Seòmar agus comataidhean

Yes, absolutely. Overall, what we have set out in relation to aiming for 400,000 hectares by 2040 is about communicating the overall approach and trajectory that we would expect to see. We are setting ambitious targets. On the basis of that calculation, we would restore more than 370,000 hectares by 2040, but the ultimate aim is not for delivery to flatline.

As we have seen in recent years, for various reasons—not least the cost and complexity of projects—there may be a slight reduction in the number of hectares that you are able to restore in one year, followed by an uplift in the next, depending on the project delivery pipeline, as well as some of the broader complexities that we have discussed. However, the approach is also about targeting some of the higher-emitting sites and ensuring that we are tackling the worst of those.

There are challenges in meeting the 2030 hectare target—there is no getting away from it. However, I think that we are on track to deliver the interim target for this coming year, which is 110,000 hectares. It is important to recognise just how far we have come with peatland restoration and the work that has taken place in that regard.

I have talked about the focus on some of the higher-emitting sites, but there are other pieces of work to better capture some of the peatland restoration that takes place. That is a focus of the peatland action programme and what we are directly funding, but we know that private landowners are also restoring peatland, and some options are available through AECS to do that. Part of the work being undertaken focuses on how we can better capture the broader picture in relation to that.

The 400,000 hectare target is ambitious, and we believe that we can reach it.

It is ultimately about doing both. I am saying that we are targeting the higher-emitting sites, but it is also about reaching the target of restoring 400,000 hectares. It is not either/or, in my view—it is fundamentally about delivering them both. Tim Ellis may want to say some more on that.

That is critical. The peatland action programme has been fundamental in driving forward a lot of that work and building relationships. However, it is about not simply the restoration of peatland itself, but—as I touched on in a previous response—how we are protecting our peatlands and wetlands in agriculture. We have done that through the introduction of some conditions.

We are talking about different envelopes today, and it is easy to categorise things in different areas and put them in those envelopes, but we need to look at land in an integrated and coherent way. Fundamentally, that is in our minds as we are shaping future policy that involves peatland and forestry to ensure that we provide a range of options.

To come back to my previous response to Ariane Burgess, we need to ensure that everybody can play their part, through the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2025, in doing work in this area.

As I outlined, there is currently a piece of work going on to better capture and understand where peatland restoration that has not been funded through the peatland action programme is being undertaken.

Some exciting projects are currently taking place; the committee may have heard about those in its evidence. In particular, there is the Flow Country Partnership, which is looking at working with crofters on peatland restoration. We need to take the learnings from such projects and look at how we develop and build on that work, because everybody needs to be equipped and enabled to play their part.

I think that we have to look at, and be open to considering, other alternatives. We have pilots in certain areas at the moment and we are seeing how they are going. One element of those pilots is carbon contracts, but that sort of thing is still in the very early stages. Indeed, we refer to that in the draft climate change plan when we talk having a blended finance model to try to increase private investment in the future.

Ultimately, we are trying to incentivise more peatland restoration earlier in the programme so that we can get better climate resilience. That is a lower-risk option, too, and it would not require as much of a set-up. Again, though, that work is in its very early stages.

I do not know whether you want to add any more to that, Tim, but I think that that probably covers it.

In the programme for government, we committed to ask the Scottish Land Commission to do some work on that, which it is currently undertaking.

That is not always the case. In the draft climate change plan, we have highlighted some examples in which different land uses have been integrated. We have talked about the integrating trees network and some of the great examples that have come from that. In the plan, we have highlighted Tardoes farm, owned by the Coopers, where a large peatland restoration programme has taken place. They have been able to do that work while retaining a successful commercial sheep flock. The programme has shown how land uses can be integrated and how peatland restoration can be done. People can still have grazing animals and make a real success of such work. It is about how we can best ensure that we have integrated approaches rather than an either/or situation.

I think that we have already seen that in recent years, if I understand your question correctly—please let me know if I have misinterpreted it. We have provided funding to help prepare our farmers and crofters for some of the changes. For example, you can look at the funding that we provided to the national test programme in preparing for sustainable farming to meet the costs of soil analysis, carbon audits and animal health and welfare plans, which will ultimately help farmers and crofters to set their own baselines for their businesses. Ultimately, we hope that those measures will help with overall business resilience and efficiency.

There are also other schemes. For example, we can look at some of the conditions that we have added to the suckler beef support scheme, which will, it is hoped, help with business efficiency in that sector.

We have made no bones about it: when we have had these additional areas of funding or spend, we are looking to target them at climate and nature outcomes. Again, however, we need to look at what work we can do on climate and nature, because that helps with food production and overall business resilience.

As far as I am aware, it does. Ultimately, elsewhere in the UK, direct payments have fallen off a cliff. We have always felt that it is important to maintain direct support for farmers and crofters, because we recognise the value to food production in Scotland in continuing that, while helping to increase business resilience to tackle the climate and nature challenges that we face.

I ask George Burgess whether he has any further information on that.