 Hello, and welcome to the 34th meeting of the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee in 2023. Before we begin, I remind anyone using electronic devices to please turn them to silent. The first item of business this morning is to decide whether to take item 4 in private. Thank you. Our 1st item of business is our third round table on the Agriculture and Rural Communities Scotland Bill. Today's evidence session will focus on on-farm nature restoration climate mitigation and adaptation, and we will discuss the bill more widely. We have up to three hours this morning for discussion. I welcome to the meeting David Harley, the chief officer from Circle Economy from the Scottish Environmental Protection Agency. Stuart Goodall, the chief executive of Confor, Kirsty Tate, director for Scotland for Food, Farming and Countryside Commission Scotland, Ross Lilley, the head of nature resources management, Nature Scott. We have Professor David Gray, executive director from the Edinburgh Climate Change Institute, Ross McLeod, the head of policy Scotland for the game and wildlife conservation trust, Vicky Swales, the head of land use policy from RSPB Scotland. We are joining us remotely. We have Professor David McCracken, head of integrated land management from SRUC. We have you and Ross, the Scottish manager for nature friendly farming networks, Eleanor Kay, senior policy adviser from Scottish land and estates, and Alistair Seaman, the director for Scotland for the Woodland Trust. As you have just heard, we have a lot of participants this morning, so I ask everyone to be succinct in their questions and answers. When responding to a question, please indicate to me or the clerk if you wish to participate, but if you feel your point has already been made, please just indicate that you agree or disagree and then we'll move on to the next question. I'm going to kick off. We're going to look at the various themes and the four objectives of the agricultural policy set out in the bill. I'm seeking your views on what facilitation of on-farm, nature, restoration, climate mitigation, adaptation means and will the bill, as it currently stands, be able to deliver it? Who would like to kick off? There's an awful lot wrapped up in that statement about facilitating on-farm, nature, restoration. I would say that in terms of the powers the bill is creating, we should not just be thinking about necessarily entirely on-farm, although that will be a large part of what needs to happen. This bill also makes provisions for woodland and forestry grounds and for other land management, as is the case already under the cap, so it's actually a bit broader than on-farm. Nonetheless, what we need to happen is for farming to transition much more to the wide-scale adoption of nature and climate friendly farming methods. That means absolutely embedding those methods within all farming systems, within our food production systems from the start. It means at the very start complying with legislation, but then it means working through that, undertaking the kind of measures on-farm. Practical things that we might think about in an arable setting, for example, hedges, field margins, fallows, stubbles, all those, are things that can help nature and can also contribute to tackling climate change. We also need other habitats created, some of which we've lost historically in Scotland as a result of land use and agricultural changes. We need to include a wide raft of measures that can help to mitigate climate change, but also adapt to climate change as well, because we're already facing that. The bill will create powers for the Government to introduce its four-tier framework, and there are measures within all those tiers that should be contributing towards delivering for nature and climate friendly farming methods on farms. We've got an objective at the minute. We would argue that that objective itself needs slightly tweaking to be broader, to talk about maintaining and enhancing farmland biodiversity, but also contributing to nature restoration and ecosystem regeneration more widely. Thank you. I'm going to move to Davie McCracken and then Davie Rae. Thank you, Chairman. Thank you for allowing me to unveil this route rather than being there in person. I think it's best for all of us concerned that I'm at some distance from you. I think one thing that is implicit but should be much more explicit in the answer that Vicki's given there is why should farmers want and need to actually do more for nature and climate on their farms? We've got a big job to do to explain to farmers across Scotland why they should be actually engaging going forward. Fundamentally, yes, farmers have a role to play at helping address biodiversity declines. Yes, farmers have a role to play in terms of helping to actually address ongoing climate change, but as Vicki's mentioned, fundamentally they need to make some of these changes on their farms and crops going forward in order to adapt to the ongoing climate change. We're going to see severe droughts in Scotland once in every two or three years going forward rather than once in every 20 years. We're going to see we've already had severe weather in the highlands. Just over the weekend we've had severe weather down the east coast of Scotland a couple of months ago, double the rainfall. The types of things that farmers can do with what's called nature conservation measures, climate change adaptation and mitigation measures will actually help make their farms much more resilient. That is one of the main messages that needs to go out to farmers in Scotland and croffers in Scotland sooner rather than later. They're not doing this for a wider society, they're doing this for themselves. Otherwise, as Vicki's already said, the framework, and it is a framework, provides for the type of legislation that's needed to actually evolve the policies to actually facilitate that change on the grid. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Davie and Vicki, the trouble I have with the objectives is that there are only four and so this one's got a huge amount in there, but it's not specific enough, I don't think, because these things are so important because looking at the four, I know we're focused on C, but the enabling rural communities to thrive for me, I mean, you can't disagree with that, but actually having something which says, right, that means fair work, it means more jobs and skills, all those kind of elements, I think that would have, if we compare it to what CAPS got, that greater depth, as well as breadth, like Vicki was saying, I think would be really useful, because it kind of, it can mean everything to everyone, but it can also risk being a bit meaningless at that level, that's my view. Would you suggest that we look at adding more objectives on top of the four to and make it slightly clearer on what the objectives actually are? Yeah, totally. So if you take the four, they cover so many things, so you can read it and think, oh, that means something to me, but actually putting that, making that over, I think would be really valuable. Okay, I'm going to bring in you and then I've got a supplementary from Cape Forbes. Thank you, convener. I agree with what's been said, particularly David McCracken's point about this fundamentally being about pharma resilience, pharma and croft resilience, you know, nature-friendly farming builds in resilience into the system. I think the points that needs to be made is that the objectives need a little bit more substance behind them in terms of pharma and crofter position in the value chain. I know this has been raised at previous committee meetings, and I think the fundamental point about it is that, as David McCracken alludes to, there is this problem of farmers and crofters not necessarily seeing that resilience, but that's often because they're operating in quite precarious markets, and at least in terms of produce, there is a market there, there is a market price, but with emergent markets over things like natural capital and things like that, the government needs to come in and see them as a valuable actor and part of the value chain, and they need to regulate that so that farmers and crofters have the confidence to access it and make their farms more resilient. Just building on what's already been said, but I'm conscious of adding my own stuff to not upset the convener. This is so much about ensuring that throughout the new tiered system there are linkages that whatever farmers get in their whole farm plan recommendations clearly resonates with what's available to them within tier 2 and what they can do in tier 3, and that's entirely backed up by the knowledge and CPD available and guidance in this tier 4, and when we get more detail we can make sure there are linkages between all of these, otherwise we're not going to achieve anything. This is a major change for the sector, and we have to make sure that all the mechanisms and tools are in place for these to happen, and it could be that what we need to do is a very big body of work of habitat mapping and climate risk mapping in order to make the right decisions, and we're not there right now with information available to farmers. I think that the objectives in the bill are as broad as they need to be, the more detail we put in, the more we risk cutting something out. I think that the rural support plan is where we will get that detail, but I'm happy to argue about it. I think that so much of this is down to communication, and current communication is not fit for purpose, and we must improve it as a matter of urgency. Before we get to 2027, we have got to start doing it now. Okay, thank you. Ross? I'll try not to repeat what was on the line here, but I think that fundamentally this is about land and more essentially soils really at the end of the day when it comes to nature, climate, and farming and food production. Now, why the bill and farmers and crofters? They cover 70 per cent of Scotland's land. Land has got to do heck of a lot for Scotland for society in a way that it's never had to do before. The last time we had this look at land was post-Second World War in the cap. We've had 70 years of that, and now we're basically having to rebase all that. So there's a lot of pressure on farmers and crofters here because they are essentially our stewards of the land, and I know of working a lot of farmers and crofters, they see themselves as that. Some don't see themselves as producers, but they actually essentially are stewards. So that's why there's a lot of pressure from this bill on getting it right, but essentially at the end of the day it's about how they manage soils and get that right, and it'll do the work that we need to do for these other public goods. Okay, thank you. Kate, I'll probably go right round, because other people are indicating that we can come in when you're supplementing. So I've got Ross McLeod, and then David and then Kirsty. Thank you, convener. One of the challenges we have with the bill as it stands at the moment in terms of the broad nature of the objectives is, as Jim Fairlie referred to in an earlier session, there are lots of moving parts, lots of dependencies with other legislation that's going to come forward. Other activities, Scottish Biodiversity Strategy, land reform bill, and I think it would improve the bill if there was something on the face of it to recognise the need for adaptability, which is something that the ministers and cabinet secretaries have referred to. At present it's rather loose, and I think you pushed the point on several occasions during the sessions about how powers will be taken during secondary legislation, for instance. I do think that we need some clarity to allow that flexibility as we learn and go forward with what works, what doesn't, particularly in terms of outcomes, that there is something in the bill that recognises the need for that learning through adaptive adaptation. David. Just agreeing with many of the points made, but I'd just like to build on Vicki's point about this being an ecosystem, and if we start to rebuild this ecosystem, we will get multiple benefits, and that's just across the board in terms of climate change, climate resilience, food resilience. But I think just again, and also Billion Ross said, the fundamental importance of the soil here, this is the foundation of this whole system. I think that if we are more explicit about that in the objectives and also on, I would say, water quality, a third of Scotland's water environment is downgraded by agriculture at the moment, far more than the sewage. I think just going back to the question about objectives and understanding, are these objectives enough? Are they detailed enough? In my opinion, I think, if we get the definition of sustainable and regenerative agriculture down, that in itself will enable nature restoration, climate mitigation adaptation, because if we are practising, if our farmers are practising sustainable and regenerative agriculture, that you will see on farm change, you will see off farm change. With the objectives in the centre, I think they're enough, but I think that the detail has to come below it, and that's the purpose, isn't it? And I think that we've been watching the discussions that's been happening, and I think that's where we can really start to really pull out what we mean. As with all these things, already in the first sort of few minutes of evidence, we've heard some people say that they think that this is about land, it's about ecosystems, it's about communities, it's about food, and do you think that we can manage all the different objectives simultaneously in a way that the previous cap system did actually quite effectively? Because this is obviously an agriculture and rural communities bill, so my two short questions are, do you think that there's any inherent conflicts between the objectives as they stand? And secondly, do you think that there's a possibility of adding objectives and still retaining the focus? Ross Lilley. I would argue that what we've had used so far in terms of incentivising the right land management through farming, the common agriculture policy has stifled a lot of the creativity that we need farmers to actually in crofters to use. We need to put the tools in their hands to get it right, and I think we do, and there's plenty of examples across Scotland that I can point to where farmers and crofters are doing this. The farmers themselves can weave those multi-objectives into their land, their holding in the way that works for them, and I think that that's fundamentally an issue around the way we've provided support up to now through the common agriculture policy, and there's a fantastic opportunity through this bill to get that right. The objectives are complementary to one another rather than being in conflict, and we only have to look at recent events, say if we take on farm nature restoration as a starting point. If you have very resilient systems that can adapt climate change and climate mitigation, then the effects of shock weather events, which are only going to become more frequent, like storm bobet, are really, really curtailed to quite a large extent. Fundamentally, that means that not only is the food system safeguarded, but those rural communities who live there, who may or may not be within the agriculture industry, are also safeguarded. Just two things with regard to Kate's question. As has already been said, all four objectives are strongly interrelated. Where there is a conflict, though Kate is the current definition of active farming, puts a particular focus solely on food production, and so we've argued in our consultation response from SRUC that broadening out, not replacing food production as a definition of active farming, but broadening that out to also recognise that some element of environmental management, whether it's wood integration, peat and restoration or habitat management, would also actually limit the perceived conflict there is from land managers at this point in time, that if they do environmental management, that's detracting from food production. The second thing was just to say that, bear in mind that this is an agricultural rural communities bill, but the definition of rural communities within the framework of this bill is much narrower than rural communities per se out there. Farming and crofting is a extraordinarily important part of the rural communities, but this bill per se doesn't address many of the wider challenges, whether it's education, transport, whatever, facing much more wider rural communities than just agriculture and crofting. I'm going to bring in Vicky, but just before then, can it actually, when you respond, also think about how the bill, as it sits at the moment, can deliver what I hear your aspirations are and what limitations there are. So we've heard a lot about definitions, whether that's sustainable or regenerative agriculture, definitions about rural communities, definitions about what we're called to whatever. Where are those definitions to come? Should they be on the face of the bill, or should there be obligations to define them on the face of the bill? Does it come through second legislation? Can you maybe touch on that when you respond? So Vicky and then Eleanor. Thanks, convener. Welcome to that question of definitions, but just to say in terms of the objectives, as others have said, I think they are entirely complementary. If we think about high quality food production, that depends on a healthy natural environment, on good soils, on pollinators, on clean water, and the stable climate in which to operate. Farmers can earn their living not just from that high quality food production, but from the wide range of other goods and services that they provide, some of which can include that environmental management. So they are all interrelated and complementary. Are they enough? I think you've had evidence from others in previous sessions suggesting that we have a small set of high level objectives, perhaps with some tweaking to what's there, but then a longer set of outcomes