Good morning. Welcome to the 10th meeting of 2016 of the ECCLR Committee. The committee has received apologies from Kate Forbes. Before we move on to the first item on the agenda, can I remind everyone present to ensure that their mobile phones are on the silent for the duration of the meeting. The first item on the agenda is for the committee to consider whether to take item 3, which is consideration of evidence held earlier in the meeting, in private. Are we agreed? We are agreed. So we now move to agenda item 2, which is the draft budget scrutiny 2017-18. We have been joined today by two panels, the first of which is made up of representatives of Scottish natural heritage. So can I welcome Ian Ross, chairman, Ian Jarden, the chief executive, and Jane McDonald, who is the head of portfolio planning and budgeting. As you can imagine, ladies and gentlemen, we have some questions for you. So whilst understanding that you don't know yet what your budget settlement will be, I suppose it's a fair assumption in your part that it won't see a substantial increase. So if you're anticipating a decrease in budget, what work has been done up until now identifying areas where you can make savings? Well, chairman, we are participating with our sponsor in terms of contributing information, particularly in terms of our priorities, what we would identify as key priorities. In terms of how we might deal with whatever would be the implications of that budget settlement, I think that that's slightly difficult, it's slightly speculative, and I think we await the completion and the conclusion of the budget process. We have got a fairly well-established approach, a fairly constructive approach, in terms of how we take things forward. Can you share any light on whether you feel that you could cope with a budget decrease without any great difficulty, or would it present challenges? I think that there's undoubtedly challenges. I mean, I think that we've supplied some information where it demonstrates the changes that have taken place since probably 2010-11. And I think that it would be false to say that it's not challenging. I think that what I would say, though, is in terms of the approach that we've taken, and I think that it's a reflection on the capability and the commitment of our staff, is that we have been able to deal with that. I think that it's very much about a focus on priorities. It's about the way in which we've collaborated with a range of organisations, it's a way in which we've organised SNH, and in particular I think it's about how we've looked at other funding opportunities and monies that we've been able to take in. We've had a very successful programme of looking at shared services and the way in which we look, whether it's buildings, vehicles, IT systems, but also we've looked at other sources of funding, and we've taken quite considerable sources of funding, whether it's Heritage Lottery Fund, whether it's ERDF funding, whether it's EU life funding. But the reality is, of course, it has an impact. We've got fewer staff, we've got less money particularly that we can support a range of grant approaches, but I think that we've dealt with it constructively and I think that we've operated in a very smart manner. I don't know if our chief executive would maybe like to add some comments on that. Yeah, I mean it's, whenever there obviously are these budget pressures there are challenges, but there are various ways you can address that and I think that we have been quite successful at questioning some of the ways we do things in order to reduce costs, looked at partnerships, look at sharing, look at ways of reducing costs, but at the end of the day you're faced with a series of choices about what you fund and what you don't fund and obviously at the moment at this stage in the spending review we've put forward some options where we could prioritise, where there are things that we could deprioritise if there aren't resources to do it or which we could delay and maybe not do next year but be doing future years and obviously after the result of the spending review no doubt the cabinet secretary will give us her review on which ones she wants us to prioritise and that's what we'll do. Okay, thanks. What's going to draw down into some of that to Alexander Bournet? What the priorities are and where the main budget lines are, it's good to see that environmental and rural services keeps pretty consistent from this year to next year as if a headline figure is consistent but when you actually look down into the components of that there's considerable differences so it sort of sort of hides some other issues. I just wonder where is the explanation of the priorities for say the troubling of land reform whilst flooding which was a major issue last year remains flat line in spending and something like zero waste reduces. In terms of the zero waste point could you expand on that? Not as specifically about the zero waste I'm really asking for an explanation as to why whilst the headline figure for environmental rural services has remained flat I'll have the priorities have been assigned below that. In terms of our approach what we've tried to do is we renewed our corporate plan probably about two years ago and we tried to ensure that that sort of reflected where we would place emphasis and would also be well aligned in terms of the Government's priorities and essentially it's making that connection between nature and the ability to deliver wider public benefits so in effect there's a win-win there and that's been reflected in terms of the work that we have done and what we try to do is to ensure that there is a strong compatible alignment between benefits to nature and also you know whether it's around sustainable economic development whether it's around health whether it's around education whether it's around climate change so there is that strong connection we maximise the the gain that we can get in terms of the resources we have I've also tried to take an approach where yes we have significantly less money than we did but we still have a significant resource if it's about using it to best effect. We still have over £48 million at our disposal this year to actually deliver benefiting good for the people of Scotland. Okay, let's move on to look at the potential impact of EU exit, David Stewart. Thank you, convener. Good morning. Can I raise the first question around SRDP spending? I was looking at the evidence from NSPV and the spending from SRDP is really quite significant. For example, from 2008 to 2014 it's over £42 million. Now at one level you may argue so what's the problem? The other side of the coin of course is by hoosering up such a substantial part of the pillar 2 budget it means that third sector organisations don't have the opportunity to access that funding. Also is the other danger as any Harvard Business School review would do if you were a private business have been over a reliant on one source of funding. How would you respond to that, Mr Ross? Just on the general point about European funding I think clearly we do have some concerns there. I think there is not yet the clarity about where things will be in particularly three or four years time and yes it's not just in terms of SRDP which there's a significant sum of money but we've also I think made very effective use of EU life and also ERDF funding. There are certain guarantees you know for two plus years ahead but beyond that we don't know. I mean there is an indication that that monies will be made available and there have been some comments from the Westminster government but I think I would certainly be looking for for greater clarity in terms of you know some of the replacements that would be put there but there is no doubt that if that were not there then that would have a significant impact and I don't think there's any point in trying to die it but what we are doing is we're engaging and making information available and trying to bring as much intelligence working with other partner agencies in terms of how that might be moved forward but I'll maybe turn to well Ian. I have a question in there just for clarity of this kind of sums that Dave Stewart's touched upon to what extent is that money directed for recurring spend to what extent is it directed for one-off expenditure I'm getting at is if this is going to be coming up every year to what extent is this a problem? I might look to one of my colleagues I might have a boardy till that and I don't know if that's... Okay well under the if we look particularly at the SRDP the air green environment these tend to be contracts that cover a number of years but you can also apply for capital elements within that so it's a mixture of the two and what I would say in response to general question is that we actually feel we've done really well in terms of accessing European funding now that presents an issue for us now but you know obviously there's going to be a period where we have to decide if we're not having European funding what replaces it but in the the use of SRDP has been extremely helpful in tackling some of the of the issues particularly the impacts of agriculture on the natural environment which at the European level comes up as one of the big things affecting biodiversity so being able to access SRDP money for a variety of purposes within that has been particularly useful now I don't know obviously what might follow but SNH would be keen to to support the Scottish Government in designing you know whatever comes next but yes it is I mean what's the figure here I mean 360 million over the net over the five-year period was what would have been available and so we'd be anxious to try and maintain that sort of money as an important income I take the point to you convener that you need to be the brand seer to work out what's at least going to happen in two years time but we do know some aspects the UK government start to be repatriating some of our structural funds the other key point is that if we have no substantive trade arrangements with the rest of the EU we default to the World Trade Organization rules and you will probably know that the World Trade Organization rules are that you can't subsidise agriculture and now that is going to create all sorts of difficulties in the longer term once after the referendum happened within your organization did you set up a sort of future proofing plan to look at what your turnips will be to replace that 42 million that you've had over the last eight or so years we have done a piece of work and we've also collaborated with a range of other agencies both within environment forestry and beyond a lot of it initially was just about sharing intelligence looking at the implication we've also had some contact with some of our sister bodies elsewhere in the UK and that's operating on an on-going basis what I can't say though is I you know I don't think we've got the clarity that any of us like to see in terms of how some of the the sanat scenarios that you've highlighted will ultimately be addressed and you know that that's what I meant at the beginning I think there are you know there are significant concerns there I'm eternally the optimist and assume that a combination of politicians administrations and agencies will be diligent and the work they do to seek solutions but those solutions are not yet apparent perhaps a final question for you is I suppose the key point then is to work out how effective is your spend clearly you're of systems to work out effectiveness within your organization but why are we spending the money on the uplands why are we spending it on peatlands why are we doing what's our flood prevention strategy I mean how how carefully do you look at the effectiveness of the spend and tying in with these objectives well we have a very comprehensive reporting scheme and that is regularly reported to our board and it basically reflects our corporate plan and also the the national performance indicators and very much responds to the priorities that the Scottish government has identified in terms of policies in terms of you know a summary of the feedback I mean I think I'm very well pleased with the effectiveness of that spend and of course we'll be very happy to supply any supplementary information to support that statement talking of supplementary information I go back to the point I made earlier Mr Jardin you said that there was a mix of spend within the monies on the back of the monies that you received from Europe but I think we really want to get a feel for the what the balance is in this between capital expenditure and the kind of things that we would expect SNH to carry out on a day to day basis and provide the funding for so I think we really need to see a bit more information around that if you could provide that for us yeah I can certainly provide that I mean I could provide that across all European funding because obviously I think that would be useful there's life funding there's agriculture funding there's structure funding there's interreg so we try and access basically whatever we can and different things are for different purposes but I could give you a breakdown across across the schemes I mean just saying maybe on the on the sdp obviously we're we sort of co-administer the sdp we're effectively working for Scottish government in relation to some of the schemes so we don't have the if you like the the overall view across the sdp but I can give you the breakdown for the ones we're involved in which is agri environment and the access ones and decaf I think it goes back to the question that alexander burnett raised as well I mean when you have to make budget