Claudia Beamish (South Scotland) (Lab): 1. To ask the Scottish Executive to what extent it monitors the site condition of seabird breeding colony special protection areas, including the corresponding marine extensions. (S4O-00569)
The Minister for Environment and Climate Change (Stewart Stevenson):
Scottish Natural Heritage operates a site condition monitoring programme for protected areas in Scotland to determine the condition of the natural features. It uses a range of information sources to assess the condition of special protection areas for seabirds, including national population censuses and breeding surveys.
Claudia Beamish: The minister will be aware that one of the SPAs with marine extension is St Abb’s Head, which is in the region that I represent. It supports in excess of 20,000 seabirds and is truly a site of European importance. Does the minister accept that, if the monitoring of the site is not sufficiently robust, licences for marine activities could be erroneously granted and negative impacts on the seabird populations might result?
Stewart Stevenson: The member makes the point that, if we have insufficient information, we might not deal with proposals for developments correctly. I accept that point. That is why we monitor the activities of seabirds. I know, in particular, that the Isle of May, near St Abb’s Head, is an important seabird colony, particularly for gannets.
We have recently published an atlas of all marine activity, under the banner of Marine Scotland. We work with third parties, such as the RSPB, and use information from them. A wide range of information about St Abb’s Head and many of the other SPAs flows into our decision-making processes.
Roderick Campbell (North East Fife) (SNP): The Isle of May, in my constituency, is a significant seabird and grey seal colony. However, the long-term trend of decline in the number of seabirds continues. What further action can the Government take to address the decline in the seabird population, given its role in creating sustainable tourism?
Stewart Stevenson: I absolutely recognise the value of birds as a tourism icon, as well as the fact that they contribute to biodiversity. Ironically, some of the decline in the Firth of Forth has been attributable to the cleaning of the sewage outputs. Less sewage is being discharged into the Forth, which means that there is less food for some of the seabirds. Sometimes, the unintended side effects of good environmental interventions can result in situations such as the one that the member describes.
I should say that, in the Firth of Forth, the numbers of some species are improving while those of other species decline. It is a matter that we keep a close eye on, and we are always open to suggestions about how we can respond to any decline in specific species.
Jamie McGrigor (Highlands and Islands) (Con): Does the minister accept that the health of seabird populations is also a barometer of the health of the marine food chain, and that that applies equally to fish stocks? Is enough research and development being done on the subject?
The Presiding Officer (Tricia Marwick): Minister: seabirds.
Stewart Stevenson: Seabirds and perhaps also water birds are affected by the marine environment and, to varying degrees, rely on sea stocks. When we had a closure in the North Sea some 20 years ago, it was interesting to see that the puffin population rose because there was greater availability of fish.
We are absolutely aware of the interaction between fish stocks and seabird—and, indeed, water bird—populations.
Thursday, 19 January 2012
Thursday, 22 December 2011
(S4O-00525) Climate Change Delivery Plan
Marco Biagi (Edinburgh Central) (SNP): 7. To ask the Scottish Government whether it plans to update or publish a progress report on its climate change delivery plan. (S4O-00525)
The Minister for Environment and Climate Change (Stewart Stevenson):
The “Climate Change Delivery Plan: Meeting Scotland’s Statutory Climate Change Targets” was published in June 2009 and it described four transformational outcomes that are necessary in order to achieve Scotland’s long-term emissions reduction targets. The delivery plan was followed in March 2011 by “Low Carbon Scotland: Meeting the Emissions Reduction Targets 2010-2022”, which is the Scottish Government’s first statutory report on proposals and policies setting out specific measures for reducing greenhouse gases. The measures draw on the transformational outcomes described in the delivery plan. A second RPP will be published next year, describing how emissions targets to 2027 can be met.
Marco Biagi: I very much welcome that answer from the minister. A number of respected environmental groups have expressed concerns that the current RPP, although it is a fine document, does not necessarily set out which groups are responsible for which actions and how each of them will be funded. Can the minister give some insight into whether that will be addressed in the next RPP or in other statutory reports that are required by the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009?
Stewart Stevenson: Discussions on the next RPP are at an early stage. It is certainly true that the Government is not the sole source, or even the major source, of funding for many of the policies and proposals in RPP 1. I expect that in the next report on policies and proposals, that will be the case as well. It is important to realise that there is a break between policies that are committed to by the Government and funded appropriately, and proposals that will, of course, be dealt with at a later stage, which in the case of the next RPP will perhaps be after 2020. The absolute certainty that the member seeks might not be present in RPP 2, but we have listened and we will respond.
The Minister for Environment and Climate Change (Stewart Stevenson):
The “Climate Change Delivery Plan: Meeting Scotland’s Statutory Climate Change Targets” was published in June 2009 and it described four transformational outcomes that are necessary in order to achieve Scotland’s long-term emissions reduction targets. The delivery plan was followed in March 2011 by “Low Carbon Scotland: Meeting the Emissions Reduction Targets 2010-2022”, which is the Scottish Government’s first statutory report on proposals and policies setting out specific measures for reducing greenhouse gases. The measures draw on the transformational outcomes described in the delivery plan. A second RPP will be published next year, describing how emissions targets to 2027 can be met.
Marco Biagi: I very much welcome that answer from the minister. A number of respected environmental groups have expressed concerns that the current RPP, although it is a fine document, does not necessarily set out which groups are responsible for which actions and how each of them will be funded. Can the minister give some insight into whether that will be addressed in the next RPP or in other statutory reports that are required by the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009?
