ng that's unanimously supported and I'd come back to the point that you made, convener, it strikes me as very illogical to regulate an above ground activity using a below ground metric you know those two things are separate and I think we only need to look actually to England to see about what the potential implications of following this course of action could be so just for everyone's awareness in England the heather and grass burning regulations were brought in 2021 and that will basically license mureburn on protected sites where the peat was deeper than 40 centimetres so they've got a similar scheme although it's not as kind of widely set out as what we're being what's being proposed here and in England the regulator has received 1,600 reports of illegal peatland burning on the back of a campaign primarily headed by the RSPB and off those reports that resulted in one warning letter which was due to a technical breach and one court case due to a misunderstanding of the regulation so that's an attrition rate of 0.0625 per cent but I think the important thing to note here is that if we're going to have these continued campaigns from several environmental NGOs which is their right to do about kind of peatland burning which is an inaccurate characterisation then we're going to see vast amounts of money expended through the regulator in investigating frankly nonsense incidents which just have no bearing whatsoever to the peat depth so I really would like I think to put on the record as well what Professor Colin Reed said last week in responding to a question from Jim Fairlie where he did describe the measuring of peat as a problem those were his words and I think you know it's really important that we we try and ensure that this licensing scheme when it is developed it doesn't become weaponised because I think frankly that's what's happened in England and I think the committee does need to be aware of that. Can I bring in Emma Natt's specific point and then I'll come to you. Thank you yeah I'd just like to reflect on the fact that you claim that peatland identification is an issue because the forestry sector is able to undertake survey and definition and assessment of peat down to 10 centimetres under recent planting guidelines so if the whole of the forestry sector across nationally in Scotland and UK wide indeed due to the adoption of new guidance can manage to achieve it then I would push back. Do you understand the difference between obviously peatland obviously sorry mureburn which was an uprogrammed aboveground activity in forestry which involves obviously planting below the ground I think that's where I struggle to draw the difference. But both we're looking to protect both habitats and peat soils through that activity so I would push back again that it is a consideration of peatland as an ecosystem with aboveground vegetation and the peat soil supporting that ecosystem. Thank you Bruce. A lot of the comments that have been made on the table are reflective of my own however I think the differentiation in peat depth is from my perspective irrelevant there is evidence perhaps not entirely empirical but very practical that a managed cool burn as a phrase that was used the mureburn across the surface does not penetrate any more than a centimetre below the surface of peatland but my concern is that if we restrict where mureburn can be carried out by bringing in a specified depth then what we're doing is allowing a larger proportion of the fuel loading to be unmanaged and the very thing we're trying to prevent which is damaged to the peatlands will in fact be at higher risk because a wildfire absolutely will damage the peatland whereas a mureburn I acknowledge does carry some risk because there is never a zero risk application of fire to vegetation so it's a smaller risk however because it's managed controlled and the phrase that's current is cool as opposed to a very very hot and uncontrolled wildfire. I'm going to bring in Robbie before going to Alasdair Allan. Thank you, convener and I think again we have to be honest with ourselves that the evidence base for the benefits or disbenefits of burning on peatlands both from a carbon lens and a nature lens is complicated but I'm going to take a step back and just remind ourselves in a nature and climate crisis where 50% of our emissions are coming from land use and between 15% and 20% of those are coming from peatlands the existing position that nature scot takes is that burning on peatlands is not a good idea it is already not recommended through the peatland code and this bill is providing I think additional safeguard to ensure that if we are going to burn on the peatland which has to remain a tool in the toolbox it's for very specific purposes in very specific places and that is primarily to address the issue of wildfires getting out of hand and to protect some of our important carbon and biodiversity assets that for me from the policy perspective is absolutely sound and it's based on the precautionary principle in light of a climate crisis. Nick and Ross both want indicated in the bag of that contribution. Thank you convener we absolutely acknowledge that the science around Muirburn is complex to say the least but where we do see a distinction in some of the differences in results from science is where you look at the length of time in which studies have been conducted and typically where you see negative impacts on ecosystem services through Muirburn on peatlands they tend to been conducted over a three-year period maybe a five-year period at best because that reflects the funding models for most of our academic institutes in the UK. If you start to look at longer term studies looking at burning over an actual real term period of a burning cycle you start to see that over time you actually get ecosystem service benefits and at the moment if we look at the bill as it is being introduced there is and the separation of burning on peatlands and land that's not peatland there is no provision in the bill to allow burning on peatland to deliver these ecosystem service benefits and that I think will tie the Scottish government's hands in terms of what they can do to deliver on biodiversity and climate change. Thanks convener and completely support Dr Hesford's analysis there of the science and certainly the limitations around shorter term studies and those studies that used before after control impact methodologies tend to be the ones that produce the most robust evidence. I think I was just a little bit taken aback by what I just heard from Nature Scots I mean I think I just need to set out very briefly if I may convener you know what do we stand to lose if we don't properly conduct Muirburn and thereby manage the wildfire risk and you know I think just looking at a very brief example Saddleworth Moir fire in 2018 seven centimetres of peat were lost in that fire it will apparently take 200 years to restore that peat and it released somewhere in the region of between 17,798 and 26,281 tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent from the soil carbon losses and that does not take into account the emissions from the vegetation that burned as a result as well so I think we just need to remind ourselves you know about the the role that burning can play when it comes to reducing fuel load because as far as I'm concerned it's fundamentally important. Briefly Emma. Yeah I just touch on that point but I wanted to discuss mainly the consensus in the science but very briefly in response to fuel load there are other ways to manage fuel load so I would argue that rewetting given the you know Scottish Government's commitment to nature and biodiversity crisis supporting peatland restoration rewetting of peatlands is a major way to challenge and sort of deal with the fuel load issue once you rewet a peatland within five to ten years there will be a reduction in heather cover which reduces that fuel load issue I could just touch very briefly on the consensus of the science we believe that there is a consensus in the science actually and there have been misleading interpretations of the science repeatedly published which fuels this lack of consensus debate we're hearing much of the research which you refer to in relation to long term studies that indicate burning is beneficial is found to be very lacking due to lack of peer review in the academic community and also huge methodological inconsistencies in defining peatland so we're just in brief much of that research produced today inconsistently and inaccurately describes the peatland type condition and past present management regime and generic terms that are used in that research such as moreland encompassing both peat and non-peatland types make interpretation of the science really difficult I could just say we all agreed that a shared goal here is healthy peatlands and restoring peatlands back to health so I think we do need some further scientific work to compare burning management and healthy peatlands rather than comparing two degraded states hey Duncan yeah and I was just going to say just referring to what Ross Ewing said there the nature scot report that was published recently looking at Muirburn and peatland said there was a lack of evidence from Scottish or UK studies that a reduction in fuel loads arising from Muirburn influences the occurrence of wildfire on moreland and that's a direct quote from that report I mean I think you know we're talking about a climate crisis here 80% of our peatland resource in Scotland is damaged and in 2019 it emitted 6.3 million tonnes of co2 which is more than the energy supply and residential sectors the Scottish government is investing 250 million pounds in restoring peatlands and there is evidence now growing evidence including from Saddleworth more actually in England and our neighbouring reserve there at Dovstone that actually restored habitats are more resilient to wildfire than non-restored habitats and actually we found that also in the flow country of Forsnard and there's about to be some papers published from the University of Highlands and Islands which will make that very point. Nick Ross and then we'll need to move on. Thanks, Comedian, and to save this committee the experience of two academics bossing heads over this the back and forth there between Emma and I does illustrate quite clearly how complex the issue is and really highlights the need for an adaptive management approach going forward. On the point that Emma made on alternatives to Muirburn they are untested. If you think that the science on Muirburn and the environmental impacts is complex and requires more study then there is even less science on rewetting and there is even less science on cutting. Rewetting for example has been suggested to be able to increase flood risk through things like saturated overland flow which essentially when you get a saturated peatland you get a heavy rain you can you see increased risk of flooding but also it poses an increased risk of methane emissions. Methane is 80 times more damaging in a climate context than carbon and so whilst we think these are cutting and rewetting are important management tools they shouldn't be prioritised over Muirburn they should all be in one toolbox and they should be reviewed in an adaptive management context. Briefly Ross. Thank you convener. The Duncan's assessment there are a characterization of the NatureScot report. He actually missed out quite important detail which is where they said that there was a quote plausible mechanism through which the intensity of wildfire could be influenced as a result of control burning and indeed I'd refer the committee as well to Professor Newton's remarks from last week where he said all the big ones we're talking about wildfire have been on areas that have not been burned for several decades so there's a huge build-up of dry trash on the ground to get the fire going and I completely support rewetting as an endeavour as a tool in the box for managing wildfire mitigation but I think we all need to be clear that it's not on its own going to cut it and actually the fact that we've seen wildfire kind of engulfing places such as Forsenard and Dovstone that RSPB manage you know just shows that rewetting perhaps on its own just isn't quite cutting