside and I think you know there are some examples of that that currently I mean the the whole debate about food is very rapidly at the moment the young people leading that quite a lot of the time. It's entertaining if those of you go to dinner parties will realize that people don't talk about their houses for very long now they talk about their electric cars. It's not universal yet but a combination of fiscal incentives on fuel, making it easier for people to have electric cars because the charging system is available and cheap and being able to demonstrate economic benefits in terms of running costs. All of those things will need to come into play and it's going to have to become the acceptable thing that will providing we can produce enough green energy to be able to charge the damn things. Great. Thank you Barbara and thanks for sticking with it because you're very popular and lots of people want to ask you questions so the next one is tricky, tricky. Okay, so this is from Neil and Neil asks is indefinite economic growth compatible with protecting biodiversity. I think we've got a redefined growth in some respects, but I think it is to be frank, you know if you look at some of the developing countries in the world who let frog the industrial revolution, and now going straight for greener technologies is really very, very encouraging. So I suspect that it's dead easy in a country like ours to say everybody just got to be content with what they've got. But if you're living in great ways of the world that really don't have access to some of the basic stuff we have like supplies of energy, like reasonable standards. I think that we've got to assume that we've got to find these new ways of growth that allow the developing world to develop. It would be bizarre if we were to say, well we're all right we're pulling the drawbridge up now that would be unsustainable. That's one of the most optimistic answers I've heard to that question, very interesting. The next question is from John Claxton, who asks, he says yes this interested me this bit of your talk as well. He said you mentioned that there would be a concern a COP 15 about the biodiversity one that's about poorer countries, genetic biological resources being exploited by companies from richer parts of the world. Isn't that already being addressed by the Nagoya protocol, or is that considered in need of strengthening do you think that needs is in need of strengthening. I don't know the answer to that but I do know that the evidence that we took from people from lower income countries, when we were looking at COP 15 in the House of Lords was universal that they were all concerned about this so I'm assuming that they think Nagoya doesn't hack it. Now whether Nagoya strengthening is the answer or what but there's clearly a very strong push. To some extent, the emerging countries have seen a way of putting leverage on the west basically on the developing country, on the developed countries. They've recognised that they've got the biggest share of biodiversity and genetic diversity and that they're going to not agree to do anything unless they get benefits from the sequencing. So, you know, it's a self interest thing and good on them, I say. But I don't honestly know whether Nagoya would be the vehicle or whether we need something specific that comes out of COP 15 but it won't. Alas it won't. And that could well be the straw that breaks the camel's back that could well be the stumbling block for for COP 15 because you know if the country was founded in my first international negotiation about 30 years ago by failing to recognise the power of indigenous peoples. And a close brush with the Inuit has convinced me that people from developing countries when they found a way of getting leverage can use it very effectively so that could well be something that gets in the way. Interesting. And I think those also kind of work in this field. This could come at us from sitting in this country from left field this kind of stuff. So I'll be keeping an eye on that. Thanks for the question. Really good. Next question. Don't let anybody genetically sequence your highland coup. Aye. Just hands off them. The next question from an anonymous attendee but you're going to like it. The next two questions because they really are about trees and anonymous attendee. I happen to know that Barbara really is interested in rare trees because she has them in her garden rare native trees. So the question is today's report highlights that even in the UK there are native trees in danger of extinction. Should we put more emphasis on cultivating planting these rare trees and the anonymous attendee here she says Aaron white bean, for example, one of my favorites, Plymouth pear black poplar, and rather than always planting the same old standards oak beach line birch etc. What do you think brother. I'm all for that. You know, I've got a definite death wish. You know the Plymouth pear is bloody difficult to grow to grow. And, you know, so good on you if you can get if you can get them to grow. I think some of them are just unpopular and we've really got to make sure that there is a sufficient program. We don't need to have a rare breeds of any kind there needs to be a proper program that addresses the root causes for the decline in the first place. But let me just have a bit of propaganda and while I'm at it I am. I'm seriously pissed off technical term with the current proposition from the various national manifestations of the Forestry Commission. We're planting as part of the commercial mix species from