that we are looking for that policy to deliver. And that might be one way of better articulating some of what we want, because we had a number of other suggestions that could be included, for example, around maintaining high-nature value farming and crofting systems in Scotland, for example. So that might be one way to do it. In terms of definitions, yes, they're really important, aren't they? At the heart of all of this is about sustainable and regenerative agriculture. There's promise, and we'll probably come on to this, about a code of practice and setting that out. It's not clear within the bill what, in a sense, how binding that code of practice is. It's simply a requirement for that to be produced. I think that needs strengthening, because it seems to me that that code of practice should be something that's a condition, in a sense, on the payments that farmers receive in order for it to be binding and meaningful. But some of the content, as I think Kirsty alluded to before in terms of what we mean by this, can be set out in some of that code. But there will also need to be other things specified in the rural support plan, for example, around the intentions of the payments, who the beneficiaries are, what active farming is and all those things, which don't necessarily need to be in this framework bill, but they will need to be in other places or indeed in that secondary legislation to set them out in much, much greater level of detail and clarity, which is effectively what we had with the common agricultural policy. We had the main regulations, we had the implementing regulations, and we had the delegated acts, and we need that same kind of hierarchy of specificity in the legislation that we have for Scotland to replace the cap. Thank you. Ellen other, and I'll go to another question from a member. So, I think, yeah, backing it away, everyone's said already, but when we talk about these kinds of many demands and slightly conflicting views on the objective of the bill perhaps, and the management of land, whether it's for food or community or the environment, most of the solutions tend to be the same, but what you're asking for is slightly different, and so much of this is down to how we explain it that you can deliver many different benefits from single sort of changes of practice and things like climate resilience and business resilience are one and the same. A lot of whether we're content with the objectives of the bill really depends on quite how the budget is split. So, rural communities, when you look at schedule one, it's fairly clear what's sort of intended, but it's very broad, it includes things like infrastructure, ensuring people can live and work in rural areas, and it's great to see these things in the bill, but it's very different to what cap is delivering for its majority of its purpose, including things like an integrated land management plan, which we've had no detail on really other than potentially it being in the land reform bill. So, there are clear links with this bill to other legislation that isn't really referenced within the explanatory notes or the policy memorandum, which it makes it difficult to fully scrutinise it because you don't have the detail yet, so it does make our job much harder. On the reference to the cap policy, the previous support mechanism, I wouldn't say personally that the outcomes supported farmers 100 per cent because if you look at what Davy McCracken was talking about with the flooding in the north-east, that's been replicated as we see changing climate across Scotland. I just want to hone down on a bit more detail from David Harley, from SEPA and David McCracken on some of these objectives because I'm personally concerned that the facilitation of on-farm nature restoration, climate mitigation and adaptation is actually not going to support farmers to ensure that they can protect the food that they're growing, so their protein that they're growing on their land. I wondered whether there should be more detail on the face of the bill. One, to ensure that farmers have the opportunity to work with organisations such as SEPA and others to ensure that they are part of that conversation because so far it's very piecemeal. Two, where would that be added in the objectives if it was specifically around that catchment management approach? I don't have a firm view about where that detail should be added but absolutely I do think that there should be more collaboration and facilitation of the right landscape scale, catchment scale intervention that delivers for multiple benefits but crucially that must include climate change adaptation and flood prevention. Specifically, on the face of the bill and extra to those objectives or within C? Again, I don't have a firm view about whether it's of huge value, whether it's specifically mentioned in the bill or not, others may do but I do think that we need to have more collegiate support for the right interventions. David? Sorry, taking our time to the delay in our meeting. The framework could be a bit more explicit on the need for that and certainly the need for landscape scale interventions rather than just individual measures at an individual farm level so it's implicit about that but it could be more explicit but actually the framework still allows it. It will come in the secondary legislation and particularly what measures and actions occur in each of the four tiers but actually the sub-tiers two and tier three is where those elements would actually be best suited so it's having more detail on the range of measures and how farmers and crofters can actually implement them that will actually help achieve them. Collaboration, co-operation, some level of the need for and recognition of the need for that going forward but that comes back to the questions you're not going to come back to later about in the CPD etc etc. I've got Ross McLeod wanting to come in and then Ross Lilley. I don't think the words collaboration or landscape scale actually appear on the face of the bill so I think it would be useful at least to define it in those terms somewhere in the bill to help clarify that collaborative approaches will be very useful going forward. Just before we bring Ross in, we hear about there should be in secondary legislation do we need to in the face of the bill actually set out that that needs to happen or do we just expect it to happen in secondary legislation? We're all saying it needs to be here we need to define it in secondary legislation whether that's landscape, whether it's collaboration, whatever. Do we need to have something on the face of the bill that forces the Government, obliges the Government to produce these things or do we just let it happen? Well I think collaborative aspects are an important aspect which really need to be defined, not necessarily defined but at least mentioned on the face of the bill, yes. Ross Lilley. I think that this gives back some of the original point including David Kraken's view about the definition of agriculture because we're putting on again we're going to put a lot of store on this bill because 70 per cent of our land is stewarded by farmers and crofters but actually my original point about land being needed across the board to deliver a lot of outcomes beyond farming and crofting. So if you're looking at a landscape scale in terms of an ecosystem approach, number one you would come up with would be flooding and capture of mangent absolutely that's critical because it's such a dependency on a lot of society's needs particularly downstream and urban areas and so on. But there are many other landscape scale ecosystems and services that farmers take apart in that need to be recognised as well. I mean woodland expansion was a big one, peatland restoration and it's not but farmers are only part of the mix of that land use and the question is do we use the agriculture bill to facilitate that integrated land management or landscape scale or what other mechanism have we got and in a moment it's not clear there is other mechanisms other than land reform bill perhaps but that it we should perhaps point out to the farming industry that they have a major patch play and this is how they can be part of that. I think a specific suggestion convener for all those things both for collaborative and landscape scale and for dealing with flood management flood risk and appropriate land management seems to me would be in schedule one because that's setting out a long list of the purposes for which support can be given. There isn't anything specifically certainly on the collaborative stuff within those from from a very quick scheme through there but additions there would be the place I think because that then opens up the potential for the rural support plan and all the various measures to do those things. Thank you, Elna. Just a quick one, I had a similar scheme for you to begin with and I've noted a few that part five has plants and soil there's nothing in there about water holding capacity or biological activity in there there are loads of not loads there are a number of sort of sensible tweaks that could be made to schedule on which I don't think would cause too many headaches for government's talk. Obviously as others have alluded to we're kind of talking about half the picture here we're talking about the primary legislation obviously the secondary legislation to come which will fill out much of the detail and I suppose one of the issues I'm interested in is how progress against these objectives can actually be measured in your view on what what either primary or secondary legislation could do to help achieve that and ensure that we evaluate our progress against these objectives. I'd like to do that with Vicki. Thanks convener. Well I think it's absolutely vital that there are requirements set out which require the government to undertake effective monitoring and evaluation of the public money that it's spending and the outcomes that it does achieve under the framework. It needs to set out its intentions in that rural support plan very clearly as to what it's trying to do and against the objectives in this bill and if we then have a longer list of outcomes we want to achieve it needs to be required to do that monitoring and evaluation and I would argue it needs to come back and report on that to Parliament some way midway between the midpoint of that rural support plan which was talking about a five-year period for example so it would be good to have a kind of health check in the middle and then at the end of that five-year period that plan would be reviewed it will be reported on and the plan would be revised and then amended and go forward again for the next five years. So there's a kind of cycle there which again if we're keeping aligned with the EU mirrors somewhat what was in the cap in terms of those monitoring and evaluation and reporting requirements. So you think that there should be an obligation on the face of the bill for that monitoring to take place? I think it's not explicit at the minute there are some aspects within the bill which do require the Government to do that but I don't think it's explicitly set out in that way at the moment. Thank you, Dave. Thank you yeah I mean this comes back a little bit to the fact is you know a framework bill and so it's quite hard you know you kind of expect these things so the analogy for me is just transition outcomes and how we're struggling with monitoring and evaluation for those and I think it would be great for this bill to kind of have a think about what metrics the government thinks it will apply and actually have that critical pathway analysis to say do they have the granularity can farmers provide those data or you know do they already exist so actually having a think about that M&E side of things in quite some depth before they get to the secondary legislation because it's so fundamental and it's got that potential to either mean we're still here in 10 years time going or did we improve soil health did we mitigate climate and increase resilience did we enable rural communities to thrive and you know the clock is ticking as we all know and and that's that my main issue with this is is the kind of is we all hope it will deliver everything that's required but it doesn't articulate that in a way where we can say for certain it will. Kersted did you come in? Yeah I mean it's quite hard to know where this will sit but I think progress we have to measure we won't know if we have progress if we don't measure I don't know where quite in the bill where we can be more explicit about that but I think it does need to be explicit I think I just like to make a point that when we're looking at how we measure and we're looking at how we design these tools and the data and the information it has to be a really fair system of implementation measurement and achievement which empowers farmers crofters and growers and acknowledges their knowledge but it has to be a trusted and accessible and easy to understand and use the pressure for this isn't just coming from public funding you know it's not just coming from this bill it's coming from private funding and I think we can't really talk about this without acknowledging the private funding that's coming down the line and I think this is a huge opportunity at this point of time to really try and get an understanding of this and try and make it a fair and equal system for farmers and crofters and growers to actually work within and give them the tools and the opportunities that they can do these things and achieve these things and if I think if we don't we risk the disillusionment turning away from change so I think this is a really important time and it has to happen now we know it has to happen now 2030 is not that far away so I think this is a really good opportunity to try and understand the whole as we say ecosystem of all of these measures and how we do it just on that you touched on viability whatever do we should one of the objectives not be that we need to have viable profitable agriculture because there's an often coined phrase that you can't be in the green if you're in the red so should that be an objective on the bill that we actually need to ensure that we are viable and profitable agriculture so having worked for NFFN I think we would disagree with that statement you know we see if you don't work with nature if you don't integrate nature into your systems you aren't going to be viable you know this is this this is fundamental to farming and crofting and that is a bit of a mindset change we don't see working farming with nature crofting with nature we see it as profitable as profitable you might want to come in here to talk about maximum sustainable output but there you know it isn't I think that is something that we have to work through and we have to communicate and we have to make this easy for farmers and crofters to engage in but Ewan do you want to come in from NFFN's point of view? Yep definitely so I would point the committee towards NFFN's work on maximum sustainable output we've got a host of reports less as more on nature means business and it's all fundamentally about this idea of maximum sustainable output where farms need to be operating within their the carrying capacity of the land and the idea of maximum sustainable output is there comes a tipping point where farms productive variable costs become corrective variable costs and often that's pushed upon farmers and crofters who have you know a whole host of advisors seeking to you know whether it sell them products or acting in their own best interests but there needs to be a sweet spot for farming where the inputs are lowered so that soil health can be regenerated and it does take a little bit of time and we would like to see agreements that have a bit of time attached them so the carrying capacity of the land can recover so soil health can recover and sustainable output flourishes. I've got five people have indicated they want to come in but I'm going to bring in Jim Fairlie because I think he's got a supplementary on Kirsty's comments. I'm going to throw a spanner on the works here and I do apologize beforehand. I absolutely get the need for us to have this collaboration working with nature and all the rest of it. It comes right back to Kate's question right at the start where do you see conflicts and those conflicts absolutely exist. I very recently had a visit to an arable farm where the flood banks have been undermined by beavers the flood banks have blown out and you've now got 30 acres of arable land that was organic now sitting with silt lying over the top of it and it's going to cost hundreds of thousands of pounds to reinstate those flood banks so those kinds of conflicts have to be accepted and worked out how we're going to get round those compromises so it's all very well us sitting here in round this table saying yeah we'll come to solutions but right now if you're going to take farmers with you the farmers who are being affected by this are not listening because all they're seeing is huge acres of their land going under water and under silt. Can we just back that up from the average tourism businesses in the session on the consultation they actually quoted this is a quote without a profitable farming enterprise producing food it is challenging to undertake these restoration and adaptation measures so it's just to back that statement up by witnesses. Okay thank you I'm going to bring in David McCracken, Elner, Ross Lilley and then Ross McLeod. Thanks, convener. The point's already been made I think about the importance of monitoring and measuring the much more explicit in the bill itself I just wanted to point out also going back to Alistair's question monitoring and measuring is not just important from knowing whether the outcomes are actually being achieved monitoring and measuring are going to be fundamental in most instances for farmers and crofters to know what elements of their farm farming systems is best their best place to actually achieve and sorry change and achieve those outcomes in the sort of the first