it, convener. Bruce. My points have largely made, convener. Emma's absolutely right that rewetting is a valuable tool in the box but as both Nick and Ross have said it's not the only tool in the box and it's perhaps not the most effective tool in the box. Wildfire will damage wetland and can and does every year. Cutting is absolutely a tool that can be used but it essentially creates a dry litter layer that the fire will spread through. Burning is the most effective although the most risky approach to film management. Okay, thank you. I just want to make a point on the question that I originally asked. I mean how could, would it, there not be a circumstance where NatureScot could make a differential between a non-Petland and a peatland in terms of when issuing a licence without there being two licensing systems? Receipt of any application Rachel, for a piece of land we would expect an applicant to be able to be clear about why they're burning, where they're burning and what controls are in place and that can include peatland and non-peatland habitats but the purpose will be different because it's different in the legislation so we need to be really clear that if you are going to be burning on peatland it is under exceptional circumstances and it is quite clearly for the purpose explained in the bill. Just coming back to that discussion about the importance of the peatland resource, whilst I understand the debate about how this plays out in practice on grouse moors, most of the peatland resource in Scotland, it's not on the monoleths and the cairngorms and the angus clens and the southern uplands and south persia which is where most mureburn happens for grouse purposes, it's in the north and west so that the conflict between peatland as a resource and a mureburn for grouse moors seems to be dominating this discussion but actually quite a lot of the peatland resource are in areas out with grouse moors where there's still mureburn and the current and where we need to make sure we get adequate controls. I just thought that's a point worth making. I just apologise. Did I jump into Alistair's question? I think that Ariane had a question as well, I think that that's been covered as well so I'm going to move on to question from Karen who is just going to probably explore that a little bit for that. Yeah it'll probably just take it a little bit more because it will have gone quite a bit in-depth here, I'm excusing any puns but just to dig in a little more to the definition of peatland just asking opinions on the definition of that and for the purpose of obviously of mureburn licensing what the individual witnesses thoughts are on that. Yeah Ross, thanks convener. I think Karen in response to your question that I'd refer again to last week's remarks from Professor Newton which I thought were quite instructive in this point where he kind of talked about one licensing scheme covering the lot and I think that's really important because from our perspective we do not think that the mechanisms for determining peat depth will provide sufficient certainty to land managers and ultimately the provisions of the bill currently would technically you know make it an offence to make an erroneous submission you know and if you've not followed the methodology to the letter then there is a real risk I suppose of you being prosecuted or caught out by the legislation so the fact that we don't have a methodology to actually scrutinise here is a big part of the problem you know and so I think on that basis we would advocate for a licensing scheme which kind of removes the peatland licensing scheme in total so you've got one licensing scheme with the broadest range of licensable purposes but you've still got Nature Scott kind of applying its discretion perhaps in those areas where the peat is that little bit deeper if that's its concern and I think one of the principal motivations of this committee that I must set out which is really important is that paragraph 202 of the Moliseum Emerandab acknowledges that national survey data for peat measured at 40 centimetres does not exist and that massively exacerbates the uncertainty for land managers and I think it's really important and quite instructive actually that during the development of the heather and grass regulations in 2021 one of the foremost things that the secretary of state did before he actually pushed their green button on those regulations was ensuring that on designated sites that there was peat mapping data there at 40 centimetres and I think that's absolutely fundamental but if we're going to be absolutely pushing this narrative that we need to have a you know a peatland licensing scheme based on some measure of peat depth because the data exists at the 50 centimetres threshold our strongest view is that really it should be at 50 centimetres and Professor Warrity said last week you know the existing map is based on 50 centimetres and if you migrate away from that then clearly you have a challenge in how you determine that and he also went on to say that developing that new national data set at 40 centimetres would be a major undertaking to effectively remap Scotland's peat soils and the final thing Cymru just before I finish is that I draw your attention as also all committee members to the 40th report of the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee which states in relation to the ability for Scottish ministers to amend the definition of peat and peatland via the affirmative procedure that and I quote it considers that any change this provision may merit greater parliamentary scrutiny than just the affirmative procedure. Thank you Emma. To reflect a little bit on Ross's point there I agree completely that the mapping data is very very challenging and you will never get a map that is perfect on the ground it will always need to be ground-toothed and checked which means that there will be a requirement for practitioners and landowners to go out and do that survey and there are several easy accessible tools in the box such as using monsel colour charts, vompo soil texture and vegetation indicators, peat depth probes etc but just reflecting back on your question Karen about the depth definition as well the classification of peat has led to shallow areas of degraded peat being completely excluded from policy and land management decisions and that is quite a major concern so I would certainly welcome a more holistic look and a move away from an arbitrary depth definition in relation to peat and I certainly welcomed Nick's comments earlier about that sort of more holistic approach looking at the ecology and hydrology of the system rather than an arbitrary depth being applied to that. Nick. I was going to reiterate that point so thank you Emma, but we would agree with Ross in terms of in the absence of better data retaining a 50 centimetre peat depth definition is should be adequate for now and that remapping that could easily happen through an adaptive management approach where land managers are taking measurements in the field similar to what Emma is talking about there and those data could feed into the redefining that in fact that is happening already on the Scottish uplands and those as I said before those data are currently sitting with GDFCT. Very briefly as a land owner land manager that is already doing peatland code work where we're doing the kind of testing you know of peatland depth that Emma's just described there is an easily and readily accessible method for doing this there's also a development method that's used in relation to wind farms and that kind of thing but just for us you know now that like a lot of landowners we're moving into developing peatland code applications and that kind of thing some consistency would help us so that is why we would advocate a 30 centimetre depth and that's what the peatland the national UK peatland strategy also says we would we would appreciate that kind of consistency I mean the forestry commission or forestry in land Scotland forestry Scotland actually use a 10 centimetre peatland peatland depth so you know let we argue go with where the sort of consensus seems to be across the peatland community. Can I address my question to Robbie please and just could you describe what methodology might be used to determine if a piece of land is peatland and how do you think stakeholders could be supported in the sort of practicalities of that? Well this is is fascinating to hear the discussion so far because we do understand the need to provide prescription and detail and that was part of the discussion last week's committee about the need for flexibility within the system versus very hard prescribed targets so there are a range of tools out there as Emma's suggested which will help illustrate peat depth and the most simple one of which actually is just a probe a peat probe which is becoming much more commonly used for restoration work and is something practitioners can use. I think there's a point of first principles we'll come back to as well here. If you are going to go and burn an area of peatland in a climate nature crisis where the peatland resource is so important I would ask why you're proposing to do that without really understanding what's going on under the surface and that is not an unreasonable expectation of an applicant to be able to demonstrate they have knowledge of that. We don't have the data nationally it's always going to be really hard to get that data nationally therefore there will be an onus on an applicant to demonstrate they've got an understanding that the right safeguards are in place but I suppose again I'll come back to first principles we're in a climate crisis we are expecting transformative land use now this is change and I expect people will struggle with it but from our point of view we are not going to get to net zero unless people start changing behaviour and burning is absolutely part of that protecting our peatland resources part of that which is why Scottish Government are putting £250 million into addressing some of the damage and modification has gone on to lead to peatland's being in poor condition so the last thing we would like to see is any applications coming forward which risks that any more than we've already got. Do you believe that the bill as drafted is flexible enough to be adapted to new science and change in ground conditions? Yeah I mean again in applying a licensing regime come back to better regulation here we will need to continue to refine that as our knowledge improves and there are gaps in our knowledge and quite a lot of the data we will secure as a result of the licensing returns and the data coming in will help plug those gaps so we are on an adaptive management journey to think about how we best protect our natural assets. Ross and then Nick. Thanks convener and just following on from Robbie's comments I completely accept the points we are in a crime and biodiversity emergency but we're also in a just transition and I think the onus is on us to ensure that land managers actually have the tools at their disposal to be able to go out and do what government is asking of them properly so I think the 50 centimetre depth base would not be unreasonable given we have that data available and secondly you know there's been a lot of talk about the use of peat probes which I understand are very simple to use but the nature scot review of off muraburn last year noted that there is however a constraint with this method in terms of the time required to carry out a survey which will depend on the scale involved and the level of detail required. Now clearly in the context of our larger land holdings that presents a significant challenge so we would massively welcome much more greater information I suppose at this stage about what sort of methodology will be used for determining the peat depth because that is a clear kind of vacant area within the bill at the moment but would certainly kind of echo the sentiments about the climate and nature emergencies and the importance I suppose of managing fuel load on peatland to protect it for years to come. Nick thank you convener I'd like to pick up on the point of peat probes as well we acknowledge the methodological methodological limitations of using peat probes but they do