Official Report 606KB pdf
The second item on the agenda is an evidence session on the Scottish Government’s draft climate change plan. I welcome to the meeting Mairi Gougeon, Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs, Land Reform and Islands. She is joined by officials: Brendan Callaghan, interim chief executive, Scottish Forestry; Tim Ellis, deputy director, future environment division, Scottish Government; and John Kerr, head of agricultural policy, Scottish Government.
We have just under two hours to discuss this item, and we have quite a few questions to get through. Edward Mountain will join us later as a reporter for the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee, so we will ask him some questions at the end of the session. I ask the cabinet secretary to give us a short opening statement.
Thank you for having me along to speak to the draft climate change plan. The way that we use our land is absolutely central to tackling climate change, and it also matters deeply for our economy, our communities and the natural environment more broadly. The United Kingdom Climate Change Committee has made it clear that our land assets are one of the key reasons why Scotland could aim for net zero by 2045.
The draft climate change plan sets out how we intend to support an agricultural sector that continues to produce high-quality food while also reducing emissions, adapting to climate change and restoring nature. It takes a whole-system approach by looking not only at individual policies but at how land use fits together as a coherent picture. That includes looking at forestry, creating the right woodlands in the right places and protecting and restoring our peatlands so that they deliver for climate, nature and people.
Agriculture is vital to Scotland’s economy. It underpins our world-class food and drink industry, supports more than 67,000 jobs and sits at the heart of our rural communities. The plan sets out a comprehensive package to cut agricultural emissions while building a sector that is resilient, productive and profitable. We continue to design agricultural reform with the sector, because we know that achieving our climate and nature goals depends on successful farming and crofting businesses, which is why direct payments remain such an important part of our approach.
Many farmers and crofters are already showing what is possible by adopting low-carbon practices, improving efficiency, planting trees and restoring peatlands. We want to scale up that momentum across the whole sector and move towards Scotland becoming a global leader in sustainable and regenerative agriculture. We also know that our people are just as important as policies, which is why advice, skills support and training remain central to helping farmers and crofters to adopt low-carbon approaches with confidence.
Forestry also has a major role to play. The draft plan includes an ambitious but achievable woodland creation programme that will support net zero, enhance nature, benefit local communities and provide new opportunities for farmers to integrate trees into their businesses.
Our peatlands, too, are vital. Around 70 per cent of Scotland’s peatlands are degraded, and restoring them will be essential if we are to meet our climate and nature ambitions. The plan sets out a long-term goal to restore more than 400,000 hectares of peatland, which, in combination with other measures proposed, would see peatland emissions almost halved by 2040, with a strong focus on the highest-emitting areas.
On the whole, the draft climate change plan sets out ambitious policies and proposals across agriculture, forestry and peatlands that I believe will deliver on not only our climate but our nature ambitions. I am happy to take any questions that the committee might have.
Thank you very much, cabinet secretary.
I have to say that the position is not good; in fact, it is very concerning. We have an agriculture sector that is undoubtedly willing to step up to the mark and that appreciates the challenges around biodiversity and climate change, but the fact is that we have made very little progress since 2020. Emissions from agriculture are 20 per cent higher than was anticipated at this point.
Some stakeholders have said that that is due to stalling agriculture reform—it is certainly not through any lack of ambition on the part of the farming community. Given the lack of transparency and certainty, do you agree with those stakeholders that the reason for emissions being 20 per cent higher than was anticipated comes down to stalling agriculture reform?
I acknowledge the frustrations that have been expressed by some stakeholders, and I appreciate that there is always an ambition to go further and to do more. However, it is important to remember the overall context and the position that we have been in since the last plan came out and to consider everything that has happened in that time.
For a start, we left the European Union and we committed to having a period of stability and simplicity for our agriculture sector, which I think was the right thing to do. We needed to bring forward legislation at that point so that we could, through retained EU law, continue the basis for making payments to the sector. Of course, we then had to design a new framework for what support would look like, carry out a consultation on that, and introduce legislation to give us the powers to implement that framework, which we will need for the future.
That work has taken a bit of time, but I believe that, between that and the Agriculture and Rural Communities (Scotland) Act 2024, we have been building those foundations, particularly with the policies and proposals in the plan relating to our tenant farmers’ ability to play a part in addressing climate and nature issues, as well as the support schemes that we have. We have also been building that foundation through the land reform legislation that was recently passed by the Parliament.
We have been using the time to build those strong foundations, to undertake engagement with the industry and to work with other stakeholders. After all, when we design future policy, we want to ensure that it works for our farmers on the ground.
There is another reason why I would not say that things have stalled. As the committee will, no doubt, be aware—I know that the Minister for Agriculture and Connectivity has appeared before you to talk about these things—there are other changes that have been implemented or that will be coming into effect. We have seen the whole farm plan conditions, ecological focus areas will be coming into play, and there are the conditions in the Scottish suckler beef support scheme.
We are seeing more action being taken, and we have also published as much information as possible on schemes that are changing and on some of the measures that we might look to introduce in the future through our agricultural reform route map. This is all about building strong foundations in the coming years, so that we can ramp up progress in the next period of the plan.
You say that there has been lots of legislation. However, since the plan was updated in 2020, legislation has been introduced but none of it has been used; indeed, most of the legislation in the 2024 act is not being used. We are also legislating for legacy common agricultural policy schemes.
We are now in 2026 and emissions are 20 per cent higher than the level that we thought that they would be back in 2020. Moreover, we heard from Vera Eory that the Scottish Government’s draft plan will leave agricultural emissions significantly higher than the path that had been advised.
You say that you are building a strong foundation, but there is no evidence of that at all, particularly given that we have just had a budget that shows a drop in direct payments. How on earth are we going to pull this back and support agriculture to get anywhere near where the Climate Change Committee suggests we should be?
There are a number of different points there, which I will address as best I can. You made a point about the legislation. You are right: the legislation is in place. My point in mentioning the overall context was about the consultation that we need to undertake to develop the future framework. We passed the 2024 act, which we will be coming to implement. We needed the earlier legislation to continue the basis on which we are currently making support payments.
You made a point about where we are in relation to the climate change plan from 2020. It is important to remember that the overall emissions trajectory is still heading down. We are 13 per cent down on where we were against the baseline. It is a matter of building on the strong foundations that we introduced.
Could you explain that point to me?
We are now 13 per cent down from the overall baseline of emissions in 1990.
In relation to agriculture?
Yes.
Our papers suggest that levels are 20 per cent higher than the Government anticipated.
I think that we are talking about two different things. We are 13 per cent down on the overall baseline from 1990 but, potentially—
I beg your pardon—that is from 1990.
That is potentially down on what the projections were from the point of the plan in 2020, if that makes sense.
Okay. Thank you.
The fundamental thing with the approach that we have taken is that we are still maintaining stability for the sector in trying to maintain certainty, by providing the underpinning payments so that the sector knows that the support is there—so that it knows what is coming.