decisions what are the priorities what's sacrosanct in the work of SNH and what is it that you can I don't want to use the phrase cut corners on but you know what I'm getting at what can be trimmed what can be treated slightly differently what is the core work of SNH that must always be protected I mean the primary focus is on the npi's that we report to government we lead on to and we support to others and those are also reflected in terms of our our corporate plan priorities and what we have done and will do in a regular basis is we refresh our corporate plan the intention is that as we move towards the conclusion of of this spending review is that we would refresh our corporate plan to make sure it reflects our and Scottish government's priorities and works within I suppose a balance between the reality of what you can deliver and also still retaining certainly a degree of ambition I think it is important to retain that degree of ambition of course there will always be some new things that come along that you have to take up absolutely I mean and you know the I mean it's interesting I think we can all remember what it was like to deal with budgets which were increasing but even when you had an increasing budget you still had a whole range of pressures and tensions and additional responsibilities obviously it's a little bit even more challenging if your budget is a declining budget but as I say we have a very able committed and innovative staff and I think we do operate in a smarter way and I think we manage those circumstances very well. Mark Ruskell. Yeah just I think it might be useful convener if we're getting supplementary information from SNH to to understand where we are with some of the European projects so for example you know we heard last week that a number of projects at the sort of pre-application stage are now being withdrawn including one for the west atlantic woodland and I think you know it would be useful to know from yourselves kind of where are we you know given your knowledge how many projects have stalled at this point how many are going forward for the next round of applications how many do you think you know can be sustained going going forward so we can actually assess what the real impact is on the ground whether it's about you know tackling non-native invasive species such as rhododendrons or hedgehogs or you know species reintroductions or whatever you know what are the kind of pivotal projects that may fall by the wayside in a kind of Brexit scenario. Very happy to supply that information also very happy to try and respond to any specifics at the moment if you want to raise them. I think perhaps Mr Ruskell highlighted one or two there if you're able to comment on those that would be useful. Well I mean I'll give I'll give an example I mean I think one of the important projects that was actually recently launched but is now at the round two level is the agreement infrastructure fund and that is ERDF funding and you know we're confident that we will actually be able to deliver you know the first phase of that which probably will bring in about 8.2 million pounds of ERDF funding and that will be scaled up to about 20 million pounds of of actual project funding now that's very much about green infrastructure particularly in urban spaces and it's that link between creating a biodiversity gain but also supporting people who live in deprived areas and in fact there are two schemes that are on going in Glasgow at the present time so that's happening. There's also a number of life projects which are on going at the moment ECOCO life and looking at networks within the central belt which are moving forward and I think you did make reference I think to a bid which I think involved the western aisles in terms of the way to scheme I think that is one that we have are not proceeding with I think Ian. Again I'll maybe look to the chief executive and the head of budgeting if there's any additional examples that they can cite. Yes just on the on the general principle my my feeling is that things have settled down a bit now I think there was certainly a phase where there was great uncertainty before various statements were made about commitments about further funding particularly in life bids there's always partners it's always a consortium and I think there was definitely a phase where a number of those bodies not necessarily the public sector bodies became nervous about the level of commitment they were making and what guarantees there were about the longer term. I think that's largely been addressed by some of the statements from the treasuries since but in that hiatus if you like the the Atlantic Oakwoods one didn't go forward in that round but I think there are conversations on going about reviving that maybe restructuring it in some ways to go forward. I think on the invasive ones what we've gone going forward with is actually an application to the heritage lottery fund which obviously isn't caught by the European funding issue and therefore I felt was a was a kind of better bet for us at the moment to develop a project for lottery funding rather than a project for life funding. Okay Dave Stewart do you want to come in? Yes that's just on that point convener. I don't know if this was mentioned already Mr Jordan but could you just confirm why the life bid to fund the work on the US hedgehogs was withdrawn? With the drawns interesting word my word was it didn't go forward. If it's a duck and it waddles it's a quack. Why didn't it go forward? This is a project that was submitted last year to the European Commission and was turned down so we knew already it wasn't perhaps most likely project to be funded. Life funding is competitive you're not guaranteed anything it went through last year it didn't succeed we considered whether to have another go we decided to have another go but that one of the key things that we wanted to see was more diversity of funding so we wanted more partners involved we wanted to look at other funding sources when it came forward there were actually fewer funding sources committed to the project there were fewer partners involved at that stage I felt that its its chance of success having failed once was very low it would have required a substantial forward commitment from SNH which meant we couldn't have funded other things if we funded that one and it was on my desk at the same time as the heritage lottery bid which aimed to do a wider range of invasive species and I took the view that was a better use of public money than the life project would have been which had an uncertainty attached to it. Just for information when you bid for a life project and you're unsuccessful do you get feedback on why you were unsuccessful? Yes you do and did that inform the decision you came to? It was relevant because one of the key well there were several key elements of the feedback from the European Commission I perhaps have to declare at this point that I was actually working in the European Commission at the time that these things although I wasn't working on life projects but to make that clear one of the key things was because it was a project aimed at reducing hedgehog numbers to increase the number of waders but it was a time limited project and the commission was concerned that we could do the project and I would still have a problem and they weren't keen on funding projects unless they could be sure you get this money you get this outcome and that's it done so that was one of the main concerns they had. Okay thanks, we've covered that. Let's move on to another topic, Claudia Beamish. Thank you, convener. Good morning to you all. Ian Ross, you've already highlighted the importance some earlier this morning of nature and wider public benefits and I would like to explore with you as a panel now what thought has been given to the possibility of redirecting funding to support preventative spend from health and social care or agriculture or education portfolios and directorates and if so what dialogue has there been about this possibility? As you can probably judge I think we do not control the direction of spend from other organisations and agencies and I suppose my own observation would be it's always going to be very challenging if you're trying to redirect spending from particularly health bearing in mind the particular challenges that exist there but what we have done is we've had very active links with a range of other organisations and agencies and that does include NHS boards and national NHS agencies and I think that what we've now got is you know the recognition of the real benefit of the link between nature and health and you know in the past that probably was probably more of an anecdotal evidence base and I think now there's a much more robust evidence base so I think you do have that active sign-off sign-up and support from health boards and others and you know we have got a number of initiatives that are being taken forward that reflect that some with the forestry commission and others and some with health boards but in terms of the sums of money that are redirected to go back to your original point that are redirected from health boards I don't think we're not we're not talking about large sums of money there I think that probably comes down to making successful bids that probably people from you know different areas of government would sign up to and support and that hasn't this yet happened right thank you I mean in terms I completely appreciate that that you're you're given a budget but uh the perhaps I didn't make the point clearly enough that um what my interest would be is whether um in conversations with the um relevant cabinet secretary and ministers who who you are accountable to for the spend that you're given whether you're able to take forward conversations about active walking and and connection with the outdoors or whatever and and ask the cabinet secretary if it's possible to break down to use the old cliche the the silos and work a bit in a in a more preventative way well I think we are actively involved in in preventative work and a number of initiatives are actually already there particularly around I mean the phrase that we tend to use is the natural health service but there are a number of initiatives which are in place and what we do tend to to make is the link in terms of for instance if you even look at something like you know the past network an essential Scotland green network trust area if you look at some of the work that's been done around the John Muir way I mean part of that is about preventative spend you know and I mentioned the green infrastructure fund you know that is about improving you know that that sense of place where people live and encourage them to be more active so you know the link is there and you know and it's quite explicit and significant resources do go into that from a range of sources including some of the you know the European funding that we were talking about earlier and I must put in record I think politicians our own cabinet secretary and others are extremely supportive of that right thank you so in terms of the future is that something that SNH might be able to consider to have that dialogue about the possibility of other portfolios feeding into this in terms of if you look at health and social care and the the importance of shifting out of hospital and into home and out to nature hopefully and for mental wellbeing and those sort of issues whether it's possible to consider that crossover between portfolios for the future and I think that I think the dialogue is on going the links are there in terms of the decisions on additional funding sources and contributions I think that I think the recognition is there but the decisions are not ones that we would necessarily make but we we think that are there are strong cases that have been made and there are also our cross portfolio committees that exist in fact our own chief executive sits on on one of those groups Ian yeah I sit on group chaired by the the health minister looking at activity I'll also be in an event on friday with the the health cabinet secretary at in Dundee at the hospital there I think it's one of the areas where I think there are actually really exciting possibilities and it is about preventative spend but what we need at the moment to be able to do is to demonstrate some real outcomes for that so there's a lovely theory that says you could do these things and it would benefit health we need some more project I think to demonstrate real benefits in local communities from investing in the environment and we also need I think it's an organisation to show how valuable environment and natural heritage really is it's not just an end in itself it underpins issues around health around prosperity and I think some more practical demonstrations of it would be would be good can I ask what the driver is behind that group is it looking for you to do more from the SNH point of view to improve health outcomes or is it looking to identify areas where health spend could be redirected to help you do what you do what's the balance in the approach well I don't think it starts from from position that either of those is the right answer it starts from the position of saying what would we need to do to increase activity levels that feed on to health and that could be SNH doing something more doing something differently it could be the health sector doing something differently they're all around the table and I also chair a group called natural health service where we have these people around the table to try and find these practical demonstrations of what it is. It's useful to get