25 February 2009

As other members have, I welcome the opportunity that is offered by the debate and I support the motion, which is well crafted and captures the essence of the problem, as well as pointing to actions that could help in the future.

I welcome, too, the Minister for Environment to her place.

I bet that she is delighted that her boss has just left and that he is not looking over her shoulder at her first ministerial speech.

It was very generous of him to show support, but to leave at the appropriate juncture.

The issue in the motion is important and deserves an airing in Parliament, so I am glad that Nanette Milne has secured the debate.

As members may know, birdwatching is a passion of mine, and one that I share with a number of other members across the parties.

I am a very amateur birdwatcher, but I derive pleasure from it, as do many hundreds of thousands of people in this country, which brings all sorts of economic benefits.

In my time, I have managed to live in Orkney for a couple of years, which has important colonies of seabirds that I enjoyed watching.

Representing the Highlands and Islands region, I get the chance to travel to Shetland, Orkney, and the Western Isles and round the coasts of the Highlands, which are very important areas for bird populations.

In the spring or summer, it is truly wondrous to see the sea cliffs in those areas occupied by seabirds and full of their raucous noise.

There are kittiwakes, gannets, fulmars, guillemots, razorbills, puffins and the like, displaying and doing what they are supposed to do: raising the next generation of birds.

That is what is under threat.

The recorded declines in numbers are alarming, although numbers fluctuate—as Kenny Gibson said—and there are good and bad years.

However, the trends appear to be damaging.

That is intrinsically alarming, but it has economic effects, too.

People come to my part of the world to follow their birdwatching hobby and they spend their money there.

There are, therefore, potential economic effects of bird population loss.

However, the motion points to a much more important reason why we should be concerned about our seabirds. The seabird population is a good indicator of the health of the wider marine environment because it is visible and measurable; it is a good barometer of the changes that are taking place.

It is not just about changes to the health of the sea and pollution, although Kenny Gibson rightly talked about the effect, for example, of plastics in the sea and it can affect birds.

The problem is also about the over-exploitation of certain species in the sea.

There are also bigger changes due to climate change.

The seas are getting warmer and the species that birds feed on, such as sand eels, anchovies, squid and sardines, are moving progressively further north.

Those fish on the move sometimes take the birds further from the bird colonies that depend on them, so greater journeys have to be made to secure food and there is less feeding of chicks, which can cause difficulty.

Changes in salinity levels near the top of the water have effects on the surface-feeding birds as well as on things that tend to live close to the surface.

Falls in salinity levels affect the whole wider ecosystem at that level in the sea.

Similarly, the changes in plankton that Kenny Gibson mentioned can, to an extent, lead to warmer water species taking over from cold-water species, which differ in their volume and mass—or biomass—and in their nutritional value.

In addition, plankton blooms may be out of sync with the breeding cycle of the birds.

Again, that has an impact on feeding.

Such changes can be seen not just on cliffs.

When I was in Shetland about 18 months ago, I visited Mousa island, where there used to be a large tern colony.

The colony still has a large number of adult terns, but there was not a single chick at the time of my visit.

That is typical of what is happening the length and breadth of the north.

The situation is very alarming.

It is easy to record what the problem is, but we also need to address what we need to do about it.

Perhaps the minister can use some of her new-found influence in Government to try to make a difference.

Let me mention four points quickly.

First, we should increase our research to increase our understanding of what is happening.

Secondly, we need to redouble our efforts under the Climate Change (Scotland) Bill to combat climate change so that we meet the 3 per cent target that was originally set out.

Thirdly, we need to deal with commercial sand eel exploitation, which is carried out particularly by the Danish fleet. Such exploitation is not the only reason for the changes, but it adds to the problem.

Finally, we should look at how we manage our inshore fisheries and consider the potential for marine protected areas in that context.

Scotland is internationally important for seabirds.

I hope that, among her many priorities, the minister will give the matter attention and action.

Back to previous page

top