several degrees south in order to combat climate change, because I think the science is increasingly pointing to the fact that a native tree planted in native soils with an assemblage of native species and micro species has more chance of adapting to climate change than something that can grow okay in a slightly greater degree of heat, but as none of the advantages of being part of a wider ecosystem that it recognises and loves. And end of rent. Barbara, I hope we're going to get through these questions somebody better tell me when I have to stop but the next one is also about trees from K seal. It's more of a point in case says that the penalties for removal of trees by developers is so small as to be no deterrent at all. Well the cost for local groups and others to put a preservation order on a tree is considerable discuss. I agree. We probably ought to campaign to get the penalties up. I hope that the sort of thing that's being proposed for England might well prove popular elsewhere this this concept that developments are going to have to benefit I could have to demonstrably show a 10% net biodiversity gain. But when trees down your reducing your chance of delivering the 10% game because you're going to have to make that game even bigger. Now it's going to be a bit of a bureaucratic nightmare keeping track of all that. And that's my big worry about net biodiversity gain that we're arguing about in the climate in the environment building parliament in Westminster at the moment. I do think that it's going to have to become a thing for local vigilantism. It is local people who can spot these things because they happen in a trice, you know, the bulldozer happens to run over the tree. I do think that along with increased penalties for wanton destruction of trees. We, we need local folks to start saying I love trees I don't want them chop thing. We had that in bucket loads in Sheffield where the local authority decided that the pavements were a bit messy with all these tree roots around and we better just chop them all down. And so those 81 year old ladies of great moral virtue were chaining themselves to lime trees was great. You'd be proud of me Barbara because I was out across the road over there actually at three in the morning once I'm trying to stop some unnecessary tree felling that was going on. William Maxwell William asks, says that in his youth, food supply was seasonal and probably relatively locally produced should we return to living a seasonally based lifestyle with regard to food growth and consumption to rationalize agricultural production and reduce imports. The answer might be might be yes to this. The answer is yes and I think there are things that are happening that will help with that I mean local farmers markets. It's very trendy for people to live seasonally now and to only produce foods that is reasonably locally grown more people as a result of COVID are growing their own. The markets are slowly getting the message so we still see too much micro processed foods and fizzy drinks being in the basket of poorer income households. But I hope that the work that's going on in education in schools in trying to reform school dinners. In helping those members of the public who do want to eat seasonally to be able to do so, we'll begin to have some traction. Thank you very much. The next question from Mary McDougal. Mary says, Baroness shun many thanks for your talk exclamation mark in terms of biodiversity could you comment on the use of pesticides in agriculture and forestry please. Those are the woodland trust for example use herbicides fungicides insecticides in woodland management. The woodland trust has pretty well stopped using any chemicals at all on its own land. We in a very, very rare occasion or something noxious that has got a legal requirement laid on it might use chemical but generally speaking we don't. The next question of pesticides in agriculture is one that is incredibly complicated. I mean first of all precision agriculture and the use of your satellite technology and and smart machines could and particularly robot aided production could well reduce the need for herbicides and pesticides. But at the moment that is not yet universally there, and one of the worries I've got is that the genetically modified and genetically influenced agriculture lobby, continue to see that as a way of reducing herbicide and pesticides without adequate environmental safeguards for the development of these crops and products. So it's a complicated position at the moment. And there is no doubt about it, we wouldn't be able to feed the world right now. If we simply banned all herbicides and pesticides. Okay. The next question is from Azra Meadows, and one quite close to my heart actually, what has been done to combat the illegal trade of non native plant species, bringing in, you know, plant material fruit and vegetable from overseas is banned in flights how rigorous and successful is the control. I think it's true so I don't exactly know what's happening in Scotland but certainly in England, and then other parts of the world like what was the UK. Like Northern Ireland where the position is extremely muddled as a result of the agreement. I mean, Brexit has meant that instead of all the checks being carried out at the point of entry, they're now carried out at hubs well away from the point of entry so if things are coming in that are illegal. They've all got to have the equivalent of a plant passport. They are going to be potentially out and about before we know it so I'm a bit disappointed in what's happened