that on the record. Mark Ruskell. Yes so the way that a lot of that work is delivered on the ground is through community planning partnerships isn't it and each community planning partnership sets out single outcome agreement so how successful has SNH been in terms of your participation in CPPs are we now seeing outcome agreements coming forward binding the NHS to take action for example on green space binding local authorities to increase past networks and our SNH actually putting money into that or are you actually seeing other partners putting money into these objectives as a result of your involvement in CPPs I can certainly confirm that we are actively involved in a number of CPPs I wouldn't say that there's the same level of activity in all of them I think there are some where we have been more successful but certainly we're very committed to CPPs and we recognize the benefits that can come from that and there are a number of examples just as you've described where you know that link between countryside nature access and health I mean the one that's taking place at the present time for instance is in Highland actually very close to our headquarters at Great Glen House and in terms of use of green space and encouraging people to be more active and bring benefit to it and that is based on you know the NHS board signing up to that some of it's through the CPP some of it's just I think through the benefit of the very strong positive links that we have and there are other examples around Scotland I think it's also fair to say that are probably there are some CPPs where further progress is required but we're certainly committed to engaging is it an issue if you can't come to the CPP with a substantial budget to put on the table because otherwise you're just sitting there saying well you should spend more money but we don't actually have the budget no I wouldn't agree with that I think sometimes the commitment that we can make is about officers and expertise and that sort of commitment can actually bring a lot of gain as well there are some examples where we can bring some resources too but no I think I don't think it's purely about resources I think it's about hearts and minds and also sometimes just the way in which you use existing resources okay Claudia Beamish thank you convener could I look with you further please about other portfolios and ask you if in your view any of them are pursuing priorities or spend which can exacerbate environmental challenges and what sort of dialogue you're able to have directly or indirectly with other portfolios in relation to how that can be dealt with well I mean in terms of just wider areas of involvement you know we certainly have significant involvement around education and there's a number of initiatives that are going forward there we also have significant involvement in terms of areas like tourism and food and drink and there are a number of initiatives that are going forward there in terms of transport and that links back to some of the points we've made particularly transport where we're actually talking about cycling and walking again there's a great deal of work around there particularly linked to infrastructure and you know that's been happening for some time probably those will be the I think those be the main ones I would highlight at the present time again I would look to colleagues if anything they would wish to add right and just I'm kindly in while you're while you're answering that as well as the positives which is great to hear about in relation to other areas of priority and spend which are actually exacerbating and the challenges that you face in delivering your your remit and your your aims I mean I think there can sometimes be frustrations that we would like to move things forward more quickly but I think our experience in general has been positive and we recognise the challenges that other people are having to face we don't I can't identify anywhere where we've encountered any examples where people were reluctant to engage in dialogue and look at options the frustration probably is that at times there perhaps is not the immediate resources that could be brought to make things happen but no and I think in terms of the understanding and and the the cooperative spirit that certainly exists was sorry through the convener were you going to comment as well because I don't really feel I've teased out enough on this yet yeah I mean the first thing I was going to say was and this really is an area where we've seen such a change certainly during my career in terms of the degree of integration between different bodies when I when I started I think a public body sat in their own little corners and I don't think that's true anymore I think there is a there is a lot of dialogue a lot of contact between public bodies and obviously there's a programme for government and we all sit under that so I think all of that has helped also I think snh is much more engaged through issues like planning with bodies like transport Scotland Hansans Enterprise so there is much more integration so I think my answer to your question would be at the moment I don't perceive any areas of government activity or spending that are if you like inherently endangering any aspect of the natural heritage I think there are always things that could but it depends on how they're done and I think our job is really to influence that and linking a little bit back to our our budget whatever snh's budget was we couldn't actually do our job unless we actually influenced other parts of government and that's a big part of what we do that requires people that requires expertise and obviously that's an issue for us is we have to maintain a sufficient core of expertise to be able to properly influence so we can have a conversation about transport or about industrial expansion or our investment where people respect our opinion and we come from a position of knowledge so could you give me a bit more of an example of in transport or in another area more specific please about what sort of dialogue and before you do that just to supplement this line of questioning from Claudia Beamish if one takes the example of the fact we have a cabinet subcommittee that looks at climate change it's a priority so there's an opportunity across the portfolios to have that dialogue to ensure that climate change is embedded in the work of government and is balanced against things like economic growth are you satisfied that without having that scale of mechanism there are mechanisms within government that ensure that the natural environment is embedded in the thinking of other portfolios I think it is yes I'm not saying it's perfect and sometimes we have to remind people but I think the awareness is there and in terms of say transport an example of where there would be a challenge that you might have a dialogue about or another portfolio just to get a bit more specific okay so two two transport examples maybe the the new fourth road bridge and the dueling of the A9 I mean these are both major projects that will have impacts on the environment but I think the way things are handled now says it's so much better than in the past is right at the beginning of these projects there were groups set up including SNH to assess the issues at the beginning to make sure we didn't get into a stand-off and I think that's been one of the keys is this early engagement issue and I think that's what happens now that you know is an improvement say on certainly on 20 years ago and I think that has has improved over time so could you say how that's made the dueling of the A9 in your view perhaps better well I think what it means is is that the assessment of where there are challenges either in terms of impacts directly on the natural heritage or say on access that those are scoped right at the beginning so if there's a way of designing around them or there's a way of mitigating or a way of offsetting then that's part of the project from the beginning it's not a bit that's tacked on later on when you discover a problem and I think if we take on the fourth bridge which is a major development going right across a European protected area with protected areas on both sides that that enabled those issues to be bottomed out right at the beginning of the project and not delay things halfway through or towards the end. Sticking with that A9 example I mean you said that you're involved at the beginning of the project but is there the capacity with an SNH to follow a project through to its conclusion because at the moment with the A9 we see controversial options being put on the table at quite a late stage that could have major implications for the natural heritage of Highland Persia and yet I don't actually see SNH in that process at all so I'm just so wondering where your where your involvement starts and stops. Well I mean their involvement really starts you know at the beginning when the project's being scoped now in terms of individual projects we are reliant on extent on on developers maintaining a dialogue with us but we will always try and seek that dialogue and that's what important to us is this upstream engagement, this early engagement. So you're still involved in the A9 project? Yeah well we're advising almost constantly as different as different bits of that going forward. Okay that's interesting to know. Okay I'm going to move on to Jenny Goh-Ruth in a moment but Finlay Carson has a supplementary question. Thanks convener good morning I think it's more or less been answered I wanted to know whether you thought your structure was in place to to be a delivery partner for some of the other portfolios to actually achieve their priorities but I think we've explored that and you've answered the question on that. Okay thanks. Jenny Goh-Ruth I think wants to tease out some education related questions. Thank you convener. Yeah just to drill down a wee bit we've looked at health and we've looked at planning in terms of you know looking across portfolios with regard to funding so with regard to education Mr Ross you spoke about various different initiatives in education you'll know at the moment it's a government priority in terms of closing the attainment gap and there's also been quite a lot of discussion in terms of mental health in schools and how we talk about mental health in schools and how children are taught to deal with their social and mental wellbeing and I think there's an agenda there in terms of access to quality green space within an education environment and if you've been in any of our secondary schools you may or may not agree with that statement so head teachers are now to receive funding directly from the government as part of the attainment plans in terms of closing the gap so I just wondered to what extent SNH will seek to feed into that agenda in terms of preventative spend have you had any thoughts around about that and in terms of those specific initiatives with regard to education are you able to give any examples? Well I can certainly give you some on-going examples I think the one that would probably highlight is the learning in local green space which is a project and I think it's the current aim is to help about 100 schools and certainly I was actually down in Ayrshire at an event in the last two or three weeks and that was being cited as some of the examples of on-going work there and the focus there is on the most disadvantaged areas so to some extent there's I think there's an important match and it's about I suppose getting pupils to encourage them to you know use the outdoors as part of the learning experience and to do this on a regular basis that's something that's already there it's up and running and it's operating and it's building up I think quite a significant momentum we also have an initiative called teaching in nature and that's been running I think since 2012 and we've also done a number of initiatives linked to other agencies and you'll probably be aware of things like forest schools and certainly that's made a very significant impact in some areas in terms of people who perhaps had become disconnected with the traditional school experience but found that they could reconnect in a let's say in a more green environment and I could actually help them move on so yeah so we have been involved in a number of such initiatives around Scotland working with partners and others and going forward in terms of that agenda with regard to closing the attainment gap has SNH fed into that agenda at all or does it plan to? Well I think at the moment some of my colleagues might know whether we've actually fed into it at the present time I think I would say that a number of these initiatives clearly are in sympathy with it and whether we've explicitly fed into it I don't know at present but I would think that would be an obvious extension in terms of the work that we do. Can I ask how you raise awareness of some of that work that you do because I attended a biodiversity, a Tayside biodiversity event a few weeks ago which was very good by the way but I was quite struck by the number of projects that were being carried out across Tayside I had no knowledge of and that's maybe a criticism of myself but given my interest in the subject I'm a little bit surprised that it hadn't come across my radar so what do you do to raise awareness of the good work that you're doing out there in communities because that should we part and parcel and encourage and respect for the natural environment that would spread out across society? Well you know I'm very happy to say that I think one of the real strengths we've got is the quality of our people their commitment