provide a quick and easy assessment of peat depth although it is subject to some issues but the land holdings we're talking about as Ross mentioned can be quite extensive and therefore peat probe survey across even the whole of the hillside would still leave large areas either categorised as peatland or not under the current way it's laid out in the bill based on the simple resolution in which you can probe therefore we would advocate for ignition point recording and adaptive management so collect that data over time and let us learn from it. Okay thank you we're now going to move on to wildfire given that one of the purposes for which a license can be sought is to manage the risk of wildfire and I know we touched on it earlier but can I ask Robbie is nature scot confident that you'll be able to assess the wildfire risk for the purposes of granting licenses? That's quite a difficult question to answer, convener, but again coming back down to first principles we know mureburn as a tool has to remain absolutely an integral part of our ability to reduce the risk of wildfire so again I just need to make that point absolutely clear it has to remain a tool in the toolbox and the main reason on peatland habitats and other habitats is to try and protect our assets and that does require a bit of strategic planning about where we're going to burn and how best to burn to try and reduce the risk of wildfire but again the onus on that actually is in an applicant to be able to demonstrate that in their view on their property this is the most sensible place to do it because you know let's be honest owner occupiers know they're going better than we do so the the onus is actually on an applicant to be able to demonstrate in this case we think these are the areas that need to be burnt to protect and to deliver on the core purposes in the bill so it's very much a joint consideration and again coming back to our relationship with applicants based on trust and confidence so turning it on its head so we're talking currently about landowners actively seeking a license to to reduce wildfire risk we turn on its head is there a need for some legislation to force landowners to assess wildfire risk and be forced then to take appropriate action that might well be to mure burn to reduce the fuel load because that was and the basis of asking this question is because there was a suggestion that the fire up in Inverness somebody should be held account for not managing that fuel load which was ultimately at some point going to lead to wildfire so again i think just taking a step back the context in which we're operating and expecting to see an extra one degree between now and 2050 in scotland means that wildfire risk is heightened and it's going to continue to heighten we have hosted european delegates both from forestry and nature conservation agencies in scotland over the last two or three weeks and in many of those countries wildfire risk is the single biggest issue they are faced with in terms of protecting forests and peatland soils and the reason i highlight that again is that it is increasingly important for land managers both of forests and peatlanders to strategically think about how best to protect those stocks and wildfire being one of the tools not the only tool by any way stretch of the imagination so it is again just asking people to think much more differently in light of a climate crisis in light of change environmental conditions in light of increased risk of fire how we mitigate those risks okay i'm going to ask bruce if you will do risk assessments as part of your role so that's buildings or activities or whatever do you think you should be carrying out risk assessments on moorland or grassland and you have potentially powers to to make a landowner take action to reduce that wildfire risk the duty to carry a risk assessment is the landowners rather than the fire services so if we if we use the context of buildings as an illustrator the risk assessment for this building is the responsibility of the duty holder and that can be any of the owner or somebody delegate that authority similarly in the rural environment there absolutely needs to be an assessment of risk whether that be for new plantations or whether it be for established sporting estates or crops or farms and that assessment should be not just for the here and now but for the lifespan of that plantation or for the next 10 20 30 years there's need to revisit it absolutely and there's need to make sure that it is aligned to guidance that is given us to what the risk assessment should contain we currently have the powers for buildings to assess the risk assessment and identify whether it is suitable or not but we are not the enforcing agency in relation to that similarly in the wildfire context we will be able to assess whether our risk assessment is suitable or not whether we should be the enforcing authority is a separate debate but the risk assessment in my view should be the primary factor to decide what land management activity is carried out and when rather than arbitrary figures such as depth of peat but the fuel management is the key but that's the bit that will burn first and possibly give cost to the peat being burnt afterwards so the risk assessment is a key part in that in my opinion okay thank you rosh your thanks convener just to see that scotland in estates support our members in terms of developing integrated wildfire management plans and also placing their resources if they feel they're able to on the community asset register which allows them to be used by the scotland fire and rescue service in the incident of of a wildfire taking hold i just want to draw the committee's attention to two key problems as we see it surrounding wildfire with a bill so the first is the presumption that exists against murban on peatland which basically says that scottish ministers may grant a license where the license relates to peatland if they are satisfied that no other method of vegetation control is available now we think that carries catastrophic consequences not least because what it does is it ultimately prioritises other methods of vegetation control the most obvious one being cutting now incidentally with cutting using a flail more that's a land management technique that we know even less about than murburn in terms of its impact on the peatland below so i think i draw strongly urge caution about prioritising that but i think in our view that that provision around kind of prioritising other methods of vegetation control over murburn needs to just be removed from the bill and the second point to note is that the the bill is completely silent on the issue of back burning now back burning for those that are unaware is a tool that's employed at its type of murburn essentially that's employed during a wildfire incident to ultimately get rid of the mutual fuel load in front of the fire this bill is completely silent on that but it was you know back burning has been commended in two such parliamentary motions this year one from Fergus Ewing and one from Kate Forbes and indeed was used quite extensively as i understand it during the cannec wildfire which took place over the last few weeks so just to set that out that there doesn't appear to be any provision made convener for back burning in this bill whatsoever okay and you bring in nick thanks convener i want to comment again on the point rost made on alternatives to murburn and the fact that they are not tested and therefore we would support what SLA is saying in terms of removing that that section of the bill if you look at things like rewetting it stands to reason that a wetter bog may stop a stop a fire and you know the science suggests that during prescribed burns a rewetted more you know a area of wetter more more than could stop the fire but though that's prescribed burns which happen october to april during a cooler period if you got a wildfire they predominantly happen in the summer where the water table even the most ecologically intact and well functioning bog can drop by up to 30 centimeters so these just because a bog's been rewetted doesn't mean that it doesn't pose a risk to wildfire okay and then rest of time i'm going to bring in rhoda grant he's got a further question on wildfire then i'll bring in the other stakeholders rhoda thank you um my questions for bruce sifachers and you said in your evidence before that murburn was one of the most effective although riskiest form of managing wildfire is there anything else from your experience that would be useful any other tools that will be useful in doing this and also whether you think the regulatory framework is appropriately designed for that kind of activity thank you for the question i think there are other tools definitely for managing fuel and a few have been mentioned today in my opinion and in what i have seen when i've gone around the country and spoken with various people murburn is definitely the most effective because it removes the fuel in its entirety cutting is effective to a point but i use the analogy quite regularly of attending a fire in a house of a hoarder rather than a fire in a house of a minimalist and the cutting would leave that dry layer that actually encourages the spirit of fire now cutting is used to control murburn but when that is the case the cut material is still wet and that's the key part when it's allowed to dry out you have that fine fuel moisture fine fuel underneath the the top vegetation layers and that propagates and encourages fire rewetting is absolutely a tool it's a long-term tool but again as has been said a number of times today the science is conflicting on that and there's a bit of work required there similarly variegated planting of species has a demonstrable impact on how fire will spread rather than having a continuity of similar fuels but murburn is absolutely the most effective way of removing the fuel which then manages the the landscape and prevents the welfare from happening i think the legislation as we doubt has a critical emission and it's a requirement for training to be mandatory for anybody that's going to apply a flame to vegetation given that we've mentioned a few times to how risky that activity is to have that completely untrained and no input given as to how that can be carried out safely seems to make to be quite an emission okay should there be a duty on people to manage that fuel load you talked about you know in public buildings there's a duty of people to mitigate fire risk should there be a duty on land managers to mitigate fire risk yes is the short answer yes i can bring in maranda dunker and then ross yes i i i wanted to um to say something about the fact that what we've heard here is that a lot of well some of the key resources like the pete is in the crofting counties we've seen some of the recent wildfires were in the crofting counties but actually when we were looking at sort of the way this this bill has progressed and some of the reports that were underpinning it was very little recognition for crofting i don't think it was mentioned once we as a small organization we're trying to feel that kept here but i think there Felly, we can facilitate that to engage with people on the ground who are actually using fire to better understand what the practices are there, so we can better engage with this. Ultimately, how are they able to identify their areas. I am hearing fire management plans. How applicable are those in a small concept. How accessible does fire remain as a tool? If indeed we see some of these measures being brought in that might be better suited for larger land managers, Daddym массol a ralles o'iℚ ia while a file went out of control was instigated in a garden but got into a field of rank vegetation and got out of control very quickly and then it hit a well grazed common raisings and it stopped, but that is in some areas the exception to the rule. We're seeing common raisings that are increasingly collected, where there cwm ni'n ddweud i gael ei ddweud o'r sydd o enwau cyd-gweithio'r cyd-gweithio'r cyd-gweithio, i'n ddweud o'r sydd o'r llaw yn y synodol, nid o'r cyd-gweithio'r cyd-gweithio, ac mae'n gwaith efallai'n ddweud. Ond, gwnaeth byddwch chi, ac mae hi'n ddweud i gael ei wneud i gael ei dechreu i'r llaw, ac mae'n meddwl i'r llwyddiadau. Mae'n meddwl i'r cyd-gweithio'r cyd-gweithio ysgolwyr, reilydiew. HE www.