instance. I also just wanted to emphasise that there needs to be a focus on monitoring and measurement within the bill and the secondary legislation that flows from this but Elner's already mentioned earlier on this is not the only game in town as far as policy the policy landscape that we're actually dealing with so the natural environment bill the biodiversity strategy it's associated with that just transition the climate change plan there's a whole host of other policies and procedures out there that will also be requiring some level of monitoring and measuring of what's happening on our agricultural land because as has already been said 70% of our of Scotland is agricultural land so there needs to be much more join up between the outcomes being desired from the bill and the associated secondary legislation and the different types of monitoring and measuring approaches that will be associated with both this bill and other aspects of Scottish policy going forward Elner Yeah and thanks for the support Davey. I following on I think so much of this is about dates and useful if we analyse it and we can't just collect it for the sake of it there is obviously a section in the in the bill on checking enforcing and monitoring but it doesn't it seems mainly about enforcing rules and and potential penalties if it's not followed it doesn't seem to be about collecting that data and then giving it back to farmers in a way that they can use it and potentially that's where we get things in in tier 4 but we collect an awful lot of data already and and it's often not analysed or it sits behind a behind a wall that we can't really access as as land managers and yet could hold some very useful information for us so whilst there was quite a big section on this in the 2022 consultation I'm not really seeing that in in the bill and whether that's because it's it's intended for secondary legislation is is is perhaps the reason but we know an awful lot of data is going to be required to know if we're making the right changes if the changes we're thinking about are remotely suitable for our systems we know tier 2 is going to be an incredibly long list of options now you can only make strategic decisions if you have some kind of information about your your system about your soils and and so many other things about within the wider landscape that you're holding sits data is really important in this and we probably need more of it on the face of the bill Ross Lowey so can I make two points one about the data monitoring and going back to the point about conflicts and how we facilitate that so in terms of data I mean to add what's been said there's a huge market out there and I've seen market in the broadest sense of the term it's not just food and fibre markets and supply chains but that finance institutions that are stacking up we're ready to invest in land and particularly farmland for not just for carbon but nature there's a nature market there desperate to invest but they are not confident nor is the land manager farmer confident to engage in it because there's a common thread behind it and that's confidence in the data and the metrics that everybody's using to trade on and confidence in terms of the and the pinning platform in which government provides the basis to trade on as well and I think there's a role here the role of government to provide that and desperate for the markets desperately asking it government to provide standard publicly accountable metrics so they can trade fairly on it otherwise markets trying to come up with their own and it's all over the place and what farmers are having to try and work out which particularly metric they are having to meet in order to deliver a particular supply chain so there's a role there for the bill to provide help provide that base set of data everybody can understand is neutral to the public interest it's not traded as well because it's a big issue in bad trading data go back to the other point about conflicts and beavers and so on I mean part of the answer to that it's a wicked problem and native scots trying to help farmers deal with issues like that a lot the solution is in the this back to this landscape scale approach and collaboration and the more support we can put that way the more we can and go through an integrated land managing approach the more we can articulate the primacy of land use for specific purposes so there's land that we should absolutely protect for the primacy of food production because it's good for that that's what the soil is good for but there's also land that we should say is primacy for nature make space for nature and a lot of these conflict issues is because we haven't sorted that out and we need to provide facility for a particular collaborative group of land managers of which farmers are probably the largest part of in a landscape scale to work that out so that we can then allocate that land accordingly just for me what both Kirsten yourself have touched on private investment the bill is void of any information relating to that whether it's biodiversity net gain whether it's client carbon credits is that something that should be or do we need something in the face of the bill that refers to other pieces of legislation so biodiversity plans the the climate change plan but the the private investment side of it is something that's not anywhere in the in the bill as it stands just now so it's quite a blunt tool it's just looking at public money i'll be at quite a big chunk of public money and the danger is that because we want to order that make sure we're getting value for money that we actually either risk crowding out the opportunities that markets provide so the basic bare minimum the bill should set out how the how it facilitates farmers accessing those markets alongside the public money they get that's crucial thanks i'm going to bring in Ross McLeod and then Vicky thank you convenient it was really just to echo the point that Ross is making about this clarity in how we conduct both public funding support and private funding support at the moment there is there is a huge amount of energy a lot of heat in the private sector building up to try and define how we deliver that but not a lot not a lot of light in terms of the way we measure so i think it is incumbent on government to provide some clarity at least on the governance and the framework i know it set out the interim rules on on sensible investment in natural capital i think we need to go a bit further than that now because in the urgency to to make sure that farmers can deliver there is this need for confidence and clarity the other points i think to make about the private funding side is that it will probably work best at scale because it will deliver economies of investment that way so again it links back to the necessity for some collaborative aspect to be built into the bill which will link with that in terms of conflicts i made the point earlier that we need some flexibility because we're in a huge learning curve here and we may find that the evidence suggests in certain places that we're not being successful in other places we are and i think the only way we're going to resolve some of the conflicts is by having that flexibility to understand interpret and go back to the drawing board if you like on certain occasions to to revisit the measures that we apply there are at the moment some significant evidence gaps for a start so we need that flexibility vicki on the the question about the public private i mean i think we do have to be careful don't we have not trying to weigh in everything into this bill at the end of the day this is a bill trying to create powers to give ministers powers to spend that 700 million pounds thereabouts of public money clearly what we need to be alive to is not doing things in this that closes off having used to some of that private finance because we know that the scale of need is enormous to deliver for nature and climate we will need that private finance in place there's clearly other pieces of policy and legislation dealing with some of that it's important that that private market is regulated and it's doing good things not necessarily creating more problems but i don't necessarily think all of that needs to be in the face of this bill and i did just also want to touch on the the conflicts issue and particularly there's often reference to certain species but also just to point out that there's already significant investment taking place through nature scot and through various species management schemes which support farmers and crofters to deal with some of these issues where they occur there are also other recourses to action which can be done in some cases for some species in terms of legal control and that is available to farmers but i absolutely take the point that that once we sort of step back and start to look at this from a bigger landscape or catchment perspective then we can put some of the solutions in place so many of the issues around flooding gym are as you well well know you're obviously getting worse with climate change but even before species such as beavers were reintroduced to scotland we had significant problems of flood banks degrading in extreme weather events and we've got problems of some of those sections of rivers have been canalised creating further problems and we're not allowing rivers to flow in a more natural way but some of that nature restoration can actually do some of that creating habitat for the beavers and the beavers can help create that but also in making sure that we then protect that other agricultural land where we need to produce food so i think there are more integrated solutions here and there are definitely options on the table for farmers and crofters in this space already. Okay David Harley. I fully agree with the points made already about monitoring and evaluation being a requirement and we know that some of the key metrics around nature restoration and water quality and the potential for climate change mitigation are not being met under the status quo so that's a starting point. Yeah the point about conflict absolutely right now under the status quo there is there are flash points of conflict around flooding around river management and there's going to be increasing risk of that around water scarcity so absolutely but that's under the status quo if we don't change to a more landscape scale collaborative facilitated approach that will exacerbate as climate change impacts worsen so i think there's huge potential here to do something about those conflict areas through through this bill. Thank you. David McCracken. Thanks. I just come back to original question I accept and agree with what Vicki's saying about you know there's only so much that can be put into this bill with regard to private investment private finance but nevertheless come back to your original question the fact that the framework is completely silent on the recognition that some large level of private external investment is going to be required in order to meet our net zero targets means that the bill doesn't seem to recognise that it needs to actually at least make provision for those type of investments being made being available to farmers and crofters and needs to make provision to actually how would the bill in the secondary legislation actually ensured it aligns with that properly and not doing that means that there is a high degree of likelihood that we're going to see some unintended consequences going forward with farmers either choosing to take up some form of a private investment that that may then preclude them continuing to get some form of public funding support or being caught between not knowing which way to obviously jump so it is beholden on the framework of the secondary legislation to make the link how the secondary legislation will align and ensure that it actually takes into account that such private investment private investment opportunities will by dint of the nature increase in the future and make that landscape much more easier for farmers and crofters to negotiate in the future. Okay thank you I've got two people I want to come in but I'm very conscious we haven't heard from our three colleagues so can I actually come and give your comments and also on the thoughts about the three objectives that we've got and whether we need to have more so I'll ask Alasdor first and then Stuart. Thank you I want to pick up on on two points first around monitoring and conflict so absolutely monitoring's got to be key here but I just want to flag that there's an awful lot of other legislation coming down the line for monitoring and evaluation is also going to be a significant requirement so can we be clever and smart about this and not develop a strategy for this bill and then find that our colleagues somewhere else have developed another strategy private markets are looking for that it's going to be important an environment bill it's going to be important for the monitoring of our fisheries for our water quality for our invasive non-native species so let's think about this beyond the realms of this bill and let's be really clever and smart there are also some really exciting opportunities coming down the line in terms of technology development we're finding ways in our sector to reduce the cost of monitoring using drone surveying using artificial intelligence so let's be thinking ahead and future proofing the technologies that we're using here and let's be really smart about this in terms of conflicts yes I think we need to be honest that conflicts are there and do exist but there are a number of fantastic examples where there's real synergy here and in our world of trees and woods on farms we've spent the best part of a decade working with cofters and farmers looking at really clever ways of integrating trees into farming landscapes that can give you benefits for nature benefits for carbon but crucially benefits for farmers and crofters and for farm management and for farm operations and farm productivity and last year we were able to publish this lovely little short document with support from NFU Scotland and the Crofting Federation that outlines some of the kind of the science behind that but also gives some really wonderful creative examples of how that's already being demonstrated by farmers and crofters across scotland I've got five colleagues working purely with the crofting audience we've got a long waiting list of crofters who can see how this can really support what they're doing so conflicts do exist but there's real opportunity for synergy here as well I am not going to answer your question around the four objectives to me they look broad enough and capable enough I would agree that I think outcomes are what it's all about and I think if we can be really smart and clear about what we're trying to deliver beneath those outcomes that for me is where we're going to get this right or wrong. Thank you. Just a quick comment on the point about monitoring and metrics I think it's incredibly important we've talked about leveraging private funding into the forestry and rural sector more generally and there are significant opportunities through modern forestry of all types but the thing that we lack what we've got good evidence on carbon benefit but the thing that we lack is good evidence and good metrics on biodiversity benefit and one of the things I often say is there isn't a lack of biodiversity in modern productive forestry there's just a lack of measurement of the biodiversity in that forestry and as a result it's seen as a negative and there's no recognition of the positives that sit within it in terms of the doing another objective on the bill it's actually a tricky one for a forestry people to get their heads around because in the 2018 forestry legislation there's a requirement to establish that to agree a Scottish forestry strategy and that's been the primary mechanism to be saying what do we want to do with our forest what do we want to do with the new islands that we create so whereas in terms of the bill and the funding the principle of being able to look at those different land uses and the funding mechanisms available and providing opportunities for those to be joined up is is an attractive proposition in principle that I would say after yesterday's brutal announcement on slashing the forestry planting budget I'm questioning that in my mind but there is a challenge there of if we put something into this bill then that cut across the provision in the forestry bill and blatant the Scottish forestry strategy so I think at this point we're probably on air on the side of saying best not to say something specific on forestry because they could have those unintended consequences okay thank you finally on this on this theme I'm going to bring in Dave and then Kirsty and then move on it's really just around that private finance question and this I keep coming I've got it highlighted on my screen is the enabling rural communities to thrive because that for me is a a crucial one and that is something where it's the it's unintended consequences has been brought up a few times and I kind of think say the government decided to stick with those four objectives then I think they really need to articulate that they've done the work at that primary level of these are the these are the context and so private investment is a really good example where that could undermine the enabling rural communities to thrive in terms of land prices are you know really high and that's that's potentially going to undermine it depending on how it works and how it's regulated in terms of that deliverable so something which going but basically the point is that should be acknowledged that the private sector that investment is huge opportunity but there are also risks to the outcomes that should be articulated in this bill I think just to come in and bring it back to the bill I think that really fundamental piece is going to be in knowledge and information and education because we're asking farmers and crofters and growers to be carbon literate