their professionalism their absolute dedication and it's and I've worked with a range of agencies and I've seen that but I've never seen it to the extent that I do in SNH I mean they really are committed to what they do and go well beyond you know what would normally be expected if I was going to make one criticism of SNH we're not good at telling people what we do certainly one of my aims is we can become better at it there's a whole range of initiatives some of them we've described today a whole range of others that we haven't that SNH either lead participate on or facilitate or enable and we're not good at getting that message out you know many people when they think of SNH think that it's something to do with protected areas and that's about it and there's such a range of activities that we're involved in and it's right at the core of our role and it's about making things happen and it's that connection between you know nature and people so you know one of the things that certainly I've highlighted as a priority and it's and I think it is it's beginning to gather a bit of momentum but it's far from there is about community communicating what we do to stakeholders and to the wider public but we have more to do in that respect I was at the local biodiversity action plan reception in parliament just about a week ago and I think it was very gratifying there that when you actually had people who are directly involved time and time again they highlighted things that had happened because of SNH and you know I think we probably are a little bit shy about actually claiming the credit and I think there's a lot of credit that we can justifiably claim. Okay, well talking about people, Maurice Golden's got some questions. Yeah just looking at staffing levels and I've looked across the portfolio in terms of other agencies as well and staff to budget ratios and my reckoning is that SNH is probably around about mid-table so the some agencies that operate with around half the amount of staff per pound of budget spent and others who operate around double your staffing levels. Now in part this reflects slightly different functions being carried out but I think it also could reflect on different approaches to how you spend your allocated budget and I'd be interested to hear a little bit about that in terms of what your delivery approach is, how much you utilise contracting out for delivering various functions and secondly how any changes in staffing profiles have been reflected in delivering the functions and the national performance indicators over the past five years both in terms of total numbers and particular areas of focus. I suspect I'll probably look at my colleagues to go into the detail of that. I think the general comment I would make is that in terms of delivery we still value the fact that we have a dispersed presence across Scotland and we have I think 38 offices across Scotland many of them shared premises now in terms of the approach for taking but it means that we still have that level of operational contact with stakeholders and the members of the public but we also do make use of trying to get to create a number of teams so we can have sort of centres of expertise not necessarily located in one place in fact the term we often use is virtual teams where they are a team but they're a team located in different areas so we've tried to sort of work to the strengths of our organisation but retaining some of those benefits but in terms of some of the more detailed points you raised now that I've given my colleagues some time to reflect I'll now look across to you and Jane. Okay well I asked Jane to say something specifically on the extent of contracting out. I mean on the general issue I think yeah the key point is as you set out it's it's this balance between things you need people to deliver and things you could deliver in other ways if you chose to do so. SNH is an organisation it has a sort of a great benefit but also a great challenge in that we have very wide legislation we have we have powers to do lots and lots of different things so we're always we're always blessed with a great variety of things we could do and therefore difficult decisions about which ones you do do but we we have a set of statutory responsibilities which must be prioritised these are things we are legally obliged to do and a lot of those are about advice so essentially we're a knowledge based organisation so it's about our role in the planning system our role in the protected area system which which is about people so that tends to make it harder to reduce staffing numbers because you can only deliver those things with people and the expertise that you need to do so that said we have reduced our staffing numbers by about 148 over that six year period now the way we've done that really is is to identify areas which we're going to protect and reduce everything else so essentially we have protected certain areas for example marine has been protected for a lot of that period because there was an increase in the work on marine protected areas marine planning so we would protect that area which meant that other areas were vulnerable to cut some vacancies what were those areas that that were vulnerable and you had to cut so some of the terrestrial areas areas like earth sciences i've seen a reduction in staffing with fewer ornithologists so there's been a pressure on on those areas of expertise which were not specifically protected so marine ornithologists were in a better position shall we say because of the priority on marine so we've approached it in that way we've also looked at obviously the core functions the the things like it finance there is a difficulty because there's a core there beyond which you're taking risks and particularly I think you'll be familiar with the work of digital Scotland and I think there is an issue as to how public bodies are unable to scale down their investment in IT if we can share more because that's been difficult for us to reduce so though we didn't specifically protect it we found it hard to reduce but as I say we've protected some areas think the committee is may have seen from from parliamentary questions that we've also protected a lot of the deer work again because of the priority that was placed on that so it's worked that way around and about contracting out how does that function I think we I would have to get some further detail provided to you after I don't have specifics in terms of the contracting out information we'll supply that information Mr Gould thank you if you could do that and as quickly as you possibly can because this is a constrained process just courier beamish I think was a supplementary thank you convener I'm a bit perplexed by the comments about how what is and isn't protected and I'm not in any way wanting to put words in anyone's mouth you're here to give evidence to us but my understanding is that there are terrestrial protections which are equally robust as marine protections but is it possible that because the marine protections are new there are additional budgetary pressures and therefore that is the reason for the shift because I would be concerned if the we're coming to the terrestrial protections later in the discussions but I would be concerned if if there was that shift away from terrestrial sorry yet no it is about what's the what are the priorities at the moment and obviously because there has been this programme of identifying new marine protected areas they are themselves novel so there was a lot of work to be done in terms of survey in terms of scoping in terms of management in terms of identification so it was really that that had to be protected because it was a new area of work and there was a lot of new things to be done so it was harder well it was harder to cut it but also it was more important to invest in it now while that work was on going in time that balance may change back again it will depend on the priorities Mark Ruskell Have there been new responsibilities SNH has taken on in the last year for example around licensing and when that does happen is the discussion with government around well okay you have to meet this you know you have to deliver this new responsibility within the terms of your existing budget or actually you know do you get into negotiations around what additional resource you need to perform those functions I mean there are two examples potentially coming up where the reports that you produce on beavers and deer may potentially lead to a greater work requirement on the part of SNH so you know how how are you placed I think as Mark Ruskell's touching upon the resource wise and how fleet of food are you to respond to new challenges like this well as you can probably guess it's very difficult for me to say much about deer or beaver at the present time I think we just have to wait and see what how that develops and await ministerial decisions but they are examples of something that can generate a situation for you I would cite another example I mean as you're probably aware the joint nature conservation committee have recently had a review led by DEFRA and the you know the countryside administrations and you know we will be taking on some additional responsibilities there it's it's quite small but it's an example of it and there will need to be a degree of some form of resource transfer to support that so that would be normally part of the discussion that's taken place you specifically mentioned licensing I mean we do have I think a very robust service focused licensing group in place within SNH and certainly that was subject to I think a review that we did a probably a year or two ago and I think that you know was a very sort of positive development terms of how they take things forward and I think they're you know they're well placed to manage that existing load and perhaps look at any additional responsibilities looking at the the issue about priorities and what what can be caught what might be caught in evidence that the committee received last week around biodiversity it was suggested to us that SNH has either taken the decision to pull out of or is considering a decision to withdraw from attending the moi game fair the dundee food and flower festival the scottish game for and perhaps most significantly of all the royal highland show is there any truth in that and if so how would that square with your stated determination to raise awareness of what SNH does amongst a wider audience well certainly our intention would be to continue to participate in the highland show and the scudan game fair and we've done that for a number of years the only one that I'm aware of where there was a change is that we did not actually have a physical tent presence at the moi game fair we still had staff at the moi game fair I as a as part of my own role make a point of actually attending all of those although I did not make it to the moi game fair purely because I managed to injure my leg the week before I couldn't walk so that was my excuse but certainly it would be my intention as long as I am chairman that I would be attending all of those main events in terms of the dundee one I'm not cited on it there are a number of smaller local events which in effect are taken forward by operational staff and there are some that we attend there are some we do not so I can't comment on that but no the only one that I'm aware of where we did not actually have a a stand as such was at the moi game fair and that was the first year that we didn't have it and yes I think that that would have been a budget decision but we made sure that staff were there and staff circulated and as I say under normal circumstances the chairman would be there as well and that would be the intention in the future those are important events and particularly the Highland show and the school game fair it's good that you had the opportunity to clear that up after the suggestion we had last week Mark Ruskell do you want to come in on that? Yeah I mean there's a wider question here about you know if SNH is withdrawing staff and services in particular areas and we touched on planning for example earlier on what kind of impact there is on other organisations I mean if you're spending for example less time doing educational outreach or less time supporting the assessment of planning applications isn't that just transferring pressure to other organisations and what kind of discussions do you have with those organisations about that who kind of fills the gap if you like if you're protecting some areas of your service we're drawing or reducing others I wonder if I could just maybe clarify the position in terms of planning I think it's a change of approach I think I would challenge the comment that we withdrawn what we have tended to do now is that we seek to actually influence you know the planning process whether it's local development plans whether it's supplementary planning guidance whether it's in effect strategic plans and the idea is that natural heritage landscape and access issues are embedded within that planning process where we actually get directly involved in terms of casework tends to be where there's a national designation but we still have a significant involvement in terms of planning and consenting authorities and influence their policy development I attended the unit meeting of our planning renewables group last week and there was updates given and there were examples of for instance where one of our officers had been on a long-term secondment working and supporting the development of the strategic plan for the Lothians and that was a significant commitment of time and we also have