Seòmar agus comataidhean

Our focus is on the capital grant scheme, but, as you mentioned, not all businesses are the same, which is why our other funds are really important. Businesses vary across Scotland, so the support that we offer needs to be flexible in response to that.

That particular fund had to be targeted for the reasons that I have outlined. The other schemes that we have are really important in enabling transformation and allowing people to take part in that, as you have outlined.

AECS is an example of that. As I mentioned, we have £36 million for that for the coming financial year. Through those funds and through our work on the national test programme, we are encouraging people to take part in soil testing, as George Burgess outlined, and to undertake carbon audits. We are looking to incentivise people to undertake those practices as much as we possibly can and to fund that where we can. However, AECS is one scheme that we have to target where we think that it will have the biggest effect.

I will write to outline where the different supports lie and what each fund does.

That support falls not within the national test programme but within the agri-environment climate scheme that we support. We have £36 million for that in the budget for the coming financial year.

That is not the only work that we are doing on organics. We have funded a post in Scotland Food & Drink to look at organics, and I have been engaging with stakeholders to look at an action plan on organics, because we need to do more work in that space.

The support that is available at the moment is through the agri-environment climate scheme.

The ultimate ambition is to expand the programme. The carbon audits and soil testing were the first part of the programme. We have been looking at animal health and welfare measures that could be added to the programme, and, in coming years, we will be looking to include biodiversity audits. We have received strong feedback from ARIOB about introducing biodiversity audits, but they are not yet ready to be rolled out on a national scale. When we are ready to do so, we will look to include them as part of the programme.

As I said, the uptake has been disappointing, but it is the first year of the programme. When we were budgeting for the scheme, because it is demand led, we did not know how big the uptake would be. Obviously, we want to be better prepared. It is better for us to be in that situation rather than to be in the opposite situation, in which we overspend a fund and are then not able to fund all the claims that we receive as part of that.

All that said, I provided some of the figures in the letter to the committee. The forecast for the first part is £2 million; we expect a lot of claims to come through at the tail end. George Burgess might want to expand on some of the discussions that we have had about the feedback that we are hearing from agents.

The overall picture on carbon audits is that the uptake this year has been really positive. We also fund carbon audits through the Farm Advisory Service. Its budget for that was exhausted last summer because there had been such a high uptake. The fact that we have seen that increase in demand has been really positive, and I think that we will see more follow.

I will hand over to George, who will be able to provide some more information.

That is what I was coming to. We are getting a variety of feedback, based on some of what George Burgess touched on in his previous response. From what we hear, people are planning to undertake the work but have not done it yet and may do it in the coming year. It is to do with capacity as well—for some, carrying out that work has been an issue.

George, do you want to come in on the feedback that we are receiving?

One good thing about having the national test programme is that, when the funding for that part of the farm advisory service was exhausted, people were directed to the national test programme as a means of having that funding. The farm advisory service contracts for that were due to be up in April of this year, and we have extended those.

We obviously want to work on uptake and ensure that we are not working across each other. Going to the farm advisory service is one route, but we want people to take part in the national test programme. That is what I mean about the number of carbon audits that we have seen. It is positive that the fund has been exhausted, because almost as many audits were done within those few months as were undertaken in the whole of the previous year. That shows that we are heading in a positive direction.

Of course, any of that feedback is important. As I said, this is the first year of the scheme, so there could be lessons that we can learn. I do not think that the problem is the accessibility of the scheme or the ability to claim. It is about trying to identify where the issues are so that, I hope, we can improve for the future years of the programme. Again, we want as many people as possible to be involved and to get on board. It is in our best interests to do that, so we want to work to make that happen.

Thanks very much for highlighting that example. I am happy to take a closer look at that, if you want to contact me about it. That is a shining example, which is really important. I touched on some of the networks that we have. There is so much good work happening across Scotland—I see it all the time when I am visiting farm businesses. We talked about the monitor farms and how important that work is. There are many different networks and examples out there that people can engage with, and I absolutely encourage them to do that. As I said, we are more than happy to learn the lessons from this year of the programme. Sharing that learning and expertise is vital.

I talked about the monitor farms being one of the key projects. With £1.4 million over the next few years, that is one of the most significant projects that we will fund. I would be happy to come back to the committee with more information on the allocations that we have made in the current financial year and who has been awarded funding. Of course, the Soil Association was awarded funding through that scheme previously. I have visited dairy farms in the south of Scotland where that funding has been utilised as well.

The title of the fund is “knowledge innovation”, and we are at a time when we want to see that come forward. The fund has helped some exciting projects in the past, and the monitor farms are obviously a key part of that. I look forward to seeing what other applications come forward. Again, I am happy to write to the committee with more details of some of the successful projects that have been awarded funding through the scheme so far.

Yes, I would be happy to come back to the committee and outline that information.

Yes. The support for those schemes is being maintained. For example, there is £2 million for the knowledge transfer and innovation fund, and the Farm Advisory Service is being funded with £5 million. George Burgess has the budget line where that falls. I am happy to come back with more information on the budget lines for the various funds, as I understand from looking at the table, and given some of the funds that we have discussed today, just how confusing it can be. Some funds translate to a different title in the budget headings as well, which will not be helpful for the committee.