шьgou.chu There's another consideration here. I mean recognising all of us want to prevent wildfire, we may have different ways of going about it. No, I mean the approach that there was a duty on managing fuel load that required people to to burn or remove excess fuel. That sort of builds on the history of the approach that we've had over many years. Myndwyd, mae'r llei cwmwysydd yn fwrdd o'isio gyda sydd yn ei collad yw oed porffirau a rhaidio ambygwydol ac os ydwod gyda ff tiedeir, fyddai'r llei cyffredinol fel hefyr milineir. Fy hoffi cael eu gwleidau o quite ar mwyncaf, os roeddwn i ddweud ddwy willag ar y llei cyffredinol, rwy'n gweithio'n dweud o feithaf cyffredinol o'i llei cyffredinol dros ddwyllol ar amgylchedd. ac yn cyfnodd ar gyfer yn gweithio'r wych. Felly, mae'n gofyn nhw'n gwneud o gwyfodol o'r tîm, am ddim yn gweithio'r gwyfodol. Mae'n gweithio'r gwyfodol o'r gweithio i gyfnodd gyfnodd. Mae'n gweithio'r gweithio'r gweithio, ond mae'n gweithio'r gweithio'r gweithio'r gweithio i Penedig yn saucb ליכaeg o'r llun ar y cyblodau enw i gydymaetheidol i gyngretaeth bwysigol ac yn cael credu bwysigol i gyngretaeth bwysigol. Rwy'n credu i gyngretaeth bwysigol a chyflodd, mae'n cyflodd mwy o gyrtaeth bwysigol yn gyrtaeth bwysigol i gyngretaeth bwysigol, Ac yn siaradion gan ychydig ar gyffredin. ac mae'n hyn i armengwr i gyngretaeth bwysigol i gyngretaeth bwysigol, I'm speaking with the Woodland Trust who are concerned about this, there are people in the south west who are talking about the emissions and the impacts that planting and forestry is having to people in this south west, whether it is to 30 centimetres. On the point that we are making ar gilydd y byddwr atimerio, fyddai'r ffordd a'r ei wneud hyn o'i gael y cyflwynig yw gwathol yma, oherwydd mae'n ddigon dim i'r gael i'r cyfrŵr, ac mae'n ddigon i'r byddw i'r byddwr, mae'n credu y habitat, ond mae'n ddigon i'r cyfrŵr erbyn hi fel'r blynyddech chi i'r cyfrŵr. Yn hyn yn gwybod i'r cyfrŵr yma, rdyn ni i fel'r cyfrŵr i Brws, i gwybod i'r cyfrŵr i'r bobl, i'r cyfrŵr i'r bobl – Gwiydd Silgrin i'r mynd i'r amlwg i'r bod latrachwyr yw i'i'r mynd i'r amlwg i'r mynd i'r mynd i'r amlwg i'r mynd i'i'r amlwg i'r mynd i'r amlwg i'r amlwg i'r amlwg i'r지도n i'r mynd i'r mynd i'r amlwg i'r накlyw gyda'l eu virus? Mae'n gwirio i fod y pryd ac yn dweud yn cael ei gŷnol. Mae'n credu wedi bod chi'n gwybod fel Robby yn ystod. Mae'n credu i fod yn cael eu gŷnol.  Yr ystod y dyfodol phones â'r ffordd o fewni'r gweithio gwylliant i gyrsedd ar y ddechrau, ond ond dwi'n gawr o'r gwnaeth, ond nhw'n ôl i fynt o gydaint i gwasfer, ond ti'n gwylliant i is you are preventing succession by the land management natural succession of woodland vegetation and other scrub vegetation that would take place in the absence of Muirburn. So, you know, longer term, we need more... But how are we regenerating which is for pollinators? No, but it's widely recognised that we need more woodland in terms of meeting the carbon challenge and some of that is going to have to be on grassmores. In fact, some grassmores are already putting in new native woodlands around grassmores. I think we're now drifting away from the topic. I'm very conscious the session should have finished 20 minutes ago, so... Can I just get the answer on the fuel load? Absolutely. So specifically about fuel load. So for us, you know, the way we manage our land, we are trying to create more resilience in the habitats that we have on our land to mitigate against wildfire. And that's largely... I mean, we have a lot of peat bogs on our land, many of which, you know, have been degraded before we acquired the sites. We're investing hugely in peatland restoration at other sites. We're putting in, you know, native woodland or encouraging native woodlands. But in Spain, wetting peatland has been found that wildfires are going to occur because of drought. But Spain is very different from the UK. We have a completely different climate here. Okay, and we're getting into the minutiae of the topic. I think we need to be just conscious of the time. We're bringing Christine Grahame on wildfires. Yes, I'm looking at the licensing. And it says... The licensing, where the satisfy that mubren is necessary and no other method of vegetation control is available, I would have prepared the word appropriate. Appropriate or practicable. The second thing is, I think you mentioned training. And I would ask if under licensing one of the questions that would be asked is what training has been undertaken on the estate with regard to the various methods. It was a very good point, but you wouldn't put that in primary legislation. But it might be a question the licence provider would ask of that to ensure that even when they're granting it, the people who are exercising the licence know how to appropriately do it. Just if I may respond on those points, absolutely. One of the questions we must pose is why burning in the absence of alternatives. I don't think that's an unreasonable question. And I'm sure there'll be lots of answers why burning is the most appropriate method. Appropriate's a better one. And secondly, on standards and training, we're working quite hard to make sure those people who are undertaking this activity are appropriately trained. That is on the face of the bill and I think it's incumbent upon us on the Scottish Fire Rescue Service and practitioners to make sure that we set that bar in the right place. Recognising that standards and skills are appropriate on grousmours who are exemplary in the field of managing fire. We've got to try and think about the consistency of standards about how that squares are crofting communities and farmers who have not got the same resources and skills. And we would like to see standards raised consistently applied so we are assured that the safeguards are in place. Forgive me, I haven't got the bill in front of me. Is the word available on the bill rather than appropriate? I think it says available in the bill just now, but I... I don't think that's the right word. OK, I'm going to bring in Bruce and then Ross to bring this section to a close. Thank you, convener. I just want to go back to the points that were made by Rachel Lilliaron in relation to the... Would the welfare have reacted differently? I think I'll answer the state that we've managed by Muirburn.  So in relation to how a welfare will progress across an area that has been managed via Muirburn, it's very different when the fuel has been managed in that way and allows us a great opportunity to deal with the fire. It was mentioned that the context of our climate is very different to that of Spain and that it absolutely is at the moment. But in 2018 we had a man called Mark Castell now who is a worldwide recognised expert in relation to wildfire based in Catalonia. At the Scottish Welfare Conference in Edinburgh in 2018 he stated that in his research and opinion the wildfire context within Scotland would be similar to that experienced in Portugal within the next 30 years. By context Portugal loses hundreds of people to wildfires every year. What we need to do is identify what we can do now to prevent us getting to that point and in Spain the reintroduction of prescribed burning is absolutely part of the arsenal they are using and we are seeing that in Australia and California with other countries that have a significant wildfire problem. So it's the management of the fuel that is key to prevent us getting to the point that Portugal finds itself in right now where wildfires are uncontrollable and present a real and significant threat to life. Thank you and very briefly Ross. First convener, I wholly endorse what Bruce has just said. Just a point of concern that's been raised by some of our members who are undertaking peatland restoration which is something we fully obviously support and something we need to be doing. There is concern among some members about the risk posed by an increased fuel load buildup as a result of the provisions in this bill about their investment that they've obviously put into peatland restoration and indeed the vast amounts of public money that have gone into it as well. So just a note to say that the implications of this bill will carry implications also for things like peatland restoration which clearly a lot of people invested money in and the public purse has been used on that. I think it's important that we make sure that this bill adequately provides resilience for our landscapes to protect it from wildfire risk. Thank you. We're now going to look at the role of NatureScot and a question from Alison Allan. Just truly to ask about resources and we've heard a bit about the kind of task that NatureScot would face in licensing new burn. What are the implications for resource for your own organisation and are you in a position that you're confident about being able to meet the requirement? So what we've tried to do both in the financial memorandum and in discussion with sponsor colleagues in the Scottish Government is be clear on the transactional nature of these new licences. So we've tried to quantify that as far as we're able but quite a lot of this activity is unregulated just now so it's very difficult to be absolutely specific about who's going to come forward with applications and how well informed those applications are going to be. So it comes back down to the point about trying to ensure that we are adequately resourced to deal with that demand and that's an on-going conversation we're having with the Scottish Government that as this bill progresses that we've got reassurance that we can deal with probably what will amount to between five and eight hundred new licence applications on an annual basis. Thank you. How compliance with the Mureburn code and other licensing conditions will be monitored? So monitoring and enforcement and compliance is going to be pretty fundamental to this it comes back down to resourcing actually. We know that compliance monitoring is going to be key to make sure that we take that adaptive management approach and learn from experience so we can draw some reassurance that as technology improves we can use very efficient means of monitoring burning as part of our compliance condition. We're still operating on the base of trust and confidence that we're getting returns and information about how well licences are being complied with but we will need to secure enough resource for us to be able to go out and spot check from time to time and ground truth that licences are actually being complied with and that will form part of the on-going drive for improvement as we move forward in this space. Jim Fairlie. Thanks, convener. There are stakeholders suggested there's broad discretion for NatureScot in granting and making decisions around issuing suspended or revoken licences. So what does NatureScot see as its role and how will you ensure you take a proportionate approach? So proportionality, again, common theme through the discussions today. All I think I can do is provide some reassurance to committee that in pursuing both a licensing approach which will be informed by a framework about how we expect applicants to come forward with applications, about how we monitor compliance and indeed how any sanctions would apply in practice. That's a commitment that we work together to do that. We've given that commitment to develop the code. We've got that experience about how frameworks work previously. So I am hoping to provide you with reassurance that as a public body we are accountable and the safeguards are in place both in legislation and indeed as a public body that if people are not happy they've got an opportunity to appeal decisions which is on the face of this bill. We would impose it anyway just through our desire to be I suppose, again, exemplars of the better regulation agenda. We're subject to public service omenspin complaints and indeed ultimately judicial review if people are not happy with how we're conducting our regulatory functions. So that's as much safeguard as I can provide committee to do. Just to say that there is significant concern from land managers particularly around the notion of ascertaining peat