officers who are part of their time is involved with supporting local authorities when they're reviewing development plans that's an example of upstream involvement so I actually would challenge that we're withdrawing what we're doing is we're getting involved in a different way and I give a talk to the heads of planning conference about a year and a half ago and it was on this upstream involvement and I sought sort of their feedback in terms of did they feel that this was working and I was given a very positive response on the heads of planning conference about that approach and the effectiveness of it so that's very much you see your role as commenting at a strategic level now in terms of planning but not at individual application process not not for example in appeals or public inquiries that's not really your role anymore waste I mean it's interesting again you know I've got the information directly from the people most involved no we actually have not been involved in many appeals in the last few months but we will be involved in four appeals in the near future it depends on the nature of the casework so yes we still are involved but what where we do get involved in individual casework tends to be where there is a development that links into a national designation you know it could be an SAC, an SPA, a significant SSSI or a national scenic area so we still are involved again I look at what the chief executive has anything he wishes to add nothing that's right I think it has been more a process of making sure that we use our resources better and we have reviewed this so that we manage it through a thing called casework management system and we've reviewed that to make sure that staff are prioritising their time on the things that matter on the most important cases the one most likely to have an influence I think the key thing for us though is is our approach does depend on the government's plan-led approach because if we can put our resources into influencing the plan then we put less resources into influencing individual decisions because they should follow from the plan and that's the approach we've been following but obviously it does rely on on maintaining a plan-led approach in the first place okay right let's move on to an area that we've covered to some extent so far but we need to drill down further Finlay Carson we've seen written evidence from pass for all that's shown that demand for support from local communities for path projects far outweighs the funding that's available and on that can I ask whether improving access and increasing access to the outdoors directly corresponds with enabling a greater understanding of nature I think the simple answer is yes and that's one of the reasons that I would say that it is a priority and you know I would highlight you know our commitment in terms of past networks across central Scotland the leadership that we have we gave to the development of the John Muir way and sort of further work around that it's very important I think particularly in built up and deprived areas but it's important for Scotland as a whole and that's the reason why we were an active partner in the hebridean way which is well I think the cycle way is in place and they're just about to complete the walkway from you know the full length of the western Isles if you were to say you know would we welcome more resources to do more the answer would be yes but in terms of our medium to long term ambition it very much is there and it reflects exactly what you've said you know it is that if you can get people to be more active if they've got pathways that are on cycle ways that are close to where they live and they can be encouraged to use those then it can make an enormous difference in terms of you know their quality of life and that's where we also work with agencies like Scottish canals and make use of the canal network and you know that has been supported and you know there is ambition policies and strategies in place and in the back of that how do you make the funding decisions and prioritise projects in relation to more access you know you've talked and you've mentioned the private areas and whatever is that an attainment gap with education whatever how do you actually prioritise these projects in terms of outcomes well in terms of the detail of of projects clear you know officers have an approach they're based on you know an assessment of how it matches against well government and our own priorities and certainly the ones that i'm more familiar with for instance are things like the green infrastructure fund which has an access element in it and you know within that you know deprivation is part of the consideration although it's actually more complicated than that i mean i don't have um sort of the you know the the detail perform in front of me but i'm sure we can well if unless the chief executive is able to give you more detail we'll certainly arrange for you to to see what the criteria are so you can have a better understanding of that yeah i think at the moment there are two key things um that prioritisation is based on one is um the issue around equality of opportunity which is the prioritisation on particularly areas of urban deprivation or the urban fringe so it's around green infrastructure it's around the work with gutters canals it's around the seven locks project in Easter house the second area is around the national walking and cycling network which is to say this is a national network therefore a national agency should uh be the one who's who's leading this um and that's primarily around not just access opportunities but it's also around that as an economic asset to Scotland particularly in terms of tourism so it's many of those two things and local path networks it's around areas of deprivation health inequalities and nationally it's around a national network about tourism opportunities about supporting local economies finally convener thank you on the back of everything you've said how much has snh levered other funding streams we're relating to improved access and increased use of the outdoors where it ticks the boxes for the priorities for other organisations or our other groups so for example going back to health and social care integration they've got priorities that potentially snh could deliver those priorities how have you gone about trying to leverage funding from these other bodies maybe if i could cite one example and it's going to have the information at hand and that's one of the green infrastructure fund projects this is the canal and north gateway project which is around the reposal park in in Glasgow so that was about 7.59 million 1.63 came from ERDF in terms of the match funding that was city deal vacant and derelict land funds regeneration capital grant Sustrans the green exercise partnership and esmi fair burn and also there was a contribution in terms of land and other things involving Scottish canals and the city council were involved and that linked into projects they were taking forward so you know that gives you the sort of the spread to try and i just cite that as an example in terms of as most how complicated it is but also the you know the range of sources whether it's charitable and public and other that actually allow the project to go ahead okay thank you Emma Harper has a line of question okay thank you convener it's information about the underspend the SNH annual report and accounts in 2015-16 stated that there are no end-year flexibility to retain reserves or overspend and manage the underspend to within 1 per cent so for 2015-16 the underspend was more than the approved underspend i've got the figures here but i'm wondering if you can help me understand the reasons behind the underspend and what activities were impacted well i'll say i'll leave it to colleagues to go into the detail but i i i do know that that was based on managed agreement with our sponsor in considerable discussion but i look to dianne and jane who'll answer the specifics of that yeah and we were asked to consider any uncommitted funds in year as part of Scottish government reconsideration of in-year budget pressures last year so there was an agreed approach and that was what was reflected in our annual accounts yeah i'll say just we were worried yes the the annualities is the interest in issue in that we we can't carry over any funding so you have to try and bring the budget in but you can't overspend so it means you almost always underspend and the challenge is how small can you get that underspend and that's what we try to do every year the challenge for snh is because a lot of a lot of our project spend is with partners so it's quite difficult because you're not just bringing your own budget in they've got to bring their budgets in as well so snh almost always ends up with some underspend but as dianne said last year there was also an agreement with Scottish government that we should seek seek to underspend effectively in order to free up funds for other things were there activities that were impacted then by the underspend i'm i'm not aware that they were i mean it was done in a planned way and it was and you know it's not something that just materialised you know it was and but i can't think of any specifics that there may have been some areas that were postponed until the next year but i don't think there were any major issues no it's a mixture um and it's basically those um i wasn't in post at the time it happened so jane may want to correct me but essentially at one point in the financial year we were asked not to make any further commitments so it was a little bit of anything that wasn't committed at that stage was was not committed and that's where the underspend came from so it's a mixture but it is it is essentially on the project side so if you think of snh as part of the money is about staff and is about delivering advice and all the rest of it and part is about paying other people funding things funding project it was that side that contributed to the underspend i mean we could give you some more information on that but the short answer is it's a real mixture of projects okay thank you okay thank you let's wrap this up by looking at biodiversity in general at micro school yeah thanks convener i was concerned to protect areas i mean the committee has received some concerns that there may be a reduction of funding for protected areas particularly in terms of you know maintenance and enhancement of habitat condition and what the impact of this might be on our ability to meet those important international he targets as you know we're chasing you know 15 percent restoration of degraded ecosystems by 2020 and there are obviously some big issues in there and non-native invasive species that we've already discussed this morning what's your view on the on the on the nature of that risk and the concerns that are being raised to this committee maybe just a few general points i think i think something that we do need to celebrate is in terms of our own protected areas we actually achieved the 80 percent favourable condition target this year and i think that's no mean feat so i think that reflects a great deal of good work by our people and a range of other organisations doesn't that depend on how you define favourable condition yes it does but i think that we make it very clear what that definition is and yes it does include areas which are now under management and moving towards favourable condition i think you've also got to recognise that some sites certainly some degraded sites once you initiate management operations are not going to change overnight it could actually be some years but that's just the nature of the i suppose the ecology and the site but the important thing is that the commitment is made and that they are moving forward and that has been part of the assessment in terms of of other contributions i think to note is that as far as the you know the biodiversity route map we give the first of our yearly reports just in the last a couple of months and i think it highlighted i think some significant positive progress in terms of a number of sort of big six areas of work it also highlighted i think where some further work is required i think particularly around native woodlands and sometime hopefully early next year we'll actually have completed and submitted our three-yearly report on the Scottish diversity strategy and i think that's probably going to be the most significant document because that's when you will sort of assess how things have progressed against the you know the biodiversity criteria that are in place in terms of performance so i think the intention is that that should be in front of parliament sometime hopefully reasonably early next year and i've no doubt that this committee will have some significant interest in that and i think that's the point at which we will be in a better position to judge progress will that report actually look at the budget issues i mean if you have a declining budget for protected species i don't understand how you're going to improve that ecological condition unless there's a sort of trick that i'm missing here well i mean it will look against the agreed criteria that are in place in terms of you know Scottish biodiversity so to some extent yes i suppose you could argue it will reflect or be a consequence of a range of influences and you know part of that will be um i will be resourcing because it will be a measure of success i think my recollection is that you know most of the criteria are sort of scientific based and there's a small number that are around issues in terms of engagement again i think there's something around