In the budget discussion last week, we talked about some of the investment that is taking place in other areas of the budget, which I think is hugely important. There is the investment in skills, with the new funding that has been identified for food and farming skills, as we touched on last week. It is important that we continue to invest in that. As we have set out, that is in the plan as well as in our route map. We intend to deliver the new agriculture knowledge and innovation system from 2027, which involves continuous professional development and building on the skills and advice that are available. Investing in that and building on those foundations will be helpful for the sector in driving forward our goal to become a global leader in sustainable and regenerative agriculture.
I do not think that we are quite getting to the crux of the question of why the levels for agriculture are 20 per cent higher than anticipated. We had a representative of the Scottish Agricultural Organisation Society before us a few weeks ago, who said that that could be because the Scottish Government does not want
“to deviate too far from the voice of the industry … so it tends not to do it … If you stay too close and too tight, you end up with only what the industry is able to publicly say that it is willing to do.”—[Official Report, Rural Affairs and Islands Committee, 14 January 2026; c 11.]
Is there an issue there? What is the reason for the difference between the Government’s ambition and the current reality?
I do not agree with that statement. The critical thing for me in my role—and our position has been clear the whole way through this—is that, ultimately, we want to deliver a new future framework of support that works with our farmers and crofters and that we know is deliverable.
I recognise some of the criticisms that we have received about the pace and scale of change, but we have to balance that with the need to take people along with us on that journey. I do not agree with that comment about being too close to industry. I, of course, engage with the farming sector as much as I do with environmental organisations. I know that there has been criticism about the scale of change, but we have to balance that with the pace at which people can move. We want to make progress and take people along with us on the journey while we continue to support the sector to have productive, resilient businesses. That is the approach that we have taken.
It is not as if we are standing still. In one of my earlier responses, I listed just some of the changes that we have implemented and that will be coming into play over the coming years. We are making progress, but the next few years will be vital in building momentum as we look to later years of the plan.
09:30
Before I ask my main question, I want to understand what climate modelling we are basing the climate plan on. What data is being used, for instance?
Do you mean in terms of some of the policies and proposals that we have set out in the plan?
I mean in terms of the very big picture of everything. Is the modelling based on Met Office data? The Government has built this plan, but I am concerned about whether it is based on the most up-to-date climate modelling. I am aware that modelling projections have changed—change has sped up and there are other things in the mix. For example, I know that the Scottish Environment Protection Agency is not your domain, but my understanding is that its approach is based on much older data and we are not really taking into account the level of flooding and the problems that we are going to have with that. I am concerned that we are building a plan that is based on a certain climate baseline or modelling, when the climate will be even worse than that.
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 might be helpful to explain that the land use and land use change chapter modelling, which includes forestry and peatland, is carried out by the UK Government Department for Energy Security and Net Zero. It uses the UK Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, which, in turn, draws on a wide range of data sources. For forestry, the main ones are the national inventory of woodlands and trees and the Forest Research modelling tools. Those capture existing woodlands as they are, and that derives the baseline. It gives an understanding of the range of species, the rates at which they are growing, the type of land and the type of soils. There is then a process of blending in the management that is currently forecast, such as the level of felling, how forests are replanted after they are felled and how quickly that is done, and the level of soil disturbance. There is also modelling of the degrading of the brash, branches and roots.
All of that is captured in the modelling, and that is in the baseline. The woodland creation proposals are not included in that—they are layered on top. If you look at the analytical annex, you will see that woodland creation takes quite a long time to feature in the climate change plan, because trees do not grow very quickly for the first five or 10 years.
That is a basic overview. However, as the cabinet secretary highlighted, the Climate Change Committee, in reaching its conclusions, did not have access to quite the same level of data and modelling. For example, it proposed a more gradual increase in woodland creation. What is critical if we are to have an impact as soon as we can is to plant trees now, because there is a 10 to 15-year delay.
The main difference between the Climate Change Committee recommendation and the Scottish Government draft climate change plan is that our approach is earlier and more up front. We are trying to get to the higher target more quickly, but we are not going as high as the Climate Change Committee suggested towards the end of the period. Bearing in mind that it takes 10 to 15 years for the impact of any trees planted to feed through, we think that that is the right thing to do, and it is very much reflected in the modelling that we had access to.
I am a bit concerned that we have a lot to get through. That was helpful, Brendan, but I think that it was about the emissions from forestry and the sequestration through trees. Maybe you can write to the committee on this, but the point that I am trying to get at is about the fundamental climate modelling that we are basing everything on. We have to have a foundation of assumptions on the climate impacts. We are starting to realise that change is happening much faster. We have developed a climate change plan that is looking at our carbon emissions and sequestration, but have we based it on the right model in the first place? That is what I am looking for. Maybe I should leave it there and you can write to the committee.
I would prefer that we concentrate on the agricultural and land use side of the plan. The Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee may wish to ask that question.
We can send the information to the committee, if that would be helpful.
That would be super, thank you.
My question is about voluntary uptake. The draft plan assumes a 45 per cent uptake of low-carbon farming measures, which will be voluntary. It also says that the approach may be “beyond an achievable level”, which is a bit concerning. Witnesses who gave evidence on 14 January, particularly Dr Vera Eory and Professor Dave Reay, were explicit in their view that a subsidy-only voluntary approach is weak and financially unsustainable at scale. They stressed the need for a “credible policy threat”; in other words, we would need stronger measures that are not voluntary. I raised that area with them, as I am concerned that we are basing the transformation on a high level of voluntary uptake. What do we do if that does not happen? What gives you confidence that the emissions will still reduce, and what is the Government’s back-up plan if the voluntary schemes do not deliver?
Our focus is, quite rightly, on delivering the policies and proposals that have been set out in the plan. I emphasise that the figure of 45 per cent uptake of measures by 2040 was based on robust research commissioned through ClimateXChange and delivered by Scotland’s Rural College. It is challenging, but the research sets out that it is believed to be achievable.
Right across Scotland, many farmers and crofters are already undertaking positive measures in relation to climate and nature, such as the use of sexed semen in dairy animal health measures and the reduction in calving intervals. Some suppliers in the market are also instigating such changes. My focus is very much on delivering what we have set out in the climate change plan, rather than working in the meantime on back-up policies, if you see what I mean. It is also important to remember that we have to monitor and provide annual updates on our progress and our targets. There will be another plan in five years’ time, so we will have to look at it very closely to ensure that we are continuing to deliver on the ambitions that we set out in the draft plan.
Do you have clear early warning signs in the plan, as well as the monitoring processes? Is there something in place that would trigger a new plan, or is there anything that would make you think, “That’s a red flag,” or, “That’s a warning sign that we’re not on track”?
That is important, especially when we are looking at agriculture. What will happen in future carbon budget periods, as opposed to what happens in the coming five years, will have the biggest impact on emissions reductions. As I set out in previous responses, it is about us building on the foundations and, ultimately, preparing for the full implementation of the future framework of support.