depth, which is clearly something that NatureScot is going to want to try and monitor. We feel it be really important that there could be some sort of provision included that says it would not be an offence to make a false declaration when applying for a licence to make beer burn on peatland provided the methodology was followed because as we've just heard, peat depth can be hugely variable and how do we know that the same bit of land, for example that NatureScot come and probe when they do their assurance check, is the same bit of land that was probed when a land manager did their survey if that's what's required. There really does need to be some consistency and clarity here. 100% support the point that Nick Hesford raised about the ignition points being the point at which you actually do that measurement because that at least provides you with a little bit of clarity. The point at which the fire starts, the point at which you measure and that would make it much easier for land managers to follow alongside that provision. Finally, Karen Adam. Thank you, convener. I think that that follows on great from there. Stakeholders have suggested the need for adaptive management as new science becomes available. So to ask NatureScot, how will you ensure that this new information is reflected in decision making and new guidance around licensing? So yeah, I mean we fully appreciate because we've heard already that there is so much uncertainty in the evidence base in what is a new regulated framework that we need to learn by doing. And there will be some risks in amongst all of that, both for practitioners and indeed for us as a regulator. So come back to First Principles that we have signed something called what's called the shared practice for best practice for wildlife management, which is about really, it's again about working together, about good communication, about transparency in the evidence base and a desire to continue to improve. That's how we work as a regulator and again with representative bodies around this virtual table and others through the mollum forum. That's how we would expect to behave moving forward. Very briefly, Aran Burgess. Thanks, convener. This is to RSPB and it's about the moment the season is going to be until April. And I understand that you have some concerns about that and it would be interesting to hear that. So just in relation to the Muirburn season, particularly the spring end, which is clearly when birds are starting to breed, the current provisions in the bill set out an end of Muirburn season data 15th of April, by which time many mollum birds are already breeding and looking again at the climate change predictions, the bird breeding seasons are coming forward by a day every eight years as a result of climate change so we can expect that trend of earlier breeding, of mollum birds to increase. Now ideally, we would suggest that an end of Muirburn season of the 15th of March would be more appropriate than 15th of April. By the 15th of March, birds like gold needles, for example, have started breeding in late March. Many wading birds have started breeding as well, including red-listed species that are concerned. This is climate and nature crisis, remember here as well. The compromise might be the 31st of March, but for us, the 15th of April is too late. Can I bring in Nick and then Ross? I'd like to draw a committee at this point here to draw your attention at least to the British Trust for Ornithology report that was published in 2021, which looked at breeding bird laying dates and it confirmed what Duncan is saying in terms of laying dates are advancing, but despite this, it concluded that there is a little overlap between the current birding seasons and the nesting attempts of most upland bird species. It also concluded that, overall, there is a very low risk for populations of upland species from your burn, and those species where there is a greater overlap, things like golden eagles, there are other provisions in the code which put us a buffer around areas where they are breeding and for species which are at risk, potentially because of the greater overlap, like lapwing and golden plover, they nest on rank heather anyway, so you wouldn't expect to see any damage from that point of view. I think Duncan wanted to come in the back. The final point on this is that we get reports every year from members of the public concerned about Muirburn having burned out bird nests, so this is a real issue. Just to make quite an obvious point, it doesn't serve the interest of a grousemoor manager to burn out nests because clearly you're trying to produce grouse, which are ground nesting birds, so just to make that kind of obvious point and also to say that I think the far greater risk to ground nesting birds comes from excessive fuel load build-up and the dreadful instant it can, goodness knows the amount of ground nesting birds that probably perished during that wildfire, so just to make that point that we've got bigger problems than just the Muirburn season to worry about here. Beatrice Wishart. It's a final question for Emma. It's a yes or no answer. Is IUCN involved in the drawing up of the draft statutory guidance on Muirburn? No, I actually requested to NatureScot just yesterday for a place at the table to help with the Muirburn code. We have been involved in Muirburn code drafts previously and we were very much welcome the opportunity to feed in. We would like the Muirburn code to be drafted with a sound scientific evidence base and both panel with scientific members and practitioners. I think that's really important to have that communication and partnership across the two elements. Thank you. That concludes our evidence sessions this morning. I'm going to suspend the meeting very briefly to allow witnesses to leave. We have further items on the agenda, so we've got to ask committee members to stay in their positions. Thank you. Our next item is consideration of three negative SSIs. First, we have the public intervention and private storage aid suspension and miscellaneous amendments Scotland regulations 2023. Do members wish to make any recommendations on the instrument? No. Rachel Hamilton. Can I draw your attention to the comments from the NFUS on this particular SSI? I just want to confirm that it is 2023-150. The NFUS acknowledged the importance of having a framework for market support during crisis situations expressed concern, causing caution regarding the potential impact of proposed changes on stability and confidence in various sectors. They also stated that, with the up-and-coming agricultural bill, it would provide adequate powers for Scottish ministers to intervene when necessary. I'm not minded to put a motion forward to annul this, but I think that once again we find ourselves in a situation convener where quite a considerable body representing quite a number of farmers are sharing caution with this committee. I seek your advice. I echo the views of Rachel Hamilton. It's concerning that the NFUS have raised concerns. However, they believe that the agricultural bill would offer adequate provision. I'm not aware of any draft agriculture bill or any provisions within that, but it would appear that the NFUS have had sight of the agricultural bill to give them that comfort. That concerns me that we are potentially making a decision without knowing whether a forthcoming bill will actually mitigate the concerns that they have. My other comments are that this suggests that the private intervention cease to have affected Scotland for a period of five years, but no impact assessment has been made because it was for a temporary period. I would have thought that five years is a fairly extended temporary period, and an impact assessment should have been carried out five years is a long time, so of concerns that there's not more details on that. I think today we could write on the back of those concerns, but otherwise are we content to... Rhoda. The reading of the regulations was that this instrument, if something happened, it could be brought back into force. The five years was to allow for the agriculture bill to make provision that would take over from the instrument. Those are maybe asked for confirmation of that as the case, but also when we're looking at the agriculture bill to make a note of this for our looking at that bill to make sure that it does what we assume is the plan. Absolutely. I think particularly given that it does state that it could leave Scottish applicants at a disadvantage if we didn't mirror the rest of the UK when the temporary PI provision ceases, so I think we certainly need to write on the back of that. Today really the option we have is either to annul or to say we're content but write to the Scottish Government with seeking further clarity. Are we content to do that? Is it possible without annuling to seek clarity? On the policy note, it says that if Scotland do not choose to mirror the rest of the UK it leaves Scottish applicants at a disadvantage. How does the NFUS not take that same view? Practicality is the reporting deadline on 26 June, so today would be the last opportunity for us to deal with it. Can we write? No, we can write, but the instrument would come into force on 1 July. Okay, so how long have we had with this instrument? We've had 40 days. Okay, so first I've seen it, sorry. Okay, are we content to write with our concerns relating to this, but Alasdair Allan? I'm concerned with that approach. Content with that approach. I don't sense there's a movement to annul, but just to get a clearer idea of what the letter to the Government would say of what the tone of the content of it would be. Certainly, I think we need clarity on why the NFUS have been given comfort that the forthcoming agricultural bill will offer adequate provision for the Scottish Government to intervene where necessary. I'm not aware, and I haven't seen a draft of the agriculture bill, so I can't have any comfort that that's the case, but the NFUS appeared to have so I would like to find out on what... The appear to have been given comfort on that point, which isn't the same as them having seen the bill. No, there being the assurances, those assurances will be something that the Government, or any Government, can't renegon, they've obviously been in discussions. That's not the same as having been shown in the book. Yes, I don't think they've seen a bill. My point is that I don't have any comfort or reassurance from anywhere that the agriculture bill will offer adequate provisions given the Scottish Minister's power. So to make a decision on that, I would find difficult, because I don't have any reassurance that that will be the case. I'm also concerned that there was no risk assessment based on a potential five-year period, which I would suggest is slightly longer than I would consider temporary. I think perhaps just the right to the Government in saying regarding the NFUS, it's our understanding that they've got comfort that it's excellent. Can the Government just confirm that that's the case? I'm sure it is. I'm seeing those lines. That's sufficient. Is it not? I've got to go, actually. That's a ideal moment to introduce controversy. I'm happy with that approach as long as we draw that distinction, but we're not trying to suggest that a bill has been shown to third parties. No, no. In the response, it says that they stated that the forthcoming agriculture bill would offer adequate. If we're given reassurances, it would be good for the committee to be given those reassurances too. That's fine. If we're content to note that. Secondly, we have the Seed Fee Scotland Amendment Regulation 2023. Do any members wish to make any recommendations on this instrument? No. Lastly, we have the feed additive, former provisional authorisation, cobalt 2 compound, Scotland Regulations 2023. Do any members wish to make any recommendations on this instrument? No.  I did have concerns that, given that this was animal health, situation why the minister for women's and public health was the minister to make the decision, but I have been informed that it's the food safety Scotland who deal with this and that sits within her portfolio. If everybody's content, that concludes our meeting in public and we now move into private session.


