 Rhywbeth yn ymwneud i'r cyfaradau o ffodol 6858 yn yr ystyni ffodol Mario McAllen. Lefeyd yn Gullwll Llywodraeth Cymru, a ben i'r byw o'u cael eu gwneud o'r ffordd i hyfodol i'r cyfaradau o gweithio i'r ffordd i'r cael eu byw o'u ffordd i'r byw o Gullwll Llywodraeth Cymru. the motion for around 13 minutes. The debate is a timely one, it comes as world leaders are gathering for COP 27, and I just like to take this opportunity on behalf of the Scottish Government to urge the very greatest possible ambition, action and indeed bravery from all those negotiating, because sometimes that's what it takes. Climate change is a crisis of existential proportions ac mae nid i gweithio i ddim wneud sicrhau bod myfó ond i'r glas drwy'r acio gyflymd. Felly, rymazzol y gall yn gweithio i ffôr ystod i gwasanaeth gain, ysgolion iaith iaith, arwyfel penwyd ac yn lleiwch iaithence i dderbyn mewn cyflaenau. Felly, esgolion iaith ystod i gwasanaeth hwnnw, mae'r cyrest i ffôr drwyfyrdd yn cyst-galiedd. is something that was hugely important. Much of our domestic forest resource was established to create a strategic reserve of timber after global supply chain disruption, and today our forests are no less strategic. Indeed, they are vital in addressing a multitude of global challenges, including the race to net zero, tackling nature loss and delivering benefits for economy and people. Today I would like to reflect on our achievements, while recognising the current challenges and, indeed, setting out how we in the Scottish Government plan to continue to optimise the very many benefits that our forests offer. In Scotland, our forests cover just 19 per cent of our land area, and that is compared to a European average of around 46 per cent. However, we have targets to expand Scotland's forests and to create 18,000 hectares of new woodland each year from 2024-25. Since the launch of the forestry grant scheme in 2015, it has supported the creation of 68,000 hectares of new woodlands, an area equivalent to the size of East Lothian. Indeed, in recent years, Scotland has put 80 per cent of all new trees going into the ground have been in Scotland across the United Kingdom. The forestry grant scheme also supports the management of existing woods, including the restoration of our native woods and Scotland's iconic rainforests. Since the devolution of forestry and the publication of our forestry strategy in 2019, forestry in Scotland has been a real and growing success story. I am very grateful to the minister for giving way, and we should all celebrate the success of the tree planting strategies, but she will also be aware of the very real concerns from the agricultural community about the loss of productive agricultural land to trees. That is something that has been raised with me over the past week by two branches of the National Farmers Union in Scotland. I know that it was raised at the recent conference at which she spoke. Does the Scottish Government have a strategy around this issue, or is it the case that, when agricultural land comes up for sale, it is simply a free-for-all as to what use it is then put to? I thank the member for raising the point. My view is that sustainable food production and increased forest cover must be part of a net zero Scotland. The Scottish Government's strategy, if I can speak to one in the generality, is about recognising the many opportunities in our land to rise to the challenges that we face with climate change and nature loss, and to make sure that we optimise each of those whilst not undermining another. At the conference that the member mentioned, I was able to share with delegates there that the total amount of woodland that has been planted on prime agricultural land since 2015 amounts to only 0.2 per cent, but it is about a balance and a tree in the right place that is our strategy. However, later this year, I will lay a report in Parliament detailing some of the successes that I was referring to and setting out progress towards delivering that 2019 strategy so far. I am clear about, as I was saying to Murdo Fraser, the co-benefits that Scotland is having delivered for it by forestry, for climate, for nature, for people and for economy. First, if I can talk about climate. Scotland's forests are our largest carbon sink, absorbing about 14 per cent of Scotland's gross greenhouse gas emissions. Our targets for woodland expansion will help to grow and maintain this carbon store. Last year, Forestry and Land Scotland launched a climate change plan for the public forests. It set out commitments to using nature-based solutions, adapting how we manage Scotland's national forests and land, reducing emissions, capturing more carbon and developing renewable energy capacity. Those carbon benefits of forestry are also attracting private finance to invest in woodland creation projects. Landowners who receive grants towards the cost of planting trees are allowed to register with the woodland carbon code. Recently, Scottish Forestry has strengthened the rules of the woodland carbon code to ensure that this carbon market is reliable, is credible, has integrity and, crucially, is creating additional resource. The carbon dioxide, stored in the trees as they grow, continues to be stored in wood products throughout their life and in the built environment. As the world population grows and as demand for products that can store carbon and take little energy to manufacture grows, we must be prepared to rise to that growing demand. I share the sentiments of the minister and I wish her well. I hope that she is enjoying the portfolio as much as I did. Will I direct her attention to new research commissioned by Scottish Forestry, the outcome of which provided firm evidence that it is our established spruce forestry that will capture most carbon in the near future at 14 times more than broadleaves in the early years of growth, and even over an 80-year span that conifers can capture three times as much carbon as broadleave natives, especially if that spruce or coniferous wood is used in construction? I am very much enjoying the portfolio. It is a pleasure to have taken over from Fergus Ewing, who did so much to support the industry and his time as cabinet secretary for rural affairs. I agree with his point about the importance of commercial forestry that can absorb carbon quickly and lock it up when it is in a wood product. Equally, my point today is about balance and optimising everything that forestry can deliver for us. On that note, I would like to move to talk about nature. All our forests make a contribution to enhancing wildlife habitats and supporting priority species. Riparian woodlands play an important role in connecting wildlife and guarding against flooding. Scottish Forestry and NatureScot are working together to improve the ecological condition of our native woods, particularly our designated sites and Atlantic Oakwoods Scotland's rainforest. My colleague and I were able to announce £1.3 million for additional funding to support rainforest conservation in Scotland very recently. Critical to that will be clearing invasive species such as rhododendron, while managing livestock and other matters. However, I am conscious of time to talk about nature all day. I am sure that Lornaus Llywodraeth will do a little bit more of that later. I would like to move on to the third. What I see is the third co-benefit of forestry in Scotland, and that is what it brings to our rural economy. The UK as a whole is the world's second-largest importer of sawn timber and timber product, as much as 80 per cent of demand is being met by imported timber most late from the EU. Each year in Scotland, we sustainably harvest around 7 million cubic metres of timber from our forests, which is roughly the same volume of timber as we use. Scotland is very fortunate to have some of the world's most technologically advanced sawmills and wood panel manufacturers, and work with Edinburgh Napier University over many years has established the suitability of our home-grown timber for many uses, including construction. We have an on-going target to increase the amount of timber going into construction, not just to prolong the life of carbon stored in the timber, but to add as much value as we possibly can around supply chain and jobs. As the minister responsible for forestry, I co-chair the forest and timber sector's industry leadership group, which is working to increase efficiencies and innovation in the wood supply chain to develop that workforce for the future and to add that value that I was talking about. At the last count, forestry and timber contributed £1 billion to Scotland's economy and supported 25,000 jobs. The sector's own strategy, Roots for Further Growth, aims to double that contribution to our economy by 2030. It is clear that creation and management of forests create many opportunities for us, but, as I was referring in my response to Mardo Fraser, our land is as important and rich as it is. It is a finite resource, and to achieve our woodland creation targets, we must balance. I am very clear that farmers are part of the solution to climate change. We need, as I said, sustainable food and increased woodland covering a net zero Scotland. Forestry recovery fund is valued at £1.3 million. Scottish Woodlands says that the Scottish Government needs to invest £500 million to meet the targets of COP26. What will the minister say next week when she travels to Egypt to ensure that we can meet those targets of last year? I do, in a very packed programme, have opportunities to speak with a number of international colleagues on forestry. One of the things that I will be saying is that despite Covid, despite some of the worst winter storms ever experienced, Scotland still managed to meet 80 per cent of its targets. I think that we planted something like over 10,000 hectares, whereas the figure and the equivalent of the rest of the UK is 3,000. In fact, what I will be saying is that here is how we can learn from Scotland in the successes that we have had so far. I want to finish the point about woodland and farms. I believe in the right tree in the right place and the coexistence of trees and agriculture. In fact, over half of the applications for grant support to woodland creation that we get through the grant scheme are largely for smaller woodlands under 20 hectares. Those are the ones that are typically part of existing agricultural businesses. We know that they provide shelter for livestock, habitat for wildlife, they reduce carbon, they are an alternative fuel supply and they also help farmers with flooding. Of course, farmers and crofters are part of our wider rural communities. As we increase our forest and woodland resource and track greater levels of private investment, we are determined to ensure a just transition and benefits for our people. I would like to first mention timber transport, because I know that there are a number of communities dealing with the impact of transporting timber from our forests to sawmills and other processors. Much of the rural road network is older than our forests and I know that it can cause disruption when they are moving. That is why the Scottish Government continues to support the strategic timber transport scheme, which invests in road and other transport infrastructure to make the haulage of timber from our forests more sustainable and less disruptive. As well as having responsibility for forestry, I also look after the land reform portfolio. I am very clear that we must make sure that people are poised to benefit, including future generations. Community ownership is an important part of that and so is the Scottish Forestry Community Woodlands Association. To bring about that just transition, I believe that we need a framework of policy and law that supports community engagement and the attraction of investment for good green jobs and industries. I very much hope that the land reform responses to my land reform consultation will allow me to take the bill forward in that regard. To conclude, I want to get this on the record, so hopefully you will afford me the time. I hope that there has been a shared recognition today of the importance of forests, the wide range of benefits that they deliver. I recognise that there are on-going challenges. Through the course of this Parliament, we will invest £100 million in the forestry sector, primarily through the grant scheme, which is geared towards both woodland creation and management. The forthcoming Scottish agriculture bill will provide the legislative basis for future grant support for forestry, ensuring that continuity and enhancement. In the shorter term, and as announced in the September programme for government, we will build on the success of the forestry grant scheme with further enhancements. Those will include a new riparian woodland grant, bringing multiple benefits for biodiversity, more support and advice for farmers wishing to integrate trees in their business and a package of measures to support public engagement. In closing, I am pleased to announce that we will be consulting on future grant support for forestry early in the new year to ensure that the legal provisions provided by the agriculture bill can be deployed most effectively. All that and more is about the Government's determination to support the broad range of social, economic and environment benefits that Scotland's forestry is so well poised to deliver. I can't recall whether you actually moved the motion at the start, but if you could. Oh, apologies, and I moved the motion in many. Thank you very much indeed. I now call Brian Whittle to speak to a move amendment 6658.1, for around nine minutes, Mr Whittle. I am pleased to open this debate for the Scottish Conservatives. I would like to thank the Scottish Government for bringing forward a debate on such an important issue. My thanks also to Manny McCallan for her opening speech. I will do my best not to go over time, because I know that she has to fly to Egypt shortly to help to ensure that the First Minister achieves her ambitious target for high-level selfies. As the motion alludes to, getting Scotland's approach to forestry right is essential to tackling both the climate crisis and biodiversity loss. It is not unusual for MSPs in this Parliament to accuse each other of not seeing the wood for the trees, but this is one debate that is important that we see both and indeed look beyond the forest altogether. There is no question that forestry makes a significant contribution to our economy and our ecology, and I will be touching on just a few of those contributions in my speech. Everything from house building to preserving wild salmon stocks, forestry plays a role and all too often is underappreciated and under-recognised. As members will see, the amendment in my name seems to recognise the progress made so far, but stresses the need to go further and do so in a pragmatic and sustainable way. I use those words sustainable and pragmatic quite deliberately. Addressing the challenges of climate change and biodiversity loss is not simply about shifting priorities, but balancing them. If all we are seeking to do is plant as many trees as possible, that would be simple. In the process, we will create a different set of problems for the environment. Land on which we can plant trees can also be planted with food. As my colleague Rachel Hamilton will expand on shortly, allowing productive farmland to be used for tree planting would be a grave mistake. However likely this scenario is, and will depend greatly on how well the Scottish Government structure the agricultural support schemes and not only help to finance tree planting, but also agriculture. For many small farmers and landowners, a relatively small change in the structure of subsidies could be the difference between food production and forestry. As members will know, I am a firm believer in the benefits of local food production for the planet, the