we're also asking them to be biodiversity natural capital equal services literate integrating what is an incredibly demanding high skill high knowledge profession and I think at the moment we are not preparing that we're not putting enough budget into that which is the continuous professional development but also the education system and Davie will know more can talk more about that but I think this is going to be fundamental in the transition period to actually up skill and give our farmers and crofters the ability to be able to rise to this challenge and work within the system that we want them to work in and at the moment that there's a fundamental knowledge gap and skills gap and we're not being fair to them even just understanding the financial landscape at the moment and even just getting a definition of terms would be really good and getting out there but I think it's not performing in the way it should be at the moment thank you we're starting to move on to look at cpd and more detail towards the end of the session we're going to move on to theme 2 which surrounds the code of practice for sustainable and regenerative agriculture question from Rhoda Grant thank you convener we've had different evidence I guess from different stakeholders about whether the code of practice and the definition of sustainable and regenerative agriculture should be on the face of the bill or whether it is right that it comes under guidance and if people are content that it's right that it comes under guidance is section 7 right or does that need to be tightened up for more scrutiny ross lily we've got I think the approach taking a code of good practice is a good one because I think judging by your previous evidence you've had we're all agreed that being too prescriptive about what regenerative agriculture is is is a is a bad move as it were in terms of it a lot of it absolutely depends on the farmer and the crofter tick interpreting what regenerative agriculture is in their own context so the code of practice provides a basis of explaining what we're trying to achieve on an outcome based approach using principles and so on so that's my understanding and that's what the bill intends to do so if we agree with that then and we get that right then it needs to be better linked to the support framework it can't just be there as just as an advisory thing in the way that's currently existing an example you know and one of the good echo to environmental conditions around soils relies on the the claimant abiding by the mureburn code and it works the same way so they have to show that they're meeting mureburn code in order to demonstrate that condition ross mcleid thank you I'm unsure how much prescription we have to put into the bill as far as code of practice is concerned but I can refer to our experience dealing with the wildlife management and mureburn bill which requires various codes to be put into place now some of that refers to licensing which is obviously legal in its its requirement beyond that there is more than management best practice where we're looking at various guidance for more than managers which operates across obviously gamekeepers but also farmers and crofters too within that we're looking to define a code of practice which clearly identifies the legal musts but also defines coulds and shoulds and when within each of those categories of coulds and should we're trying to define verifiable evidence that could be used to demonstrate performance of could and should and it strikes me that that is quite a good model for the way in which the code of practice for agriculture could work particularly as we learn as we progress that there's a flexibility there to adjust the guidance in terms of the verifiable evidence going forward we support the intention of the code we quite like some assurances on that there is industry involvement in this we think there does need to be a sort of academic or R&D sort of send check of of the code and quite what it intends to deliver and it also needs to have a sort of clear sector link which we're not really seeing and an actual plan of how we communicate the intention of the code to the sector there is there is no point having a code of practice once we finally decide the definitions of of sustainable and regenerative agriculture if it is not communicated to the sector as to what that actually means we do have some concerns about the the guidance section and the largely the the negative procedure linked to the linked to the guidance section and the fact that it seems to be much more to do with kind of creating a potential kind of obligation as to quite how well you followed it quite what it means we you know we already have an issue with how guidance is applied to certain parts of the sector and when it comes to things like inspections guidance is very open for interpretation this this is our one chance to really address the vagueness of things like guidance and if the code of practice is going to be so important we need to be really clear on quite what it means for the sector so just on that so what should the oversight be the code of practice because ultimately it could be very important when it comes to cross compliance payments and whatever down the road so what level of scrutiny should that that code of practice come under you know in your contribution to the committee you suggested that the plan should have oversight and that oversight shouldn't be a rail you didn't see why it shouldn't be a rail but you said it shouldn't be do you need do you think the code of practice should come under the same sort of scrutiny with an oversight body or whoever looking that scrutiny given the maybe the the potential for it to be to perform the basis across compliance for any other payments yeah definitely i think that the fact that it's going to have such importance means it i just have an issue with with the aerial membership and the the general terms of reference i don't think it's fit for purpose it's no it doesn't really represent you know it doesn't really have the pharma representation anymore i think we do have to question um that but that's sort of an aside but the fact that it's it just doesn't seem to have enough consultation built into the the drafting of it and i'm not sure there's enough assessment of it as it as it wants it's been published for us to go back with a feedback mechanism to say actually this isn't working we have it with speak with reintroduced species that we see issues in how the um how the system is supposed to be in place to to provide support if there are is conflict we don't have feedback mechanisms when things crop up that you weren't expecting that no one could have expected we do not have a rapid feedback mechanism to quickly address these issues instead we say we're going to have to review this and we don't have a date for an actual review so the code of practice needs to be far tighter on when it's reviewed how it's supported and advised by both the sector and by academics and and how we how we ensure it's fit for purpose in a sort of ongoing basis be that quarterly meetings or or something an an ard which we had regular meetings with would have been a subgroup of that would have been a sensible way to go so there are things we can do thank you can bring in ross mcleidon back to the rhoda grant and i'd agree with elinor that possibly through ard which unfortunately we haven't met in in recent months but it would be a useful conduit to underpin a review of the code of practice i think that'd be a sensible way forward okay thank you rhoda just on that should those regulations be in the face of the bill or should is it okay as the bill stands at the moment that the regulations can be brought by subordinate legislation to the parliament as to how do you devise the code of practice or should both the regulations and the code of practice come on front of the parliament should there be a sorry i'm not putting this very clearly but should the mechanism for drawing up a code of practice be on the face of the bill or is it okay by regulation and the subsequent code of practice should that be subject to greater scrutiny by the parliament because we don't know that if the regulations have yet to be devised the more you the more you sort of read the bill and and you know well i've probably read it a number of times it is so clear this code of practice is ingrained in every piece of secondary legislation that is going to come forward so i think it is it is right to question whether it does need to be you know in much more detail on the on the face of the bill and i would agree if it probably doesn't need to be far clearer and on yeah on the bill absolutely it's clear that government's hanging its vision on this around sustainable and regenerative agriculture so it needs to be defined the code is the place for that but as it's set out in the bill it is literally just that that code has to be produced and to be brought forward and that will be dealt with through secondary legislation so it's not binding on ministers it's not binding on farmers and it has it has no traction so i think absolutely it needs to be strengthened needs to be scrutiny of the code by appropriate bodies possibly by parliament but certainly by an expert overview of it as to whether it's appropriate i think government should be required to set out in its rural support plan amongst many other things we'll come on to that about the content of that but referring back to that code and saying this is this is how we're going to effectively enact this and deliver sustainable and regenerative agriculture in scotland and so it absolutely it's it's not binding but it needs to be it's it's too vague and open at the moment ross lily and then ross mcleid i think it's quite a technical thing it does it does require a shared approach farmers absolutely have to be involved in it because they're gonna have to deliver it so in the governance they need to be involved and represented in terms of making decisions over how it's implemented because the danger is if it if it becomes a core requirement of the bill and in the effort delivered through the delivery mechanisms of the schemes are through our output colleagues for instance and it becomes an inspection thing and it gets tunneled funneled down into the risk averse approach that you know and a desire to define it so that it can be inspected on and verified when actually it can only work by a shared risk approach in terms of understanding about how works in different circumstances so if i'm not really answering question but i suppose if the whatever where it's absolutely the need to have a code and it for it to be properly governed absolutely should be part of the the bill but the the management of it and the scrutiny of it and the revision of it perhaps is something that should be coming in secondary and the parliament needs to know there's a good mechanism a democratic mechanism for doing that thank you evicky sorry i meant to say convener i certainly agree with what ross has just said in terms of actually drafting of it there needs to be a an inclusive process to do that but also i think government will need to in that process to clearly cross references has has been mentioned to a range of other codes actually which apply so we have the land rights and responsibility statement that talk of a land reform bill and making that more of a code and more binding we've got the wildlife management muburn bill and the code of practice coming forward so we need to make sure that these things are not contradictory and there's also alignment across the piece as well on some things thank you ross mcleid well really recognising the differences between voluntary and statutory codes i do wonder whether the wildlife management bill might provide some some hints about the way in which code of practice could be developed might be worth referring to that for assessment thank you i think this is probably an appropriate time to to stop for a quick comfort break we'll reconvene at 10 25 reconvene and we're going to move to our third theme for this morning which is looking at the rural support plan and i'll go to rachel hamilton for the first question thank you convener i'm going to combine a number of questions so that all the panellists can either pick or choose which one they they ask answer but first of all when would you like to see a draft rural support plan secondly should there be a statutory requirement to consult on a rural support plan and with the painful news of the budget in terms of the agricultural cuts yesterday do you feel confident that the rural support plan will be accompanied by the resources needed to achieve the four objectives that we discussed earlier and what role do you think parliament have in terms of the scrutiny of the plan and finally which areas do you believe ministers should have regard to when we're producing the rural support plan go to vikiswil first thanks convener and i'll try and be brief because i've got answers to all those questions rachel but when the sooner the better but i think officials said to you in giving evidence they talked about 2025 it certainly needs to be in place before a secondary legislation is passed and we need to see very clearly the content of that plan its intentions and what it's going to set out should there be a statutory requirement to consult yes there should i think it's particularly important that there's wide input to that plan and setting out what it's going to do and how that 40-year framework is going to operate and how the money is going to be spent the budget that's a major question isn't it is there enough money in the pot to do everything we need to probably not we know this is a UK government decision and that there's only money for the life of the current UK parliament and decisions will be taken after a general election with potentially a new government a piece of work RSPB was involved in identified that Scotland's share of a future budget so the overall UK budget for farm support needs to increase given the scale of need particularly the scale of need to tackle nature and climate and support farmers and underpin our food production needs to go from the current figure about 3.7 to 4.4 and Scotland's share of that should increase so up to about 1.17 billion was the estimate we came up with there's a second question which i won't answer now about how that money should be deployed across the tiers i think there's a really important question about how government spends that money whatever the quantum it gets from the UK government compared to now and i think it needs to change significantly in terms of scrutinising the plan absolutely i don't think it's enough for it just to be laid before parliament i think it needs to be laid put before parliament for a specified number of sitting days to allow parliamentary scrutiny and debate on that i think we'd also add into that that there should be as i mentioned earlier a sort of review point for it to come back to parliament midway between in that five year period to see how progress some kind of report on progress of how things are going and i'm sorry your final point was a i think about how making it binding on ministers was that right rachel should the rsp have regard to which other plans cross sectional yes absolutely so when we get into thinking about the contents and things there's a whole raft of other plans and strategies and things that ministers will need to take into account including the biodiversity strategy the existing climate plan climate targets lots of other things that will need to be taken into consideration thank you mcracken yes thank you i agree with all of what the vicky said there just to actually highlight that one of the rationale of the primary rationale for having a rural support plan is also to provide some stability going forward and in terms of for the for farmers and crofters to know what is going to happen over the four five whatever length of time the actual plan is going to be actually active for and so that is another reason why it's essential that that comes forward sooner rather than later and not just to inform the secondary legislation but just just to be sure that farmers know what is actually happening particularly with regard to the budget i'm myself i'm surprised we're one and a half hours into the actual session and we haven't addressed it in the room in terms of the distribution of the budget across the sort of four tiers how that budget is going to be distributed initially and how that distribution may change during the period of the lifetime of the first plan will be essential if we're going to to know and for parliament to scrutinise to know whether we're going to stand any chance of meeting actually the outcomes that the framework bill has at all and so scrutiny is scrutiny is essential as the drafts needed sooner rather than later in fact we should have had it well before now sort of thing in terms of the sort of the framework if you if you look to the similar situation within europe and their sort of the strategic planning process does lay out all the sort of details about the intervention logic the the projected budgets etc etc etc without that we really do need that in scotland so that we actually have a real big in stuck in the map so as we know how to actually then consider and address every other element of both these policies and related policies to know whether we're going to stand any chance whatsoever of ensuring that farmers and crofters can move forward the way scotland is an aspiration to do so thank you elinor so reads echoing what vicky and davie have already said so i've agreed sooner the better for this this plan to arrive and 2025 feels arguably too long to wait um do you have to question why we couldn't have perhaps had it already um as it's at least in a in a draft version um there needs to be meaningful consultation on this lengthy consultation not just um you know not just a 12 week written one we do need to sort of get out and see if you feel about this um and we really want to see much