Our second to final speaker is somebody who probably doesn't need a lengthy introduction at an event like this. It's somebody who if you've seen the Ithaca film you will know just how tireless this gentleman is. You will know how many time zones he's crossed, how many countries he's been to, how he doesn't need notes for his speech I'm informed because it's all up here now. He happens to be Julian Assange's father. Please welcome John Shipton. He's a mighty man that played with McBride a treasure. I think we ought to start that thing where we have people's national treasures certainly dated McBride, Julian Assange. The dear friend of mine here in her wheelchairs come down from Brisbane Jenny. I'll say hello to Jenny. Brown University last week published a paper 4.5 million deaths in the Middle East since the invasion of Iraq. Previously they published a paper 38 million refugees. What is a refugee? It's a person whose community has been destroyed, wrecked, looking for sakura. We welcome many here to Australia. Many of the people who are our supporters that I meet today are ones refugees from Chile or from Greece or Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, Iran, to those people who organize the shattering of nation after nation, Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, Sudan, Libya, Syria, now Ukraine. Do those people think that somehow the flux of life, the urge to justice which is in every human heart? Do they somehow imagine in their dreams that this will lead to world domination that they can be hegemony standing in a river of blood? Do they imagine that we, with our underlying yearning to see justice done, do they imagine somehow that this will succeed? It's impossible. Julian brought to us the means whereby we can involve ourselves in the formulation of policy through the accumulation of knowledge within ourselves, our families, our friends, our communities and our nations, a great gift that they want for some reason or other. They do not understand one the yearning for justice in our hearts and the other essence of being that all genius arises from the people. It doesn't come down like rain from the sky. It arises out of the hearts and culture of the us. And if I could nominate some great Australians for you, have you heard of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights? Herbert Vair Ebert, the author, 1948, third president of the United Nations. Have you heard of the conventions of asylum taken to the United Nations General Assembly, accepted with only 16 extensions out of 184 nations, taken and put into law by, I guess, who? Australia undergoth with us. We have a fine tradition which we place on the shoulders of the current government and remind them that they represent us and without the genius of the populace, they can do nothing but fail. They can do nothing but reap obliquely and indifference and apathy, which means, of course, that institution of policy will fail because we don't support those policies. Really important thanks. Thanks for coming. We'll all bring Julianne home together.


Hello and welcome to this show called CitySense that we've been hosting on NewsClick since October 2 and what we're trying to build is to understand the whole concept of how cities are being built, evolved, the challenges that exist in the cities and right from Latin America to different parts of the world and of course our own Indian cities and towns. Today we have a very special guest, Romi Khosla, from whom I have in fact learned a lot in this stint of urbanization and Romi perhaps requires no introduction. He is a by profession trained architect planner who has built a large number of cities across the world and especially the war-torn cities of Bosnia and Herzegovonia and was quite instrumental into building plans of some of the towns, mountain towns in Himachal and also Ladakh that's lay. So with Romi what we're going to discuss is you know the whole question of why is it that the Himalayan towns require an altogether different paradigm approach and why is it that month after month we are experiencing disasters taking place and the recent one that is in Uttarakhand where the Uttarakashi tunnel where 41 people have still not been evacuated and are there since last two weeks and it has said it may take another few weeks for us to evacuate them. So what is the flaw in the current model of urbanization or do we require a new definition that Romi really speaks about that it's not just the classical definition of census and statutory towns it has to go beyond that and there's another interesting thing that Romi talks about and that's what we are going to discuss with him is he talks about a separate institute to understand the whole process of mountains and urbanization the mountains and he calls it the institute of Montology. What kind of institute of Montology is it just one central or every state should have such such institutes what would be the role of such institutes who will govern such institutes and what could be a desirable outcome of such institutes if we build but the bottom line and the silver line is that the current model of urbanization or the current model of development in the mountains is is unsustainable over to Romi. Thank you. Thank you very much the kinder. I think what you have precipitated a discussion on the mountains at this particular crucial time is very important because you see when when a series of crisis takes place then it is an opportunity for all of us to rethink because we have the future in front of us and we really should learn lessons from our failures in the past. Now most people imagine the city sense to be a city in the plains. I mean let's not forget when you talk city first of all you conjure up in your mind a metropolitan city a city. Today we will discuss another aspect of a city another kind of city and it's the ability to have some kind of appreciation and sense of settlements in the mountains which mistakenly we call cities because mountain settlements do not form the kind of city that we generally imagine in the plains and not only that the academic and research and teaching component of cities around the universities and institutions focuses on plain cities. Nobody talks about mountain cities so it's a vacuum. So let's call this discussion today mountain sensibility we're having sense about mountains. I place before you three arguments I'm making there are many arguments there's a lot of discussion on mountains but I like to place to you three arguments because I'm speaking in one way to the mountain focus we're all mountain folk I was born in the mountains I was educated in the mountains I lived in the mountains for many years so I'm well aware of the fact that we have we have got a completely different sensibility about our settlements when we sit in the mountains. So I've also noticed the kind of problem that mountain folk have that when they are in touch or come into contact with plains people who arrive there for various reasons there is a sense of a sense of inferiority which is comes out of the plains people as if these are slightly backward people as if they're slightly more poor people slightly living in a dream you know the real life is where we come from there is this kind of undercurrent and I want to but but for me apparently that is also true for the not that is legitimately true but why I'm say apparently true because if you see this whole constitution debate the constitution assembly then even the constitution it doesn't speak about mountains it only speaks about forests okay as a utility so I think it all evolved from there I mean I mean what work do you think it's absolutely true this is kind of set into our psyche so I would like to propose that actually we mountain people are more advanced than plains people because we know how to live how to how to respect our culture respect our sense of environment our relationships the mountain people's relationship with the environment is of a much higher order than it is in the plains so I would like to argue from that point of view that mountain sensibility is a many high level of consciousness and we should not just imagine that mountain people are lesser people so my first argument is let us first understand how we can deal with mountain settlements now you see about 12% of our population stays in the mountains so they you know they are settled so we I am proposing a completely that's across the globe you're talking about across the globe it's 8% in India but it's 12% global now I'm proposing a different form of description of mountain settlements I like to call them sparse settlements let's say that the urban city in the plains is a dense urbanization because you see the idea of a city implies that there is a boundary you know when we talk of city we talk of boundary generally a municipal boundary or something but cities don't have boundaries anymore even the plain cities don't have their urban conventionally we had two distinctions urban rural but today with the with the electronic media with the cars with the finances and the facilities and the shops coming we are now in a situation where we have dense urbanization and we have sparse urbanization nobody so what you're trying to say is to get rid of the conventional you know the the dichotomy or the definitions that we have the census towns and the statutory towns so what are you saying is far beyond that yes I don't think we can I am using the opportunity of all of these sad occurrences and accidents happening in the hills to he think the fundamentals of our knowledge of how we take for granted our human settlements whether they be in the cities or in the mountains so in the mountains since we are talking about that today I'm saying let me first call it sparse urbanization now as soon as I say this I will say Uttaranchal Himachal Nagaland these are urbanized places but they are sparsely why should that's very interesting just I mean that's very interesting I mean just all those who must be watching the take for example 2011 census the terms that Himachal is just 10% urban but what you're saying it's not like that it's complete I mean it's a different definition that you're all and what do you get out of it suppose if you build that definition well first of all the the whole idea that rural area is backward rural area is only agricultural now when we take the settlement pattern Himachal you do get a city or a dense urban settlement like let's say like Simla but when you go beyond Simla which is a governmental center and which was a colonial town so there is an origin if you look at Himachal settlements which are not colonial they are sparse urbanization because today which road do you not get run over by somebody driving crazy in the hills going to the villages the villagers going to the shops in the towns and going back he is using tractors in order to convey his agricultural produce to the market now these are not rural behaviors these are urban behaviors he's arguing he's taking money he's selling so we have to forget it we have to just talk about sparse urbanization so therefore and I'd like to suggest that mountains are sparse and we need to change the way we look at the more important part is the way we are going to study and I have some very important issues here regarding how to study the second part that I would argument that I would make is with the plains people I'm having this conversation let's say we are mountain people talking to place people and we are saying listen we are very fragile in the mountains you don't take us for granted these are not places you can just create there is an obsession about creating vertical infrastructure go up to Simla go up to Mussooni go down through this take a cable car because there's no horizontal