John, do you want to add anything else about monitoring?
One of the key parts of the agricultural reform programme that we are working on with the industry is the monitoring and evaluation framework, which will provide early feedback on the uptake of measures and the impact that those measures are having on the outcomes that we are looking for them to deliver, which, in this case, are the climate-related impacts.
Monitoring will help us to know whether we are doing the right thing and how to course correct.
Yes.
I notice that the first phase of the plan takes us to 2030, which will be the year before an election, so in December 2030 we could be in a situation similar to the one that we are in now, at the end of a parliamentary session. How things have been set up concerns me, because the parliamentary session will be wrapping up at that point—as is the case today—and there will be a compressed amount of time to properly scrutinise the plan.
Unfortunately, that is the cycle that we are in. However, we must provide annual updates, which give the opportunity to assess progress against what has been set out.
When will the Parliament and wider stakeholders get to see the future framework that you mentioned? I suppose that you could call it the rural support plan.
The Minister for Agriculture and Connectivity has written to the committee to say that, unfortunately, publication of the rural support plan will be delayed because of the delayed budget process. As I outlined to the committee last week, once we have completed that process, we will publish the rural support plan.
Roughly, how long will we have to wait? Will the plan be published before the election or after it?
It will be published before the election.
Thank you.
Can you say a bit more about the Government’s attitude and approach to getting a voluntary uptake of 45 per cent? In particular, what will that mean for partnership working between the Government and farmers?
A partnership approach is really important in providing underpinning support for the industry and in incentivising uptake of some of the measures.
In relation to the measures that we have introduced so far, we have attached conditions for people to receive support through the whole farm plan, and those conditions will ramp up in the coming years. We expect everyone to have in place all the relevant plans that we have set out by 2028. We also have conditions to prevent the deterioration of some of our most valuable land and to protect our peatlands. We introduced a good agricultural and environmental condition to prevent any further erosion or damage in that regard.
The fundamental principle of our approach is that we very much want to work with farmers and crofters, because we need to take everybody with us on this journey so that we provide a just transition and help businesses to become more resilient to the climate challenges that we face.
You are clearly making a virtue of the partnership approach, but is there a backstop if that is not sufficient? Would you consider encompassing other measures if that approach did not work?
We are focused on the measures that we want to introduce and on the implementation of the four-tier framework. Ultimately, one of the bonuses of the new system compared with the operation of the common agricultural policy is that there will be flexibility between the different tiers. Under the future framework of support, we will be able to change things if we feel that changes are needed. We will work with the industry on that, and we will monitor and evaluate the different measures that we have introduced to see how things are moving.
We have not worked up a particular backstop at the moment, because we want to work with the industry and invest in the tier 4 measures and skills. We are providing upskilling and training opportunities, and we want the sector to feel that it has every opportunity to take part in building the support framework.
We are living in a world with new pressures in relation to the trade deals that are being struck with other countries in the post-Brexit environment. How alive does the Government have to be to the pressures on the industry when forming such a partnership?
09:45
Much of that is, of course, outwith our control. That is why I feel that our approach of providing some stability through many of the challenges that we have faced in previous years has been the right one. It also gives the sector confidence that the underpinning support that we have committed to through direct payments will remain in place. We very much intend to work with the sector going forward.
We have touched on the reliance on meeting the 45 per cent voluntary uptake target. If that is not achievable, one of our previous witnesses suggested that there needed to be a “credible policy threat” that would have, in the long term, an impact—for example, financially—and would affect pricing policy. Should that level of uptake not be reached, are you considering some form of taxation or emissions trading in the future?
My focus is on ensuring that we reach that level of uptake as far as possible. I reiterate that the target of 45 per cent uptake by 2040 is based on research, which sets out that it is believed to be achievable, so it is right that our focus is ultimately on that.
Most emission reductions for agriculture are back-loaded to the end of the 2040 period. Is that because you recognise that there is a risk that the 45 per cent voluntary uptake might not be achievable?
No, it is because it is believed that the target is achievable by that time.
That is looking into the future. As we have touched on, there will be monitoring during that time. Also, we will set out other climate change plans in that period and those will provide updates.
The 45 per cent uptake target is very much the focus, and it is believed to be achievable on the basis of the research that has been commissioned.
Good morning. My question is about the uptake of low-carbon measures. We heard at the evidence session a couple of weeks ago that there does not seem to be a clear idea of mitigation measures that would be implemented on farms and crofts to reduce emissions. The witness from the Scottish Agricultural Organisation Society highlighted that a list of mitigation measures is missing. Will you explain why there is not a list of mitigation measures in the draft CCP?
Mitigation measures were identified and published through ClimateXChange-commissioned research that was carried out by the SRUC. We could consider setting out more information on that in the plan. What has been done in relation to those measures has essentially formed the basis of many of the actions that we have already taken forward so far or that are already published. In 2023, we published a list of measures on the Government’s website that were potentially going to be used as part of tier 2 of the framework. That is where some of the measures emanated from.
Some of the measures are built into the work that we have been developing on the code of practice on sustainable and regenerative agriculture, and we published the first version of that last summer. Measures that have been considered through the ecological focus areas, along with some of the changes that are being implemented this year and next, are being examined as part of that work, too.
Will there be a list available in the final CCP?
I do not think that there will be any problem in publishing those measures in the CCP.
People will be left in the dark if they do not know what is being sought, which direction the measures are going in and how to start implementing them.
As I said, a lot of that information has been the foundation of the approach that we have developed so far and is part of what we have published. We can look to publish that in the final version of the plan.
A lot of farmers and crofters tell us that, when they audit their carbon emissions, the mitigation that they take means that they are net zero, but that does not seem to add together. Has the Scottish Government done any more work on the mitigations that are already in place to take account of them when cutting farm and croft emissions?
Sorry—I do not quite understand the question in relation to carbon audits. Perhaps you could repeat it, if you do not mind.
People who carry out their own carbon audits may be taking mitigation measures—not necessarily tree planting, cutting animal numbers or things like that, but generating electricity or doing other things on their land. However, the carbon audits do not seem to take that activity into account. Given that such activity helps to offset the carbon that they emit, will there be measures to take that into account so that the various organisations that are, in reality, net zero are recognised as such?
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.
Ms Grant is right in that there are businesses that have multiple things going on across their landholdings, such as agricultural activity or tree planting, or—as she said—renewable energy production. The carbon audit process for the agricultural part of the business is designed to look at that part of the enterprise. We—or, rather, the carbon audit providers—are working on how that takes wider account of other land-based activities, so that we can build activities such as sequestration or peatland restoration into the tools.
However, to go back to the question, what is important is that we recognise that farmers and crofters can use their land to deliver across all, or multiple parts, of the climate change inventory. As a Government, we are bound to report those emissions where they sit in the inventory, so the agricultural part of that will always be counted in the agricultural bit of the emissions returns that we have to submit. We are all bound by that.