economy and the public health. I urge the Scottish Government to ensure that food production remains a priority. Alongside that, we must also strike the balance between protecting and growing more woodlands containing native species and ensuring sustainable homegrown timber supply. As a forestry police group greatly advises the Scottish Government, we should be expanding forest cover using the principles of right trees and mixture of trees in the right place for the right reason. Something that at the moment appears to be exception rather than the rule. According to the State of the UK's Woods and Trees 2021 report, Scotland has around 65 per cent non-native woodland cover. I know that the SNP always likes to hear about how their performances compare with other parts of the UK, so let me tell them. In Wales, that figure is around 50 per cent and in England it is even lower at 30 per cent. Both the Woodland Trust and Confer have called for 50 per cent of tree planting in Scotland to be native species, but over the past six years the Scottish Government has only been able to achieve an average of 40 per cent. Of course, it is not as simple as saying that we must radically shift towards native species. Scotland's forest must be productive for those industries that rely on timber, but they must be productive for nature also. I welcome moves to increase the use of domestic timber, but for that timber to be truly domestic, we cannot and should not continue to rely so heavily on imported saplings. Woodland Trust Scotland has stated that at least 20 different tree diseases and pests have been imported into Scotland since 1990. At a time when we are facing the loss of up to 75 per cent of Scotland's ash population in the next 20 years through ash dieback, it is time to ask ourselves how long we are willing to risk our mature trees by continuing to import so many saplings. Native woodlands are the key to sustaining so many other elements of Scotland's natural habitat and biodiversity, such as viparian woodland as a prime example. Those woodlands along rivers and water courses help to prevent flooding. They help to control the temperature of water, supporting stocks of wild Atlantic salmon that are impacted by rising water temperatures. Their roots prevent erosion, their fallen leaves and branches provide nutrients and shelter, and alder, which is particularly common near water, even has bacteria on its roots, which fix atmospheric nitrogen into the soil, improving its fertility. Native woodlands are a prime opportunity to support the diversity of Scotland's forest, planting a wide range of species and building biodiversity from the ground up. Diversity of planting strengthens resilience of forest and can act as a barrier against the spare of disease, as well as encouraging a broader range of other plants and animal life. There is a place for fast-growing conifers that are quick to harvest, but alongside that, we must do more to increase the number of broadleaf woodlands to deliver a larger, long-term stores of carbon. To put it another way, the SNP should be more supportive of diversity in woodlands than the Arab diversity of opinions among the backbengers. There is no way that the targets set by the Scottish Government can be achieved unless there are matched by ambitions to grow the workforce in the forestry sector. Agriculture, forestry and fishing accounts for 21 per cent of all businesses in rural Scotland. That figure is only for cast to grow in the coming decade. Some of our most successful businesses and largest rural employers are in the area related to forestry. In my own south of Scotland region, where employment in this sector is four times the national average, I have been pleased to visit many such businesses, but in every one of them I hear the same story. They want to grow, but they are being held back by a lack of properly skilled workforce. That is one of the many reasons why I continually urge the Scottish Government to better integrate the needs of the green economy into our education system. Does he also agree with me that the industry throughout Scotland, whether it be in the sawmill sector or the panel product sector, very much rely and really require there to be a continuous, reliable, steady, long-term provision of commercial species, which is mostly coniferous species, in order for them to continue to be able to use wood as a construction material and thereby contribute, as well as the economy, to the more sustainable use of materials in construction, replacing gradually brick and concrete. Does Mr Whittle believe that there must be a continuing focus on the provision of commercial coniferous species, which is essential and the mainstay for our commercial wood products industry in Scotland? I thank Mr Ewing for his intervention. Of course, we have a significant industry within Scotland around conifers, and we need to maintain that. I think that, whether it be Egger, which is an international forestry and wood products firm in Cymluck, or the Glenham Brothers sawmill in Trun, which incidentally 40 per cent of their timber comes in by sea, or the else of wood products outside the government, there has to be that ambition. We have to maintain that. As we said by the minister, we have to have a balance because we also need to look at biodiversity, which I am going to come on to. I think that Scotland's forestry sector, as I have said, should be a prime destination for school. Leave us looking to develop an interesting and successful career. In Scotland, young people have shown us time and again that they are committed to a green net zero future for Scotland. At this sector, that is a sector that will be leading the charge. Net zero does not just create entirely new opportunities in the economy. The economy will transform the existing sectors of that economy, too. That is everything from decarbonising timber production to better integrating tree planting and agroforestry into our farming sector. I want to turn to biodiversity, if I may, Deputy Presiding Officer. It may be that climate change gets the most headlines, but halting our decline in biodiversity is no less critical to the future of our planet. Franklin D Roosevelt said that a nation that destroys its soil destroys itself for us or the lungs of our land, purifying the air and giving fresh strength to our people. I think that we can go further and say that forest not only brings strength to our people but to the planet itself. By now, we will all be aware, or at least we should be aware, that Scotland ranks 212th of the 214 nations assessed for the quality of our nature. It should come as little surprise, therefore, that in 2021 40 per cent of Scotland's sites of special scientific interests for woodland were classified as being an unfavourable condition, with another 20 per cent classes unfavourable but recovering. The Climate Change Committee in its 2022 report to the Scottish Parliament said that, while Scotland's vision for a well-adapted nation is welcome, we need more needs to be done to translate ambition into actions and that that can commensurate with the scale of the challenge. To put it more directly, Deputy Presiding Officer, ambition is good, but action would be better. I am aware that I am running out of time. This has been called the decisive decade for climate change. It is this decade that will see us make the decisions that will determine whether we are successful as a nation and as a planet in taking the steps that are required to head off climate change. Just as forestry must plan years, even decades ahead of its planting, we have to think for the long term in our approach to climate change. Or, as the ancient Chinese proverb puts it, the best time to plant a tree is 20 years ago. The second best time is now. I move the amendment in my name. Thank you very much, Mr Whittle. I now call on Colin Smyth to speak to and move amendment 6658.2 for around seven minutes, Mr Smyth. Thank you, Presiding Officer. It is the world gathers in Egypt for COP 27. It is easy to forget that, just 12 months ago, Scotland hosted COP 26, where the Glasgow Declaration of Forests was signed. That committee had 145 countries covering 90 per cent of global forest to halt and reverse deforestation by 2030, but unless that commitment in Glasgow is turned into action in Shalmotshake, it will go the same way as the failed 2014 New York Declaration on Forests to half deforestation by 2020. We know that it will not be possible to keep below 1.5 degrees of global warming without stopping deforestation and land degradation. That Glasgow commitment recognises that we have an interest in and responsibility for what happens beyond our borders and how our actions impact on fragile forests overseas, but it should also focus our minds on what happens within our own borders. The UK remains the second-largest net importer of timber in the world after China to meet our growing consumption of wood products. In fact, 80 per cent of our timber. Population growth and economic development drive that demand, but so too does a desire to transition to low-carbon products, for example using more wood instead of steel, concrete and bricks in construction. If our consumption of wood in the UK continues to increase at the same pace as the past decade, it will rise by 78 per cent by 2050. At a time, current estimates of UK supply are forecast to fall from the 2040s. Labour recognises the need for far more ambitious tree planting targets to address that long-term timber demand and to avoid ever-growing imports, and also, crucially, to lock in the other benefits of tree planting for nature, for carbon storage and for public health. Crucially, we need to ensure that we meet those targets. The Government aims to deliver at least 18,000 hectares of tree planting per year by 2024-25. The target of 12,000 for 2022 was missed by nearly 2,000. When delivering those targets, we also need to deliver the right mix of trees in the right place. Today, forest and woodland covers 19 per cent of Scotland, but that varies across the country. On Feeson Galloway, 31 per cent of the land is covered with woods and forest, making it the most forested part of Scotland. The geography close to the motorway and rail links to the market means that the 211,000 hectares have a disproportionate focus on tree species to meet demand for timber. That is important, not least for the local jobs that it creates, but it results in pressure on inadequate infrastructure where planting takes place, including roads that were never built for the 40-ton wagons used to remove the timber and, even with the timber transport fund, a badly in need of more investment. It results in pressure on communities who feel their landscape is being carpeted by Sitka Spruce, with a loss of natural habitat, with little or no input from those communities who want to see more native and broadleaf trees. I share many of the sentiments that Mr Smith has expressed, but could I allude to the research to which I referred earlier, commissioned by Scottish Forestry, and prepared with the assistance of Forest Research, which states that the impact of reducing commercial spruce forestry would result in higher imports and threatened climate targets? What would reduce a demand for imports is having higher targets and, crucially, of course, meeting those targets. There is pressure, as a result of having, as I have just said, sometimes the wrong trees in the wrong place. That is prompted calls for a review of the current grant scheme by groups such as Communities for Divest Forestry in the south-west and others to deliver a better geographical location of where commercial planting takes place and more native trees and woods to be part of that mix, both through expanding native woods and properly caring for existing ones. There is a great deal of research around, as Fergus Ewing has said, but we know from the Woodland Trust landmarks state of the woods and trees report in 2021 that ancient woodlands in Scotland hold on average 30 per cent more carbon compared to the average carbon stocks for other woodland types, if I have time. Brian Wither. Thank you very much for giving me. Would you agree with me that there is a balance to be struck here because, when we look at commercial forestry, that has such a negative impact on the biodiversity of the land that it is planted on? Colin Smyth, I think that we do time for that. I think that there is absolutely no doubt that there is a balance to be struck at. That is one of the reasons why, as we increase our targets, Labour does not just want to see a significant increase in trees to meet timber demand. We do want to see that increase, but we support the Woodland Trust call for at least 50 per cent of woodland expansion to be through native species. It is essential that we do more to ensure that future cultivation and tree planting is carried out carefully in the right soils, using the right methods, or that we will fail to maximise our carbon storage from forestry. There are many examples of excellent projects doing just that, such as the Tarras Valley Nature Reserve in the Estelle Valley, where the community raised an astonishing £6 million to fund a community buy-out of 10,000 acres of Langham Muir. Their vision, their plans for the Muir, are truly inspiring and include action to play, their part in tackling the nature and climate crisis through peatland restoration, and with community support from the Woodland Trust, native woodland will be expanded and the ancient woodland will be restored. Ownership does matter, Presiding Officer. One of the concerns that Labour has is the rise of the so-called green lair. Scotland's largely unregulated land market has allowed companies to buy huge sways of land so that they can claim to have green credentials by offsetting their carbon. Many of those purchases take place off market and secret private sales, so it stops communities seeking to register an interest in that land. Of course, land price inflation often makes it unaffordable for community ownership even if they could register an interest. The Scottish agriculture sector is also feeling the effects of land acquisition for forestry and carbon offset, and they are seeing inflated land prices that are often unaffordable, restricting opportunities for those new to the industry and raising fears of the loss of productive agricultural land in the future. What can we do about it? We need to better protect the people's interest, especially on off market land sales. The Scottish Land Commission needs the power to act on land monopolies and to have a genuine public interest test for large land purchases. We need to look at the financial support regime and how that is better controlled when ownership is simply big business trying to offset their own carbon footprint. We need to better support the community ownership of land, tasking the Corporate Development of Scotland to promote that cooperative and mutual ownership model of land in Scotland. Getting that relationship between forest management by diversity and agriculture is challenging, but it is key to delivering a transition to net zero, and that needs to be a just transition. The forestry sector contributes almost a billion pound gross value added to the Scottish economy every year, and it supports more than 25,000 jobs, many in our rural communities. I want to pay tribute to all those who have worked in the sector, past and present, and contributed to its growth. I also want to place on record Labour's thanks to the trade unions that represent many of those workers. Unite the union, the GMB, the PCS, Prospect and the FDA for the work that they do to secure the best terms and conditions for their workers. Forestry is a high-risk industry. Every year, workers in it are injured at work. In some cases, sadly, they are killed. Many more suffer— You do need to wind up, Mr Smith. Yes, many more suffer from work-related illness. We