as in order to smooth the Brexit process quite frankly. Northern Trust believes that the most sensible way to reduce the amount of plant based pest introduction into the UK and try and ward off some of the ones that we really are worried about like Xylella, which seems to me to infect everything that it touches. So we just need to get this movement for UK source and grown absolutely established and really a big challenge down to the horticultural trade. I think there are jobs and livelihoods and businesses to be had in growing more of our plant material in the UK from scratch, rather than simply relying on the Netherlands to do it for us which is basically what we do at the moment. We need to tighten the legislation and the regulation and the inspection, but we need to have a much much more robust policy of trying to get everything UK source and grown. I lay a challenge down to all public authorities only plant UK source and grown cheese. And we can help at the Woodland Trust to enable you to do that. 100%. And it's a great question. So, thanks, Azra. Okay, Barbara Samson has, you know, a painful question to ask really that there have been suggestions that extinction rebellion are going to target Glasgow in the event of disruptive behavior. Is it possible that that could actually switch the public off to the bigger climate message? That's my big worry. I think extinction rebellion need to work out who's side to side their own. Organizations and processes that are actually more likely to be heading in the right or not in the right direction but are more sympathetic towards the cause. And you know this recent round of attacks on various NGOs that are in the conservation and environment field just seems to me to be kicking the wrong people. And it will be a real shame if the public don't get the full benefit of understanding what COP26 is all about in Glasgow. And it just becomes a kind of fist fight between extinction rebellion and the rest. Right, we are getting towards at the end. I'm trying to stick to questions that have been asked by people who haven't asked one previously if that's okay. So, Jack Stewart asks, good question, would the encouragement of much more hedgerow tree planting make a difference? What incentives could be provided? Well, yeah, it would make a difference actually I think. What's your view on that Barbara? Absolutely. The targets, the UK targets include hedgerow as well as trees and they provide, you know, hedgerows are just long thin woodlands really, slightly shorter long thin woodlands. And they provide a real benefit for both biodiversity and permeability of private diversity through the landscape as well as for climate change and particularly if there are standards in them. I mean there's a lot of really good studies that show that bats in particular migrate along hedgerows with standards in them. So I think that encouraging hedgerow planting is a really good idea. There are subsidy schemes all over the place. We need to make sure that we don't go back to the battle days and ripping up hedges. And yeah, go for it. Okay. And Robert Ball asks the question of the moment, I guess, which is insufficient action is a real risk. And we've sort of seen that with Paris, the Paris Accords late targets in 2015. What can be done to encourage sufficient action to get it agreed at COP26? I think that's where the, you know, I was talking to Christiana Fergeras who architected the Paris Agreement. And it does need a degree of aftercare. One of the problems of COPS is of course the presidency stops. And the, quite often the people who've been negotiating agreements behind the scenes collapse in a heap and go on and do something else. So there needs to be continuity after the conference. There needs to be mechanisms agreed in the agreement for evaluation, for reporting and enforcement. Some mechanisms that at least make it embarrassing for countries if not, it won't make it impossible for countries to not deliver what they're supposed to, but it will at least cast a bright light on that. I mean, the HE target reporting process was ridiculous because it was only really about 18 months ago that we all realized that he saw all of that. And that's no way to run a big multilateral important process like that. So we've got to get these mechanisms right. I think we need the folk who've got the track record to be kept on and not laid out and to be kept on making sure that implementation does happen from a secretariat point of view. And also the ex-presidents need to take a role in taking it forward. Excellent. Okay, we have two questions left. The first one from Robert Thompson, and this is, I don't want to be rude Barbara, I'm going to give you a break because I can answer this one. I'm just asking about the significance of the UK being 29th lowest in the biodiversity, whatever it was, is the question. What does that mean? It's the biodiversity and TACNAS index, Robert. The lowest is not the best lowest is worst. So we're 29th from the bottom of the bottom is the worst one. And on it goes to the Scottish Parliament Information Centre website, where you find and put in biodiversity and you'll see a really helpful blog about the biodiversity TACNAS index tells you all about it. And having answered one of your questions, forgive me, Barbara, I'm going to ask quite a tricky one just from another anonymous attendee who says, Native Woodlands grow slowly, especially through regeneration. Will their growth be quick enough to prevent the worst effects of climate change? I think that's why the science is really important