Stewart Stevenson: Discussions on the next RPP are at an early stage. It is certainly true that the Government is not the sole source, or even the major source, of funding for many of the policies and proposals in RPP 1. I expect that in the next report on policies and proposals, that will be the case as well. It is important to realise that there is a break between policies that are committed to by the Government and funded appropriately, and proposals that will, of course, be dealt with at a later stage, which in the case of the next RPP will perhaps be after 2020. The absolute certainty that the member seeks might not be present in RPP 2, but we have listened and we will respond.
(S4O-00524) Greylag Geese (Orkney)
Liam McArthur (Orkney Islands) (LD): 6. To ask the Scottish Executive what assessment it has made of the impact of greylag geese in Orkney and the effectiveness of the measures to limit the damage to agricultural land that the birds cause. (S4O-00524)
The Minister for Environment and Climate Change (Stewart Stevenson):
The impact of greylag geese in Orkney was examined in the report on the “Orkney Greylag Goose Feasibility Project”, which was commissioned by Scottish Natural Heritage, and in the Scottish Government’s “2010 Review of Goose Management Policy in Scotland”, which was published in February 2011. The Orkney study concluded that, due to a number of factors, including the dispersed nature of wintering flocks, it would be premature to consider a standardised scheme across Orkney.
Following the 2010 review, Scottish Government and SNH officials are working with local farmers on goose-management issues to improve scaring techniques and to streamline the licensing procedure for the control of geese in the close season.
Liam McArthur: I thank the minister for his reply and for his letter of 11 December, which gave some helpful pointers. I would be grateful for clarification—if not now, then subsequently—on a couple of issues that he has not mentioned. He made no mention of extending the open season, which suggestion has been raised in the past. In a letter in July there was reference to consideration of sustainable harvesting of species. It would be helpful to know whether there will be sale of goose meat. The minister said in the letter of 11 December that the national goose management review group is considering a range of options for managing goose populations. More detail on that would be helpful for my constituents.
Stewart Stevenson: I am glad that Liam McArthur has had that letter, which is an extensive one.
On extending the open season, we would prefer in the first instance to rely on licenses to allow farmers to scare geese off by shooting some of them during the close season. That approach is available now and it is relatively straightforward. I acknowledge that there are particular and special problems in Orkney that do not exist on the same scale elsewhere because of the dispersed nature of the goose population and the fact that some 10,000 geese are now resident there all the year round. However, we certainly want to continue to work with local farmers and others to ensure that we have adequate numbers of licenses and trained people to continue shooting during what is currently the close season.
Jamie McGrigor (Highlands and Islands) (Con): Scaring techniques in an offshore archipelago like Orkney tend to result only in moving geese from one island to another. The island of Islay has a very good scheme to manage geese. Would the minister commit to further studies on the impact of the greylag geese in Orkney with a view to introducing an appropriate management scheme in the future?
Stewart Stevenson: Jamie McGrigor makes a perfectly reasonable point about the nature of the Orkney islands. In that respect, the techniques that are applied in Islay will not necessarily transfer readily to Orkney. The key will be the simplification measures that we are undertaking to ensure that it is easier to shoot geese, as appropriate. The programme of shooting could be co-ordinated so that movement of geese such as the member referred to is not simply a consequence with no real benefit.
The Minister for Environment and Climate Change (Stewart Stevenson):
The impact of greylag geese in Orkney was examined in the report on the “Orkney Greylag Goose Feasibility Project”, which was commissioned by Scottish Natural Heritage, and in the Scottish Government’s “2010 Review of Goose Management Policy in Scotland”, which was published in February 2011. The Orkney study concluded that, due to a number of factors, including the dispersed nature of wintering flocks, it would be premature to consider a standardised scheme across Orkney.
Following the 2010 review, Scottish Government and SNH officials are working with local farmers on goose-management issues to improve scaring techniques and to streamline the licensing procedure for the control of geese in the close season.
Liam McArthur: I thank the minister for his reply and for his letter of 11 December, which gave some helpful pointers. I would be grateful for clarification—if not now, then subsequently—on a couple of issues that he has not mentioned. He made no mention of extending the open season, which suggestion has been raised in the past. In a letter in July there was reference to consideration of sustainable harvesting of species. It would be helpful to know whether there will be sale of goose meat. The minister said in the letter of 11 December that the national goose management review group is considering a range of options for managing goose populations. More detail on that would be helpful for my constituents.
Stewart Stevenson: I am glad that Liam McArthur has had that letter, which is an extensive one.
On extending the open season, we would prefer in the first instance to rely on licenses to allow farmers to scare geese off by shooting some of them during the close season. That approach is available now and it is relatively straightforward. I acknowledge that there are particular and special problems in Orkney that do not exist on the same scale elsewhere because of the dispersed nature of the goose population and the fact that some 10,000 geese are now resident there all the year round. However, we certainly want to continue to work with local farmers and others to ensure that we have adequate numbers of licenses and trained people to continue shooting during what is currently the close season.
Jamie McGrigor (Highlands and Islands) (Con): Scaring techniques in an offshore archipelago like Orkney tend to result only in moving geese from one island to another. The island of Islay has a very good scheme to manage geese. Would the minister commit to further studies on the impact of the greylag geese in Orkney with a view to introducing an appropriate management scheme in the future?
Stewart Stevenson: Jamie McGrigor makes a perfectly reasonable point about the nature of the Orkney islands. In that respect, the techniques that are applied in Islay will not necessarily transfer readily to Orkney. The key will be the simplification measures that we are undertaking to ensure that it is easier to shoot geese, as appropriate. The programme of shooting could be co-ordinated so that movement of geese such as the member referred to is not simply a consequence with no real benefit.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