should recognise the important roller unions playing driving up standards and, crucially, those workers that have not only delivered a success story that is Scottish forestry but will continue to do so in the future. I am therefore pleased to move Labour's amendment in my name so that this Parliament can place on record our thanks to that workforce. I remind members who are making interventions and are intending to speak later in the debate that they should repress their buttons. I call Willie Rennie for around six minutes. I want to start by complimenting the minister. I think that she genuinely listened to the concerns, particularly the point that Murdo Fraser made with regard to the conflicts and the competition on land use. I am going to come to some of those issues later on in my contribution, but I thought that she listened well, particularly when she talked about the balance and the finite land and the important role that farmers play in the use of the land. I think that the minister must have one of the best jobs in government. She got recently to meet Tarzan, the logging horse on Loch R.K., which is a pine forest in Argyll. I have particular affection, members will know, for animals and photo opportunities. I was particularly jealous of the opportunity that the minister had to meet Tarzan up in Argyll. I considered a career in forestry rather than politics, which is probably a relief to those who are interested in trees. Nevertheless, I am still a layman with regard to the issue, and I have been particularly keen to understand the real conflicts and tests that there are as we have huge competition for the use of land in Scotland. The ambition is great. I remember standing on platforms in the 2019 election and there was a massive bidding war between all the different political parties as to who was going to plant the most trees across the United Kingdom. In some ways, it was quite uplifting. It was bizarre in some regards, but it was uplifting that we were competing on such an important environmental issue and it was a fine goal. I think that we have achieved some significant progress. Although the targets that the minister has admitted have not been met, progress has been made. I accept the points about Covid and the points about weather, but we have got quite a long way to catch up on the lost time on the planting of trees through that period. I hope that we have plans to make sure that we can meet the targets of 18,000 by 2025 and make up the lost time and the lost planting during that period, too. I think that I have got it right, the IHE targets. We have only met nine of the 20 biodiversity targets, so we have got enough a long way to go in order to meet those. Fergus Ewing's point, I thought, was really interesting. That is a wide and varied sector, with massive competing demands and interests. The issue of the conflict between imports and the use of land in our own country to plant trees, not just on biodiversity but also for production and construction. We do not always want to import because of the carbon miles that are involved with regard to that. We have also got other competing uses for land in this country. In terms of food security, we want to reduce food miles, particularly with the uncertain world that we live in just now. We want to make sure that we are growing more in this country. We should be using land for the production of barley, just in a second. Production of barley for whisky is that more use than growing trees? That is a debating point. I have an aerobic digester in north-east Fife that is using sugar beet on the land to generate gas. That might be quite a good thing considering the issues with Russia and energy security, but we should be using land in this country in order to generate gas when we are trying to reduce our carbon emissions. Then, of course, trees in itself, which has sometimes taken productive land. Since 2015, as the minister said, 2 per cent of that productive land has been lost, which may not sound a lot, but the farmers feel it. That is why they are raising it with us repeatedly. It is therefore important that I accept what the minister said. It sounds a small amount, but the farmers feel the pressure on that, particularly as land prices are shooting through the roof. Those are all massive competing demands, and we cannot just look at those things in isolation. We need to consider it in the round. I will take Rachael Hamilton's intervention issue. I was wondering what Willie Rennie's opinion was on greenwashing, because we know not only farmers can be displaced, but gamekeepers, too. Gamekeepers are integral to managing the land to preserve our declining species, such as Cappicali. I think that it is important to understand about the right tree in the right place, because the James Hutton Institute has highlighted that just by planting trees does not mean that you necessarily capture more carbon. Sometimes it is just a net loss because of the loss from the soils, so it is important that we get it in the right place. That is where the Labour Party highlighted the regulatory arrangements around that. Primarily, we are using the carbon market and grants and the wood creation approval system in order to regulate that. However, all of that seems to encourage more tree planting rather than necessarily putting it in the right place. Mr Rennie is having to wind up. I would love to, Jim Fairlie, but I better not. I hope that the minister, when she talked about the land reform bill and the agricultural bill that is coming, that we may see an improved regulatory arrangement so that we can deal with the long-term issues that may come. I accept that there have been some improvements with the woodland carbon code, and that is a good thing. I think that the smaller grant schemes, particularly for farmers, are a good thing. The tennis court-sized schemes, I think that that is very good as well. The biodiversity grants that have been announced recently, all of that is good, but I wonder whether we need to go more, do more, to make sure that we can regulate not just how but where we are planting the trees so that we can deal with all of those competing demands. Mr Rennie, we are now moving to the open debate. I can advise the chamber that we are pretty much exhausted at the time in hand, so interventions will have to be accommodated in the speech allocations. I call Jenny Minto to be followed by Rachel Hamilton for in six minutes. Okay, thank you, Presiding Officer. It gives me great pleasure to speak in favour of the Government's motion underlying the essential contribution to net zero that trees, woods and forests make in tackling the twin crisis of climate change and biodiversity. Forest and Woodland cover nearly a third of Argyll and Bute. They are wonderful places to explore, and I'm afraid I had a picture there of Willie Rennie dressed as Tarzan with flying through the trees. Established in 1935, the Argyll Forest Park, as Forestryland Scotland says, has it all, craggy peaks, hidden glens, peaceful sea locks and rushing rivers, as well as an abundance of diverse wildlife, including red squirrels, sea eagles and beaver. Argyll and Bute is also home to some of the world's most significant ancient oakwoods and temperate rainforests, where almost every surface is covered with lichens, fungi, mosses, liverwirts and ferns. Almost exactly a year ago, at COP26, I travelled to Cormachan community woodland in Argyll and Bute. I was there to attend a blessing of Scotland's Celtic rainforest by five indigenous leaders from the Amazonian rainforest. The community event that was followed was blended with Gaelic Caelic traditional songs from the Amazon. It was truly international and inspirational. As species champion for the Celtic rainforest, I am pleased to be able to promote and support in this chamber and outwith the amazing work that communities and organisations across the west coast of Scotland are doing to encourage the regeneration of our rainforests. The April 2019 report on the state of Scotland's rainforest notes that with just 30,000 hectares remaining, there is very little rainforest left in Scotland. It identified that overgrazing, invasive species, mismanagement and neglect, as well as pest disease and climate change, are threatening the rainforest survival. With the creation of the Alliance of Scotland's Rainforests, Scottish Government support and passionate communities, things are beginning to improve. The Scottish Government's nature restoration fund of £65 million is there to support projects that address the twin crises of biodiversity loss and climate change. I would suggest that the Celtic rainforests are a fantastic match. On the island of Seale, the community met to hear about a project proposing to reconnect fragments of our Gaelic and Bute rainforest. Seale has one of Scotland's finest examples of ancient Atlantic hazelwood, and islanders are sharing their skills from collecting seeds to tree planting, from fencing to deer management to protect and expand it. The project is being led by Seale biodiversity, who are already working hard to clear the island of invasive rhododendron poticum and the Argyll and the Isles coast and countryside trust. The idea of becoming part of an international restoration project is still in the early days, but mapping has been done to pinpoint areas of interest that include Natdale Woods, Tainish Nature Reserve, and parts of Mull and Isle. The aim of creating a bigger and better connected Celtic rainforest will ensure more resilience to threats and environmental changes, helping it to survive and thrive. It will also contribute to sustainable development and economic growth, but Argyll and Bute's treescape is not just Celtic rainforest. Argyll and Bute has almost twice the Scottish average of its land under woodland cover, and the forestry industry through planning, harvesting, management and maintenance activities and timber transport makes a major contribution to Argyll and Bute's economy and employs a relatively large number of people, particularly in the rural areas. Foresters in Argyll and Bute have been very innovative in adapting to the market and economic conditions, which, given the terrain and distances from markets, has always been challenging. We hear a lot about upskilling for green jobs and oil and gas, but I am wondering could that apply to forestry too, especially with the emphasis on more homegrown as we have heard earlier, more homegrown wood materials and relying less on imported materials? We need to have the skills for that and perhaps even re-establish local sawmills. It is very rare for me, when travelling around my constituency, not to see a timber lorry full of felled trees, and to enable this important industry to remain, the Scottish Government, as the minister has referenced, has invested in and improved strategic timber routes. Timber is one of the many reasons why the transport minister announced in August an acceleration of the work to achieve a safe and timely solution to the rest and be thankful. Over the past six years in Scotland, an average of 40 per cent of all new planting has been non-native species, with the rest being production conifers. While farming and forestry can coexist, I have concerns raised by farmers that productive land is being bought and forested, which impacts on their livestock and productivity. One described their farm as becoming perhaps the only restaurant in town for foxes and sea eagles. We need to listen to those concerns and a balance is important, but we also need to listen to those who are diversifying and planting on less productive areas for livestock. The Scottish Government supports a farmer and crofter-led initiative, which has a network of farm woodland demonstration sites across Scotland. Together, the Woodland Trust Scotland and Soil Association Scotland have produced a report on integrating trees on farms and crofts in Scotland. On Lismor, there is the Balavulan Croft, which is now a thriving and diversified business, even with a treaty plantation, as well as a nurtured and 5,000 trees. Balavulan and other crofts and farms across Argyllun but show that trees can be successfully incorporated into the farmed landscape, which complement farming and crofting systems. I recently spent an energetic Saturday working with friends on Isle, removing the plastic cones that protected the almost 4,000 trees that we planted on Isle to commemorate World War 1 in 2017, supported by Woodland Trust Scotland. In the great Argyllun novelist, Robin Jenkins, the Cone Gatherers, two brothers are tasked with the collecting of seeds from cones to replant a forest felled for the war effort. Now, replacing our forests is even more important. By planting the right trees in the right place, we can soak up more emissions, whilst also providing a boost to our environment, our economy and the lives of people. Thank you very much, Ms Minto. We've now all got an image of Willie Drayne dressed as Tarzan with that. Move to Rachael Hamilton to be followed by Fergus Ewing for up to six minutes, Ms Hamilton. Thank you, Presiding Officer, and it'd be interesting to know who's Jane. Around 100 years ago, only 5 per cent of Scotland's land area was covered with trees. Now, this figure is creeping up towards 20 per cent, and this figure does not take into account the vast ways of Scotland's landscape in which trees are unable to grow. The capacity for forests to contribute towards meeting Scotland's net zero is indisputable, but there is more to planting trees, like we've heard today, than simply finding space, sticking them in the ground and patting ourselves on the back for doing a good job. As my colleague Brian Whittle has already spoken about, Scotland's farmers are facing significant spatial pressures at a time when global food insecurity is under severe strain as a result of Putin's invasion of Ukraine. Producing food whilst looking after our environment is at the heart of farming in Scotland, and a drive towards forestation on arable land is of severe concern to many farmers across the country, as described by members today. Last Friday, I met with members of the local NFU air scrunch in my constituency in the Scottish Borders, and many of them were at the rally here outside Parliament last week. They were keen to express the concerns about forestry impacting their ability to produce food, and such was their concern about the Scottish Government's land-use strategy that they were keen to share the figures that I quoted at the beginning of my speech in the context of our conversation. I'm not raising this issue to dispute the vital role that forestry has in capturing carbon from the atmosphere. The Scottish Conservatives share the Scottish Government's net zero ambitions, but forestation in Scotland seems to come with a needless cost. We have already heard of the damage caused by non-native planting on Scotland's biodiversity. A relentless drive towards more trees at all costs is also damaging Scotland's ability to put our valuable productive land to best use—growing crops, grazing livestock, filling our shelves for the supermarkets. Fundamentally, I believe that forestation must be balanced against Scotland's agricultural needs and food security, and it must also take into consideration the needs and vitality of rural communities. Sadly, the Scottish Government's cloak-and-dagger acquisition of the Glenprosen estate in Angus has raised eyebrows across the country. The acquisition comes at a cost of £25 million to the taxpayer. I know that Nicola Sturgeon would describe it as a very small amount of money, but the real cost of the acquisition is far more than that. It comes with a loss of five livelihoods and the decimation of the Glenprosen community. As a president, rural communities are rightly concerned about which estate might be next, how many more families will be forced out of their homes through dodgy deals, how many more jobs will be