Equally, however, we recognise that actions that farmers and crofters take, such as planting trees or generating energy, are important. We cannot deliver on the climate change plan without those efforts. What we need to do, therefore—and are trying to do—is recognise those actions, even though the inventory counts them in a way that means that it is a little bit awkward for us to get that across to farmers.
I wonder whether there will be unintended consequences. For example, agriculture is being asked to do things such as reduce animal numbers, but that is going to cut down food production. Although the whole of the company may be net zero, therefore, we will be losing out on food production and possibly end up importing food that is more carbon heavy than what we are producing at home.
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.
Good morning, and thanks for your answers so far.
Some witnesses have had concerns that the agricultural reform programme just does not go far enough. How will the rural support plan offer the sector practical actions?
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.
Do you think that there will be more practical actions as you move forward?
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.
Good morning, and thanks for being here this morning. I have a couple of questions about issues around the draft climate change plan. The plan proposes technological improvements, including alternatively fuelled machinery, alternative fertilisers, feed additives and smart sheds.
Earlier in January, I led a debate about anaerobic digestion. That is not just about managing waste food; it is also about managing slurry—and there is also carbon capture to consider. There is a farm at Crocketford that is doing COcapture, but it is also producing biogas. I am interested in all that kind of technological stuff. Dairy Nexus is doing work at the Barony campus at Parkgate. There is loads of stuff going on with technological innovation, and I am interested to hear about how much emissions reduction you expect to take place, according to your modelling, by implementing technologies such as smart sheds and all the other items that I have listed.
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.
Is work on-going to help incentivise farmers to take up anaerobic digestion plants, for instance? The last time I checked the numbers, there were about 764 dairy herds in Scotland, and I know that a lot of them are in the south-west. Some of the herds might have up to 1,000 cows.
10:00
There is certainly room for supporting biogas as an alternative fuel for tractors and having that gas produced on site—and even using it for local heat networks, for instance, and using the digestate locally, so that the supply chain becomes more local. Are farmers being incentivised to take up that kind of activity?
There are probably a few points in what you have talked about. First, there is the investment that we make in looking at such technologies. As we touched on in some of our discussions last week on the budget, we are always interested in looking at and investing in innovation. A variety of projects have been funded to do exactly that. That is the purpose of our knowledge transfer and innovation fund. That also funds the monitor farm network, which has been helpful in peer learning exchange, looking at what is happening elsewhere.
There is wider investment in some of the bigger technologies that you spoke about. Another exciting example of that, which relates to a previous point that I made in relation to non-road mobile machinery, is the HydroGlen project that we funded the James Hutton Institute to undertake. That has been on-going for a number of years, and it is about doing exactly that: producing hydrogen in a way that can support and sustain the rural economy and fuel machinery. That project is very much on-going, and, in any learning that we get from it and from some of the projects that you have talked about, it is about how we can scale it up and incentivise use.
My final question is about early adopters and good collaborative working in the implementation of new technologies. I have just read an article about an innovative farmer who has partnered with another company to have biogas on his farm for his tractor. Is it essential to have good working relationships and collaboration with farmers and technology developers in order to make the technology work?
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.
Many witnesses have said that there is no clarity on the actions that are needed in agriculture and that farmers and crofters are not clear about what they need to do. Some have stated that farmers and crofters have been promised future rewards but that those are not materialising. We have heard about innovation—Emma Harper’s question was all about that—but, for example, the cost of electric tractors is two or three times more than that of their normal counterparts, as is the case for tractors that are powered by biofuels or hydrogen. Given that the budget is declining year on year, how can we get early adopters, who are critical to driving innovation, to have the confidence that their investments will pay? Will there be future increases in funding to allow those early adopters to take on some of the new technology?
I cannot speak to what future budgets will contain. We discussed the budget last week. We have had the spending review, which is not a budget but will provide an overall line of sight. Some areas are proposals rather than policies, because we recognise that a lot of work is on-going. In some areas that we mentioned, things could change rapidly up to the end of the carbon budget period in 2040. We will consider what we can do, including incentivising the uptake of different measures, and will continue to work with the sector as we do that.
Are you suggesting that some of the predictions on the adoption of new technology will not be financially driven or potentially financially supported by the Government?
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.
Clarity is one thing that many of the witnesses say simply does not exist. There is no clarity, and that sits alongside a decreasing budget.
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.
The plan makes certain assumptions about livestock numbers. I know that you have had a conversation with the Climate Change Committee and others about that. Can you say something about how that aspect relates to the landscape and about the allowances that you have had to make for the landscape of the less favoured areas of which Scotland is largely composed?
It was one of the policy proposals that the Climate Change Committee put forward, but, recognising how important the livestock industry is in Scotland, we were concerned about the impact that such a policy, should it be delivered, would have not only on agriculture but across the broader rural economy and our economy as a whole. That means that we have had to consider how we look more broadly across the piece if we are to meet those carbon budgets. That also involves other sectors, because it is not for agriculture alone to deliver on reaching our net zero ambitions. We need to look more broadly across other areas and think about how we can deliver the targets together.
I feel that we have put forward ambitious policies and proposals that will, as an alternative to reducing numbers, help to reduce the intensity of emissions in the livestock sector—as I mentioned earlier—while ensuring that we have a thriving agricultural industry. We have a landscape that is well suited to producing livestock, and we want to ensure that that continues long into the future.
The committee has returned again and again to the issue of offsetting; we have probably spoken to you about it previously. What is the Government doing to ensure that, in the future, we do not continue to meet our appetite for meat in Scotland simply by replacing meat that is produced here with meat that is produced somewhere else, perhaps to poorer animal welfare or environmental standards?
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.
Finally, I want to highlight an issue that, again, the committee has raised in the past. I do not know whether it was relevant to the considerations that you just mentioned. Is there a danger that, in many parts of the country, agricultural activity could slump to a point at which it would no longer be sustainable at a community level or as part of the local economy? What part did that play in the considerations? Did you consider any alternatives for less favoured areas with regard to things that would have to change in the future?
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.
Good morning, cabinet secretary. I have a couple of quick questions. To some extent, you have said a lot of positive words this morning. You have said repeatedly, “I recognise the criticism,” or a variation of that in response to several questions on matters about which a lot of stakeholders have been critical. I will go back to March, when we had Quality Meat Scotland and NFU Scotland in front of us, or to even a couple of weeks ago, when we had stakeholders in to talk about the CCP. Is the problem the fact that it is all a lot of words and delivery on the ground has been poor, including the fact that we have still not seen the rural support plan?
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.
I get that, but, to go back to Jim Walker’s report of years ago on calves in a sustainable beef industry, or even to what has happened with the agri-environment climate scheme over the years and the amount of money that we have put into that, my understanding, from the latest data that I can get, is that the drop-off has been massive—partly because you took away a lot of the capital grants, so people have just not done those things. On EFAs—I am just using practical examples—we were expecting a whole raft of measures, but the scheme has been cut back to just four new options.