like with the with the code of practice that there is academic advisory oversight in some form and uh and a link to a sort of sector steering grouping in whatever way that that is um it's of wanted by the wider sector it's absolutely right the parliament has the the length of time to scrutinize this that's required and to scrutinize that the process has been followed to to sort of gather the the views of the sector um and i'm completely agree with vicky that this needs to have a sort of a feedback loop of some kind that allows sort of regular review um we know there obviously is a and trigger that if if something needs to be changed there's a sort of criteria that can be if they're met then then obviously the the plan can be can be changed but perhaps that needs to be slightly broader um yes agree that there needs to sort of budgetary consideration in this how achievable it is will depend on the the finance available um and again we saw that very long list in the agricultural reform route map of the interrelated policies that that will fit in with agriculture it's it's really important that this support plan includes reference to biodiversity the land use strategy i won't go through them all but there's no mention for good food nation act secondary legislation for instance and but we know there are many policies that will absolutely interact with with this area divry thank you yeah um without repeating what all the good things that have been said timing yeah yesterday would have been good um say say one of the things is as soon as possible i guess it is somewhat contingent or it's got to integrate with the climate change plan um next year and for the just transition plan for the sector which um should also certainly the draft be out next year so needs that articulation the other thing on budgets i just wanted to echo vicky really is when we think about what our sectors agricultural land use has to do for the uk net zero target we've got some seriously heavy lifting to do there's a lot of reliance on us so that those budget numbers you're talking about vicky there is a disproportionate pressure on us to deliver and so that needs to translate into funding i think just backing up dave there and maybe it's a different looking at this budget in a different kind of way in the allocation this is a just transition this is a transition in order to enable that just transition to happen it is you know we would hope this is a time period transition so we really need the budget mean fscc supports rspb in that in that call for that budget that i might have budget on from a uk level and it is we need it for a period of time and things will change hugely over the next five years and it is i think it's sensible to front load and to give the enough budget to make these things start to happen but it is going to be integral i think thank you i'm going to move on to question from Karen Adam thank you convener just to follow up on a question there in regards to what needs to be taken into consideration we've heard there's a few acts that you feel should be considered when we're looking at this but at the same time we have that issue where we want this as soon as possible we're being asked for that so um do you think there are like asking for opinions from yourself what specifically do you think should be taken into consideration what acts might you want to be taken into consideration and are you willing for that for that time to lapse uh you and then ross lily having uh recently responded to the biodiversity strategy framework for the natural environment bill that is going to have significant impact on the agriculture bill there are specific clauses and actions within the consultation that highlight i believe one of them is the 50 of farm funding will be moved to conditional payments by 2030 which the nffn would be very supportive of it was one of our asks to move money out of tier one but it has to be highlighted within this bill because it has it has a really big significance i would point the committee towards the recent wales agriculture act i think they were quite impressive particularly with their objectives in how they interlaid and referenced um to um other acts um that you know predated or were coming and that really roots ministers in their decision making um to for example with theirs it was all about um meeting the needs of future generations so things like that with reference to the natural environment bill the good food nation plan they can really shore up um future decisions giving ministers confidence to deliver on those things as well as constituents farmers and crofters to know that they are going to be safeguarded in those future decisions move to uh ross thank you so sorry i thought the daves were going to be confusing we've got three davids daves and ross ross and that's why you're supporting us out um just to answer your specific question i mean there's a couple of key pieces of legislation coming through that the proposed natural environment bill will set out um targets for biodiversity in particular and as well as wider environment targets so the plan plan has to take into account of those and there's a timing issue there we're kind of almost sick and guessing what they might be and what we're going to put into that culture bill um and then the climate change plan as well which is probably the key one um it's being refreshed and reviewed so um it needs to take into those those are the two in terms of the biodiversity climate and obviously there's a good food nation uh plan two i'll give you an idea so matters that should be considered within the bill some of the written evidence and also the verbal this is a list i'll go through all good food nation cofter law reform wider consideration for crofters in common grace and biodiversity strategy climate change plan river basin management plan scottage nitrogen balance sheet land reform bill wildlife management mureburn forestry grants a natural environment scottland's food and drink strategy the rural skills action plan it goes on and on and on how how do you think in a practical way we can ensure that on the face of the bill that we do have a complete list if that can be possible of matters that need to be considered so let's go back you know it's called a rural resource plan not an agriculture and crofter or farming crofting support plan and it goes back to the purposes of the of the agricultural support framework um there's a lot of expectations as you've seen around the room here that this is the biggest show in town in terms of changing our land use because i'll go back to it 70 percent of our land use is managed by farmers and crofters and it's the biggest public fund available to incentivise land use change so we need to get back down to that definition of what is agricultural activity and that farmers and crofters albeit that the bill is very framed around primarily agricultural production land or land use but the the huge part that those farms and crofters have to play in sharing and sparing land for these other public purposes and which is reflected in all those but i think that the more that can be made clear we had that to to extent we had that in the cycle of cap programmes which were seven year cycles farms and crofters all land uses could see what was coming up in the next programme in the debates that are going through European Parliament and commission before they actually got implemented through the UK government and through to Scotland and we're trying to replicate that process here um so that first stage of just debating what is the intervention logic of the support hasn't been done that we would have done through through cap Eleanor I mean i think the that means a very long list already um but so much this is about ensuring that within the creation of the rural support plan we we have that sense check of of are there contradictory policies in place can we make sure we avoid them um to avoid that unintended consequence of of having your things in the biodiversity consultation that don't quite align with what we've been hearing on the ag stuff and the wildlife and viewer burn sort of codes and and various things that it's so important that within the drafting of the of the plan there is there at least an exercise that ensures there has been this overview of of these interrelated policies we saw it in the ag reform route map as i as i mentioned earlier a very long list of policies that that are going to come in then there will be major changes within quite a lot of them that will interact with land management and we we can't ignore that and we probably do need some sort of certainty from from government that the exercise has been done and that no contradictions have been have been spotted or if they have they've been addressed because we can't get to a point where we have people applying for things within tier three and then realizing that they can't do that because of a specific thing and they're in their tier two or something to do with a nature restoration programme or we can't have that because we have to look at it now. David McRacken. Sorry Elleners already made the point I was going to make I mean all that long list that you read out convener none of that's come over the hill just today um that was has been known and recognised um for months if not years Elleners mentioned and since checked the actual agriculture route map the agriculture route map historically I mean the last year just seems to have been used as a a list of different policies and bills occurring in series and with no actual linkage across them a beggars belief that we haven't had by now and what Elleners just talked about some level of sort of sense checking um with regard to each of those now I appreciate many of those are the same as the agricultural bill in that the level of detail is still currently lacking nevertheless it's not rocket science to actually see where there's points of synergy and potentially points of conflict that need to be addressed so the fact that that sense checking hasn't been done to now is surprising but it certainly needs to be done sooner all than later. Thank you I've got Ross McLeod and Ewing to come in and answer that question then I'm going to move to supplementaries from Ariane Burgess and Alan Stone. Thank you convener just referring back to Karen's original question about what bills we've discussed a lot about the the moving parts the interlinks between the various bills that are coming forward I'm not going to dispute any of the relevance of those what I am concerned about something that's not so much in the bills at the moment and there's this question of finance there's no doubt Scottish biodiversity strategy for instance leading to environment bill and for that matter the agriculture bill are massively ambitious in what they want to achieve and the Scottish biodiversity strategy environment bill first stage has to be delivered by 2030 so I think that sets a premium on this this issue of blended finance between public and private funding and that is something I think we need to get clarified very quickly in order to provide farmers and land managers generally with the confidence to consider both public and private finance. Most of my points have been comprehensively covered I would say is a very complicated problem to get all of those bills in there you're not going to be able to do it I think a reference to the vision of agriculture would be good that's a comprehensive you know covers all the ground necessary and it will stop as we've seen in other nations a real kind of division between the vision as it's first proposed and then it gets heavily diluted across a vast legislative agenda so we would always be supportive of legislation harking back to that vision. Thank you. Alliann Bodges. Thanks Commander. I'm going to direct this question to Dave Ray I think I might be making some assumptions here in my question but let's see so there's a great long list of agricultural form right the agricultural form list of measures I've just been scrolling through it's really a lot of detailed policy work in terms of agriculture and I can make an assumption that the rural support plan will be based on that and if that is the case do you think that the rural support plan when it comes forward will actually deliver the climate mitigation and adaptation that we're going to need to meet the climate targets? So like pretty much every answer to this when we're talking about this I hope so you know so it should but it's kind of there are so many um enablers that needs to be in place for that so we've got that really long list like you say of actions that could be taken this links to the cpd that I'm sure we're going to get on to it links to advisors um and it links to communication um so I was reflecting just now and I don't know how many of our farming colleagues are watching this but probably not all of them if I'm honest um and trying to digest right what what does this mean for me and looking at all those measures and kind of what I already do that and I don't know what that is and I think um that list is good in terms of it it covers a lot of things that do need to happen and quite a lot that already is happening but actually um the accessibility of that to every farmer and crofter and I guess you know land steward as it's been called in Scotland I think that is a that's an innate a set of enablers which needs to be more overt so so my answer is um yeah I'm ever an optimist as a climate scientist you have to be um but I think the list alone isn't enough clearly and I think in terms of the the kind of enabling factors to deliver all of those different practices in the right place and this goes back to just transition which is you know clearly on my mind as part of one of my roles um that's again my worry is that we end up with something which works for those people who are already you know doing stuff or basically um kind of it gives benefit to people who are already benefiting and it leaves more people behind in terms of our agri and land use sector um and certainly looking at it from a an academic perspective you can kind of see absolutely the sense in terms of climate change mitigation which is what I focus on um but actually thinking about the people in that and thinking about every farmer in Scotland if they are given this plan um you know and it is well communicated has it engaged them in that process but has it actually been structured in a way which speaks to the context speaks to the place speaks to the the history of that that farmer or that that crofter um and what they're able to do so that's always my concern is you know lots of good evidence um which is I guess our jobs academia but does it work for people is still a question for me. I've got David Harley, Davey and then Vicky. Okay so um yeah we do need to make sure all the cross checks are done and I do think there's as people have said many times before that there's synergies far outweigh the conflicts however when it comes to delivery the translation of that to the farm or the land or to the catchment level is absolutely crucial for example we um the SEPA regulates against about 10 general binding sets of general binding rules about land management and diffuse pollution we spend an awful lot of time on farms explaining what those mean they're not complicated that's just one angle we spent over the last 12 years we've visited thousands of farms we spend half a day handholding you know quite rightly uh taking farmers through the requirements making um helping farmers understand the advantages for them and how they manage their land how it'll protect their soil how it'll protect their bottom line budget um we invest an awful lot in that that's just one angle of this that's just water quality so I think the translation to farm advice um and that facilitation by the relevant organisations is crucial here thank you David McCracken thank you convener um it was just to emphasise um arian that yes that list you've got is is long and detailed and there could be more than should be more things on it the vast majority of that list is focused about agriculture and agricultural practices per se which will if as others have indicated um stand a high chance of actually getting us some way to achieving net zero but as well recognised and I think I've said this at previous committee meetings as well recognised that that will only get us some way towards net zero changing agricultural practices as needed um but actually um it's the linkage to what we're talking about even through this whole session the nature conservation restoration um elements in terms of doing more tailored restoration more woodland trees and woodland establishment on farms more wetland creation more um biodiversity management and that to me is not coming through as loud as it needs to do um on that listing that you're referring to them just before vicky another thought to throwing to this we need a workforce to deliver this so where's mental health where's women and agriculture where's new entrance so that need to be an obligation that need to be considered as part of the plan vicky if you address the first point from arianne as well yeah thanks um so just to add to that about yes we've got a list of measures that in theory can help deliver what we need to particularly as davie says when we're thinking within that agriculture sphere but there's a whole load of other stuff out with that that we need to do as well um but it's really going to depend upon how government applies those measures across the tiers particularly tiers one two and three um and how it divides the budget across those tiers and measures and how much resource it gives to any of them um and I didn't mention tier four there but that's particularly important because that is where the information advice knowledge transfer training for farmers is going to sit which is woefully underfunded at the moment is going to be need to be a major part of making this transition in future and needs to receive much more significant investment than it does the problem about