lost and industries damaged, and the Scottish Government committed to helping those families displaced by their acquisition of Glenprosen to find new homes and new jobs. However, I wonder whether the minister in closing could provide us with an update of what kind of jobs have been found and how far away those individuals had to move to take those jobs. FLS said that buying the estate would help Scotland to realise its climate change ambitions in areas such as woodland recreation and biodiversity. Putting aside the evidence that planting non-native trees in those areas will do nothing to harm biodiversity, does the minister also believe that there is no other way to achieve this than through secret deals that her Government has sworn to prevent that destroy rural communities? Or is there a more sensible approach? I have been keen to emphasise that there are clear benefits of forestry in Scotland and I would add that I sincerely welcome the fact that the minister has bought this debate to the chamber. I want to depart from the missteps of this Government on woodland creation and focus my comments on something a little closer to home for the moment. As Scotland's riparian woodland champion, I have been working closely with Tweed Forum over the last year on their riparian woodland restoration project. I am delighted to be hosting an event on Riverwood's at the beginning of next year to highlight their fantastic work of being involved in repairing riparian woodland. I welcome colleagues to attend and learn more about this in January. I thank the member for giving way to recognise her interest in riparian woodlands, which also recognises that the growth of deer populations severely impacts our riparian woodlands, which is exactly why the Government needs to take on the recommendations of the deer working group and bring population numbers down. It is important to control deer, there is no doubt about it, but I think that ensuring that we do that without having secret dodgy deals, where we are planting woodland and we are having to manage the land, we need land managers to do that, we need gamekeepers to help us, people who are trained to kill deer. Therefore, I think that we need a proper approach to this that actually involves the community as well, but thank you for your intervention. We have discussed biodiversity at length through this debate and whilst reservations about non-native woodland on Scotland's biodiversity have been clearly outlined, the restoration of riparian woodland offers a real opportunity to start pushing the needle in another direction. Fish stocks, as well as land-based species, are known to benefit from the protection offered by riverwoods. I hope that the minister will join me in holding the Scottish Government to their manifesto commitment to improve support for tree planting around rivers and streams. I hope that the minister will commit in her approach to the future of forestry in Scotland to consider more closely the needs and opportunities of rural communities and our country's food security. The Scottish Conservatives are calling for a sensible approach that listens to the needs of farmers, landowners, gamekeepers and rural workers and communities. Thank you very much, Ms Hamilton. I now call Fergus Ewing to be followed by Richard Leonard for up to six minutes, Mr Ewing. I commend all the speakers in the debate thus far on Rachael Hamilton's last point about plantation high in the river catchment areas that can contribute to alleviation of flooding, for example. I wanted to begin by saying that most industries in Scotland are in cities. They are conducted in cities or in towns. Very few can be and are conducted in rural Scotland, and forestry is the industry of rural Scotland and rural Britain. The figures that have been mentioned by others—25,000 jobs, £1 billion turnover—is important to reflect on the fact that more than three quarters of those total jobs are in the sawmill and panel product sectors, and more than three quarters of that revenue, more than three quarters of a billion pounds, derive from that economic activity. I say that to put that in context. That industry has had some tremendous successes. In my constituency, a total of £145 million has been invested in one plant at Norbord, which is now owned by West Fraser. I thank the two companies that have owned this business over that period for that investment. Now that we have, just outside of Vares, I believe, the most modern plant in Europe. It is able, therefore, to compete better than those plants that have lacked investment, as we have seen in so many other industries, leading to the demise thereof. Companies such as West Fraser or James Jones that are investing in a staggering or plant investors are staggering £70 million in mustodlach and £150 million in 222 are some of the largest investors in Scotland. I say that because, all too often, when we think of forestry, we think of lumberjacks and rudimentary physical labour, that is now one of the most sophisticated engineering industries in the world. If, as I suspect you have, you have visited modern sawmills, you can see exactly what I mean. The automation is the name of the game, and high investment is necessary to ensure success. I wish the minister well, and I wanted to use most of my time to make a series of suggestions about how we can, together, best achieve the ambitious target of 18,000. In politics, success is a land where one seeks to travel to but does not often arrive, sadly, in my experience. Although we did double the plantings in my five years from about five to about 10,000, we did not quite get to the target, something that Mr Mountain repeatedly pointed out to me very helpfully in the committee. However, to get to 18,000, I do think that there are some things, minister, that you might wish to consider doing. The first of those is to look at the bottlenecks and constraints in the handling of the consent applications. In relation to each conservancy, there are, of course, professional staff, and I've visited all the conservancies in my time who are doing this work, but the pay salary scale is such that they reach the top of that scale. What happens in many cases is that they go to the private sector where they can earn substantially more. This is a very real problem, and the loss of one person in those offices can result in delays, bottlenecks, constraints and difficulties. I think that you should look at that minister and look at whether we can increase the salaries for those particular professional officers so that they can do the work more quickly. If they can't, we're not going to get to 18,000. Secondly, I'm hearing that delays, certainly. I promise not at this stage to mention the lack of achieving planting targets, but one of the things that the cabinet secretary did was try to streamline the planning process. I wonder if you're going to bring that up, because that seems to be one of the biggest bottlenecks that we have to face in the rural countryside. I should refer member to my registers of interest. The mountain has gone from being my greatest critic to a current mind reader, because I'm just about to say precisely that the process, not simply planning, but the overall process, was simplified and streamlined by Jim McKinnon, the former chief planner, because he was really so well respected. He took people with him as 21 recommendations were implemented, but I think that the minister needs to be reviewed, whether Jim is re-instructed or some other process is used. I'm hearing that there are too many delays. Secondly, I think that we need to maintain the current proportion of 60 per cent of new plantings being commercial and not reduce that, and to maintain as far as possible consistent with the forestry standard the proportion of restocking that sort of coniferous species. I also think that we need to make sure that the enterprise companies incentivise innovation. There are machines now that can plant a million trees in a day. The innovation is incredible, but do the enterprise companies help? I'm not sure that they do, but a ministerial direction to that effect would quickly sort things. Also, I think that there should be a UK standing council between the governments and the four constituent parts of the UK, because so many of the issues involve working cross-border. I haven't time to go into them now, but I think that that would be a good idea. Finally, the tension between agriculture and forestry has been remarked upon. It is there. One way, as the minister said herself, to alleviate that is by ensuring that more farmers are able to access more forestry. I would particularly commend setting a scheme for secure tenant farmers and a template scheme whereby they and the landlord can, in partnership, invest in a separate scheme for that. It would be well worth exploring, possibly with reform of the right of resumption, which I think is a bit of an issue. I think that I'm in danger of going over my time. This has been a very interesting debate. The forestry officials serving the minister are excellent on high quality, and many of them are here today, so I'm just buttering them up a wee bit. With their help, I'm quite sure that, with a bit of change, we can achieve that ambitious target, and the minister can succeed where I didn't quite manage so to do. Thank you, Mr Ewing. I call Richard Leonard to be followed by Fiona Hyslop for up to six minutes. Mr Leonard. It should not be a radical idea. It should be a basic tenet of democracy that there is transparency in our political system, openness in government, honesty in communications, that we seek to answer the big questions of our age, the climate crisis, the continuing threat of war, including nuclear war, the rampaging inequalities of income, of wealth, of power, the unyielding rise of the corporate economy, which is why, for me, politics is not a game. It is the serious job of this Parliament to consider who the winners are and who the losers are, who gets the money and who has to pay. If we take our land and our forestry, what we are witnessing is not an extension of community ownership but an explosion of corporate ownership. When it comes to forestry subsidies, over a quarter of a billion pounds has been awarded since 2015, 95 per cent of it to private interests, much of it to rich individuals and organisations, and over half of that money is still going to subsidise the planting of non-native, highly profitable conifers. So it's no good. SNP and green ministers laying down motions in this Parliament about biodiversity in native woodland when, under their watch, out in the real world nothing much changes. There are some new entrants, of course, such as Aviva, whose website slogan is not helping you save the planet but helping you make the most out of your money, such as Broodog, a privileged new nobility mascarading as philanthropic punks, such as Standard Life Investors Property Income Trust, which has recently acquired thousands of acres in the Cairngorms national park, not for the common good but as a speculative asset. Then there's the Gresham House Forestry Fund, bankrolled by the Scottish National Investment Bank, whose business objective is not to plant trees, not to save the planet but to aid the super rich, avoid paying taxes, income tax, corporation tax, capital gains tax, inheritance tax. Of course, there should be public investment in woodlands and the public subsidy of forestry but what is happening is that it is almost all going to already mega wealthy individuals and organisations. Now I accept that this is not entirely new, that inspiring socialist John McEwen himself a forester in his seminal book Who Owns Scotland refers then to the economic forestry group established in the early 1960s on the back of what they freely admitted was a helpful tax structure and generous forestry commission grants. Neither is the pattern of land ownership new, a half of Scotland is owned by fewer than 500 people, the same as it has been for centuries, and that is what lies at the heart of this debate, not just the question of land use and land management but the question of land ownership. There is nothing new either in that old land owner lobby now spearheaded by Scottish land and estates, chaired by a former banker whose family has owned a four and a half thousand acre estate in Murray for generations, even in recent weeks declaring that without Scotland's private land owners we will fail to deliver net zero. A public interest test they claim would, and let me quote them, be counterproductive to the just transition to net zero given the major contribution estates make. You couldn't make it up. So I say to them this afternoon we have the most concentrated ownership of land in the whole of Europe. Does that mean that all of those other European countries, with a fairer distribution of land ownership and of land wealth attending the COP 27 summit in Charmel Shake, will miss their net zero targets because they do not cling on to feudal landlordism? Forestry grant systems and tax breaks are private wealth funds for the few paid for by the many, which is why I say to the Government that an unregulated market in carbon credits coupled with an unregulated land market and this huge concentration of wealth is not making for a just transition but an entirely unjust transition. We hear a lot in these debates from the Minister about human rights, the human rights of land owners, the speculators, the human rights of absentee interest groups, but what about the human rights of the people who live and work on the land and in those communities? Don't they have human rights as well? We need an end to the commodification of climate change. We need an end to so-called green capitalism and then to the phenomenon of green lads, which is nothing more than extractive capitalism, pure and simple, and we need a new start, which means radical land reform as part of a wider democratic renewal, because in the end that is the only way that this Parliament will find the answers to those big questions we face. Peace over war, climate before capitalism, redistribution of wealth and power, democracy in our economy as well as in our politics, that is the only way, the only way that we can organise a better future, build a better tomorrow and give people hope for today. I want to start with the international dimension to this debate and move to the national and the local, and recognise the essential link of biodiversity and climate change in this agenda. On Monday of this week, the inaugural Forest and Climate Leaders summit took place at COP 27. 