Fundamentally, delivery has been quite poor, has it not? You say that it takes a long time. However, we are 10 years or so on from the start of discussions and we still do not have the rural support plan or know what is coming around the corner, so I wonder whether farmers are dropping off.
My other point is that, to some extent, I hear from the community that the working arm of the department is so busy concentrating on paperwork that it is not concentrating on the difference on the ground. Is there some truth in that?
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.
I think that we are just going to have to disagree. The point does not come from me. Pretty much every stakeholder who has sat in front of us has said that the Government has been really slow to enact the change. I accept that you say that it is potentially coming, but I am just not sure when it is going to come. My worry is that the agriculture industry is being harmed by that, because, rather than the industry being seen to be driving forward, which I think it is doing on the ground, it is being held back by Government.
I have a quick question, because I want to get something clear in my head. John Kerr answered a question earlier and talked about emissions breakdowns. In the carbon audits, agriculture is not being seen in its broad scope. Can I double-check that the industry is not penalised for that? If you took in that broad figure, the situation might look far better than it does, because of the way the figures are broken down in the paperwork. Am I understanding that correctly?
Our intention is definitely to recognise the effort that farmers and crofters are making, whether that is in the agricultural part of the industry; in land use, land use change and forestry; or, as somebody mentioned, in renewable energy. As the cabinet secretary has pointed out, our overall policy is to support active farming businesses, but we want to help them to do those other things, too.
Sometimes, farmers feel penalised in that their agricultural emissions are judged—not by us, but by the media—in the absence of looking at the good things that they are doing. We are trying very hard to counter that narrative, including by demonstrating the things that farmers and crofters are doing with their land. Some of that criticism is felt by the sector, but I do not think that it is coming from the policies that we are in control of or even in the way that it is portrayed by others. I recognise the criticism, but I do not recognise it as coming from our policies. Certainly, we have sought to have a very balanced policy in terms of how agriculture fits into the overall climate change plan.
I get that. I just wanted to be sure about that. Maybe I completely misunderstood. Somebody—it might have been Emma Harper—mentioned a dairy example, but a dairy farmer might say, “There’s not much I can do, as I have a lot of cows and I am milking, but I have filled all my sheds with solar panels and I have worked hard on planting trees.” If that is not being considered in the way that statistics are delivered, it might look as if agriculture is not doing much.
Does that make sense? I think that what John Kerr is saying is that you are trying to pull all of that together to show that agriculture is doing quite a lot, even if it is not based purely on livestock numbers.
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.
Yes. Okay.
I am a bit concerned by Mr Kerr’s comments that the Government feels that it has any place to defend agriculture. The Government’s job is to ensure that we have sustainable food production and food security and to deliver on its commitments in the climate change plan. I know that the cabinet secretary disagrees but, across the sector, whether that is non-governmental organisations, small or big farmers, the NFU Scotland or the Scottish Agricultural Organisation Society, there is universal condemnation of the lack of clarity on future agricultural policy.
On the back of the Agriculture and Rural Communities (Scotland) Act 2024, Jonnie Hall said that it was “two years too late”, it was “pretty bland” and that it
“lacks the obvious detail which farmers and crofters need now if they are to plan for and implement change.”
There are real concerns about agriculture, but the cabinet secretary seems to be the only one who disagrees with that.
There are a few points in that. To be fair to John Kerr, what he was saying and what we have been saying is that agriculture is very much part of the solution to the climate and nature issues that we face. That touches on the perceptions that Tim Eagle has just spoken about. It is about our policies giving better recognition to the role that agriculture plays in delivering on the ambitions.
You have set out a criticism of the 2024 act, which would never have contained the detail. We had multiple discussions during the scrutiny process, because the act introduced the powers to deliver a future framework of support, during which time we developed the detail with the industry. Much of the information that has been published about the overall direction in which we are going is available in the list of measures and the route map that we have spoken about, along with the initial version of the code of practice, which we have published. We are set to publish the final version of it once the rural support plan has been published.
Among all of that, we have provided stability through direct payments and have outlined our commitment to support our livestock sector through voluntary coupled support and other measures, because we recognise how important it is to provide certainty. I can only reiterate what I have already said: I appreciate criticisms about the scale and pace of change, because we want to work with the sector and ensure that we are implementing policies that work and will deliver our ambitions for the future. Of course, we can then look to scale those up in the years ahead, as we have set out in the draft climate change plan.
I have a quick supplementary on the back of Alasdair Allan’s questions about trade and the things that we can control. Dr Stuart Gillespie has written a book called “Food Fight” in which he talks a lot about emissions, ultra-high-processed foods and ultra-processed foods. It may not be in your portfolio, but I am interested in evidence and any research on or evaluation of UPFs in our diet and their contribution to obesity in comparison to healthier foods. Healthier food is mentioned in the draft climate change plan, but does ‘healthier’ mean food that has been flown for thousands of miles or palm oil that is destroying biodiversity in Indonesia, for example? Is that being considered in the climate change plan?
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.
We will now move on to forestry and a question from Emma Roddick.
Good morning, cabinet secretary. I want to ask about the tree planting targets and the interaction with the Climate Change Committee’s recommendations. I note that the CCC specifically mentioned the figure of 22,000 hectares a year by 2036, but it seems from the draft climate change plan that the Government is taking a different approach. Can you speak to that and how that approach will meet the overall targets for planting?
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 two or three things to highlight here. First, we are very conscious of the need to maximise the contribution of planting in this climate change period in order to address emissions reduction. The more planting you do earlier in the period, the more you can deliver, because of the delay while the trees grow.
The modelling that we had access to allowed us to look at those figures in a more dynamic way. Although the figures in the Scottish Government’s draft plan are lower from 2036 to 2040, they are higher in the earlier years. For example, we get up to 18,000 hectares within five years, whereas that period was longer for the Climate Change Committee.
Secondly, there are concerns about the fact that we do not have any evidence or track record of delivery at that scale of planting. The fact is that 18,000 hectares is an ambitious and challenging target, and we will have to prepare a delivery plan that looks at all the options to get us there. Moreover, we inherently had concerns about whether the 22,000 hectares figure was technically achievable. When we had discussions with stakeholders, they voiced similar concerns.
There are a number of reasons for the difference, but the main one is the aim of maximising the contribution to emissions reduction within the climate change plan period, and we will achieve that by planting trees earlier.
If I understand this correctly, you are saying that, although fewer trees will be planted in 2036, more trees will exist at that point than would have existed under the Climate Change Committee’s proposals, so carbon sequestration will be greater at that point.
Yes.
Grand. Thank you.
Just on that, I note that you mentioned the lag effect. Turning that on its head, I assume that that means that, if we do not plant more trees now, we risk making future carbon budgets more difficult, because of the lag period. When we look at the draft climate change plan, the CCC’s recommendations and the budget together, do we not see a policy delivery mismatch in that these ambitions are not backed by the resources that the industry feels it needs in order to address the lag and that give the industry the confidence to invest?
