Stobo herbicide spraying in August 2023: EIR release

Information requested

According to Scottish Forestry, they claim they became aware in August 2024 blanket herbicide spraying of heather moorland on the Stobo estate (near Peebles) being carried out in August 2023, several months before a £2 million taxpayer funded forestry contract was awarded to the Guernsey registered Forestry Carbon Sequestration Fund, managed by True North Real Asset Partners Ltd, who contracted forestry agents Pryor and Rickett Silviculture Ltd.

1. Has RPID been informed by Scottish Forestry or any other government body of this herbicide spraying, and if so, who informed RPID, and when were they informed?

2. As the land was subject to agricultural regulations, it appears an offence or offences were committed under the Agriculture, Land Drainage, and Irrigation Projects (Environmental Impact Assessment) (Scotland) Regulations 2017. This is because the contract for the Stobo woodland creation scheme
(since quashed) did not commence until 5 February 2024, the date from which the land would have become subject to forestry regulations.

3. Can RPID confirm (yes or no) that the land in question was subject to agricultural regulations and notforestry regulations in August and September 2023?

4. It appears there were no screening opinions nor permission to spray semi-natural habitats, including heather moorland and unimproved grasslands. Offences seem to include failure to obtain permission and withholding information in relation to using herbicide (e.g. see paragraph 37 and 39 of the relevant legislation). Please can RPID state if it is proceeding to take action against the organisation(s) that committed these offences, and state what penalties it intends to impose (or has already imposed).

5. Please can RPID state if it intends to serve a 'reinstatement notice' (or has already done so) for restoring the land that has been harmed by the herbicide spraying (see paragraph 43 of the relevant legislation).

6. Previous EIR responses (such as 202500448770) state that the Stobo estate (and other areas of land) previously received rural payments in the form of agricultural subsidies, such as the Agri-Environment Climate Scheme (AECS) and Less Favoured Area Support Scheme (LFASS). Does RPID intend to (or has already done so) take action to ensure some or all of these AECS and LFASS payments are retrieved (or at least for the 2023/24 years), for the Stobo estate (and potentially other areas of land) due to the herbicide spraying? If not, why not?

7. Does RPID/Rural Payments intend to (or has already done so) disqualify the Forestry Carbon Sequestration Fund (and potentially related entities) from applying for grant funding (all rural payments, so both agriculture and forestry) and having future grants (for both agriculture and forestry) awarded for a certain time? If so, what is the duration of the time of disqualification, and up to what date?

8. After the herbicide spraying in August 2023, in addition to the Stobo Woodland Creation Scheme contract being awarded, the Forestry Carbon Sequestration Fund was awarded two further contracts, Whitlaw (November 2023) and Bandominie (March 2024) potentially costing the taxpayer in the region of £1,168,739 and £392,799 respectively. If RPID/Rural Payments were made aware of the herbicide spraying before the contracts were awarded for Whitlaw and Bandominie, would the Forestry Carbon Sequestration Fund still have been eligible for these funds? As this appears to be unlikely, since the Stobo contract of £2 million was cancelled and an offence or offences have been committed prior to November 2023, does RPID/Rural Payments intend to retrieve some of, or all of the excess of £1.4 million awarded for the Whitlaw and Bandominie contracts?

9. According to EIR response 202500451428, the Forestry Carbon Sequestration Fund has two Forestry Grant Scheme Applications in place, Colmsie WC and Breconside, along with a scheme at pre-application stage, Bank and Afton. Due to the offence or offences being committed in respect of herbicide spraying, will RPID/Rural payments approve taxpayer funds and grant contracts being awarded for these three schemes, if they continue to proceed? If yes, why is this the case?

Response

As the information you have requested is 'environmental information' for the purposes of the Environmental Information (Scotland) Regulations 2004 (EIRs), we are required to deal with your request under those Regulations. We are applying the exemption at section 39(2) of the Freedom ofInformation (Scotland) Act 2002 (FOISA), so that we do not also have to deal with your request under FOISA.

This exemption is subject to the 'public interest test'. Therefore, taking account of all the circumstances of this case, we have considered if the public interest in disclosing the information outweighs the public interest in applying the exemption. We have found that, on balance, the public
interest lies in favour of upholding the exemption, because there is no public interest in dealing with the same request under two different regimes. This is essentially a technical point and has no material effect on the outcome of your request.

Response to your request

1. ​​​​​​​RPID has been informed by Scottish Forestry of this herbicide spraying on 02/09/2024.
2. The herbicide spraying was carried out as preparatory work for woodland creation and at that point the land is deemed to have become subject to forestry EIA regulations.
3. No the land in question was not subject to agricultural regulations in August and September 2023 for the reason outlined at 2 above
4. RPID are not taking action against the organisations.
5. RPID have no plans to serve a reinstatement notice for the land that has been subject to herbicide spraying. As the FGS is administered by Scottish Forestry, if you require information on any reinstatement notice to The Forestry Carbon Sequestration Fund you will need to send a separate request for information to them. They can be contacted by e-mail at: scottish.forestry@forestry.gov.scot.
6. RPID does not intend to take action to retrieve some or all of the AECS or LFASS payments. This is because the business had no active AECS interest on this land after 2021 and no LFASS payment has been impacted due to the herbicide spraying.
7. RPID does not intend to disqualify the Forestry Carbon Sequestration Fund (and potentially related entities) from applying for grant funding (all rural payments, so both agriculture and forestry) and having future grants (for both agriculture and forestry) awarded for a certain time. As the FGS is administered by Scottish Forestry, if you require any information on any applications submitted by The Forestry Carbon Sequestration Fund you will need to send a separate request for information to them. They can be contacted by e-mail at: scottish.forestry@forestry.gov.scot.
8. RPID does not intend to retrieve some of, or all of the excess of £1.4 million awarded for the Whitlaw and Bandominie woodland creation contracts. These applications are assessed and awarded contracts in their own right by Scottish Forestry. As the FGS is administered by Scottish Forestry, if you require any information on any applications submitted by The Forestry Carbon Sequestration Fund you will need to send a separate request for information to them. They can be contacted by e-mail at: scottish.forestry@forestry.gov.scot.
9. RPID will not in respect of herbicide spraying at Stobo prevent the applications listed proceeding. As the FGS is administered by Scottish Forestry, if you require any information on any applications submitted by The Forestry Carbon Sequestration Fund you will need to send a separate request for information to them. They can be contacted by e-mail at: scottish.forestry@forestry.gov.scot.

About FOI

The Scottish Government is committed to publishing all information released in response to Freedom of Information requests. View all FOI responses at https://www.gov.scot/foi-responses.