and why there's not yet enough good science on naturally regenerating woodland and the carbon cycle. I think one of the problems of looking at planted woodland fast growing softwoods and slower growing hardwoods is that they've been too narrow and they looked at the carbon implications simply the trees themselves. And not of some of the subsequent downstream impacts good and bad. So, you know, if you've got a older wood, you've got more micro-risal communities and they're all incredibly good at keeping carbon in. Even ancient woodlands that have been around for 400 years by our estimate will continue to extract carbon from the atmosphere at a higher and higher increasing rate for the next 100 years. So, I think the science has got to be kept a very close eye on to make sure that we're not making decisions on the basis of deaf science. So we've also got to look at what the wood use is, you know, carbon can be sequestered for quite a long time if you put it into a building. And so we've got to look at also what the byproducts are, you know, the brash and all of that what happens to it, what carbon emissions come from that. It's a big and complicated equation and it's got to be done well. So let's not get into silos and let's not get into trenches in the spirit of private Fraser where, you know, softwood, quick, good, hardwood, slow, bad, it's much more complicated than that. And irrespective of what Confor says, I do not believe that their research that shows that softwoods conifers are as good for biodiversity as native hardwoods is valid. I think it's not very good science and I'm not convinced. Possibly. Yes. Right. That's just at the end of the questions and thank you Barbara for a fabulous talk. It is so difficult talking to a blank screen when you cannot see the audience. You don't know anybody's there. You could be completely on your own. You could have gone offline. Yeah, I mean you know it was running as well. I thought the question session was great. We had an opportunity to actually just interact with you a little bit more. I hope I did an okay job by all of our questions. Thank you so much for those questions. They were great. Really very interesting indeed and all that's left for me is to say thanks again Barbara. And I'm glad to say that Professor Pat Monahan has switched her camera on and is going to give us some closing words. So all I want to say to the remaining 72 participants, which is pretty amazing. Thanks very much for listening. And as Barbara said, may biodiversity always swim across your soup. Okay, thank you very much, Paul, and thank you very much Barbara. And I just like to end the session by saying that the aim of the Royal Philosophical Society of Glasgow in having these climate change talks was in order to bring information and knowledge which is core to the society to bring that knowledge in the context of climate change and biodiversity loss to to you the the public and we've had three excellent lectures covering different aspects we had the first one from Pete Smith, a science based lecture from somebody at the heart of the science of climate change he told us about its causes, but he also told us about what individuals and communities could do to mitigate the effects of climate change. We've had Francesca or South Scott talking to us about biodiversity loss about the need for action about what we might be able to do, and about nature based solutions, and how important those are. We've had Barbara speaking to us very much as somebody very involved in policy development from the heart of the UK government, who told us what we need to expect from our politicians for these conferences that are coming up and stress again also the important role of civic society and driving change. The civic society of course is we the public and all of our speakers mentioned the importance of young people. hugely important, but in terms of fairness, we can't expect young people to do it alone. We, the older generation, part of the cause of this problem. The future is in our hands as much as it is in the hands of younger people and then in thinking about fairness it's not fair to them to say over to you to take the action. We are where the wisdom should reside and we need to step up to the plate. Also, so we all need to do what we can and I hope these lectures have provided you with a useful background against which to listen to what happens during the 2026 in Glasgow so that brings to an end our climate change series over the summer. The society will be resuming its normal program of talks, starting with our first talk on the 6th of October. Members will know we cover a huge range of topics it's not just about philosophy and indeed it's not particularly about philosophy. It's about knowledge and, and getting that across to people and also giving them the opportunity to engage and question experts so we're putting together our program for the 2021 22 session and the first talk is on the 6th of October. Initially our talks will again be online but we're hoping to be able to move to in-person talks in the not too distant future so we hope many of you will join the society if you're not already a member and that you can join us for our first talk on the 6th of October, which is about the pics and discovering the pics in Scotland. So, thank you very much everybody for attending and thank you Barbara again and hope to see as many people again in the future as members of our society so good night everybody and thank you for being here and thanks for all your engagement with the talks that we've been organising.