I think that we touched on this point last week. I do not know whether you are referring to some of the figures that have been provided by the industry with regard to what it thought it needed, but I can bring in Brendan Callaghan to delve into that in more detail. We have the resources to deliver what is set out in the draft climate change plan in the coming year’s budget and in the spending review for the years following that.
Can you elaborate on that, Brendan? I think that the industry had asked for a higher budget, but we do have the budget that we need to deliver the policies that have been set out—if that was the point you were trying to make, convener.
There has definitely been a historical problem in the past few years, with the lack of funding affecting confidence. Indeed, the cabinet secretary recognises the issue and has talked about it numerous times.
As far as the current draft climate change plan is concerned, we have done some very detailed analysis of the level and profile of the funding needed to support the number of hectares that are set out in the plan, and we are confident that that is sufficient. It does not surprise us that the industry can come up with a higher figure. We have quite a lot of discussions with those in the industry, and we sit down and compare notes on these things. At the end of the day, given that it is a very challenging settlement, we cannot afford to pad out our budget. I am not saying that we could not do more with more money, but we are absolutely satisfied that the budgets have been pitched at an appropriate level to deliver the target that has been set.
10:30
I am interested in targeting carbon value in spatial planning. The climate change plan relies heavily on area-based woodland targets, but witnesses have stressed to the committee that a hectare is not necessarily a hectare—it depends on what is being done on it. We had quite a long chat about that. Concerns were raised about putting trees in the wrong places and about planting in organic soils. It was also said that we could do quite a lot through forestry management in a way that we are not doing or requiring at the moment.
How will you ensure that we not only hit hectare targets, in terms of numbers, but get the best carbon outcomes? How will you prevent trees from being planted in the wrong places, such as carbon-rich soils, where they could do more harm than good? Another point that was raised in our conversation with witnesses was about having a plan for where trees should be planted.
Brendan Callaghan will be able to provide more focused detail in relation to identifying the right places and how those processes work at the moment. The type of tree is also important. Analysis that has been done by Forest Research shows that planting faster-growing conifers will deliver the greatest level of removals between now and the middle of the century. Overall, native and broadleaf woodlands are also vital in building up wider woodland carbon stocks over the longer term and in supporting the wider resilience of any new woodland that is created.
I saw the evidence that you touched on about where trees should be planted. We have always been keen to have the right trees in the right places. That has been fundamental to our approach. I will hand over to Brendan Callaghan, who can say a bit more about the detail that is considered in that regard.
The hectare target includes the full range of woodland creation types, species and land types. The assumptions about the carbon savings are based on the current mix, which is split roughly half and half between native woodland and productive conifer woodland.
Ariane Burgess is right in saying that, in theory, if you wanted to maximise the number, you would use purely mineral soils and the most productive species, but that would severely limit us in Scotland, because it would inevitably mean that woodland creation would be focused on better farmland and it would lead to conflicts relating to interference with food production.
As the cabinet secretary mentioned, it is important to note that it takes longer for native woodlands to start growing and absorbing carbon. A lot of the native woodlands that we are establishing are on organomineral soils—for example, shallower peats in the uplands. However, in the medium term—over 20 to 50 years—native woodlands continue to absorb carbon gradually, so they will provide a substantial long-term benefit in relation to the emissions reduction profile of Scotland’s woodlands.
On the spatial element, the woodland expansion advisory group carried out analysis on the potential scope for woodland creation, and that analysis has been repeated by ClimateXChange and others. We are confident that, excluding prime agricultural land, designated sites and land that is not suitable for tree planting, roughly 1.5 million to 2 million hectares of Scotland’s land is potentially suitable for tree planting. However, when we start to look in more detail at that land, we find lots of other constraints.
An element of that has been done through local authority forest and woodland strategies. Most local authorities have strategies in place, and several, including the two authorities in the south—Dumfries and Galloway Council and Scottish Borders Council—are starting the process of renewing them. Those are non-statutory planning documents, which allow for the identification of suitability in a broad classification.
Some areas are considering whether they can go further than the regional land use partnerships and go into more detail. That is where things get challenging, because environmental surveys will be needed on the actual sites. If somebody takes a decision about one part of a valley, will that affect the suitability of the other part? There is a cumulative effect.
The question of whether regional land use partnerships could be used to spatially identify where forestry should be created and where it will deliver the most benefits is being explored. However, in practice, barriers will be hit. There is an argument that sites will always need to be dealt with on a case-by-case basis through an assessment of environmental impacts and by looking at what is on the site and what has recently happened in the locality. We are exploring the use of regional land use partnerships, but that may not necessarily be the solution.
The final challenge in considering this issue is that we need to work in partnership with landowners, and they need to be willing to do that. Landowners sometimes do not appreciate a top-down approach that says that their land is or is not suitable for tree planting. Things can get difficult if we have those discussions at a detailed level rather than at a regional level.
At the moment, we rely on a case-by-case approach, but we are open to regional planning approaches to strategically identify where woodland creation would fit into the plans.
Okay. Thanks for providing that broader picture. At the beginning of your answer, you said that, in an ideal scenario—I am paraphrasing—we could plant on mineral soils in the most productive areas but that doing so would limit us and push us on to farmland. I am more interested in the point about limiting us. In what way would we be limited? Is it just that we would end up on farmland?
A high proportion of the 1.5 to 2 million hectares of land in Scotland that is theoretically suitable for tree planting has an element of organic soils on it. Those are not deep peats, because peats that go deeper than 50cm have been excluded from that figure, but they may go 10cm, 20cm or 30cm deep. A lot of Scotland is part of that territory.
If we removed such areas, we would almost be left with semi-improved or improved agricultural land. There is almost nowhere in the upland landscape, other than in the very east of Scotland, where there are purely mineral soils—they would all have an element of organic soils. We deal with that on a case-by-case basis with peat and soil surveys and assessments of the suitability and value of the present habitats and by protecting those.
Okay. The Scottish Agroecology Partnership—SAP—has pointed out that there are not really any opportunities in the forestry farming space for things like hedgerow planting. Are you looking into that?
Also, I remember being at the Royal Highland Show, where the Woodland Trust and others were presenting the idea of having trees on farms. Are we optimising that idea or that direction of travel? There is such an opportunity for farmland—I have been to a monitor farm near Grantown-on-Spey, where the farmer had his cattle grazing through a wonderful, quite old birch wood. Maybe we need to look into that kind of thing.
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.
I mentioned this in my question, but I will bring it back into the conversation. Some stakeholders highlighted the idea that we could do more management within forestry plantations, for instance. Are you considering that? If forests were properly manged or better managed, that could help us with our carbon emissions.