about 20 22 areas i mean it's not something i've got an immediate recall on but that's something i think that will be the significant document and i think that will be you know based on a three-year report that significant document take on border a criticism that was made in front of this committee last week that there are perhaps too many strategies and they don't obviously mesh because if that's a valid criticism there's always a waste of financial resources somewhere in there is that something that you'll look at well i mean i think there's i think there's good progress being made in that direction i think that's a criticism that will probably be more justified a few years ago where there were a number of strategies and they were not necessarily as well aligned as there might be i think we're not necessarily absolutely there yet but i think you know we've now got a system we have a land use strategy i think the intention is clearly that as new strategies come along they will be aligned and reflect that and also you know critically you know you will take that more of an integrated approach in terms of what what you what you measure and what you take forward and clearly the Scottish biodiversity strategy will link into that okay Claudia Beamish do you want to come in yeah just briefly thank you convener i'd like to um in relation to biodiversity uh uh which marco opened up for us all um could ask you about the national ecological network and in their written submissions Scottish Wildlife Trust um expressed concerns about a possible lack of leadership and i'm not saying necessarily that is snh's responsibility uh at a national level because um we often get very good comment about the central scotland green network but how that actually connects up uh to develop the national ecological network um i have some concerns about and i'm wondering if you can let us know about progress on that and whether the obviously there are budgetary pressures but how that's developing well i think it's a reference i think within the national planning policy framework yes i think the approach that we've taken and again it's a collaborative approach particularly in terms of central scotland and i think our main leadership has been through um the co co life project which i think has has managed to drive a number of things forward um also we've clearly made use of a number of initiatives that shall have already made mention of um so i don't i don't necessarily agree with that um i think what we if unless my colleagues want to add something i think what we can do is probably give you a greater visibility in terms of what we have done particularly through the with partners in terms of the co co life project um i don't understand anything that you want to say before you come in in what is particularly or could be of concern which i appreciate response to is yes um central scotland green network um very exciting all sorts of things happening and i know personally about that but some of it happens to be in my region but how is how is that progressing as a national um strategy for for the green network more widely and what are the budgetary pressures which mean that bits of it are not getting developed at all or um you know it would be interesting to know well i was aware of the comments i think that i've been made uh i think the scotland wildlife trust i didn't necessarily immediately recognize them but ian i think you were about to come in um i think there's a fairly long standing issue about what is the national ecological network and i think to be honest that isn't bottomed out yet okay um and i think it's been there for quite a long time hasn't it yeah but i think it's one of these things that that it sounds lovely but what what what exactly does it look like and i don't think we're there yet and we have asked the ngos um to help by by presenting their view of of what a national ecological network would look like i mean in the meantime i don't i don't think we'd be it's would be fair to say we haven't done anything because i think there are building blocks of what could be a national ecological network out there and we don't think it's something like the dutch model where you have lines on maps um because we have a different set position in scotland we have large areas of semi-natural um habitat left in scotland and therefore the issues of connectivity and joining up are not what they are in other parts of europe and it would be artificial in a way i think to start to do that but where we do have an issue and therefore where we've concentrated is the central belt that's where we have the issues about habitat connectivity um habitats being broken out by infrastructure by development so as ian said the focus has more been on the central belt the central scotland green network the the life project to look at how would you best join up and i would think from that we'd be better able to say well what does that mean on a scotland wide uh basis that's helpful is there any timeline on on those discussions just so that if everybody not everybody but if most people knew what it was they were working towards that would probably be very helpful i don't think there is a timeline at the moment but i'm happy to take away the message that we should thank you and you could perhaps keep us updated as a committee as that work progresses it'd be useful to have that information as it would quite a number of pieces of follow-up information that we've discussed today that you've undertaken to provide appreciate the demands on your time but if that could be given to us time as we as is reasonable and achievable that would be appreciated otherwise can i thank you for your attendance today and i'll suspend the meeting for a short period of time to facilitate the change over our witnesses thank you welcome back to this meeting at the environment climate change and land reform committee we continue our discussions on the scotland governance draft budget 2017-18 and we're joined by representatives of marine scotland now we have linda rosborough the director mike palmer deputy director performance aquaculture and recreational fisheries and anna donald head of marine planning and strategy welcome to you all begin with just looking at the general picture i think given the direction of travel it's unlikely you're going to see a budget increase for the forthcoming year so i'm just wondering what work has gone on today or is going on currently to identify areas of potential saving that may need to be activated once you get that budget figure thank you convener um obviously this is a a live issue for us um we have been established as an organization bringing together um separate agencies at a time when resources have continued to be challenging and so we've been in a in a journey looking for um more effective ways of working um bringing together resources from one purpose to use for another purpose um seeking more flexibilities and driving out efficiencies over the last few years so um that is very much part of the picture going forward as well in addition ensuring that we can secure in congeneration where possible and a strategy whereby we um are looking to set agendas which we can then work on in partnership with others rather than doing everything at our own hand um and i think that's been a particularly significant way in which we've approached um the um underpinnings of offshore energy where um we've worked a lot with partners and where we've secured significant resort research resources coming in and beyond that good housekeeping um we continue to um invest in improving our approaches for example we have successfully introduced electronic log books at the basis for how fisheries management um applies across the fishing fleet um and that has enabled us to reduce quite significantly our spend on administrative staff um and then we've managed that by um while the staff have been distributed across our coastal offices we've reduced work in in Edinburgh and sort of farmed work out so that we can keep folk where they are um and manage within the um the limited flexibilities that we have around staffing so how would staffing numbers currently compare with say two years ago um we're i think we're it always depends on what you count but we're at um six twenty eight sort of permanent staff um when we were formed we were seven six five so that's quite a substantial reduction over the years and we've got a sort of modest reduction recently and how does that impact on the priorities of marine scotland you know i presume we have to be very careful where you make those cuts to protect the the areas of statutory duties and the other things that can come along unexpectedly new responsibilities or whatever indeed a big part of our role um a big part of our essential capability is our fleet we operate five vessels those operate on a sort of three week on three week off basis so they have two crews so there's a fairly substantial resource demand associated with those vessels um that is core to our ability both to police the sea and to do the um essential data collection um required to underpin the scientific process of stock assessment and we um are restricted in manning levels there are statutory restraints on on posts and and skills so a big challenge that we've had is maintaining that capability as um public sector pay has has been frozen okay okay thanks let's move on and look at marine conservation orders Emma Harper. As previously noticed the marine scotland has implemented a network of marine protection areas and associated fisheries management measures and i'm wondering how much marine scotland has spent annually on marine protection area development and implementation and whether they have adequate resources for their maintenance. Okay um that's the sort of complicated element i sort of mentioned our core capability and one of the advantages of the establishment of marine scotland was the ability to use that core capability in different ways um the investment is there in in the vessels and therefore um for example whereas voyages of one of our research vessels might in the past have been solely for fish stock assessments now generally um a voyage would also be collecting environmental data you might be monitoring an mpa as part of that planned voyage so that you're ensuring that your assets are used as effectively as possible equally well um the marine act brought into effect that our compliance staff have powers in relation to compliance on the new provisions bringing in marine conservation orders as well as the fishery officer role that they had previously so we're able to use our flexible resource um and our vessel monitoring systems and our um shore based capability um and our intelligent gathering systems and risk based approach to to monitoring and applying that to the um compliance needs of marine protected areas um we're not standing still on that when we're also looking ahead to to new technologies and ensuring that we're sort of thinking for the future of future developments as well okay i'm also curious about the extent to which the success of the marine protection area network is reliant on collaborative working i with local authorities or other stakeholders like inshore fisheries or marine tourism um and how budgetary restrictions might impact on these bringing it up at that point the experience in the last towards the end of the last parliament where the development of one particular mpa became very resource intensive because i think that some of the stakeholders would argue because of the approach that was taken by marine scotland fairly or unfairly what did you learn from that experience in terms of moving forward to develop the other mpa's about how it could might be done more efficiently whilst appreciating entirely that you have to come from an evidence based standpoint yes i think um the example is is is well recalled by all of us who were involved we were all involved so um i think there are very strong views on both sides and i think that is actually um it is part of operating in this space that that sometimes that is how things are and i think mr lockhead spoke quite eloquently about some of the challenges around that um we certainly um do and and did in in that example spend a lot of time and resource in engaging with stakeholders directly and in um ensuring that there was good evidence collected um since the conservation orders have come into effect um although there were a few initial concerns um generally compliance has been good um i think there are still strong views on on all sides um and i think um there is still a need to um improve relationships going further forward and create a forward-looking positive vision of um marine management that people can can buy into us i think that there's still some unfinished work there um we do have the Clyde marine planning partnership in in inception we do have an intro officious group and and links between those are are being encouraged um so um our we also have the work that mr lockhead announced around um monitoring both on seaside economics and the monitoring framework from the environmental point of view and that's been taken forward and there will be reports due on that um early in the new year which i'm sure the committee will have an interest in so all that is actively building an evidence layer that i think will help all sides to move forward i don't know if Anna wants to come in specifically on the um connections with marine planning um just to pick up on a few of those things um as Linda mentioned we've got the sort of Clyde marine planning partnership um in its kind of emerging stages at the moment doesn't