the budget at the minute is that the um in the um accompanying documentation the financial memorandum and other things the government has said it's largely intending to keep the majority of funding tied to tiers one and tier two now tiers one and tier two largely map on to the existing sort of cap pillar one direct payments support together those take 79% of the total budget which leaves very little for tier three which is about nature restoration shorter supply chains innovation or tier four which is about that advice within those two tiers the government is saying it's tier two that's going to do all the heavy lifting but they're still talking about a 50 50 split of that nearly 80% of the budget between those two tiers so you're still going to have an awful lot of money going into a base payment um you're only going to have a proportion of it going into tier two and very little into the other tiers so we fundamentally need to change that allocation of funding across that piece as we go forward um RSPB Scotland and Scottish environment link would argue we need at least three quarters of that funding on tiers two three and four and ultimately over time need to reduce the amount of money going to that tier one we can't have a situation where currently we're spending all of that nearly 80% of that money 62% of those direct payments go to just 20% of beneficiaries 40% of beneficiaries get just 5% of that budget the farmers in the highlands and islands and the crofters many of whom have huge potential to deliver for nature and climate get a really poor deal from this current cap system which is still operating unless we fundamentally change that and apply the money differently to those measures we are not going to get to where we need to be certainly not by 2030 and not beyond that thank you allister seaman just in terms of the integration piece i want to flag two things that have been really significant for us the first links to crofting and common grazings in particular we're in a situation where we don't actually have a conflict we have a crofting development plan that articulates a desire to do exactly what we're saying needs to be done but we don't have the mechanisms to support that largely because in previous rounds crofters have had to kind of shoehorn and we've had to shoehorn the support we give to crofters into something that was built for something else and we have to avoid that mistake this time around we've got crofting legislation coming up but we've got to make sure that we build a support structure for crofting and on common grazings in particular that recognises the unique opportunities of that of that space and the second is actually a just transition issue here and we work quite a lot with natural capital developments particularly woodland carbon code we're in a position where an absentee farm landowner can access those markets very easily a crofter where the common graze and tenancy can't and that's just fundamentally not right and that's something that we've got to address going forward and the second links to the role of trees in all of this currently most of the tree budget sits in the forest grant scheme which we've heard sadly has taken a really significant hit but a lot of what we have outlined in the publication I shared isn't going to be funded through that it's going to have to be funded through through this system and we really want to see and we I would just echo what Vicky says that has to sit in tier 2 you can't sit beyond that if we're going to see this taken up at scale then it has to be incredibly visible for farmers it has to be simple it has to be straightforward it has to be non-competitive and it has to be sitting there on the main menu of options not in some kind of ambitious cupboard if you're keen enough to go through to tier 3 or tier 4 I've got Ross Lillie, Ross McLeodd and Davie Backen and then I've got a short supplement from Rachel Hamilton and a question from Alistair Allan. So goodbye to the question I mean 50% of our emissions in Scotland come from land so currently the situation so and the way that the bill and the intention of the rural resource plans is focused on emissions largely from agriculture activity certainly the carbon audits that farmers are expected to carry out and are doing is focusing on how they reduce the emissions from their activity from their business but actually the large part of that 50% of emissions is coming from what's termed in the climate change plan is land use land use change and forestry elements it's the permanent pasture it's the woodlands it's the peatlands on the farm as well as rather than the arable soils and a lot of this comes down to the cultural issue around how farmers see themselves as first and foremost farmers and crofters producing food and bless so the ones who are the custodians of that those habitats that are actually aware our emissions are coming from we need to stop emissions and we need indeed use those to capture carbon from a purely kind of perspective there are some really good examples in Scotland of farmers or understand that they embrace that and still call themselves farmers that in fact by doing so they've actually accessed new markets that boost their credibility and their confidence of being a farmer in terms of you know producing new products milk products and so on so we we've got to find a way of signaling that it's okay to take part and you can do and facilitate the point that it has made there putting land sparing for woodland for peatland restoration although albeit within the farm crop every farm crop context it doesn't need to be a whole holding process it's sharing does a lot of the lifting and you know one of the fears i think from farmers embracing this element of climate adaptation is that they've seen the whole holdings and whole states moving out of farming into what's considered the green-lead approach and that doesn't happen you know if we can get this support framework right and the definition of agricultural support embraces these other habitats then we can we can avoid that thank you Ross McLeod I just want to go back to a point that Vicki raised about the way in which the rural support plan engages with farmers and also in relation to carbon audits which Ross has mentioned carbon audits are seen as a sort of fundamental building block towards change of focus on outcomes with its its assessment of of greenhouse gas emissions and sequestration I think when I last looked or could last find a figure on the nitrogen carbon audit take-up was from August last year and it's about 550 I dare say someone might be able to tell me what the current figure is but it doesn't strike me as being very many when we've got 18,000 farming units in Scotland so it strikes me that there's something going awry in terms of the way we either engage with farmers communicate with farmers but we've got to get our skates on if we're going to make that that change thank you David McCracken thank you convener I would just come back to one of the questions you posed at the start of this particular session the supporting documents for the framework highlight that is believed that the framework remains broadly aligned with the CEP but as you've just pointed out a few minutes ago there's no mention in the framework about new new entrants there's no mention in the framework about small producers both of which are mandatory elements of the current CEP 23 to 27 there's a so there's a there's the there's two issues there one is the issue that you were implying I I'm presuming about how do we actually make sure we get a refresh of new entrants coming into Scottish agriculture to deliver these multiple objectives going forward and the framework's currently silent on that but also with regard and just as important it was regarding small producers we've talked for the last couple of hours about the range of different asks that's going to be made of scottish farmers and crofters going forward we need to be careful to assess the burden that we're going to be putting on farmers and crofters particularly small farmers and crofters who may only be in receipt of a relatively small amount of money and if we're asking them to do a whole host of additional things voluntarily to actually receive that money there's a real danger that they will just actually walk away not just walk away from agriculture production but walk away from any additional benefits that can arise from that agriculture production from the nature and the climate perspective so the fact that the framework is silent on both these things is a concern. Thank you. I've now got a supplementary from Rachel Hamilton on this. Alison Seaman mentioned the real terms cut to the Scottish forestry budget that is 33.6 million what I want to ask Stuart Goodall what impact that will have on the Scottish Government's climate change plan particularly around the Scottish forestry strategy and will that have an impact or a burden that will be transferred to other agricultural activities in Scottish farming? That's a very good question I'm very happy to answer it as well I mean in terms of the contribution that tree planting can make to the climate change plan that was identified as 18,000 hectares by in next year and clearly the funding that's available there is nowhere near enough to be able to deliver that a lot depends on what type of tree planting you do because there's different costs associated with different types of tree planting but a best guess is there's probably enough funding there in the grants budget for about half that target so there's definitely going to be a significant shortfall I can't see speaking from a climate change perspective where other actions will take the heavy lifting required in order to meet the climate change target so as it currently stands it looks to me as though it's just putting in place more taking one brick out of the wall as needed to be able to achieve the target we're very concerned that the level of planting that could be delivered under this funding will result in job losses I've already had forest nurseries getting in touch with me they've gone through a torrid time over the last 10 to 12 years in terms of cyclical delivery of tree planting having to destroy literally hundreds of thousands if not millions of trees burning them plowing them into the ground we were looking at a situation where tree nurseries were being encouraged to increase capacity to invest I think now they'll be looking at how do they reduce capacity how do they disinvest how do they lay people off so from a forestry perspective we are incredibly concerned about that from a climate change perspective I'm incredibly concerned about that and I do look at it you know picking up your second question in terms of you know land use land use change in forestry and the tree planting element was the big significant component that was going to be able to enable the rural community and you know farmers as well you know we were looking for farmers to embrace tree planting as part of their their forest their sorry their rural enterprise as a means to be able to deliver that target and the question now becomes how do you achieve the reductions that will be sought from the rural sector from the agricultural sector because I'm not an expert on this something like Dave's better place but I struggle to see how we can meet our next zero targets of 2045 without tree planting at the level that's required it just seems to me that we're setting ourselves up to fail and it will put pressure on the land use the land use change forestry heading and say where's that contribution going to come from now so I think it's it there's real concern out there and I'm receiving emails constantly from people in the sector just to pull this back to to the draft bill that we've got and the rural support plan that we're scrutinising just now so is there a way through that through you know have regard to or matters to be considered section three of the bill do you foresee that there should be something in the face the bill that gives more certainty to the forestry sector that's yeah I mean that's the fundamental challenge of yours is that we approached this bill initially as effective enabling mechanism it was an opportunity for Scottish Government to take the powers in a post cap to be able to continue to provide the grants that have been provided and to deliver the plans that we have for climate change rural economies etc and the concern is is that this is not providing any of that financial security and it will result in businesses and people who are considering planting all types of landowners from reducing their plans and if we end up falling backwards it's going to take us many years to get back on the front foot so definitely something which said it's highly incredibly important that there is that security that confidence provided for the forestry sector would be very welcome okay thank you and Ross lily I just want to point that this puts more emphasis on the need to allow the bill and the rural support framework to enable that market intervention because if there's one major restoration market that really is ready to go and is actually shows demonstration they can hack work on the ground it's woodland and particularly multi-purpose diverse woodland the markets particularly financial institutions are ready to invest in that if we can again if a government can signal and provide a platform to do that training so these elements discussions we've had around the rural support framework and the interventional logic been set out so that it gives a confidence both to the farmer land manager and the industry then they can enable that private market to fill some of the gap in the public support thank you before we bring vicar i'm allister it's got an additional supplementary to just for some clarification allister just on the point that the convener raised there about have regard to when it comes to the support plan so what do you think ministers should have regard to and i've asked this in a previous context i know that i kind of well understood legal meaning of what have regard to means but what's what's your understanding of that and what should be had regard to and how should that be made enforceable key do you want to answer that as well as i can try we did comment on that in our evidence i mean that there's a bit of a circular thing going on in the bill about what ministers must have regard to and in producing the plan which refers back to the objectives and obviously that's quite a weak form of wording in a sense just to simply have regard to so i think there is scope to tighten up in the bill in terms of what ministers actually must must do in terms of enacting that rural support plan which will then in turn deliver the objectives and i just wanted to touch on the the woodland and forestry question but just to throw a slightly different complexion obviously we need woodland creation but just to say that is not only achieved just by planting and some of that can be achieved through some of that private sector funding but also there's natural colonisation and if we tackle deer numbers and get those down we could create about 250 000 hectares of woodland probably native woodland building out from our existing native woodland blocks and it's also just to put things in context and it was mentioned before i think by Dave but the scale of our peatland emissions is by far one of the biggest factors that we need to think about so i'm not arguing against forestry or woodland expansion but we absolutely in terms of overall emissions from the land sector have to tackle those degraded peatlands 1.4 million hectares which are a major source and actually currently outweigh those sequestration and storage from all that tree planting so we absolutely need both but we've really got to get on top of that peatland and there are measures within this particularly in tier three in that nature restoration piece as well as the peatland action fund and other things that can help us get on with that but there are capacity issues actually in that sector so you're point thinly about people and bringing new entrants in and young people coming into jobs and future careers there's much more we need to do in that space as well but there's big opportunity there okay Rachel's got a point of clarification to Vicki Swales the financial memorandum doesn't include Scottish Government funding for peatland action fund within the context of the agricultural bill no but there are elements of it which would sit and already currently sit within the agri-environment climate scheme so there's a crossover there's a peatland action fund but there's also peatland restoration and other activities within what could be the replacement for for aches in future and in that tier three measure okay would anyone else like to comment on that have regard to before we move on to Stuart thank you convener i mean like to the conversation we just had i think it would be very helpful to have something in there which is have regard to the forestry sector and when we do have the issue of the Scottish financial strategy being developed as a separate activity and we have this bill which provides the funding mechanism and whereas i think in policy terms there is sense in the Scottish forestry strategy having primacy in terms of ensuring that there is the confidence and security of funding i think that would be a key thing to have regard to for the forestry sector okay thank you okay we're going to move on to our our next theme which is looking at powers to develop a new agricultural support system and a question from arianne Burgess thanks convener i'm going to actually roll a number of questions to it together but as convener said it's part two of the bill and it gives ministers the power to establish new funding and support system for Scottish agriculture and that includes things like conditions eligibility requirements guidance capping refusing or recovering support and exceptional market conditions and i know some folks have already started to touch on things like