Yes, absolutely: I have a lot of sympathy with that view. We are at the evidence-gathering stage on that. The current modelling in the climate change plan is based on a whole series of complex assumptions. We have spoken with Forest Research, and we have commissioned a study to examine practice across Europe—what other countries are doing to use the management of their forests to maximise their contribution to climate change. We need to understand the impacts if you change something in your approach to forest management; there might be a short-term benefit, but is there a benefit in the long run?
As I say, we are at the evidence-gathering stage. We were not ready to introduce policies in the present climate change plan, but we are aware that other countries are actively considering the idea. We are trying to gather information and evidence as to how the levers could be used and whether we are able to improve the situation.
Does that include continuous-cover forestry? Are you considering that as a possible approach?
That is already a component. Every landowner managing a forest is expected to consider that and to have some element of it. That is definitely a question in our minds: if you increase the area under continuous cover, does that help and how significant is that? There are constraints on that in Scotland, but that is one of the questions where we want to get the evidence and understand the answer before we introduce the policy.
You mention—
I am sorry, Ariane, but—
Can I raise one very quick point?
No—I am going to have to move on, as we are running out of time. I call Rhoda Grant.
Thank you, convener. This is just a wee point of clarification. If I have picked you up right, cabinet secretary, you were saying that it takes longer for native woodland to store carbon than it does for commercial planting. How does that impact on our use of native woodland in the future? We have always said that, if we found better uses for native woodland, we would plant more of it in Scotland.
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.
Yes. I guess I am a little concerned that, if native woodland does not store carbon so quickly, there will possibly be a push not to use it and to leave it in the ground, so that it slowly stores carbon, rather than taking it and using it for other purposes.
Having that mix in our forestry is critically important, not least for the resilience of the woodland that we are creating. I do not know whether there is anything further that you would want to add in relation to that, Brendan.
Generally, the management of woodlands maximises their absorption of carbon in the long term. In woodland where the trees of all the canopies have interlocked and are starting to compete, some of those trees would naturally die, and that carbon would be re-released. However, if you go in and harvest that proportion, you keep the trees growing, and the timber that you have harvested can go into a variety of uses, some of which are long term and contribute to carbon stored in timber products. Generally, forestry management is a positive thing for maximising carbon storage, so I would not worry about that.
10:45
You are probably thinking about it in the same way. Where woodlands have a purpose beyond simply being woodland, that tends to strengthen their security and enhance their management for conservation. People then tend to be involved in deer management and to value the products that come from the woodlands. We very much encourage that.
Although that is not possible in the case of all woodlands—often because of the terrain or access—we are very much planting native woodlands with the expectation that a high proportion of them will be managed in the long term.
We will now move on to our section on peatland. My question is on the targets and what we have achieved up to now. We have a baseline that assumes that 12,000 hectares will be restored in 2025-26, which is set out in the five-year peatland action programme, which was published last December. To that, we can add the 90,000 hectares that have been restored to date. However, it does not appear that the increasing rate of restoration by 10 per cent each year up to 2030, and maintaining levels after that, will reach the target of 400,000 hectares by 2040. Will you explain that discrepancy?
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.
I appreciate that some restorations are of higher quality and result in greater amounts of carbon sequestration. That would suggest an improvement in the accuracy of emissions reporting. However, it is quite clear that the targets are based on hectares. We must not conflate the targets, which are in hectares, with the emission reductions. Given that the target to restore 250,000 hectares by 2030 is not likely to be met, how will you ensure the target to restore 400,000 hectares by 2040 target is met?
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.
I suppose that it is all about being pragmatic, transparent and honest with people about what the targets mean. Justifying a reduction in the number of hectares restored by suggesting that you restored fewer hectares but achieved greater carbon capture is not particularly transparent.
Should we not be looking at one or tother? We should either be looking at emissions reductions through improved peatland restoration, or looking at the target for restoration by hectarage. Why do we have the different approaches, going by the area restored and by emissions reductions? Why are we conflating the two rather than being a little more transparent?
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.
It is worth remembering that we are doing this in the context of the climate change plan, and therefore we are focusing most on emissions reductions. However, for peatland as a whole, that has a number of other benefits in terms of hydrology, water quality, nature restoration and so on. The measurement by hectares is a way of ensuring that we capture all that in the round, rather than just focusing on either one or the other, as both are important.
We certainly heard in evidence about the other benefits of peatland restoration.
I have a question from Alasdair Allan.
As everyone knows, some areas of peatland have much higher emissions than others. How are you seeking to identify—or are you seeking to identify—the most degraded or most high-emitting areas of peatland under your policy?
Key to delivering that is the “Peatland ACTION Five Year Partnership Plan 2025-2030”, which the convener touched on in one of his previous questions. That plan sets out and describes the actions that we need to take to increase restoration during the first phase of the journey to the new 2040 target.
The plan sets out how we will work with the sector to develop those approaches to focusing public funds on delivering on climate and nature objectives and broader objectives, and ensuring that we increase the proportion of highly degraded, high-emitting peatlands that are restored. The partnership is currently working through ways to better target those peatland types. We have mapped out the extent of peatland in Scotland, and we are identifying where those more challenging and highest-emitting sites are.
You indicated that there will have to be an effort by all concerned, not merely by Government. In that case, what is being done to mainstream the activity of peatland restoration in the day-to-day ownership and management of land in Scotland?
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.
Finally, do we have the workforce in rural Scotland, or are we seeking to develop the skills and a workforce, to deal with some of the heavy lifting that is involved—in some cases, literally—in parts of this work?
That has been one of the challenges in peatland restoration. Fundamentally, we have had to build a new industry and ensure that we are investing in and building capacity for the sector in order to meet not just the targets that we have now but our ambitious targets to 2040, which we have already talked about.
Tim, do you have anything more to add in relation to the skills element, in particular, and some of the work that has been happening there?
The committee heard from the panel of witnesses a couple of weeks ago that, up until relatively recently, there were a number of challenges. In the short term, we seem to have got beyond that, but there are clearly longer-term workforce issues, and I think that NatureScot has talked about going into schools and so on.
In the short to medium term, we have a programme that will provide sufficient capacity in the sector to enable us to carry out this activity, but there is also work that we will do as part of our five-year plan to ensure that we have the right skills and are sending the right signals to the sector to ensure that the activity is not only maintained but sustained into the longer term.
Thank you.
I think that the budget this year sets out a figure of £28 million for this work, and it also mentions 10,000 hectares. The draft climate change plan is looking to do around 13,200 hectares this year. Are you confident that that is achievable within the £28 million budget?
Again, all sorts of complexities might well arise with projects in the coming year. You are absolutely right—£28 million has been earmarked in this year’s budget, and it is for delivering 10,000 hectares. That is purely because the cost of restoration has gone up quite dramatically—from what I can remember, it has increased by 150 per cent—and that can inhibit activity.
It might mean that slightly less gets restored, but the expectation has been that there will be peaks and troughs between years. If you look at previous years, you will see that we were able to restore 15,000 hectares of degraded peatland, so we would expect to be able to make up this shortfall in the coming years.