26 countries, including the UK and the EU, announced a commitment to join the forest and climate leaders partnership. The partnership will help to deliver the commitment made in Glasgow at COP 26 to halt and reverse forest loss and degradation by 2030, while delivering sustainable development and promoting an inclusive rural transformation. The new partnership will be chaired by the US in Ghana, who will preside over the First Minister's meeting on Saturday 12 November. The partnership of countries accounts for over 33 per cent of the world's forests and nearly 60 per cent of global GDP. They will hold annual meetings to encourage accountability, and starting in 2023 will publish an annual global progress report. Only 22 per cent of the €12 billion in public money pledged for forests by 2025 funds committed in Glasgow had so far been dispersed. That means that 78 per cent has to be delivered in less than three years. Germany has doubled their financing for forests to 2 billion euros through 2025, which is welcome. Scotland has planted 80 per cent of all the new woodland in the UK for the past four years. That is more than 10,000 hectares of a new forest over that four-year period with a commitment to increase the use of domestic timber. The Scottish Government's annual woodland creation target will increase to 18,000 hectares by 2025. However, it is how we do this that we need to focus on. Land ownership and the delivery of net zero is a key connection, and the relationship of today's agenda with land reform and agricultural support and the new NPF4 must be aligned. I am concerned that so many of Scotland's farms are being sold off-market for forestry, but I know that if a desire for diversification is flagged, the mixed use of food, forests and possibly energy can be achieved rather than selling to forest hedge funds if that is not an oxymoron. Forestry Land Scotland stands willing to help. I am also concerned that international measures for carbon trading will come too late, and green layers, often international companies paying no tax here, will benefit twice, buying lands for future investment returns, forestry grant incentives and, on top of that, ability to trade for carbon credits. With a danger of spatial double accounting for carbon reductions, there is a danger that we have a false sense of security about progress in this area. I was very struck in the Scottish Parliament visit to the Arctic Circle conference recently of the keen interest to learn lessons from Scotland, where vast tree planting which, when harvested, causes real damage to our carbon peatland sinks, and the need for wetlands globally to be restored, and the role that we can play by being frank about what should be done and what shouldn't be done. Trees planted on deep peat may dry out, causing the soil to rapidly decompose, and that may release more carbon than the trees absorb. We also heard the arguments that there should be no planting or harvesting at high altitude when we are in Iceland, as leaving snow bear reflects and overheats the atmosphere. The Woodland Trust has told us that carbon in Scotland's woodlands needs to be stored for long term to avoid passing the climate change problem to the next generation, so we need permanent woodland cover, alongside sustainably managed commercial plantations, where the wood is used in long-lived products. I addressed the issue of the timber industry only this morning with Ivan McKee, our business minister, about how we can cut carbon miles in terms of our construction sector, but also have the opportunity to benefit from the increase in forestry production that my colleague Fergus Ewing has so much experience in this area has set out. The longevity of trees is a key factor that is missing from climate change and nature policies that the Woodland Trust tells us. That is important advice. It also tells us that we know that ancient woodlands in Scotland hold an average of 30 per cent more carbon compared to the average carbon stocks for other woodland types, and I was very interested in what Tom Arthur, the minister, yesterday said about NPF4 in that regard. As I bring my remarks to the end, I will come to the local and be curious forest in my constituency, who, with Westland Council, have produced an environmental action plan taken us to 2033, where the forestry management objectives are to manage the forest in a sustainable manner, to continue providing the country park facility for generations to come, to enhance the landscape for the enjoyment of visitors, including the retention of big trees, where possible, and to safeguard and enhance the biodiversity and historical features, and to produce timber and other wood projects that can provide income to help to support the management of the forest and other facilities, among other actions. Appropriate woodland expansion can bring many benefits, richer and more diverse habitats, enhanced landscapes, carbon secretion and storage, timber wood fuel and other woodland products, ecosystem services such as clean water mitigation of diffuse agricultural pollution and reduced flood risk, secure jobs and a stronger economy. I am pleased to support the motion, recognising the role of forestry in delivering net zero. It is clear that the sharp impact of the climate and nature emergencies are reminding us every day that the window for action is closing, that we must work together to reshape our relationship with nature. If we are to avoid those tipping points of the collapse of nature and our climate. I am proud that, with Greens working as part of this Government now, that the restoration and the expansion of Scotland's native woodlands is happening at an unprecedented scale. Native woodlands, as we have heard already from Jenny Minto, are the strongest of the nature-based solutions that we have to capture emissions and to move us ever closer to the net zero by 2045 target. The woodland trusts report that the state of woods and trees shows us that ancient woodlands in Scotland hold 30 per cent more carbon compared to the average carbon stocks for other woodland types. While all woodlands have important roles to play, expanding our ancient woods will not only lock up carbon but will also provide a home for the wildlife that is struggling right now to adapt to climate change. I am very grateful for the member for giving way. We agree with me that it is really important when we are planting saplings that we try to procure them locally and grow them locally rather than imports from any that are causing so much disease to our indigenous species. That is an important consensual point that Mr Whittle raises. It is about building up the supply chain and the capacity of both the commercial sector and the sector that is growing our native woodlands across Scotland, which is the important work that the Government needs to do. I warmly welcome the minister's announcement of a consultation on the next stage of the forestry grant scheme. I hope that that will allow an even sharper focus on that climate and nature objective and the need for woodlands and forestry to deliver those multiple benefits. As a regional MSP for Mid Scotland and Fife, if there is time in hand, I would like to take Mr Ewing. There is no real time in hand, I would suffice at this stage. I apologise, Mr Ewing, but as a regional MSP for Mid Scotland and Fife, I know that communities and third sector organisations are at the very heart of our efforts to restore, protect and expand woodlands. For example, the Heart of Scotland Forest Partnership in Highland Persia is a wonderful blueprint for how partships can protect and expand native woodlands while creating public access for all abilities and delivering skills and economic opportunities for young people. I was delighted to be invited by the John Muir Trust to officially open their FOS loop path under Sheehalian in the summer. It is a beautiful walk and wheel that helps to tell a precious story of woodland regeneration and renewal. The Woodland Trust's newly funded fourth climate forest is also worth highlighting. A 10-year landscape-scale project that harnesses communities' enthusiasm for tree planting and is set to deliver a similar range of objectives around well-being, climate and ecological benefits. The heart of the projects is a balanced approach to tree planting, which takes careful consideration of our precious soil carbon and delivers a diverse mix of woodland cover with a focus on native species. I think that it is worth reflecting that half the carbon in our woodlands is actually below the ground. We need to manage woodlands and their soils as a long-term, nature-rich carbon sink and avoid the costly mistakes of the past, such as when deep peatlands were planted with commercial forestry, a point that was made well by Fiona Hyslop in relation to a recent visit to the Arctic Assembly. There is also a need to proactively tackle threats from overgrazing, mureburn, invasive species and plant diseases that could undermine woodland's role to meet net zero. I highlight the work of John Mure Trust, who has been working in Persia to progress their montane woodland project to restore native specialist tree species, such as juniper and montane willows, as well as oakland pines, which have long been threatened by overgrazing and mureburn practices. It is vital that we protect tree planting, woodland generation and peatland restoration from further damage if we are to meet our climate and nature commitments. Delivering the deer management group's recommendations to prevent overgrazing and trampling of young trees is absolutely vital to achieving these efforts. It is a point that has not really been mentioned yet in this debate. Is it the elephant in the room? I do not know, but we have to tackle deer management to make progress. National parks also need to refocus on the nature and climate emergencies and learn from those mistakes of the past to deliver multiple benefits at a scale that can make the difference. When I see every day the sicker plantations within the core areas of the Loch Lomond and Trossach national park, I know that this is a legacy from the past that is not delivering those multiple benefits that we demand from forestry today and that landowners, including Forest and Land Scotland, need to plan for that regeneration and restoration. While the Government's commitment to create new national parks must accelerate efforts to increase native woodland cover. Through the peat house agreement, we have been able to not only deliver but surpass a target of 4,000 hectares of native woodland creation in 2021 and set an annual woodland creation target rising to 18,000 hectares by 2425. In addition, the Nature Restoration Fund has already been instrumental in helping over 100 projects to take root, restoring Scotland's natural environment on land and sea. I welcome the new threads of funding announced by the minister today, particularly on riparian woodlands and also the important points that Mr Ewing made about ensuring that tenant farms can also be part of this picture as well. We have to build on those achievements and commitments to shape the next chapter in the story of Scotland's woods and forest. I look forward to seeing the Government's work on that in the months and years to come. Thank you, Mr Ruskell. I now call Jim Fairlie, to be followed by Liam Kerr, up to six minutes. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. I very much welcome this debate and I have to say as I have learned more about the industry, I am beginning to see far more of its value than I previously did. But there is no doubt that the Scottish Government's policy on tree planting has not been met with the same level of enthusiasm across all sectors, with tensions that I believe need to be addressed so that the environmental, economic and social benefits of forestry and tree planting can be shared and agreed across our communities. The thing about land is that it is not making it any more. I do not believe that it is that folk do not want more trees. NFU has stated on more than one occasion that they are happy to see trees planted, but there is a level of disagreement as to the right tree and the right place, because the right tree for some is the wrong tree for others and the right place for others is the wrong tree for some. What that means is that we cannot just talk about tree planting in general. It needs to be more specific and the balance needs to be right. The wood panel industry Scotland and Confor tell us that they have an insatiable need for timber right now and that they will need even more wood in the next 25 to 30 years just to satisfy their current demand. We are currently importing 80 per cent of our timber right across the UK as the minister alluded to earlier on. While this Government has a target to build at least 100,000 more houses over the next decade, that is going to increase the demand for timber kit frames. Where will those thousands of tonnes of timber come from? I am sure that our Scandinavian neighbours will be chuckling away at themselves at the prospect of this long-term market being filled by Scandinavian timber. We need to be scupping the Scandinavian plans and turning them into Scottish plans for Scottish businesses to create Scottish jobs. There are arguments whether tree planting in and of itself is the carbon sink that some say it is. That feeds back into the debate about right trees in the right place and their function and purpose for being planted in the first place. However, I would suggest that no single argument for or against tree planting is a zero-sum game. However, that is an area of contention and needs to clarity in the messaging as to what it is that we are trying to get achieved. I am reliably told that Confor's sequestration is far greater for the shorter growing period than broadleaf. As long as that product is used constructively, it can add at least another 20-30 years of carbon sequestration. I hope that the minister will address some of the tensions in her closing statement. There is demand for good quality commercial productive planting at the current 60-40 split. I would dispute the comment made by Mr Whittle earlier on that Confor actually wants the 60-40 split to build a sustainable and renewable source of timber for a thriving timber-based industry that will satisfy that growing demand for building. That is the potential to rebuild a sector that has been lost over the years in Scotland. I am sure that many of my rural colleagues will well remember that every estate used to have a thriving local sawmill making fence posts, sleepers and rails for the local market, circular economy products from a circular saw, if you like. Why not rebuild that sector right here when we have so much demand? There are tens of thousands of potential jobs from a sector that is already worth over £1 billion to our economy. For me, that is an economic potential that we need to pursue with some vigour. That is the climate crisis. For me, the arguments are made that we all have an imperative to play our part, both in trees' ability to sequester and the crisis that we are facing. I have seen how little is left of the glacier fields on top of Kilimanjaro, and I can tell you that it is sobering to see in real life the direct effects that our actions have had south of the equator. However, you do not have to go to that height to see it. You look closer to home at last year's floods in the German town of Schild, where nearly half of the village was lost to floodwater. Even closer still, all I need to do is still think about the 100 people who attended a meeting with us two weeks ago in my constituency, organised by Pete Wishart, the MP, to demand actions from the local authority in the Scottish Government to stop major floodwaters running right through the housing development in Craigie. Those people are scared and are angry, and they believe that the issue of their flooded houses is because of more houses being built higher up the hill. Sipa told the meeting that the cause of the latest flood was a month's worth of rain falling in just over two hours. We all know that, unfortunately, those kind of freak downpours are going to become less freakish and far more common, and that is likely to get worse as the time goes on. There are communities right across every one of our constituencies with that same fear and anger, so we have no choice as the Parliament of the People and the Government of Scotland to do all that we can to stop this climate emergency. I have often heard the argument about what difference can tiny Scotland make in the worldwide problem. I would say that we can make a world of reference. Our FFM has been criticised for attending COP 27, but I am glad that we have serious thinkers such as Alec Rowley sitting in the chamber because we have been making a world of difference in so many things that have made the world better for centuries. We have also added, given the quality of the first contribution from Brian Whittle today, the punishment of non-arrangements. We have also added to this crisis by our inventions, so our imperative tactics now and this is important, and the First Minister acting on that world stage is vital. Our actions alone will not save the planet for humanity, but, for example, we set a benchmark