Seòmar agus comataidhean

We will be taking forward considerations with ARIOB and stakeholders on how we will increase the biodiversity and carbon emissions gains through farming.

That will be delivered as we develop it.

All that I can tell you is that if they do not feel included, I do not know what conversations they have been having. They are in the room—they are talking to us and giving us their information, and they are giving us their views very strongly.

Given the fact that we are moving to 7 per cent, not 10 or 20 per cent, I would say that, yes, we are listening. Given the fact that we are putting in place a derogation for calves, I would say that we are listening. I cannot give you any more of a demonstration than I have already given you, Mr Eagle.

Because we know that it works. We can see that the enhancements are having an effect. I spend a lot of my time going around farms that are already employing those enhancements at the current levels, and there is massive biodiversity gain. We want everybody to get on board with that and start pushing towards it.

As I said, the pushback is indicative of the fact that, although everybody is agreeing, they are saying, “Just not me and just not now.” We are having to make some tough decisions. This is not a massive change; it is a moderate change. We are asking farmers to get behind it and look at the options.

I hear the point that you made about farm viability. That is why we have included other options and are talking about undersowing and adding legumes to the grass mixture. We are giving people alternatives and options so that they can get behind the change.

Given that we are putting £142 million of public money into the greening system, I do not think that it is unreasonable that we are asking people to do a little bit more. That is a huge amount of public money. In Orkney, for example, only 11 farmers are currently using that system, but the new change will increase that number by 200. It is about fairness, too, because a lot of people are already doing it.

In addition, to give a crude example, two farmers might be sitting side by side with 500 acres of land—one has permanent grassland so does not have to provide an EFA, but the other, next door, does because they do not have a large hectarage of permanent grassland. That is simply not fair. We need everybody to carry the weight. Pushing the figure to 7 per cent after 2026 is not unreasonable, given the amount of money that is being provided.

It is very much a compromise. We are being pushed to go a lot further, but it is a compromise, following these conversations. I have read the NFUS letter and understand its concerns, but I disagree. As long as this committee is in agreement, we are pushing ahead with the 7 per cent in order to reach the targets that we are trying to achieve. We have to aim for regenerative agriculture.

I go back to the point that I made at the start: people say, “Yes, we want to do this—but not now and not by that amount, and let’s not do this.” It is a bit frustrating that we have had that pushback from NFUS, but we are committed to moving forward with our plans. We have asked people and have told them that we will listen to them and hear their concerns. However, we are moving forward with the vision for agriculture that we have all signed up to, and this is part of that journey.

The concerns are indicative of the fact that we will have difficulties in getting people to where we want everyone to be. The 7 per cent figure is a compromise.

I think that I am right in saying that the dairy sector is already looking at EFAs for its grasslands—it is already doing that. There are options available for the dairy sector, but anyone who puts anything into the ground has the option of adding additional plants and legumes into their mix, which will allow them to adopt the policies that we are looking to develop.

Permanent grassland does not form part of the current thinking on the greening options, but we will develop schemes as the years go on. I go back to the point that I made to Mr Eagle and the convener. As part of that process, there will be intensive discussions with stakeholders to ensure that what we do is welcomed by them.

We considered all those things, including ferries, and had extensive discussions about them. We looked at a couple of different options, and we looked at front loading, but we came to the conclusion that the derogation was the best way to go, as it was the least threatening approach, particularly for island communities. We want to ensure that our island communities continue to produce calves, particularly given the fact that we have a Scottish bull stud. I have visited it and there are some absolutely cracking bulls in there, so there are some tremendous calves coming from small herds on the islands, and we want that to continue. These cattle are delivering biodiversity gain at the same time. Having looked at the options that were available to us—John Armour can talk about what front loading would have looked like—we took the decision that the derogation was the best way to go.

We are trying to establish an agreed approach whereby a croft, tenant or owner-occupier would have to apply to the commission to divide the grazings share from a croft and would have to state a reasonable purpose for doing so. Therefore, we have to trust the commission to regulate that activity and to ensure that the right balance is struck between grazings shares being in the hands of those who will use them and protecting against too many shares being separated from crofts. I understand people’s concerns, because, in the past, the Crofting Commission was not enforcing duties—I am trying to be polite—and was not deemed to be doing its job appropriately. That is not the position just now. The Crofting Commission is in very good hands at the moment, and people understand that it is doing its job properly to find the right balance for the communities that it works with. That is where we are at the moment.