bits of detail on the tears and the split on that but it would be helpful to hear if you think your your thoughts about the level of detail that's set out on the face of the bill and on any particular powers around those support measures whether that you have a sense of confidence from the bill that the new agricultural support system will deliver for nature and climate we've kind of touched on that already a bit and if you think the information on anticipated future funding splits so that's the tears set on out in the financial memorandum is adequate and also to and again has been touched on but anyone else can come in on that your views on the power to cap agricultural payments so capping and potentially tapering front loading and the benefits and pros and cons on those and then also of course we would want to ask you about parliamentary scrutiny on the use of the powers in part two and the overall shape of the new agricultural policy and then our favorite topic seems to be I think today monitoring and evaluation so a lot there pick up anything that struck your your imagination as I went through all of that who'd like to start Eleanor straight in and so on part two we do have some concerns about a sort of general insufficient level of consultation but I've got some sort of key ones and on section seven and so guidance the fact that this can sort of specify the extent to which compliance with guidance on a particular topic is relevant on conditions of support but also guidance as evidential value in legal proceedings does make me concerned about it being negative procedure and there being no reference to consultation I think that that needs to change I'll try not to take too much time up with these on on capping I think we need something on the bill about a requirement to provide impact assessments on modelling on what what the impact of moving this money will will deliver we're not in favor of capping which won't come as a surprise we've never been in favor of capping and we particularly don't want to see any capping linked to environmental payments understanding the arguments for capping when we have basic payments but when we look at tier one requirements the cost of delivering a whole farm plan even just soil health assessments isn't doesn't go down just by the amount of land you are testing and not not significantly there does need to be some clear assessment as to the the costs of these two businesses before we before we start looking at capping and and tapering on section 10 again we we think this needs a bit more scrutiny than than it currently has and in section 13 particularly paragraph 5 we don't think the things that constituent a significant provision to trigger the affirmative procedure is is broad enough and there's a lot of stuff that could easily go through us as a negative procedure which does not give us the sort of time needed to to scrutinise those are my initial thoughts thank you thank you i'll pick up on i hope i've been clear that in terms of the tier funding splits that it isn't adequate and absolutely needs to change but just to pick up on issues around capping and and front loading or redistributive payments so we already have powers to cap payments albeit they haven't been applied particularly strongly in scotland and those powers as i understand it need to be take taken forward as the retained EU law bill and its clauses come come to an end so that's important and i would support what elinor says although we do support capping we think it should be applied to those base payments going forward those income support payments but not to other payments where they are clearly targeted at delivering certain outcomes and where the delivery of those outcomes is likely to increase at scale so particularly some of that environmental land management it makes sense that you're if you're delivering a lot you should be able to get the appropriate payments to support that activity and there has been discussion in the the policy arena around redistributive payments or what the NFUS are calling front loading in that base payment to you we think that would be helpful so this is the idea of giving an uplift in the payment rates to a first number of hectares a figure to be defined but we're particularly beneficial to those smaller farmers and crofters who may struggle with some of the other requirements being placed on them so i think that would be absolutely very sensible thing to do vicki on that because it's quite an important part of the balance line we've discussed quite a lot once again looking at the bill we've got in front of us should there be some guidelines on how that front loading or however you might like to call it or capping might look and as our parameters it so it may not be 10 percent 20 percent or whatever but does it need to specify in the front of the bill what considerations need to be looked at where if a potential front loading or capping was to be introduced well i think it certainly needs to specify that i'm not sure at the minute that it actually has that in us whole so i think basically for that to be to create the powers for that to be a mechanism i don't think it necessarily needs all the detail of how that might be done but again we can look at the cap and it is a 10 percent figure at the minute some modeling work would need to be done in scotland but certainly something provisions in the bill to create the powers to do that i think is absolutely needed any else on these particular ross lily i think as long as for it initially anyway the emphasis is on the first two tiers the base payment to give confidence and surety to the industry that they continue to be supported but at the same time deliver on all these targets that we've just been talking about then we need to think about the distribution of payments around that base payment and so i think the region modeling is quite critical to get right and i think davie mentioned it earlier on in this morning about the fact that it's not only the case that well in terms of the ambitions of the bill if we're getting needs every farm and crofters to do more for nature and for climate as well as country on food production then there's more there needs to be more parity across the farming crofting industry about the distribution of payments you know the disparity between region one and region two payments for instance at the moment is quite quite significant say that depending on the code of practice and conditionality will that not effectively do some of the work that we might want to see undertaken in tier two a way you know it might be some of the conditionality is is in relation to the code of practice might be set out some of the rules that you need to use and in that way deliver some of the outcomes we want to see in other parts of the bell again goes back to the the need to to set out the intervention logic across the four tiers and how they work together so tier one base provides the baseline that the the orting the the baselines that setting the baseline of which agreeing to the code is and complying by the code is part of but then the means to actually do that and go beyond the basic requirements of the code would be supported by enhanced and then more specific actions particularly business change like capital investment to make a change of the business would come out the sort of tier three so that logic needs to go full through okay vicki exactly that and i think it speaks to what we were talking about before about which measures you apply where what are the basic requirements as in cross compliance that you just have to do in order to get that entry payment under the base tier but then thinking well actually what do we need to do in terms of the maybe things that cost farms a little bit more money to do where do we need to support that through different measures through tier two which is a say being seen by government as doing a lot of the heavy lifting in this space and they're intending to put quite a bit of money into it but arguably we would add into tier threes and ultimately into tier four and providing that cross cutting support in terms of advice but they are i understand looking at cross compliance conditions and the good agricultural environmental conditions that might apply discussion around things like including a sort of peatland and wetland conditions in some of that so it is possible to increase the sort of baseline requirements before you even get to a point of thinking well what do we need to pay and support farmers to do okay arianne and then Rachel thanks community just a brief supplementary on the tier system and i think you may have touched on it already but i think last week at the round table i started to understand an idea that we'll have a tier system that might start out in one way in 20 whenever it is 2025 26 but it will evolve as farming practices change money might need to move into different tiers is that the idea i think that's certainly a case obviously there's a lot of discussions around transition just transition and taking things in a stepwise direction i mean obviously i would say we are behind the curve we we've not made the progress to date we need to but we have to accept that we are where we are and you know how we move forward so the point is at the moment as i said about 79 percent of that budget will effectively be as it appears to be going to be allocated to those tiers one and tiers two whether that needs to remain the case in perpetuity i think is an open question is not clear from the government's position at the minute of what is whether this is just a starting point or whether we're going to get to a different end point and we're going to transition over time we would argue that does need to be a transition we need to move that money away as i've said but we accept that you can't necessarily do it immediately overnight but i think the sooner government sets out its plans and that's why the rural support plan coming forward is so critical in all of this that's where they should be explaining all of this and saying what their decisions are but we do understand that cabinet secretary has said that she will make some decisions about funding envelopes by the time of the end of the US AGM in February particularly in relation to tier one and tier two so we have to wait and see what comes forward from that thanks in terms of basic requirements and the sort of conditionality for farmers i think it would help to clarify what we mean by ineligible land and active farming i think it was a point Nigel Miller raised the other day that some farmers may be capable of delivering in terms of biodiversity because that's the scope of their land but they may be constrained at the moment by those definitions of ineligibility in terms of the area of land you scrub, brack and whatever it is which could be used for biodiversity purposes quite constructively so i think it goes to the sort of concept of integrated land management of making sure that farmers have the scope to deliver either for biodiversity and or for productive and efficient farming Rachael Hamilton I wanted to ask Elena Kaye around the eligibility criteria for support I know that it doesn't necessarily speak about the farmers that can participate such as tenant farmers I wondered if you had a view on whether tenant farmers within that section should be explicitly referred to and on the last point around the transparency in land ownership is it possible through the land register of Scotland to ensure transparency of land ownership I don't think we necessarily need to name tenants specifically in section 14 I think there will be an element of this that crosses over into what's covered in the agholding aspect of the land reform bill so I don't really want to pre-empt what's in that I'd say that the register is pretty transparent there's obviously a requirement to make sure your land is registered so I think it's sufficient I think that specifically tenant farmers should be referenced to so that they can get access to some of the possible tier 3 and 4 activities not no I don't think that necessarily I think it's it's there within the sort of payment entitlements section there's scope for it to be specified if needs me but I wouldn't want to talk to stuff that I expect is going to come in the land reform bill okay thanks I wanted to ask anyone who wants to pick this question up around any new support schemes that you would like to see created for example at the moment I think I'm aware that land owners with land I think it's three hectares or less aren't have you know aren't eligible for any form of support and yet there's quite a strong demand for market gardening and that kind of thing so be just interested here you know if you agree with that one but also other schemes that you might think would be good to see that would again help us with that nature and climate target action I've got a devi the elner kirstie and then Ross lily apologies sorry so I was coming in on Rachel's question a minute ago initially but I'll try and answer Arians as well it's not my area but I just wanted to point out in SRUC submission to the consultation your question about the land registry Rachel and there are currently no links between the existing administrative framework for agricultural port and the land registry an owner and claimant can not be the can need not be the same person ownership boundaries going aligned agricultural holdings and land parcins etc etc so the land registry is not an easy fix to actually knowing what's happening on agricultural land or vice versa going back to Arians question I appreciate Ari and you're coming at it more from the sort of the small farmer perspective what I was going to point I was going to make was I would be suggesting that there is a need to transition from our existing support policy into the new support policy fully in some sort shape or form and what's currently missing within that or within any sort of real consideration within the framework or any of the on-going detailed discussions about the secondary policies is what happens to the less favored area support payments going forward that is a big for the type of farmers that we work with in the hills and uplands and crofting areas of Scotland then less favored area support is a big big part of their public funding going forward and there's been very little active discussion about how that will actually be dealt with going forward and so my response to yourself Arianna is before we start thinking about some other different support mechanisms we need to be clear whether or not elements of that is going to go forward so is that those individuals currently currently in receipt of that are aware whether some element of it will continue what the outcomes will be required of them to continue to receive that or not and if it's or not then will that actually cease being something that they will have access to okay thank you okay Eleanor and then Kirsty it was just following on from David's point on those sort of smaller parcels of land I do wonder if there is scope to provide support for those through the rural rural economy aspect of the schedule one I think I wonder if it's broad enough that that can be fit within that it they are quite different to sort of farming systems and also there's potentially scope for it to be in the good food nation sort of secondary legislation piece they agree things like allotments and market market gardens are are certainly something where we can engage with the sort of wider community as to the importance of climate adaptation and food production it's a great it's a great tool but I think it probably needs a different support and agricultural stuff thank you very custody so I think we have to look at this in the round don't we I mean at FSCC we talk about pathways and it's pathways for all farmers crofters and growers so we have to send check what we're doing and you mentioned different legislation there Eleanor about where the opportunities might be but there's no I don't get a feeling there is that kind of sense checking at the moment to make sure both in public funding and private funding that there's pathways for all and I think this is going to be really integral especially for you know we have an issue about young entrance and get an actually the ability of just not young entrance firm but people to actually enter the sector and play their part in the sector and secure and not just access to land but secure access to land so I think we have a huge problem in Scotland actually at the moment and we are facing rural depopulation so we have to look at this in the round and we have to look at all the different legislations to make sure that there's pathways for all for all sizes all types and and there's opportunities for new entrants to come in and that can be done in many ways but I think there's a bit of sense check and we need to do across the board. Thank you. Ross Lylew followed by Alasdair. Good morning question about what could be added in in terms of it's not there at the moment. I mean we've talked about the support framework supporting an ecosystem service approach which is by thing to do and certainly the Scottish part of our strategy and delivery plan is focused around ecosystem services and ecosystems itself but we shouldn't lose sight of the fact that at the heart of ecosystems is our species and a lot of what the public at large and certainly farmers view biodiversity is in individual species and the way we approach our species protection and management and interaction in Scotland is that on a spectrum from a fully protected species on one hand at least of conservation concern to a fully utilisable or indeed a non-invasive and I think we should try and some not necessarily develop new schemes but think about the framework and how it's supporting farmers and crofters manage that complexity of species status from from the from at both ends it's quite easy each end you know if it's a non-native invasive then let's try and get eradicated and control it if it's a protected species of concern at the other