infrastructure in in in the mountains it's only vertical everything is vertical in that process we we take we do horizontal infrastructure and we make a tunnel we have accidents so we have to really see we have to study this that we we have to study it in in in our mountain study that you know do we need horizontal infrastructure or vertical infrastructure cable car is much less damaging than a tunnel or a road for that absolutely yeah so what I'm saying is let's take a take a typical subject like infrastructure where in the cities we talk about infrastructure we take it for granted in not in mountain areas you cannot take infrastructure for granted you have to design it to suit it for the particular needs of the mountain you see the the mountains the our mountains we stretch from Indus to Brahmaputra is about 2500 miles now a kilometer sorry and there are 11 states I can't remember the off end but I'll say 11 states and two ut's yeah yeah 13 so all together right 13 all yeah yeah now these these are for me very special places which require which have the responsibilities for their mountains they live in the mountains and I am going to suggest that these mountains should be treated like gold mines everybody wants something out of them they want to suck the power out of them yeah they want to suck the minerals out of them yeah they want to suck the agriculture out of that's what the British did and we continued the same pace we want to carry on in fact we we have come in that sense microcolonial because the planes are taking you see let us look at a simple subject like water the entire Indo-ganjatic plane is watered from the mountains so we have a huge responsibility we are the guardians of that water we cannot sort of we send pure water mountain people send pure water to the India-ganjatic plane and it is hugely polluted so I'm saying that you know this kind of distinctions new ways of thinking about what is happening to water what is happening to power you cannot you you generate a lot of power but sparsely urbanized centers don't require huge power consumption we don't have huge industries in the mountain that means the power is all getting taken away so there has to be some sense of asset management by the mountain people that these are our assets these are our gold mines hello hello we are not offering it so so Romi this is very interesting I mean what you're suggesting is a completely new architecture both financial as well as governance and since we are so passionate about settlements so what is it I mean I mean when you say asset management I mean how do you visualize it you know because we have a very top bottom approach right now of asset management so what do you think think of it especially from a mountain urban settlement perspective look let's let's take an example that we have an option to generate electricity right one option is that we can put up solar cells in the planes let's say there's three times more expensive than putting hydroelectric power I would I would ask the mountain people can we take your power away because if I said if the mountain people say no I'm sorry that what you are going to do to our mountains in order to generate these dams you just go and do the solar yeah I'm managing my assets better because I don't need my landslides I need to preserve my agriculture so in that sense it's the same with water it's the same with water you can't just build a dam and you know flood half the stuff here and take the water away because drinking water is not there in Delhi so I'll say but settle less people in Delhi now why are you taking it out on me yeah that's what I've always been arguing that to quench thirst of Delhi you are constructing a Renuka dam in Sirmor and submerging last if you can ask why are you stealing my water okay have be less thirsty you know spread your people so my my like the way we can get over it which I'm suggesting for the all the 11 states is that we set up our own institutes of Montology now Montology is the study of mountains it is a elaborate dam that's very interesting that's that's I'm hearing for the first time you know what is Montology in so it is a study of mountains done by mountain people so nobody nowhere is a mountain study so tomorrow if I'm digging a tunnel in a mountain in Uttaranchal who do I get I get a metro company you know what is the experience where is that that continental clash the two continents are meeting there's a special type of subsoil there are you aware of when you're digging metros of all these complications we have huge machines doing it so it's a very difficult problem you don't understand the mountains so my argument has been that the first first task of preserving the mountain environment is to set up study centers I call them the institutes of Montology and I'm suggesting that every all 11 states have their own institutes of Montology which are interconnected almost like a university now the kind of things they would study would be physical features what is a mountain what is a zone what is a high zone what is a low zone what are the differences where should the before before before you elaborate what they do I mean because it just stuck my mind when you said about the whole question of you know can we not suggest it in the financial architecture of the 16 finance commission because that's really coming up so and and you know disasters are like really on our head and can we just argue or articulate it in that sense that look here's the 16 finance commission so help us in establishing these institutes in respective states or you want to keep it just limited to the states and through their fiscal you know interventions they will be able to do it should it also not be a point I'm very clear on this that the capital expenses in the institutional establishment finances cannot be done by the states the states will run it the states will provide the knowledge base for it if these are international institutes we have proposed and people should come from Switzerland and Austria and cross cross what's got it so the center please yeah and and what what are you what are you arguing for so what we're saying is that let us separate out you know physical features geological chemical biological processes what is infrastructure what is horizontal what is vertical what is democracy what is the settlement patterns of these settlements that we have here we have cultural issues how do cultures mix in the hill areas now what what we will find when we start gathering the knowledge base for mountain montology is that there are huge amounts of studies being made since colonial times of our populations and cultures and the interaction with the flora of honor 25 percent of the biodiversity of India is in the mountains yeah all of these huge amounts of studies has taken place but nowhere is it collected as a source of core knowledge about the mountain so what I had in mind was an idea that let's say the Institute of Montology in Uttaranchal or in in Gangtok or in Dharamsa these are great centers which start collecting the experiences the cultures the narratives the stories the science of the mountains so that when somebody comes for that means we first define our identity in modern times in modern language this is our scientific this is a state called Uttaranchal or Himachal or Meghalaya this is our scientific identity we are not some rural community staying in the past employing our fields so we have a scientific base to our identity so these institutes are very critical for us because they would they would define in the eyes of the nation and in the eyes particularly of the inhabitants of that state that this is who we are today and this is what is we have to prevent happening from us because development economic growth these are like juggernauts and sometimes you wonder who's driving it a lot of people are benefiting from it they're they are not careful so you can drive a bulldozer in third desert there's no problem but if you drive it in Himachal they are a lot of problem absolutely the juggernaut of growth has to have some sense and that's what I say from the juggernaut of growth juggernaut of disaster is yet to come you know once you have some melting of glacier you know at this top of sattva then the entire mark that has been done then that juggernaut I don't know how will be okay please go ahead so let me when I just my concluding remarks are in the form of requests to all hill people to guard their gold mines because a lot of people are after your natural health in other words natural assets they don't care let's say that they're not particularly exploiting you but they are very careless because you are very delicate you are growing apples potatoes in farming in between crevices these are not places you you need care how you walk in those areas even please look after your wealth on your own terms create your own knowledge base let the shell be made by the central planning let the institute be set up but it is mountain people who have to fill the knowledge into that place that's a very important thing and they have to safeguard it you see the assets of the mountains are centuries I cannot say this about the indo-ganchetic plane across Haryana Punjab and I can't see this is century is not so absolutely true but the mountains of India are century know what they mean what they represent what they can offer so it's very important that these things get looked after by those people who inherited it they have to pass it on to their own children everybody's welcome tourists are welcome everybody's welcome but not at the cost of those people so I hope one of one of my my dreams is that in the Institute of Montology they will create a new kind of tourism so no no no if you want to come and stay in hotels and watch television please no no no this is not for you this is a very you can do it jolly well in Delhi or in any other part so if you're coming all the way to the mountains let us tell you what you can do yeah about about our food about our culture have you ever tasted pure water here is a stream here is a spring just taste it because you haven't all your life tasted pure water have you seen some pure air have you seen the sky blue these are the assets which the institute as a study of tourism etc will start producing and give a new consciousness in the relationship between the mountains and the physical relationship in terms of the ecology and mental relationship in terms of people who cross and mix with each other but for me I have a question maybe the last question that I want I mean it's fascinating to talk to you and I would like to talk for another hour or so maybe we have another discussion that's coming up with you one on another platform but my point is you know this whole key of development that has been like put on our on our keyboard that look if you do not have hydropower I mean you know if you do not have a tourism how will you sustain so you know that's how if you do not have roads you know how would you bring your crops the diverse diversification that you've done to the market so that's generally an argument I don't buy that argument by the way so how do you place this argument in the overall discussion or in the overall ambit of what we've been discussing about this let us just very briefly let me ask you a very fundamental question why do we make a parallel between human growth and human wealth why does wealth have to mean human development now what we have arrived at after 75 years of independence of economic growth of great progress we have perhaps simplified too much what human development means we have suddenly we have suddenly made it equivalent of savings and how much money you are in fact it is narrowly narrowly confined to money accumulation actually