Seòmar agus comataidhean

Sorry—I do not quite understand the question in relation to carbon audits. Perhaps you could repeat it, if you do not mind.

Again, we would want to avoid that, as we have largely tried to do. We have tried to take a balanced approach in what we have set out in the pathway; we did not take all of the UK Climate Change Committee’s advice in relation to the policies. We have a broader challenge across the economy with regard to meeting the overall carbon budget levels. We are expecting to see the bulk of that fall happening later in the period.

You touched on the expectation that there would be a reduction in livestock, but our focus is on reducing the intensity of emissions in our livestock sector, because we recognise not only how important the sector is to food production but how well suited it is to the landscapes in Scotland. The sector is a vital part of the agricultural industry and our wider economy, which is why we want to continue to support it.

We have set out what any potential changes will be over the course of the next few years. Changes are being introduced through the ecological focus area, or EFA; there are the changes being made through the suckler beef support scheme; there are also the whole farm plan conditions, which I have talked about. We would expect everybody to have the audits in place by 2028.

Those are the measures that we have set out, and people will be aware that they are coming down the track. The rural support plan as a whole is about pulling together the information so that it is all in a single place. It builds on information that has already been published, to a large extent.

Absolutely. That partnership working—being able to share the knowledge—is essential. Some of the groups that we have had so far have been helpful in that. For the farming for a better climate initiative, we had one group on soils. Everybody was at a different stage in their journey in that process, and they learned from one another. Such programmes have been important in sharing knowledge and expertise.

Those kinds of networks can be helpful in sharing good practice. We are looking to build on and develop all those approaches through the agricultural knowledge and innovation system that we will be bringing forward. It is about building on all the advisory services through innovation and spreading that knowledge and expertise.

I do not think that I have said that. We are trying to make sure that, in some of these areas, that could form part of the support in the future. We would want to ensure that we were seeking to incentivise uptake of various technologies.

With regard to what we have published and the overall direction that we have set out, it is important that we have provided clarity on the stability and maintenance of the direct payments. We have published the list of measures, and we provide more information on the measures in the code of practice on sustainable and regenerative agriculture.

Again, I disagree. As much as I recognise the concerns that have been expressed by others, it comes back to the fact that we have had to make sure that we have in place those fundamental building blocks on which to make the changes that we have set out and to deliver the new framework that we want to achieve.

I appreciate the frustration that exists, and I appreciate that others want us to go further and faster. However, we committed to the process of developing our policies with farmers and crofters, which, naturally, has taken more time. We want to make sure that, ultimately, when the new framework is delivered, it works and delivers all the outcomes that we want for climate, nature and food production while having thriving rural communities at its heart.

You have mentioned a lot of areas, which I will touch on as best I can.

When it comes to farmers dropping off, a key thing that we want to focus on is that that has happened in other parts of the UK and we want to avoid it at all costs. We do not want to rapidly change systems so that direct payments drop off, because people will then fall out of support schemes. We want to avoid that as much as possible, because we want to retain businesses within our support structures and to work with the industry to facilitate some of the changes.

You touched on some of the measures that we published years ago and said that the ambition has dropped. It has not. The ambition is still to deliver more of those measures in tier 2 of the framework, to ultimately provide farming and crofting businesses with the flexibility and the choice to use measures that will work for them on the ground. Obviously, we recognise that, across Scotland, everyone’s farm is different, so it is right that we provide that flexibility and choice.

We have had to go through various processes to get to this point, and it has involved introducing new legislation so that we have the powers to do it. We are also constructing the new systems to deliver all the flexibilities that we need for the future.

10:15

In the budget discussions last week, we touched on the agricultural reform programme and said that the investment for that in this year is targeted at gathering data. That will make a huge difference for us in reducing for people some of the workload relating to inspections. It will mean that we can better recognise the on-farm features and better reward and recognise the work that is being undertaken by farmers and crofters, as well as being able to monitor some of the changes that are happening on the ground. John Kerr talked about the monitoring and evaluation framework through the agricultural reform programme. We are investing in those capabilities so that we can deliver a system that will ultimately deliver the four-tier framework as we envisaged and set out.

However, there are steps to get there, which is why we have not stood still. We have introduced other changes and conditions of support, as well as trying to provide more data directly, through the likes of MyHerdStats, to livestock keepers, for example, so that farmers and crofters are equipped to take the decisions that will have the best impact on farms. It is not fair to say that we have sat still and that things have not moved. We still have that overarching ambition, and we are building the capabilities to enable us to get there, but we needed some of the foundational building blocks at the start, too.

Absolutely. I touched on that issue earlier, and I will probably bring in Brendan Callaghan to respond, too.

We have, ultimately, set out a different pathway to that which the Climate Change Committee advised because the policies and the pathway that it set out were based on different modelling. We had access to different modelling through Forest Research, which is why we have set out this particular trajectory. Brendan can give you a bit more information on that.

There are many different facets to that question. I am sure that the committee will be aware of the work that we have started doing on light detection and ranging, which will help to capture a lot of that information. There is some support for hedgerows through AECS. I am also aware of other projects in relation to planting hedgerows that have previously been done on a broader scale through the nature restoration fund. There is also funding through the forestry grants scheme, which was increased specifically to ensure that we make it as easy as possible for farmers and crofters to consider planting trees.

The attempts to remove some of the barriers for tenant farmers, which we have been considering under the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2025, are also relevant. We want to incentivise tree planting where possible. The integrating trees network has been brilliant in relation to that, and we want initiatives of that sort to be scaled up, so that we can do more.

You are right about that. I made that point earlier about the potential for wider carbon stores. Our native and broadleaf woodlands will build up woodland carbon stocks in the longer term, supporting broader resilience. I do not know whether you are referring to a use after that.

At the moment, what we are planting is broadly split 50-50 between the faster-growing species and our native planting, which I think is above the targets and the split that we had initially tried to set out.

Are you referring more to the use of those products afterwards? I just want to clarify that other element of your question.