have the formal rule yet but the partnership is there and the intro officious group is part of that partnership um so potentially in the future there will be that more kind of locally based forum for these issues to be discussed as well as between ourselves and the kind of very local interests um who obviously um i take a very vocal approach at certain stages in the process so i think that might be one way of making things more locally based and a kind of efficient use of that local resource as well as the kind of extensive central resource that Linda was referring to that that we are using to support those processes um i think genuinely though as Linda was saying because there are some strongly held views from different perspectives on these types of issues it is always going to be quite a resource intensive process and it's about using the the combination of local and national resource most effectively. I just wanted to add that the other thing that we're looking at in order to help us with the um the programme of monitoring and in collaboration with the industry is emerging technology so we have been trialling monitoring systems on 274 different inshore vessels under 12 meters and these are the kinds of vessels that often operate off the west coast um that are very much affected by the mpa network developments that have recently taken place and i think one of the challenges that we have had is gathering comprehensive evidence base in order to be able to assess the different opinions and concerns that do arise from the management of mpa's and with this kind of technology we will have a much better map in real time in due course of what exactly the fishing patterns are and where the impacts are and that will help us in terms of monitoring the mpa's going forward. In terms of resources we also have regional marine plans coming down the track and in the last parliament the raki committee was concerned that there would be some of the partners in these plans local authorities who wouldn't really have the expertise to take forward that work and i think the raki committee was looking towards marine scotland to be proactive in assisting them. Is that something resource wise you're capable of doing and do you see that as a role for yourselves? I'll ask Anna to take this one. Yes, I kind of recall the previous discussions so regional marine planning is certainly an area where the resources that are available to support it are kind of less than what was anticipated at the point where the marine scotland act was going through parliament so progress has been slower in terms of rolling out those partnerships and i think was envisaged when the legislation was going through but having said that we have got the first partnership formally set up in Shetland as of march of this year and we're working very closely with Clyde and that's probably quite a good case study of how we would plan to work with local authorities so in the Clyde area you have eight separate local authorities who would come within that marine planning partnership some of them are choosing to be represented through Clyde plan which is the strategic planning authority that they are already engaged with and they feel that it can give them a good joint approach towards feeding into the marine planning partnership but we have done specific work with all the local authorities and we've also brought them together to do a lot of that work really just kind of information sharing at this stage about what we expect from regional marine planning what is potentially available from marine scotland by way of support in terms of data and GIS systems etc so yeah we're we've started that dialogue and we are we've got an open door basically in terms of those local authorities coming to us for any further information and i think that's a pattern we would be able to resource and we'd be keen to to take forward in the other areas in the other regional marine planning areas we're working quite closely with Orkney and we've had quite in-depth discussions with the local authority there about a potential way forward in Orkney building on the Pentland Firth and Orkney Waters plan and we also continue to fund local coastal partnerships elsewhere so in the Solway Firth, the Murray Firth, the Tay, the Firth of Forth and the East Grampian coastline and local authorities i would say to sort of varying degrees are engaged with those local coastal partnerships but as we move from that informal position into a statutory position we would look to carry out that engagement and i think that that is something that we definitely can resource from existing resources and a lot of it is about bringing those local authorities together in those areas and connecting them into the other partners that would form the partnership so the input from us is crucial but it's not actually a major impact on our resources. Okay that's useful to know. Finlay Carson. That's convenient, with the risk of being a bit parochal. Is there issues with the level of funding with regards to your salary requirement for example for electrofishing? We have a real issue as you'll be aware in the Solway Firth for electrofishing for razor clams and it would appear that there are resources spent but is there enough resources there to actually prosecute those because the practice which well knows illegal at the moment continues on a daily basis and there's very much frustration that this has not been stopped over the many years it's been carrying on. Is that a funding issue or why are you putting resources in there but we're not actually getting any results? I think generally ensuring compliance C is quite challenging. Securing the evidence that you need in order to bring forward a prosecution is difficult. We do use both overt and covert methods of following up instances that we're aware of and we also find that our grey ships are a strong deterrent. We have three vessels so if we put them in a location where we are aware of reports of negative activity then we get an instant change in behaviours locally. We do have cases that we are following through. It can be at times a bit of a cat and mouse game and yes we have to prioritise our resources. We have a network of 17 coastal offices. We do move people from one part of Scotland to another as the demands change and razor clams is one of our top priorities at the moment in terms of the level of investment that we're making. We work in close collaboration with the police and other agencies not just on this but on other inquiries as well so there's a lot going into it but it is also a very challenging and it's very easy. People just throw the evidence over the side, people hide evidence and sometimes people can try and throw smoke the other way. It's a challenging game. Let's move on to Maureen Mawrthrink, Claudia Beamish. Just before that good morning if it is still morning which is just, could I just go back to the marine protected areas very briefly and ask you if there are any possibilities of formal arrangements for conflict resolution in view of what the convener referred to previously about MPA challenges between stakeholders and I'm wondering if through either the initial fisheries groups or through the marine protected area management itself whether there's any possibilities for that, a formal possibility. I think perhaps is the question about the future management arrangement still to be determined on MPAs that don't have management. MPAs where management is already in place and for the future a general question about if there are any possibilities of formal conflict resolution being considered. The answer to that is that we have mechanisms by which we workshop and work with different people. The challenges, what we try and do is find a way forward that causes the least impact while still meeting the conservation objectives. The issues are often who turns up on the day, who isn't there that has an issue subsequently. Some of the challenges around that are what then surface later. It's quite a diffuse group that you can be dealing with, some of which are members of organisations, some of which are not. I'm a little bit challenged in thinking through how that would work for this particular group. I don't know if Mike wants to come in on that one. Well really just to give an example of activity that we've already carried out, so we took part in a WWF project under the Celtic Seas partnership, which was really focused in on finding new ways of engaging with fishing stakeholders really, and it so happened that that project coincided with a lot of the tension and concern that sparked around the management of the MPA network. So we were able to take that opportunity to actually engage in a structured set of engagements with fishing communities in the west coast, brokered by the WWF, and I think it was helpful to have a third party there facilitating that process. So to answer your question, in a sense, we've been doing a bit of that. That project is now completed, so it's not ongoing now, but I think it was very useful while we were undertaking it, and I took part in a number of the engagements. They were quite small scales, so one could be quite candid in a room with a group of fishermen and really get to the heart of the issues in a way that was brokered and facilitated on a professional basis by the WWF, and we felt that was helpful, and now having talked to the fishermen that we engaged with, they felt that it was helpful too. More broadly, in terms of marine monitoring and research, a lot of this has been touched on already, but I would like just to read a brief quote from RSPB, Highland and Concerns, over the budgetary constraints, which many of us in the Iraqi committee had concerns about previously as well. RSPB particularly notes that without adequate financial support for marine science and monitoring of the type that is needed to inform robust decision making in the marine environment, Scotland's fledging marine planning system will be ineffective and the legal requirement for good environmental status, which is obviously a part of the act, and under the marine strategy framework directive will be unachievable. Now, I would very much value comment on that, but I just want to put a couple of extra things into that, which we have raised before in the previous session about research for longer term issues around climate change and also biodiversity and working with partners. We would be very interested to know about the possibilities of partnership working. For instance, the GIS systems that the commercial interests such as oil and gas have, which came up again in previous committee. Just a bit of an update on how, with budgetary constraints, you are able to work in partnership. Yes. I think that you have a number of aspects to that. One of the issues that is really important to us in thinking about prioritisation, about what are the things that the only Government can do, or what are the things that are so important that need to be protected, and some of those issues are around long-term data series. For example, we monitor hydrographic elements in the fairways channel. That enables—it is one of the key world monitoring points for ocean currents that has been hugely important in understanding of the implications of climate change and ocean current research. The maintenance of that data series, which we do in conjunction with the other northern countries, is a huge importance. We started to experiment with some non-vessel-based approaches of capturing some of the data, looking ahead to when technology might help us to be more cost effective. However, at the moment, we have to send the Scottish out into that far northern channel. People have to spend time collecting those samples at different depths. That has to be done annually. That is the effort that we hugely value. We will work with international partners, and it is of global importance in terms of climate change research. You mentioned the oil industry. We certainly, in both our engagement with other industries, are trying to ensure that data that is collected by others is surfaced and mined so that it can be used in a joined up way. I mentioned already the partnership that we have set up jointly with DEC and Cryon Estate, or the offshore wind industry group, which was securing resources to enable us to understand and research some of the challenges that are coming from offshore wind farms so that they can be applied in the Scottish context. We follow that through with the Scottish Pacific group. We have set up Fisheries Innovation Scotland that is bringing together investment from the fishing industry, retail sector and others to pool resources to look at shared priorities for fisheries innovation going forward. That is an accessible way of working in partnership. In relation to the oil industry, the work that we have done on Marine Scotland Interactive has been hugely valued by them because it enables them to draw on publicly funded research and data collection to underpin their forward thinking and planning about how they would manage a spill incident or such like, and they value that. We have worked with them for a couple of years. On budgetary constraints, as highlighted by the RSPB, it is very interesting what you have highlighted about partnership working, and it is very positive. Could you comment on, with the very heavy demands for assessment and research and science based across biodiversity, climate change across economic interests, whether you feel that it is manageable with the present budget? At the moment, it is manageable. What we are doing is innovative and genuinely groundbreaking, which means that we have been