yeah that's true I'm glad you brought this whole yeah concept before us will be you know what what part of our life should be devoted to accumulating money what part of our life should be devoted to looking after our quality of life without money so if I say to a person if I meet a person walking on the malin symbol I say you don't look as if you come from the mountain he said I come from Andhra I said why he said I couldn't stand life in Andhra I have come to know how many people have you met like that yeah quite a number of them yeah so there are there are there are people who value the quality of life I'm making a distinction here so first we need to separate out our awareness about quality of life and not make it completely subservient to money saving can I really have less money and better air so these are decisions that individually people have to make but also the government also the government the government has to give the awareness that it's everything is not about taxing great yeah thank you for yes sparing the time and I think that's the two or three very important points that have come out of this discussion one for the first time is the Institute of Montology I mean you've never heard of it you know and treating forests as not some not from the perspective utility but as gold mines and how it's important to manage the own assets and I think also the last point that at the end of the day I mean in this whole race of blatant or rapid development that we talk about we end up actually gaining nothing we end up like Kenor if I tell you Rumi I mean Kenor every third day gets blocked because we have landslides the projects are almost done there but still the landslides are continuing because of the inherent disturbance that we've done to the rock rock formations there so yeah I think thank you so much and I hope that we are able to bring in some churning you know some kind of discussion across the mountain states and we are going to have this very interesting mountain conference taking place in Delhi soon on the 4th and 5th where I'm sure this interview would also be one of the precursors or one of the triggers or a catalyst to you know think beyond beyond the limits that we are generally given thank you so much it's been a lovely one one concluding thought I would leave you with please remember the mountains are the life mountains are thanks thanks


Do you want more subscribers? Do you want to learn the secret to grow on YouTube? Hey brainwash friends, I'm Aaron Tupaz of positively brainwashed and in this video I'm going to share with you guys 10 big tips on how to gain 10,000 subscribers on YouTube You know what timeout this video is special. All right first Wow, you know, I'm still trying to process that I brainwashed 10,000 people Positively, you know, that's got to be more people than I met in real life So, you know big thanks. I really mean it, you know, I know it sounds cliche, but without you guys there wouldn't be a channel Now if you're a youtuber or you're interested in becoming one and believe me, it's not too late Then stick around until the end of this video because I'm giving away free access to my ebook 50 big tips to improve your YouTube channel. Normally, it's priced at 1999 but just for you guys as a thanks for watching. It's gonna be free So let's begin tip number one if you want to become a youtuber and actually grow Then you first need to choose the right niche for you Because you can follow all the great tips in the world But if you don't get this right then your foundation will be no good So I suggest that you follow these three guidelines Number one, you got to make videos that you actually love and are actually passionate about You know Steve Jobs said the only way to do great work is to love what you do Next you got to make videos that you're an expert in Otherwise, you won't have credibility I'm not gonna make a video on how to gain a hundred thousand subscribers because I've never done it and Lastly, you got to make videos that are in demand or not saturated because real talk Otherwise, you're not gonna find an audience to watch them Tip number two is to practice good YouTube SEO now I can be a nerd on this and talk about it for hours, but this includes optimizing your title Writing long detailed descriptions Researching your tags and all that good stuff. There's still way too many youtubers who neglect this This isn't 2006 where you can just upload yourself eating a banana in a bridge position Going down the stairs and then expecting to get 86,000 views and then going to work the next day and your boss telling you He watched your video Tip number three is to use the right tools. They say a dog is a man's best friend Well, TubeBuddy is a youtuber's best friend You can use TubeBuddy for numerous things like researching your tags and keywords Knowing when's the best time to upload to even knowing where your competitors are posting on Reddit The point is you're at a big disadvantage if you're not using TubeBuddy Tip number four is to thank every supporter and that starts with replying back to every comment If someone takes the time to watch one of my videos and write something then I'm gonna take the time to write something back So I want to thank every single viewer who's ever given me feedback Even if they didn't like my videos and I also want to take the time to thank my four patrons who help support this channel I want to thank Adam of AskAdamTorres.com. I want to thank Matthew I want to thank Romain if you guys like cars then you guys got to check out his Facebook fan page And I want to thank Julian from Far From Average He does whiteboard animations like me and he has a lot of potential so check him out Tip number five you have to understand what's relative audience retention and overall watch time session You have to understand that YouTube is a business Their goal is to keep viewers like you engaged and ready to watch the next video So you have to try to find a way to make your viewers watch the entire video If you guys have watched the endings of my videos There's a reason why I ask a multiple choice question and keep option D a mystery until the last few seconds It's so you watch the entire video Similarly, it's the same reason why I ethically bribed you guys early on with my free ebook So you guys have to find a way very early on to give incentives to your audience Like hinting them towards the best part of your video towards the end But of course you guys can't bore your audience So make sure you put good parts in the beginning and middle as well Tip number six is to network with other youtubers There's lots of ups and downs being a youtuber and you don't need to do it alone So get to know others, especially those in your niche like comment and other videos or Join forums like the YT talk That's actually how I met this handsome fellow Brandon from 1% better when I barely had 300 subs And if you guys don't know Brandon Well, he makes whiteboard animations like me but focuses more on book summaries And I encourage you guys to check him out because he was able to grow to 25,000 subscribers in one year Which is like crazy Also, I want to thank him because he was the first person to say that I was gonna make it to 10k subscribers When I didn't believe it yet He's one of the reasons I was able to grow because I studied channels like his this brings me to tip number seven Learn from the Titans I believe it was Tony Robbins who said to model yourself after successful people because success leaves clues So follow people like Roberto Blake, Tim Schmoyer or Daryl Eves These people know what they're talking about so join their Facebook groups Retweet them and hop on any opportunity you can to get to know them Like I hopped on to a live video chat twice on blab with Roberto Blake when I had just 200 subs Which accelerated my learning curve now? They are very busy people they can be difficult to get a hold of but there are rising YouTube experts like Nick Nimmin and Brian G. Johnson Now I couldn't decide which of the three pictures he sent me to use so I'm putting all three Tip number eight is to become more efficient with your time For example when you first get started experiment with a lot of different ways on how to promote But as soon as you start seeing results then start to focus and double down on what works and then reduce or even completely cut Out what isn't helping you much? This is basically applying Pareto's 80-20 rule like for me It was Twitter at first giving me the most traffic so I spent most of my time there But then I came across Brandon's post in the YT talk forum and there he shared some great tips on Reddit Now at that time reddit was a strange and scary place for me So I only spent a little bit of my time there But as soon as I started seeing results on Reddit much greater than Twitter I quickly start to shift more and more of my time there tip number nine is to do collaborations I've seen a lot of youtubers grow rapidly this way. You could even grow more than 10,000 subscribers Overnight with this method now I've personally not started doing collaborations yet for one main reason and that's because I see it like winning a lottery They say 70% of lottery winners or a some number like that go broke after five years And that's because they never really understood how money works So if you gain 10,000 subscribers overnight because you did a collaboration with like PewDiePie or someone huge or They gave you a shout-out or you uploaded a video that went viral. You might not be able to handle the momentum Now I've seen a lot of youtubers plummet and views and subscribers and It can get very depressing when your stats are going downhill like that So in my opinion, you know, you can collaborate your way to the top, but I think it's better when you learn the foundations first But with that said I'm finally opening my doors for collaborations So moving forward you might see other faces on this channel so if you're in my niche or you just want to create a win-win situation or you just want a network and feel free to message me My last tip is on persistence Now I'm sure you've heard this a thousand times, but there really is no magic formula for success Once you start seeing results, you just got to keep going and going In fact, my entire channel is based on my seven-step system to have endless motivation I wanted to design a system that would eliminate my procrastination and maximize my productivity I wanted to originally write a book, but then I realized that I could impact more people if I created a YouTube channel You know, I often think of success like chopping a big tree down with an axe Nothing will really happen if you just give it a few whacks But if you keep hitting the same spot again and again, the impossible becomes possible Now if you're still waiting for the free e-book, well, here's the promo code to get your 100% discount The link will be in the descriptions below. Of course, you're free to share this video, but please don't share the code I've been updating this book for the last six months. I put my entire heart into it I picked apart the brains of many YouTube gurus and experts so if you Try all the steps and you're not able to get 10,000 subscribers. I promise to give you a full refund Now to my subscribers I'd appreciate it if you write a comment below telling me how you found me what you learned from this channel or just to say hi There's a lot of you that's quite or shy and if you're a youtuber Let me know if these tips were helpful to you and as usual choose one of the following You can either a subscribe and like be listen to the share bear over there and show that you care See watch this video that YouTube is recommending for you or D Tell me to never go on camera again You