Seòmar agus comataidhean

I might bring in my officials on that, because it is an important question about the basis on which we are bringing forward the policies and proposals in the plan.

One important example relates to forestry. No doubt, we will come on to some of the modelling on that, but there is a slight difference between what was set out in the Climate Change Committee’s recommendations and the pathway that we set out in the draft climate change plan. That is because the modelling that we use is, I would say, more highly detailed. It is from Forest Research, which is the UK body that looks at that. The Climate Change Committee was reliant on external analysis, which I believe was not as detailed as the analysis that we use. That is one example of where we have used the best data and the data that is most relevant in a Scottish context.

Brendan Callaghan can say a bit more about that, and then Tim Ellis and John Kerr can give their perspectives on the data and modelling.

It will be published before the election.

I absolutely appreciate your point. I will turn to John Kerr for some of the specifics in relation to the carbon audit process and how some of that activity is recognised.

There is a wider issue in that some of the work that is undertaken in agriculture, such as tree planting, falls within another envelope in the inventory. When we look at it from this perspective, therefore, it appears that the sector does not get proper recognition for some of the actions that it has undertaken. Unfortunately, the way in which that is reported is largely outwith our control. John Kerr will be able to give a bit more information on the specifics of the carbon audit.

I hope that I was able to outline this to the committee during last week’s meeting. We published the initial outline of the rural support plan, and the statutory obligations as to what the plan must contain are set out in the legislation. Ultimately, it is about delivering on our vision for agriculture and setting it out in a single coherent place, building on the agricultural reform route map that we published and bringing all that information together in the one place.

As I said earlier, I recognise some of the criticisms that have been made. We have implemented and are still implementing changes. It is important that we work with our farmers and crofters as we look to implement the framework in the future.

It is really exciting in that space at the moment, with all the innovation, research and work taking place. Some of the proposals that we set out in the policies and proposals are exactly that, for a reason. They are a bit less well defined, and we are still waiting on developments in some areas before we can put in anything more concrete.

Regarding some of the proposals that we have set out in the climate change plan, we have talked about some of the measures and the expected uptake from them. We have a policy in the plan on reducing emissions from non-road mobile machinery. From the modelling that we have, we would expect that about 50 per cent of all new non-road mobile machinery would be alternatively fuelled by 2040. Some of the modelling that has been done on the smart shed technology assumes that there could be about 100 smart sheds in place by 2040.

Many of those areas are continuing to develop. Things can change, of course, and they probably will change quite rapidly over the course of the 15-year period. We would continue to monitor that and provide updates as we progress.

That is why some of these areas are set out as proposals in the plan rather than as firm policies. They are set out differently because, given their nature, there are some unknowns around them.

We have the proposals on non-road mobile machinery, and we have other proposals that involve looking at technologies for alternative fertilisers, methane inhibitors, selective breeding and lower-methane genetics. There are a number of proposals in the plan, and we need to see how technology develops in some of those areas during that period. A lot of that work will continue to be on-going.

Absolutely—we are very conscious of that, and we want to avoid it. That was also one of the reasons why we would not have accepted the proposal from the Climate Change Committee that we cut livestock numbers. We could have done that, but we would have been importing meat from elsewhere, which would not have actually changed anything—it would only have been harmful to our industry. That is why we took the position that we did: because we are committed in our support for the livestock sector in Scotland.

When it comes to reducing emissions in a way that works for rural Scotland and our agriculture sector more broadly, the alternatives are broadly as we have set them out in the policy package.

We have to remember that we are not developing these policies in isolation. In your previous question, you touched on an important point about trade. A lot of that is outwith our control. We have been signed up to trade agreements through which we expect to see a greater influx of meat products into the country, which we cannot then control.

The wider impact across rural Scotland is a key consideration. It is about not just the farmers on the ground but the wider supply chain, including our marts, auctions and abattoirs. All of that is of critical importance to not just rural Scotland but our economy as a whole.

All those considerations factor into the policy positions that we have taken. They are why we have set out what we believe to be ambitious but achievable on the path to 2040, in a way that will not be as damaging as the cuts and the initial policy proposals would have been, had they been accepted.

Yes, absolutely, but it is really difficult. Again, that is through no fault of our own, as it is not in our power to fix how that is categorised in the inventory overall.

I suppose that it kind of is and it kind of is not, which is probably an unhelpful response. I do not have any facts or figures in relation to the exact impact of ultra-processed foods that I can refer to today, but the issue came up in discussion of the good food nation plan and the ambitions that we want to deliver through that. There has been a lot of on-going work in relation to how we classify ultra-processed food. A few months ago, the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee had some discussion about what indicators or measures for healthier food could look like in the future, in the draft climate change plan, but I do not think that we are at the point of being able to include anything on that.

Ultimately, the good food nation ambitions set out that we want more people to enjoy a healthy lifestyle and healthy produce that is preferably sourced as locally and as near to home as possible. A whole body of work was done on that, and the policies and proposals that we are bringing forward through the draft climate change plan are key to all of that.

Sorry—that is quite a long-winded answer, but there are lots of interconnected strands of work.