Seòmar agus comataidhean

Precisely because it gives us the flexibility to adapt the schemes and develop them in a way in which we think will deliver against the objectives that we have set out. There have been calls for there to be a rebasing of LFASS. We want to continue with support of that type because it is so important for our farmers and crofters in the most rural parts of Scotland. We must design the schemes with farmers and crofters and develop a support system that is going to work. One of the schemes that has ultimately delivered on its objectives—I am sure that my officials will correct me if I am wrong—is the agri-environment climate scheme. We could potentially look at what some of the measures might look like, which could form part of a potential enhanced conditionality in the tier 2 measures. It is about how we design those schemes, but, ultimately, we need to design them with the people who are most impacted by them.

A number of targets are listed elsewhere, particularly in relation to emissions reduction, and we know that that is also being considered through the natural environment bill. For me, it is not necessarily about introducing new targets. What will be critical, as I have outlined in previous responses, is the monitoring and evaluation of targets. We already have statutory targets to meet, so it is about how we set out the pathway to achieving them.

I am happy to follow up with the committee on the work that we have already published in that regard, if that would be helpful.

Ideally, we would like more funding than we have at the moment. NFU Scotland has called for £1 billion-worth of funding from the UK Government, and I support that call. I listened to the NFU’s conference down south recently, and it is asking for £4.5 billion rather than the £2.4 billion that it has been given by the UK Government.

I think that we are entitled to more support than we currently receive. Considering the potential for what we can do for climate and nature, we should receive more funding than we currently do. That funding has remained static over the past few years, so we hope for and would welcome any increase to that.

Again, we are confusing two different things. The vast majority of the funding that we receive for this portfolio, and which goes into payments, is ring fenced by the UK Government, which has given us no certainty as to what any future budget allocation beyond next year will be, so we have no idea what is coming. Without that clarity, it is not possible for me to determine exactly what funding there will be or to make commitments about multi-annual funds that, as yet, I do not have.

That is why we set out, as I have already explained, how we can expect the overall envelopes in the budget to be allocated. However, the quantum of that funding will very much depend on the UK Government, because that is where the lion’s share of my budget comes from. It all depends on how much I get from the UK Government.

We had £26.6 million available in last year’s budget.

I echo all the points that you have made about the importance of the Royal Botanic Garden Edinburgh. The RBGE covers four sites across Scotland, and undertakes vital work in respect of its collections and research capability, as well as running the sites and holding events for visitors.

Committee members will be aware that there has been a slight reduction in the published budget of £1.8 million, which is a 5 per cent reduction to the capital element of the budget. I want to highlight that the reduction in the capital element of the budget relates to the phasing of the biomes project and how that is working at the moment—it is not a cut to the project. That is why the spend is set out as it is. Overall, there is a £58 million contribution to the Edinburgh biomes project, of which £50 million comes from the low carbon fund, with a further £8 million coming from the Scottish Government. It is a hugely important project, which is why the on-going commitment to its funding is so important and will be vital for the botanic garden.

Absolutely, and I emphasise that point as well. I met the board just before Christmas to get an update on some of the key pieces of work that the RBGE is doing at the moment. I re-emphasise that commitment from the Scottish Government: we are still committed to the biomes project and the reduction in the funding is only because of the phasing of the project—the overall commitment still stands.

Work on that is happening just now. Last year, I announced some changes to the forestry grant scheme because, obviously, we want more riparian planting and more agroforestry. The grants and the rates of grant that we have made available for smaller schemes are hugely important in encouraging that work, too, and it is important that we continue that encouragement.

It is all about our engaging with the sector now to see how we can best utilise the available budget, and that is why the summit in December was so important. Some of the actions that were identified related to improvements that we can make to the woodland development process and how we can better develop people across the sector. All of that work can continue.

We all want full utilisation of the budget to ensure that we get as many trees in the ground as possible, and that work will continue. I want to ensure that we utilise the available budget that we have as well as we possibly can, and we will, of course, engage with key stakeholders as we look to do that.

Again, that is where the engagement that is happening right now and how we move forward with the available budget will be absolutely critical.

As I set out in one of my previous responses, 14,000 hectares’ worth of approvals are coming through. We want to make sure that we get all those hectares planted and that we utilise the available budget as best we can. That means that there could be some tweaks in how we award the funding in order to make sure that we maximise its impact as much as we can.

Ultimately, we do not want to be in a position of having really helped to drive forward the industry—whether that is nurseries, timber or the wider industry—and having encouraged farmers and crofters to do more agroforestry and riparian planting, then seeing that scaled back. We want to continue with the momentum that has been building.

You are absolutely right that we have not met all of our planting targets in previous years. That is why we had the woodland summit towards the end of last year to try to address the significant shortfall from the target of the previous year.

We have been encouraged by the level of approvals that have come through for this year, which is why I want to make sure that we utilise all the available funding. We will continue to work with the sector to ensure that we are all working together to deliver the goals that we all want. We want a thriving forestry sector because it is worth so much to our economy, as well as to our timber supply, and not least because of its climate impact. We want to make sure that we work together with the sector into the future.