for others to follow, not least of all our neighbours down south. They could learn a bit from what the Scottish Government is doing. Finally, farmers are feeling justifiably angry right now that they are being blamed incessantly for all the ills of our climate and nature problems, where, in fact, they are without doubt a major part of the solutions. They will help us to restore the balance of our climate and quality food production, but they are frustrated at seeing huge tracts of quality land going under trees. The messaging here has simply not been heard enough from the Government or the forest restrector about how farmers can be the co-beneficiaries of this new potential diversification. It goes back to the point that my colleague Fergus Ewing made earlier on that secure tenants must have a part of that job as well. I still think that we have work to do in working out what the balance is and how to ensure that local communities, farmers and forestry co-exist and thrive, but I am confident that we can find the balance that everyone wants. Can you please conclude? Thank you, Mr Fairlie. I now call Liam Kerr to be followed by Alex Rowley. Up to six minutes please, Mr Kerr. Fairlie just said that we need serious thinkers in this chamber. It is long past time that we had a serious debate on forestry and net zero. However, the evidence suggests that this Government is not taking this sufficiently seriously, such as the Minister proposing the motion. We will leave this chamber to fly 4,000 miles to Egypt. Although we do not know the financial cost of that, as the Scottish Government prefers to keep both the number of people going and the cost secret, the environmental cost must be considerable. There are peep from the Green Party. What a misnomer. When the Prime Minister of Barbados is praising Scotland and the work that we are doing, and she knows what she is talking about, Scotland has the right and it is right that our First Minister is at COP 27. It is COP 27, and of course the UK is the representative party, but on the point of what everyone is there for, the Minister's motion does note the essential contribution to net zero that trees, woods and forests make, tackling the twin crisis of climate change and biodiversity loss. Yet not enough has been done to promote that essential contribution because they pledged in April 21 to plant 18,000 hectares of new woodland per year by 2025, and the Minister earlier stated that she thinks that over 10,000 hectares were planted. Well, according to an FOI that I have received, Scottish Forestry, the Forestry Armour of the Government, through the Forestry grant scheme, has only created 9,414 hectares between September 21 and August 22. That is more, because not only did they fail to hit the target of planting, but my FOI tells me that 54 per cent of what was planted, 5,052 hectares, is non-native woodland, which is important because TV naturalist Chris Packham has warned that non-native species aggravate the biodiversity crisis, while the woodland trust has said that native trees are more effective at capturing carbon when planted at scale and over a long period. They are just not serious enough, and that is further evidenced by recalling how proudly Lorna Slater announced £1.3 million in mid-October to promote the recovery of the fragile forest ecosystem, and yet only four days later the woodland trust holder will cost around £500 million to properly create more woodlands. Interestingly, it was reported earlier this week that where this Government offers £1.3 million, the Irish Government is putting €1.3 billion into Irish forestry and tree planting. That is taking forestry seriously, but there is something else here that is just not right to tell farmers and so-called green lards to just take large tracts of land and stick trees on them. That is not sympathetic to either neighbouring farmers or local people. It is imperative that communities are brought along in this debate, and everyone is open and transparent. I really do not have any time, Mr Ewing, much as I would like to. The Minister, therefore, should perhaps be commended for her promises last summer to take action to avoid cases of large land holdings being sold behind closed doors without going on the open market. That was, as I understand with the goal of creating a more diverse pattern of land ownership and to ensure that farmers and local communities could bid. Indeed, I think I am right in saying, although strangely I was not invited, that at the last SNP conference delegates called for the party to stop secret land deals, which is why I was so surprised to learn that Government-owned agency Forest and Land Scotland recently purchased the 16,500-acre Glen pros and estates in my region off-market to turn it into land for woodland creation, costing several rural workers jobs. When asked how much they had bought it for, answers came there none. However, given its likely impact on land price inflation that Colin Smyth mentioned, I think that we can comfortably describe the rumoured purchase price of £25 million as seriously concerning. Finally, Presiding Officer, do I have time? There is not really any time in hand, no, so it is such a member of whether you are doing this or not. Finally, members will well remember Storms Arwen, Malick and Corrie last year. As we have heard, at a basic level, forestry locks up carbon through the growth of trees and using the wood that is cut, and I note Colin Smyth's helpful note about productive wood in this regard, processed and employed in the construction or refurbishment of buildings, Storms create carbon losses through tree falls, the opportunity cost of those trees not growing and perhaps released from the soil. Storms also reduce the quality of some of the wood, so we need to minimise the carbon losses as much as focusing on planting trees. That means that there must be much greater focus on mitigation, adaptation and resilience and ensuring that Scottish lands and estates put the right tree in the right place. Therefore, the importance of careful design and management is critical. A Government serious about this would be on top of this, but I understand from speaking to industry that it took this Government until March to quantify how much damage had been done by the Storms and they then had to revise it from 4,000 to 8,000 hectares. The Windblow Action Committee was eventually established, but it still hadn't been called by 3 December, despite hitting on 25 November. There are a few unlimited substantive estimates of the economic damages, carbon losses or longer term impact of the Storms. What we have here is a Government that talks the talk on forestry in net zero, yet is found wanting in the delivery. Epitomised by the fact that, following the conclusion of this debate today, the minister charged with sorting this all will be found at the end of a 4,000-mile flight in Egypt. I would like to begin by acknowledging that Scotland is the leader in tree planting in the UK. That is a real positive, but others have said that the rate of growth in tree planting has slowed. We can be satisfied that good progress is being made, but we can also stress the need to make more progress moving forward. I know that Comfor represent the forestry and would, using industry, have written to MSPs setting out their asks from Government. They ask to keep them up with the targets, as we have said. Productive forestry for a just transition, they state that it is vital that the split between productive and native planting continues at 60-40, 95 per cent of wood production as softwood. They want Government backing for research and development, stressing that tree breeding will ensure an improvement of the tree stock in terms of productivity, resilience as well as being able to adapt to climate change and pest disease. I hope that ministers will respond to those asks and take them on board. They also speak about the importance of productive trees. Productive forest produce softwood, which is the most widely used wood in housebuilding and in the movement of food and goods through pallets. It is important that the right choices are made on the types of planting done. Getting this right will also mean avoiding deforestation abroad. More productive forests at home will help to reduce the reliance on wood imports and help to protect habitats that are at risk of deforestation abroad. It is important that we get that right. It is estimated that, as others have said, the industry contributes over £1 billion to the Scottish economy and supports 250,000 full-time jobs. That is a sector that, on economic terms, we would want to succeed, but also on terms of improving the environment. I would, however, want to raise an issue that Jim Fairlie touched on, which was raised with me when I met farmers recently. They said that they had concerns that good land that would grow food is being taken up for tree planting, sometimes because of the profits that people can make planting those trees. That led me to ask the Scottish Government how much agricultural land in Scotland has been lost to tree planting in the last decade. The answer is that tree planting is a critical element of the Scottish Government plans to tackle the climate emergency and help to achieve net zero. Although data land use prior to woodland establishment is not available—I suggest to the minister to pick that up—it should be available, tree planting takes place on a range and the outline figoff courses to agriculture to supporting conservation. It is key that, looking at the food crisis and the shortage of food that we have, the Government must sit down, must work with farmers, work with the Farmers Union and ensure that we get this right. It is crazy if we are using land to plant trees that we could be growing food on when there is land that would be suitable for planting trees that is not being used and all comes down to the profit and the profiteering of those who are using the scheme to make money. It would also be remiss of me not to mention the often overlooked, yet vital element of forestry and its ability to contribute to net zero targets. That is the role that fungi play in our forest ecosystems. Fungi networks play a critical role in helping to absorb carbon from the environment and can also slow down the speed at which carbon returns from forest soils into the atmosphere, helping forest to keep carbon locked up in trees and soils for longer. Billions of tonnes of carbon dioxide flow from plants into these fungal networks each year. Those carbon flows help to make soil the second largest carbon sink after oceans. However, in developing forests landscapes we must also be aware of the role that fungi play in benefiting the trees themselves as well as the wider benefits to our environment. That means encouraging increased biodiversity and a wider understanding of the benefits this entire kingdom of life brings to our world. Further to this research from the University of Stirland in my region has made a breakthrough in resolving a key conflict in the world's quest for net zero, which is how to reconcile tree planting and food production. Dr Paul Thomas' research in Mexico has found that incubating native trees with an edible mushroom can produce more protein per hectare than pasture-raised beef, while reforesting areas store carbon and restore biodiversity at the same time. That study presents a whole new way of looking at land use, making it possible to combine food production with the carbon sequestration biodiversity and conservation goals that the forestry achieves. That work has been pioneered from here in Scotland at Stirland University. In drawing to the conclusion, I say that good progress has been made but it is clear that we can make a lot more progress and we should be involving everyone, every stakeholder, every key player, if we have to get this right. Thank you, Mr Rowley. I now call Siobhan Brown, who will be the last speaker in the open debate up to six minutes. I learnt last week that a new word had been added to the Collins Dictionary, and the word is permacrisis. Permacrisis is an extended period which has seen people live through crisis, including war, inflation, climate change and political instability. In recent years, we have all been living through permacrisis upon crisis. Although war, inflation and political instability are generally temporary, we know that climate change is not temporary and if action is not taken, it will cause permanent damage to our planet and for our future generations. We heard from my colleague Jim Fairlie about the stark realities of some climate change examples in his contribution. All of us have a moral responsibility to do what we can to tackle climate crisis. We are all aware that the world leaders are currently meeting at COP 27 in Egypt to take action. My colleague Fiona Hyslop has mentioned some of the commitments at COP 27 this week. I would also like to highlight that our First Minister has confirmed another five million this week for loss and damage at COP 27 and has urged other countries to follow suit. Last year, Scotland became the first developed nation to pledge finance to address loss and damage, and now other countries have followed, including Denmark. Professor Salim Huck, who is a director of the International Centre for Climate Change and Development, said that the Scottish Government's leadership in this area, including the latest funding pledge, is welcome and I hope that it would prove an inspiration to other countries to take action to provide funding for loss and damage with urgency at COP 27. Moving on to today's debate on forestry, and let me quote environmentalist George Monbiott, there is a magic machine that sucks carbon out of the air, costs very little and builds itself, and it's called a tree. Tree planting is a critical element of the Scottish Government's plan to tackle the climate emergency and help achieve a net zero Scotland. Although we're doing well, we need to do more to support the timber industry in Scotland, and I think it is unacceptable fact that the UK is the second largest net importer of timber in the world, China being the first. I welcome that Scotland has planted 80 per cent of the new woodland in the UK for the last four years, and the Scottish Government understands the vital importance of tree planting and homegrown wood use to use it to its net zero ambitions and economy. We all know that the Scottish Government has an ambitious commitment to reach net zero by 2045 and expanding our forest and woodlands is key to achieving this as our trees will soak up harmful CO2 from the atmosphere. Currently, Scotland's trees are secreting 7.6 million tonnes of CO2 each year, the equivalent of 14% of our gross greenhouse gas emissions. That demonstrates how important the Scottish Government's woodland expansions plans are in fighting climate change. I welcome that the Scottish Government will soon publish a new biodiversity strategy for Scotland, which will set out what our natural environment needs to look like by 2045 in order to reverse biodiversity decline and protect our environment, and also that in the Government motion it reiterates its commitment to increase the use of a domestic timber. Glen and Brother timber is a large business based in my constituency in Trun. I have had the pleasure of visiting it several times, and I thank the Minister for joining me earlier this year to visit to see all the great work they do. The company plays a crucial role in the local economy. It sustainably produces timber from Scottish spruce, which I know that Fergus Ewing mentioned the importance of spruce to make Scottish homes among other products. It uses by-products of the process to generate all its own heat and energy. The business is also in part supported by the Scottish Government's fantastic Timberlink initiative. In 2021 alone, the saw 52,500 tonnes of timber shipped into Trun harbour. To put that into context, it is about five Eiffel Towersworth. That takes over 2,000 lorry movements off the roads between Argyll and Ayrshire, cutting congestion and emissions. I would like to take this opportunity to highlight to the Minister that businesses like Glen and Brothers want to grow and expand their capacity. To do that, further investment is required into Timberlink. With increased fuel cost rising and economic uncertainty, there has been an increase in operational costs to run the vessels, which means that there has now been a reduction in tonnage that can be delivered by Timberlink into Trun. I would like to highlight the pressing issue of concern to the Minister. The interlink crisis of nature loss and climate change needs urgent action across government and society. We have a moral obligation to protect these for our future generations. I said in the beginning of my speech that the environment and climate change is the biggest threat to our future generations. Woodland expansion is a priority for the Scottish Government, but it is vital that it is carefully planned. We have heard that highlighted in a lot of contributions this afternoon. The area of woodland in the UK as of 31 March 2022 is estimated at 3.24 million hectares. That represents 13 per cent of the total land area of the whole of the UK. 19 per cent in Scotland, as the Minister said in her opening speech, 15 per cent in Wales, 10 per cent in England and 9 per cent in Northern Ireland. Scotland, as a small country, is doing really well in this area. We are punching well above our weight. The Scottish Government acknowledges the importance of forestry's contribution to the net zero Scotland with new packages such as the £60 million nature restoration fund, which supports projects across Scotland that address a twin crisis of biodiversity loss and climate change. We also welcome the funding announcements from the ministers this afternoon. We all want to pay our part in achieving net zero, and the simple magic machine or tree will not solve all our problems on its own, but we can make a fair dent in it. Thank you. I now move to closing speeches. I call on Mercedes Bialba to wind up on behalf of the Scottish Labour up to six minutes, please, Ms Bialba. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. Today's debate could not have been timelier as COP27 continues in Egypt, and if we are to become a truly net zero Scotland, we have to ensure that forestry plays a significant contribution in delivering this. That's why there's much in the Scottish Government's motion to be welcomed, particularly the renewed commitment to increase the annual woodland creation target to 18,000 hectares by 2025. Members have been right to highlight the need for us to increase our use of domestic timber and to make commercial forestry more sustainable. Members have also stressed the need to maintain and develop a highly skilled workforce to ensure that forestry can make a significant contribution towards Scotland's transition to net zero. We've heard from Richard Leonard of the continuing injustice of Scotland's land ownership, including how it impacts on our efforts to achieve net zero. Can I thank the member for giving way? Can I just ask her as a member for the north-east and Labour and the co-operative party member if she backs the move from the Scottish Government to take the Glenprosan estate into public ownership? I would like to see a lot more of Scotland's land in public ownership and in community ownership. The Conservative amendment refers to commercial forestry, and this is an issue that I want to address. We have to recognise that the land use sector, which includes forestry, is a major contributor to net emissions. In order to reduce emissions, we have to look at ways to make forest management more sustainable. Currently, commercial forestry is managed largely through the use of the clearfell model, with most or all trees in an area cut down. The alternative approach would be to manage commercial forestry through the continuous cover model. That would help us to develop structurally, visually and biologically diverse forests while lessening the impact on soil carbon stocks, which clearly has benefits for our transition to net zero. The Scottish Government's commitment to increase the use of domestic timber is welcome because the current situation is unacceptable. Forestry and Land Scotland has highlighted that the UK currently imports 80 per cent of its annual timber requirement, leaving us in the position of often having to rely on imported wood for house building and other infrastructure projects. The Scottish Government should seek to learn from the examples that are set in other countries such as Sweden and Australia, where publicly-owned timber companies ensure that a greater proportion of domestic timber is used for domestic house building and infrastructure development. Our Labour amendment emphasises the need to ensure that forestry plans increase biodiversity alongside meeting woodland creation targets. We are calling for at least 50 per cent of tree cover expansion in Scotland to comprise native species, given native tree species provide habitats for our native wildlife. Planting trees on deep peatlands leaves a significant soil carbon losses, which is why England has adopted a 30 centimetre deep peat definition, which prevents tree cover expansion and limits restocking. Given that Scotland's current deep peat definition remains at 50 centimetres, I hope to hear from the minister what consideration she has given to adopting the 30 centimetre definition. Members have already noted the importance of a skilled forestry workforce, which is vital if we were to maximise forestry's contribution to net zero. Labour has previously called for the creation of a Scottish Conservation Corps, modelled on the Civilian Conservation Corps of Roosevelt's New Deal. It would help to deliver green jobs and provide a workforce dedicated to restoring and preserving Scotland's natural environment, including our forests. The Scottish Government has also recently conducted a consultation on proposals for its land reform bill. As other members have highlighted, Scotland's land ownership is heavily concentrated in the hands of a wealthy few. The emergence of green lads is a sign of those wealthy few continuing to use Scotland's land for their own interests, namely to offset their emissions. The Scottish Government must be bolder and deliver a cap on land ownership. A cap would help to end the injustice of Scotland's current land ownership, empowering communities and public bodies to acquire land for the common good. While today's debate has rightly seen the Scottish Government held to account over missed targets, I believe that there have been many positive proposals put forward on this issue. I hope that the Scottish Government will reflect some of those proposals to ensure that we have the skilled workforce needed, that biodiversity is improved and that the use of domestic timber is increased. If we are serious about maximising forestry's contribution to net zero, the Scottish Government will need to work with all parties, trade unions and campaigners to make that a reality. I now call on Edward Mountain to close on behalf of the Scottish Conservatives up to seven minutes, please. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. Again, I want to refer members to my register of interests. I am delighted to close this debate on behalf of the Scottish Conservatives, because achieving our net zero targets is one of the biggest challenges this country faces. Get it right and we tackle the climate change emergency. Get it wrong and future generations will have to pay for a long time. Forestry will, after all, play a key role in delivering these ambitions, and that begs the question, is the Government doing enough in Scotland? Well, I'm afraid the facts speak for themselves, and Mr Ewing won't be surprised when I say that, since 2016, this Government has only twice met its annual forestry planting targets, and the new targets in 2020 and 2021, which are respectively 12,000 hectares and 13,500 hectares, have also been failed to be met. For the last five-year period, this Government has overseen tree planting on 10,000 hectares less than they should have done. That's a huge amount of catching up to do, and we should seriously question whether this Government is going to be able to make up for lost time. Now, perhaps as we've heard, the off-market and secret purchase of the 16,500-acre Glenprosan estate in Angles at a reported cost of £25 million will help. Perhaps when they fail to meet their annual targets, all they need to do is resort to this land bank, grab a few acres to make up the ones they're missing, and make sure that they can reach their headlines targets that they've suggested. Now, I believe that off-market deals when done by private individuals have always been criticised by this Government, but it appears to be it's fine for them to do it. Double standards, I think, is the way most of us would look at that, and it perhaps epitomises this Government's dealing with forestry. Biodiversity and food security are great strap lines, but actions need to speak louder than word. Fail planting targets, taking good food-producing land out of production don't make sense if we're trying to meet net zero. Just planting trees so we have to import more food means that we are offshoring our carbon footprint. Now, I know when the Minister does go to Egypt, she will see the fertile plains of the Nile growing food, not trees. That makes eminence sense. So we need to be smarter. Planting trees where they don't interrupt food production and providing funds to encourage the achievement of planting targets is sensible. What's more, planting the right tree in the right place and not creating monocultures is absolutely vital. That way, we increase our biodiversity and protect species such as Cappacalli and Gossos. Cappacalli are on the verge of extinction, and most of that has come down to the fact that the wrong trees have been planted in the wrong places. I won't mention more than to say that we should never also forget that it was forestry commission policy to shoot Cappacallis on site and destroy their nests. To turn to some of the points made in the debate, I absolutely agree with the cabinet secretary. There is a strategic need for forestry, and it's sad that by 2035, we will have such a dip that we won't have enough trees for our own timber industry to use in Scotland. I totally agree with what Brian Whittle said, that we have heard a lot about right trees in the right place this afternoon. We also need to make sure that we need to grow our own seedlings in this country to prevent the import of disease. I also think that Colin Smyth was right to promote timber production. That is really, really important. It's a question on green lads. That's an important one which this Government and this Parliament need to look at and need to work out whether that's going right. I like Willie Rennie's comment. I'm not sure if he's going to take me to meet Tarzan. Perhaps I ought to go and take his offer up if he would offer it to me, but he's right in what he fundamentally said, that you can't eat trees. You need to also grow food. Ginny Manto was entirely right when she said that there was a need to promote the rainforest, and I believe that's right and we should be encouraging that. Rachel Hamilton stressed on the importance of timber production being complementary to food production, and she was also right to stress the importance of deer control. Getting deer control is absolutely right, but we need to make sure that deer control isn't deer eradication. I'm often sad to see the cull targets in Forest Rami, which shows the average age of a year of a rodea cull is under a year old. That is no life. That is not management. That is extermination. Fogos Hewing is right. I don't always say he's right, but he's right this afternoon to talk about speeding up the process of planting and making it easier for planting to be undertaken. We all know and we've all heard of how difficult that can be. Fiona Hyslop was pointing out the importance of biodiversity, and I would agree with her on that. I, funnily enough, agree with what Mark Ruskell was saying about overgrazing as well. He fundamentally failed to mention the problems of overgrazing on riparian woodlands where beavers were going to be introduced and the fact that there is very little means of controlling that. I will pick up Jim Felly's comment. There's no punishment from me on anything that he said that we need a circular economy and timber will play a part in that. Liam Kerr's comments about failing to achieve planting targets is actually very true, as his comment about secret land deals when in one breath you're doing it and in another breath you're criticising it. Presiding Officer, Scotland's forestry sector, I believe, has a key role to play in combating climate change, but I think that the Government's forestry strategy needs to be far cleverer and more than just about growing monoculture trees and losing good farmland to those trees. We need to protect biodiversity. We need to protect our food security. Those two factors are just as important as trees, and this Government really must see that, because if they don't, they're not seeing the wood from the trees they so desperately want to plant at the expense of everything else. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Thank you, Mr Mountain. I now call on Minister Lawrence Slater to close the debate up to nine minutes, please, Minister. Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer. There is no doubt that expanding, restoring and improving our forests and woodlands has a key role in achieving net zero and restoring Scotland's natural environment. I want to help to grow and sustain the great contribution that forestry in all its guises can make to the environment, people and economy of Scotland. I'd like to thank all the members today who have contributed to this debate. It's been a very content-heavy debate, so I will try and pick out some key themes. Unfortunately, I will not be able to come back to every member who spoke in. I can see some top themes of discussion today, some different views in the chamber about what the mix of planting should be in terms of native woodlands and commercial plantations. I think that is definitely an on-going conversation with us, but I think that we would all agree that that needs to end up with the right tree. I'm sorry, I'm really short on time, we've got a lot of content to cover. The right tree in the right place. Unfortunately, that means that it can be challenging to speed up the planning, because getting the right tree in the right place means having those consultations doing that science, doing the right work behind it. We have some opportunities coming up in the agriculture bill. I could hear in the chamber much concern about potential conflicts between food production and forestry. I don't see that there are conflicts here while we have some good projects for trees on farms and agroforestry. We also have the agriculture bill. I've got a lot to get through, so I'm going to try to cover everything that was covered in this debate in Great Hurry. We all agree that we need to make sure that we have sustainable food production in Scotland at the same time as expanding our forestry. I think that we can all agree that that is something that we're going to work on. We have the agriculture bill as our opportunity there. Other key things that were brought up were the challenges of publicly funding our environment and natural restoration. We're definitely going to have to have private finance involved but managing that correctly so that we don't have the situation with the green lords going forward. The recognition of the skills needed and forestry employment opportunities and the thriving and growth industry that forestry does present for Scotland. I was also very enthusiastic to hear many members speak about the biodiversity elements related to forestry riparian planting, which of course is so important to Wild Salmon, as colleagues have noted, to beavers. I was very interested by Alex Rowley's contribution on alternative food production in forestry, and several colleagues mentioned soils as well. Specifically, I'll come back to Rachael Hamilton and Liam Kerr on the matter of Glenn Prozen estate. That estate had been offered to a limited number of prospective buyers on a competitive tender basis. Prospective purchasers were bound by confidentiality agreement. Forestry Land Scotland bid was accepted by the seller. The seller, just for reference of the chamber, had previously ran the Glenn Prozen as a sporting estate and was in the process of winding down their business. The acquisition offers exciting opportunities for land use change, community and partnership working woodland creation, biodiversity and peatland restoration, which are consistent with the Scottish Government's climate objectives and in line with the bute house agreement. There are currently five employees at Glenn Prozen, and FLS engaged with them as soon as we were legally able to do so. Three have been offered tenancies with FLS, one already resides on a neighbouring estate and will continue to do so, and the fifth has found employment elsewhere. In terms of several members mentioned land reform, and Colin Smyth, Richard Leonard and unusually Liam Kerr was very keen on land reform in Scotland. The minister is also the minister for land reform, and she is bringing forward an ambitious bill that aims exactly to tackle the issues raised by Richard Leonard, which is the concentration of land ownership in Scotland. I noticed that Mercedes Villalba also referenced that work, and I am very hopeful that she has put input into the land reform consultation on this matter. I have got to get through quite a lot of material. It is wrong to suggest that the Forestry Grant scheme only supports large-scale woodland creation projects. Around 50 per cent of recent applications for forestry grant scheme support are projects that are less than 20 hectares in size, mostly farmers and crofters as small woodland owners. Our starting point for forestry has to be protecting and restoring what we have. A particular priority for this Government is safeguarding Scotland's rainforests in the western seaboard of Scotland, where high levels of rainfall and relatively mild year-round temperatures provide just the right conditions for an abundance of wildlife, including some of the world's rarest brow fights and lichens. Forestry and land Scotland manages a third of Scotland's rainforest, and I have recently announced a £1.3 million additional funding support to support rainforest conservation in Scotland. I noticed that Liam Kerr made a comparison with Ireland, which he will recall is an independent country, which shows how much a small independent country has more powers to do work for their economy and their forestry department. In Scotland, for example, road-edendron management, removing and introducing tree species and effective deer management. Some of the colleagues spoke about overgrazing. Effective deer management is critical to managing that overgrazing. All of that is part of a wider effort to rapidly expand our native woodlands and deliver landscape-scale restoration that will be further supported through the refresh of the forestry grant scheme that my colleague Maia McAllen has announced today. That is an important initiative that will mean that we can deliver even more for our environment through this essential scheme. Last year, we surpassed our native woodland targets, and I want to put my thanks on record to all involved in that enormous effort. Of course, we need to be doing more, and as part of the development of the Scottish biodiversity strategy and delivery plan, we will be looking at how we can do this, as well as what we can do to improve biodiversity within and the resilience of our whole forest resource. I cannot overstate the importance of building resilience. Diversification of our forest is key in making them more resilient to the environmental changes as a result of climate change. Extreme droughts and storms, such as last year's storm Arwen, that toppled 2 million cubic metres of timber, can cause widespread damage to forests and impact on the forest industry and the stored carbon in the forest. The positive environmental perspective of multi-purpose forestry has come about in recent decades by ensuring support for afforestation, forest management and harvesting is linked to the UK forestry standard, which underpins the delivery of forestry policy across Scotland. All forestry plans and woodland creation targets must meet the requirement of the UK forestry standard. As Minister for Tree Health, I am acutely aware of the impact of pests and diseases that are already having in our forests. In recent years, the phytophthora infection of larch, ash, diabac have had a dramatic and ongoing impact on our landscapes and forests and have reduced the pallet of species that we can work with. That is absolutely—not to mention the costs to local authorities and other land managers. Protecting Scotland's forests from damage or destruction caused by tree pests—sorry, I have to get through them short on time—tree pests and diseases is a key part of ensuring that they reach their full potential in terms of carbon storage and climate change mitigation. Our policy is to encourage good plant health and biosecurity practices. Scottish forestry staff are actively monitoring pests and diseases both within and beyond our borders. Several members today talked about the importing of saplings. We are very stretched on resource to properly inspect— Minister, if you could just give me one moment, could I just ask members to be where there is a lot of background noise? The importation of saplings has been greatly—the inspection of imported saplings has been greatly inconvenienced by Brexit, which means that our resources are very stretched in plant health to ensure that we are actively preventing import of diseases with these saplings. Of course, all of this highlights the risk of single-species plantations and an industry dependent on single-species is much more vulnerable to diseases. I thank Brian Whittle for alerting us all to the importance of biodiversity. He will be grateful to know that there is a Scottish Government minister for that—that is me. The Conservative amendment in the name of Brian Whittle does make some important points, and I particularly welcome the recognition of the importance of the biodiversity strategy— If you could please conclude, minister. Thank you, biodiversity strategy that I am currently developing. Unfortunately, it does not recognise the achievements of our own forestry sector or the challenges that we faced in the last year as a result of Covid, so we will not be able to support this amendment. We will be accepting the Labour amendment in common with Smith's name, which makes some valuable additional points about the important contribution that must be made by forestry workers in Scotland. That concludes the debate on forestry's contribution to net zero Scotland. It's now time to move on to the next item of business, which is consideration of business motion 6687 in the name of George Adam, on behalf of the parliamentary bureau setting out a business programme. I call on George Adam to move the motion. Thank you, Presiding Officer, and moved. Thank you, minister. No member has asked to speak on the motion, and the question is that motion 6687 be agreed. Are we all agreed? Yes. The motion is therefore agreed. The next item of business is consideration of business motion 6688 in the name of George Adam, on behalf of the parliamentary bureau on a stage 2 timetable, and I call on George Adam to move the motion. Thank you once again, Presiding Officer, and moved. Thank you, minister. I call on Alexander Burnett to speak to and move amendment 6688.1, up to five minutes, Mr Burnett. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Now, the Equalities Committee convener imposed an unnecessarily short amendment deadline on the gender recognition reform bill at stage 2, and I'm told there are around 100 amendments, and more would have been submitted if a deadline had not been so restrictive. Now, today's motion sets a deadline for finishing stage 2 by the 23rd of November, which has already caused the convener of the committee to inform members that consideration will be completed in just two sittings, and that a two-tiered speaking allocation system will be in place between those who have amendments in their name and those who don't, and this is clearly a restriction on scrutiny. Now, Presiding Officer, imposing this short deadline is utterly needless and just creates a prospect of getting things wrong. My amendment today would allow for two more sittings to consider these amendments properly, and this should not be controversial because we have plenty of time in hand to do so. However, when I suggested this at the bureau, I was batted down by the Government, and the SNP want to appear to want to rush this through before Christmas. Now, I've tried to get to the bottom of why they may be doing this, with increasingly unconvincing answers from the Minister. For example, last week I was told there was a programme of legislation to get through, and therefore we needed to get this one out of the way quickly. Well, looking at the Parliament's own legislation tracker, other than GRR, there are just two bills with a deadline approaching in the next four months, and that leaves plenty of time to consider the bill properly. Now, this week the Minister suggested that because the bill deals with vulnerable groups, this means we must get it passed as soon as possible. But Minister, these groups have been waiting for years for reform, and I'm sure they will be first to say that a couple of weeks extra to make sure we get the bill right is more than worth it. We must strive for high-quality legislation. We do not want this Parliament to become an embarrassing case studied at universities worldwide of how not to do gender reform legislation. So why the rush? The reasons given don't make sense, and I'm not sure even the Minister believes them. I'm not sure that the Government even believed their own reasons either, and just this week in the rural committee we understand that our deadline for the hunting with dogs bill will be extended because Mary McCallum is jetting off to Egypt. Does the member agree that if deadline extensions can be made at the drop of a hat for some bills, then there is no justifiable reason why this very sensible extension should not be made to the GRR bill? I thank the member for that intervention and I completely agree with the member, and I think that that information actually dismantles Mr Adam's initial argument on the volume of upcoming legislation. It seems that there is time to extend some bills. Jackson Carlaw. Presiding Officer, can I say as somebody who is very much hoping to be able to support the bill at stage 3, that that process becomes more difficult if the amendments that some of us feel reasonable amendments, some of which we are discussing with Government ministers with the hope that we will get to a point where the bill can be supported, that process is much more difficult if there is a curtailment of a proper discussion of those amendments at committee. It's really rather alarming to those of us who desperately actually want to find the way to support this bill in its final form if we can't have that proper discussion. Alexander Burnett. I thank that member for that intervention and it's been mentioned by others that it's extremely unfortunate that the process of this is becoming part of the politics. Therefore, the only conclusion that I am left with is that there is some hidden reason for the haste on this bill and I have my own suspicions on this, political in nature, and while I really hope that I am wrong, more and more on evidence suggests I'm not. So, regardless of your position on the bill itself, it's common sense that we dedicate the proper time to getting it right. And a wise MSP recently said, we can't let the process become part of the politics, and I agree with that. So let's extend the stage 2 deadline by two weeks and let's not have a repeat of its nonsense at stage 3. I move the amendment in my name. Thank you. I call on George Adam to respond on behalf of the parliamentary bureau. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Can I start by saying, Presiding Officer, I cannot be held accountable for Mr Burnett's lack of recall of what was discussed at bureau and the fact that he's taken the whole discussion that we had to such an extent that he's only taken little snippets of the conversation as opposed to the whole discussion itself. But at the end of the day, Presiding Officer, I think one thing he did say that is correct that we must get legislation correct and legislation, we should take the time to do that. Indeed, I will. Neil Bibby. I thank the minister for taking intervention. Scottish Labour has focused on the substance of our amendments rather than timetabling. We are prepared to support the Government's timetabling proposals of 23 November. If the minister can give us a guarantee that if the committee requires more time for parliamentary scrutiny, the committee will get that extra time for parliamentary scrutiny. Can the minister give us that guarantee? I thank Mr Bibby for that question and, mainly, I reassure him by saying that that would be up to the convener himself as Mr Bibby is well aware to approach the committee and actually say to us that he needed that extra time at that stage. One of the things that has been discussed at bureau was that we as a bureau will review it weekly to make sure over the part of stage 2 to see if we are working within those guidelines. I hope that that makes Mr Bibby feel a lot better. On that issue, we discussed this issue and, following the discussion that I had with the committee convener and committee clerk last week, we are proposing the stage 2 deadline of 23 November. I repeat and say once again that the bill itself is not a large complex bill. As I was saying, I was agreeing that we must get legislation correct. The time scales that we are working to are for the size of the bill. There is no hastening of the actual process. There is no rushing through of the bill. The bill of this size is actually going through this way because it is within that process. The cabinet secretary, Shona Robison, has, as we have already heard from Jackson Carlaw, said that the door is open to members to discuss reasonable amendments to the bill, and that will be throughout the process. The timeline has been agreed by the convener and the majority of the committee, and they are content to work to that. The bureau also agreed yesterday to review the outcome of stage 2, as I have said previously, on a weekly basis. That deadline will enable the committee to have two regular sessions to consider amendments. That is not unusual for this size of bill. If the convener considers a third session to be required, he will raise it with the bureau and can consider it during our weekly review. Those arrangements met the requirements that are set out in the Parliament's standing orders, and the purpose and names of the bill are clear and not wide-ranging. The timescales proposed are wholly appropriate. The question is that amendment 6688.1, in the name of Alexander Burnett, which seeks to amend motion 6688 in the name of George Adam on a stage 2 timetable, be agreed? Are we all agreed? The Parliament is not agreed, therefore we will move to vote. There will be a suspension to allow members to access a digital voting system.