able to access European resources. The European Commission has been quite enthusiastic about some of the work that we have done, and that has enabled us to draw in additional European resources in partnership with others. Although our core has been reducing, we have been able to retain core capability and then use that to draw in additional resources. We led on a European marine biological resource centre, which is a collective of significant assets for marine biology across Europe, and we are one of the key partners in that. That will be a basis for future research, and that goes beyond EU members into other European partners. The continued investment, which is substantial in our core capability, enables us to lever in other resources and gives us a platform to work from, is the key answer to your question. That takes us nicely on to the question from David Stewart. Brexit has the potential to be the biggest political earthquake in a generation. What assessment have you made of the implications of leaving the EU for your organisation, particularly around the common fisheries policy? Depending on what happens—obviously, the Scottish Government has its own views on that—where we are in a position in which we are leaving the EU, there would be implications. The common fisheries policy provides a regulatory framework at European level. Fisheries management is a devolve matter for this Parliament, and there would be a need in a future scenario for there to be a framework for the management of fisheries. We secure a lot of resource from the EU, as well as the European maritime and fisheries fund. We get direct core funding for certain functions that we do on behalf of the EU. We receive resources for our contribution to the data control framework, which is the fisheries data and wider marine environmental data that we pass back to Europe, and we get about £2 million a year for that. We also receive resources directly from European sources for joint deployment with other countries around fisheries-compliant when we work together. Stocks are shared and fishing happens in other countries' waters, so we work quite a lot with our partners, and we receive funding for that. We also receive funding for some of our IT systems associated with our needs to report back to Brussels in relation to quota uptake and fisheries management. There are substantial numbers of implications for us as an organisation. You may have seen the report from SAMH's part of UHI, which is in my region, which was quite negative about the effect of leaving Brexit in terms of the effect on academic research and the ability to continue to have collaborative partnerships with other European nations. Have you seen the report or not? What is your general view on funding such as Horizon 2020? Horizon 2020 has been an important resource for us recently. I have mentioned how we have been gearing up in all those areas and we have been more successful than average in terms of our success rate on that and interreg as well. Beyond the direct funding that I mentioned, which would need to be secured going forward, there is also a risk to our partnerships with others and wider marine science in Scotland. We work closely with Mast, which is the umbrella body for all the marine universities in Scotland working together. We are members of Mast and, through that, we are involved in various collaborations, so we would share that concern. Through you, convener, ASPB gave quite an interesting note of evidence to us, and it stressed—and you will be familiar with this—that, of course, we are not out of Europe yet and that we still have access to structural funds, leader, LifePlus and SRDP. There are some arguments about the UK Government and the Scottish Government repatriating in the terrible jargon and the structural funds that are there and still providing matching. I have had some evidence locally within the Highlands and Islands that there are some worries about how fast our actual structural funds are being spent, but what is your general view about that point that ASPB made that it is not over yet? We are still there and we should still be trying to access the funds at least over the next couple of years. I very much agree. We have, in fact, on the day that the referendum result came out, we got a phone call from the European Commission saying that we have been successful in a 1.6 million euro bid that we have put forward. That project will commence this month, so we certainly are very active. Marine energy is an area where we have been involved in the ocean energy forum, which has been shaping a future agenda there. We certainly expect to be to take an active part in that going forward, so we very much expect to be part of that future. I will share an observation. I am not expecting an answer to that, but I recently went to an economic forum in Edinburgh talking about Brexit, and the chair of a think tank from Brussels was saying that none of us can tell what the future will be, but if you consider what the role of the other 27 nations will be negotiating with Britain, if you were Spain, what would you do? That was a tropical question. The first thing that you will bid for is access to Scottish fishing, which seems a very logical point from the Spanish perspective. Clearly, that has been something that you have looked at internally. What is your observation with that thought from that conference? Obviously, ministers are looking closely at the issues. Mr Ewing spoke at the Scottish Fishmen Federation conference only last week. Access is one of the key areas where there is a big interest for Scotland going forward that needs to be carefully safeguarded. Thanks, convener. Further to that, what do you see the architecture of negotiation and enforcement being in a post-CFP scenario? At the moment, there is quite a well-defined set of negotiating structures, as the council ministers in December, as the regional advisory councils under the CFP. There are various bilateral agreements between the EU, Iceland and Norway. Is that the way that you would see Scotland going in terms of negotiation and then on enforcement? How would you see Scotland playing a role going forward in that? Would we still collaborate with countries or would we be continuing to enforce our waters independently? At the moment, we are involved in negotiations involving Norway and non-EU states and ferros and other countries. We are used to the coastal state negotiations that take place in the arrangements that are put in place in dealing with management fish stocks that cross international boundaries. The big difference in a post-EU situation is that you can no longer be part of the club and no longer be part of the EU club, and that would come with implications. Is that how you come with budget implications in terms of the time and the number of negotiations and forums that your teams would have to be part of across Europe? I might ask Mike to come in on this at some stage. In general, we are already there at the negotiations but as part of a UK team and part of an EU team. The difference is that in a different situation you would be responsible for your own science, your own compliance, so you would not have that being part of the club. The actual compliance task would still need to be done. The actual process of stock assessment and involvement in working groups would still need to be done as at present. The difference is that sort of level of not sharing and being part of something and having to defend it by yourselves could lead to more challenge and could make it a bit more difficult. Mike could come in on some of this more detailed stuff. I endorse what Linda has said there. We are well experienced and well used to being involved in the kind of bilateral negotiations that you mentioned. I think that in terms of negotiating resources and expertise, we would simply be turning that from being part of the EU negotiating team into being the Scottish negotiating team or potentially the UK negotiating team, however, things developed. I think that in that way we are prepared for that and we are ready to plan for that if necessary. What often happens in the course of a negotiation is that you receive requests to do extra bits of science and extra bits of research in order to underpin the arguments that you are making to seek to maximise your fishing opportunities. That is very important because it needs to be evidence-based and it does need to be something that is grounded in sustainable fisheries management. You really do have to do the science. As Linda was saying, what we currently do is to use the EU scientific frameworks. There is a committee called the STECF, which is an EU scientific committee of which we are a member and we are part of that apparatus and we get endorsement from that committee for doing different bits of science. The actual operation of that science comes down to us. It is not as if there is a body sitting in Brussels which goes away and does the science. They say, you do the science in Scotland, but they will give a little bit of direction. We will be taking the initiative more ourselves on exactly how we take those bits of science forward. That is something that we will simply need to plan for and be prepared for. Have you got the resource to do that? What I would say is that we currently tend to do that when we are asked to do it. For example, in the past year off the west coast of Scotland, we have been asked by the European Commission to do a very strategic piece of science on the west coast herring stock in order to underpin some of the proposals that we wish to put forward in terms of the fishing opportunities that we should get from that. What we have done there is to collaborate with Ireland, the pelagic fishing industry and the Netherlands in order to have a multi-partner research programme under way for that fishery. What we would wish to be in a position to do post-Brexit would be to continue that kind of collaborative work. We would hope that we would be able to continue that kind of collaborative work with those other nations on the basis that it is of mutual benefit to all the nations to have a special evidence base around that kind of issue. The question of how much is enough in terms of enforcement is a tricky one. The difference that would happen where we, to be outside the EU, is largely around the level of control that we would need on other countries' vessels fishing in our waters and the overall responsibility for their catch. At the moment, we rely on other European countries because we are part of a shared system to police the sort of quota take-up of their vessels even if they are fishing in our waters. Our policing of their activities is more about any immediate issues in terms of how they go about it. There would be additional risk-based procedures that are necessary. We have some experience of that already in our workings with Norway, where we have quite a lot of shared stocks. Thank you. I take this in a very useful information. I take this in a slightly different direction. As an organisation, you will anticipate work streams in areas of spend, but sometimes there are things that come out of left field. The impact of climate change is an on-going issue. In recent years, you have carried out research into the impact on migratory fish, the fact that fewer are returning to their native rivers. You have done a piece of work about the impact of the electric magnetic fields from undersea cables on that. One presumes that that kind of stuff is going to continue to arise over a period of time. What capacity do you have, resource-wise, budget-wise, built in to respond to the challenges that climate change may throw up? I think that the key way that we are able to respond is by increasing the flexibility of our staff. We employ a lot of specialists and we have been moving in a direction in which we are encouraging, particularly the science staff, to be more flexible. For example, an issue that can arise is invasive species. There, we might look to if we have a particular event happening, we would look to using the core scientific capabilities that people have to work on that, to identify requirements, to secure partnerships with others, perhaps specialist research institutes in other universities or in perhaps the research councils. We are trying to ensure that they align more of their pots of money with real needs. We work with them to identify projects that could be taken forward. That is our key way of responding to the unexpected rather than having a pot of money with nothing attached to it that we can deploy. We have been able to bid into the contract research fund, which is a pot of money that the Scottish Government holds for research that is of policy necessity in the rural affairs and environment family. That has been a very helpful source to us of imminent needs. That has underpinned a lot of our work on offshore energy. Okay, thank you for that. Is there any other members of the committee of questions? No, okay. Well, can I thank the witnesses for attending? I am particularly Linda Ross, but I think that this is you. Last appearance in front of a parliamentary committee is your stepping down next week, I think it is. That's true. Can I, on behalf of the committee and the Parliament, wish you a very long and happy retirement and look forward to working with your successor? At its next meeting on 15 November, the committee will take evidence on the draft budget 2017-18 from the Scottish Environment Protection Agency. As agreed earlier, we will now move into private session, and I ask that the public gallery be clear that the public part of the meeting is closed.