This is just out of curiosity, but are there any other sources of funding that you think can help with achieving the targets?
We have been looking at and considering that. At the moment, peatland restoration is 100 per cent funded through the Scottish Government, and we need to look at other models of finance such as private finance, because I do not think that we can rely solely on public funding to do everything that we need to do, whether it be in relation to peatland or other areas. In our modelling, we have been looking at Government funding covering about 90 per cent of the costs, and the other 10 per cent coming from private finance.
There is also our peatland code to take into account, because we want to ensure that, if we do get private finance, that sort of investment is done with integrity, in a responsible way and in accordance with the natural capital market framework that we published towards the tail end of 2024.
Okay. Thank you.
We still have two or three questions to go, and I am conscious that we are rapidly running out of time.
As Tim Eagle touched on the first part of my question, I will move on to the other part of it. He asked about other sources of funding, and you have pointed out that you are looking at private finance. However, Future Economy Scotland warned us in evidence that the private finance market for peatland is “underdeveloped and untested” and that we might be
“delaying action … for an uncertain solution”—[Official Report, Rural Affairs and Islands Committee, 7 January 2026; c 4.]
later on. It also raised the practical point that peatland restoration is largely about avoiding emissions, so the demand for peatland credits might be weaker, and it pointed to, for example, tax-based approaches, zero-interest, income-contingent loans and that kind of thing. Is the Government looking at that, instead of just going for straight-up carbon credits and that kind of approach?
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.
Yes, that covers it.
Is the carbon emissions land tax in that space?
In the programme for government, we committed to ask the Scottish Land Commission to do some work on that, which it is currently undertaking.
Thank you.
11:00
As a supplementary to that, Future Economy Scotland has suggested that private finance could increase project costs by almost 50 per cent. Does that provide good value for money?
That is why piloting some of the projects that we have talked about is important: we need to see what will work and minimise the costs that are involved. When we undertake projects, such as the carbon contracts project, it is important to consider whether we can scale them up. We can then look at using a blended finance model in the future, but we very much have to see how the pilot progresses and what learning we can take from it.
Okay. Thank you. We have heard that farmers and crofters have a real role to play in peatland restoration, tree planting and the like. How do we ensure that support and funding for that work is coherent, so that people are encouraged to do it rather than discouraged?
I will touch on some of the points that I made earlier. Our approach is not only to encourage restoration; it is about how we protect some of our peatlands. We considered that when applying some of the conditions to agricultural support.
We need to involve everyone in the agricultural reform programme to ensure that we are linked. I give the assurance that, as we develop future support, we are not working in silos, and we are considering how we can provide support in an integrated and coherent way. Officials are involved in the agricultural reform programme and very much having such discussions at the moment.
An awful lot of agricultural funding goes toward activities that might be reduced if land is devoted to peatland restoration and tree planting. Rather than using a tick-box exercise to encourage them, is there a way to mitigate any losses that might be caused?
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.
We have heard evidence about the role of crofters in peatland restoration and common grazings. It was suggested that there is a blockage in that, if there were carbon credits, there would be dubiety as to who could sell them. I would suggest that the peat is the crofters’ resource, but do you have any plans to do anything to unblock the issue?
That is why a project that I have touched on in previous responses will be critical, because the Flow Country Partnership looks at those exact issues. Tim Ellis might be able to say a bit more about that.
That is absolutely right. I will not say too much more about it. Professor Roxane Andersen, who was here a couple of weeks ago, gave you a bit of an insight into that. Some work is on-going, and we believe that it is the first project that will have to go through the Scottish Land Court process, but once that is done, we hope to have some clarity and a further basis to look at future options.
Thank you.
I want to ask a practical question about how we encourage smaller landowners to take up peatland restoration and tree planting. I am very conscious that one of the criticisms that was made in 2022, after storm Arwen, when quite a lot of small trees that had been planted on the sides of fields had fallen down, was that it was really cumbersome to talk to Scottish Forestry about the licences that were required to remove them and replant. Are you looking at making the system easier in order to encourage smaller landowners to plant trees without the fear that, once they have planted them or have done some restoration, they will be stuck in confusion over rules and regulations that will perhaps prohibit them from taking it up again in the future? I do not know whether that makes sense, but I am conscious that that was very much a feeling that I observed post-2022.
Where we can make the system easier, we absolutely will, and we constantly look at that through the forestry grant scheme. Encouraging more small-scale planting and integrating it on farms is also why we increased the grant rates for such work, in recognition that we wanted to incentivise that as well. Brendan Callaghan might want to add more on that particular point.
I definitely sympathise with that. When it comes to which incentives are offered, the main changes that we make will be through the development of the future forestry grant scheme and its incentives. No matter the scale, there is an element of planning and preparatory work that comes with that work, which can end up being a disproportionate barrier for small projects. We recognise that point, which came through in the consultation ahead of the work on the future forestry grant scheme. We need to constantly challenge ourselves on the regulatory and bureaucratic burden that is associated with tree felling and replanting.
In respect of storm Arwen, we took measures to allow people to get going more quickly. What actually happened was that the market and industry capacity turned out to be the limiting factor, not the capacity of the regulatory public body. We definitely need to keep challenging ourselves on that.
It sounds like quite a small thing, does it not? However, a lot of stakeholders are talking about the extent to which crofters can play a greater role—there is a large number of them, even if they have only small areas of land. It is the same with a lot of smallholders and farmers.
We hear on the ground that the issue is not so much the initial finance that it takes to plant a tree but how stuck people feel once it has been planted. I appreciate that you are looking at that, and I urge you to give the issue serious consideration as you move forward if you truly want those people to come in and play their part in the wider climate change plan.
I absolutely agree.
Just briefly, Dr Emily Taylor said:
“It is very difficult to see how peatland restoration fits in the farming context, particularly given its alignment with agricultural subsidies. That uncertainty represents a barrier or hesitation around peatland restoration in this context.”—[Official Report, Rural Affairs and Islands Committee, 7 January 2026; c 21.]
She also suggested that that applies to the forestry sector.
How do you see future policy or funding addressing that shortcoming, particularly in relation to agricultural subsidies getting involved in peatland restoration and trees on farms?
We want to take an integrated approach, which is why I talked about the involvement of different policy areas in the agricultural reform programme. We have talked about the forestry grant scheme and the support that is available through that for smaller-scale planting. I hope that the lessons that we get from trying to overcome some of the barriers that have traditionally existed in relation to peatland restoration through the work that is being taken forward by the Flow Country Partnership are helpful in identifying and removing some of those barriers. We all want to end up in a place in which support is better integrated and there are options available for farmers and crofters.
Okay. Thank you, cabinet secretary, and thank you to your officials. That concludes our questions. I will suspend the meeting for 15 minutes, to allow for a changeover of witnesses and a comfort break.
11:09
Meeting suspended.
11:25
On resuming—