end then we've got some good examples of doing that at the agri-environment climate scheme currently supports and has good success stories there and things like corn crakes and marsh tilly and so on but there's a number of species in the middle there and we've touched on a few earlier in terms of things like beavers where there's a complex way of how we manage those they have up conservation concerns so we should be able to use the support framework to help farmers support and host to those species but at the same time use the other tools available such as licensing and to manage individual animals so that I think we should try and articulate that in the framework and you know just coming down to us where we could actually have the new measures two big ones to help us ease this language change one is trees on farms and I say that deliberately compared to woodland because you know current woodland is considered down to sort of like 200 stems per hectare but actually there's a huge amount of woodland expansion we could do through much much lower densities and stitching trees into farm land and that could be very much part of the support framework rather than a separate forestry grand scheme the way we currently do it and the other one is deer on that species framework deer at the bottom at the bottom end is a utilisable resource that is abundant and is causing hindering all those aspects of land exchange, peatland restoration within the expansion so we could have anuvertly deer incentive there. I certainly support those comments about trees on farms and deers but I was just going to answer any terms of thinking about additional schemes of support I think I mentioned earlier that there doesn't appear to be provision in schedule one for kind of payments for a facilitation for collaborative management for landscape scale under the previous rule development programme there was supposed to be an environmental corporation action fund which never got off the ground but we need to make sure that's part of the future policy and the provisions are there for that and I just wanted to pick up briefly on Davies point about the less favoured area support scheme the financial memorandum suggests that in this context the budget for tiers one and two would include the less favoured area support scheme budget of 66 million actually if you add that into the pot then the amount of money spent on those two tiers would be 89% of the budget not the 79% that I mentioned before nonetheless if that's the case then we would suggest that that needs to be retained within tier two and we've made a case for a specific high nature value farming and crofting support we've got the indicator we know that about 40% of Scotland is what we would class as high nature value farming and crofting predominantly in the highlands and islands that get a very poor deal from the current system but that's also the areas where we have a high proportion of our most important wildlife sites also carbon stores so there's real merit in ensuring those smaller farms and crops which are environmentally important but quite economically fragile and vulnerable can be supported going forward and get a fair deal from the system thank you Allister my apologies I meant to bring you in earlier that's all right thank you actually no i'm going to echo what Ross said I think on deer absolutely would support that a lot of the work on deer currently is looking at deer in the uplands on largest states there's been some progress there but it's really tricky in lowland scotland and therefore I think the opportunity to resource landowners and farmers to do that well in the lowlands a lot of that's going to require the kind of collaboration that vicki mentioned I think that's definitely an area to look at and I just wanted to add a little bit of colour to ross's comment on trees on farms and just reinforce the point that the forestry grant scheme is there to create woodland and forests but there's a huge opportunity to put trees into farms in other ways and and I want to specifically mention hedges vicki kicked off with that we lost 6000 miles of our hedros in scotland in the last century these have opportunities to create biodiversity super highways across some of our most our least biodiversity land sepa have looked at water quality identified 175,000 hectares of of river and water stream corridor where we need to put trees back in again there's opportunities to do that through fgs but a lot of that can be done outside of that and davie's sitting behind a lovely photograph of I think a protected water margin that he and I looked at fairly recently opportunities to integrate trees into that space are very significant and then lastly coming to grazing which which is a huge part of scotland's agriculture we need to put trees into that space not in in woodland but as individual trees small coops is to create the shade and the shelter that's going to be absolutely fundamental to livestock wellbeing and to productivity going forward and actually is perhaps one of the biggest opportunities for boosting biodiversity in that landscape that will never be funded through the foreshore grant scheme and we've got to find creative ways to put that in here we're working with soil association scotland at the moment to look at the details of that and recognising that those schemes don't just need to cover the capital costs and the maintenance costs but we also want to look at what a realistic payment for ecosystem services would be through that so just a flag I'm keen to hear from many colleagues who might be interested in connecting with me on that later on because that's something we want to be publishing towards the summer this year. Thank you. We're going to move on to our final theme, the power to provide for CPD. I'm going to bring in Beatrice Wishart. Thanks, convener, and it's been quite an interesting session so far. I'm sorry, I'm not in the room with you. On the CPD issue and I might go to Kirsty first since she raised the issue early on in the session to ask about the power to provide CPD and whether there's any particular areas that should be required or particularly encouraged. And Kirsty, you mentioned there was a knowledge and skills gap and I wonder if you could expand on that. Yeah, I mean I think the CPD aspect of this bill is going to be incredibly important but I think it'll be how we actually implement that's going to be incredibly important as well because obviously we want farmers and crofters and growers to want to do it, not to feel they have to do it. It's got to work in with their systems and their farms as we know every farm and every croft and every market garden is very unique and the needs will be different. The way I've been working within this knowledge transfer world is looking at peer-to-peer and how actually farmers and crofters can learn from each other and that knowledge transfer that's that work. From what I've seen over the last three years that works really well. There's a level of trust and there's something in actually seeing something to believe it. When we talk about you know these are big, big changes that we're asking farmers and crofters and growers to do in an environment that isn't really set up that makes sense for them at the moment. There's no particular market routes or you know it is quite a that will develop the supply chain will develop that will push change on to farmers and crofters but at the moment they're kind of doing it against the grain so I think there's a level of trust there. We would I think what's really important at farmers and crofters and growers have the options to choose and to choose what fits them and what what they need at a particular time. So yeah I think it's a very important part of the bill but again you know it shouldn't be imposed upon it should be something that's seen as useful within their businesses to actually do and I think that's going to be important how we rule this out. I think you know CPD is obviously going to be incredibly important as the vision for agriculture is delivered and may or must is a very important sort of comment in this in this section and there are questions to be asked in that exactly how it's applied and as Kirsty said we have to be clear on what the benefits are to the business for engaging with CPD and we know that will directly affect the uptake. A lot of these a lot of solutions that we need will require very similar activity but the reason for doing it for a business will will be different and we need to we need to acknowledge that but I think before we impose any kind of CPD requirement we need to ensure we actually have enough advisors and trainers and we simply don't for what was currently delivered. I think there needs to be a qualification as to what constitutes CPD so it's okay to have varying levels of CPD but a monitor farm meeting attendance is very different to my basis integrated pest management qualification or the livestock handling course held by a vet these are different things and they will need to be sort of slightly viewed differently they all achieve something very important and there's also an element of not not just choosing the cheapest option to tick the box and that's critical to ensure that this is remotely meaningful. We expect there needs to be some level of equivalence granted to the existing professional qualifications so your institute of agricultural valuers, agricultural management basis that there's a whole stream of them that can be listed and must be recognised in this if CPD is to be required. There also I think needs to be something within this section on the availability and accessibility of the information so we've heard it from RSAPI that approximately 25% of farmers are thought to be dyslexic we know that with a higher proportion of farmers being men they're more likely to be colourblind for instance and older populations most likely to have hearing issues how they access information will entirely depend on whether or not they use it and if it's not accessible it will not be used no matter how much you impose upon them and the same thing applies when we look at barriers to entry for women and new entrants and general equipment availability so things need to be delivered you know this is very important content it has to be delivered in a multitude of ways and that makes things expensive and that needs to be factored in when we're looking at the CPD requirements that yes we will need some on-farm meetings for particular regions if you're wanting to create catchment area change there will need to be in-person meetings but there will need to be an online offering as well and all these things add to the complexity there also needs to be a measure of quality for the person delivering the information particularly with Regen ag I think we are seeing a worrying increase of professionals giving anecdotal data that has no scientific rigour to it at all and they are very expensive and potentially deliver nothing of benefit but the minute you get caught out by it you're kind of put off doing anything else in the future so we we need to get this right knowledge exchange is key but there needs to be an engagement with the sector as to what's already out there what professional qualifications already exist that will interact with this and at the moment there is nothing in this section about consultation with the sector okay thank you divry thanks and Kirsty and Eleanor have covered that really well the thing I'd emphasise Eleanor was talking about we need more advisers you need more capacity and I completely agree with that but they also need this CPD the CPD they receive to reflect the urgency of this but also that the breadth and depth of it and I think that that's potentially a huge enabler just in terms of that that phase one to one when you're doing your IX return having an advisor who knows who can explain this can explain this discussion we've had this morning but actually what the bill is what the measures are that big list that's quite a big ask of them but I think that's the kind of thing they should be asked to do but it comes back to resource that needs to be resourced properly and that's not a small part and vicky made the point about how that kind of tier 4 budget doesn't match what is required in terms of that CPD and that support through advisers thank you I've got you and then Davey yeah a whole host of difficulties with the current advisory capacity have been raised I think we need to recognize that that is a real wealth of knowledge already out there you know to pardon the pun there are organic networks growing like the nature friendly farming network there's the I believe it's the southwest regenerative farming network and those skills that have already been fostered across farms and crops whether they're part of those networks or just in the mainstream system operating on their own need to really be utilised because there is a vast resource there we've seen and I would encourage the committee to look at kative work on these kind of farmer to farmer crofter to crofter clusters you know where they are geographically closely located obviously there are problems when it comes to the highlands and islands of just getting around the area but they have been really really important in helping to upskill farmers and crofters and introduce them to potentially new nature friendly farming techniques I'd also like to go back to Vicky's point on the funding I would echo everything that she said about the funding allocation being insufficient there is a particular ring fence around tier 4 funding and we see that as you know the budget allocation is subject to periodic uncertainties and there's also climate change shocks and things the knowledge transfer is going to be so so key to weatherproofing farms from both economic and climate shocks Jim you got a question on that point you and it's to all of you but just specifically on the point that you just made there you're talking about there is so much knowledge transfer out there absolutely in favour of that but it's called continuous professional development are you saying that these organisations that are doing that have to be professionally registered and if so with who if they aren't then the scrutiny of the government's ability to deliver its objectives will then come back to it well who did you ask to deliver it and where did the knowledge come from so I can potentially see that there'll be an issue there further down the line if we don't have some kind of process to make sure that what we're asking people to do is delivered by the right people on the basis of something that the government is then answerable to I wouldn't feel confident responding now so I will write to you following up on that point thank you I've now got a davie and then ross lily thank you and thank you for your question Beatrice just a number of things and with regard to it and kirstie name checked me earlier in today's at least mornings conversation when she was talking not just about cvd cpd but about why there education and training and I think it's important as we've also identified here that the bill has lots of linkages to other policies national environment bill etc etc etc it's important that we also recognise that the scale of change that we are looking to achieve in the land management in Scotland and only an element of that can actually be achieved in terms of skills development can be achieved through the cpd that's been talked about here within the agricultural framework bill and so a wider education and skills delivery within scotland needs to be a greater alignment with what we actually need going forward I potentially with the education skills teams that I have with the NSRUC I could potentially create a a 2d course or a week-long course tomorrow to fill a skills gap but if it comes to a sort of a year-long hnc or three or four year long degree that takes a lot longer slower burn to actually change because it's not just in my gift to actually do that it's within the gift of Scottish funding councils and skills development Scotland to actually also agree that we can support those type of things going forward so there is a need for us to actually think carefully about what are the skills that we need both on our farms and for individuals to actually help our farmers and crofters going forward and how we might actually seek to facilitate that across Scotland going forward. Upskilling and reskilling is going to be vital not just for farmers and existing farmers and crofters or those new entrants but others to actually help them on that way. With regard to cpd itself then certainly cpd in all its guise is important but it's not an outcome in itself it's not it shouldn't be you know you have to actually do a certain amount of cpd three hours of cpd per every six months to actually continue to qualify for your eligibility of payments or a thing but it's just a tick box exercise that achieves nothing cpd whatever it is needs to actually have a clear relationship a clear outcome to what the farmer or the crofter needs to actually achieve on their farm or croft how relevant it actually is to helping them actually do that. I've already mentioned the scale of the change that's actually needed others have mentioned there's a there's limited existing knowledge for many of these multiple outcomes we're now going to be looking for from farms and crofts not just amongst the farmers and crofters themselves but amongst those who are currently advising them so it's not just a low number of advisors that's currently available it's a low number a low proportion of those currently available advisors can also now give appropriate training or advice on the range of activities that we that we're seeing is important going forward and certainly with regard to Jim's point then we have to look at some level of sort of accreditation going forward if we want to actually achieve the the real degree of uplift in knowledge and understanding amongst farmers and crofters going forward and the final thing I just wanted to say is we also need to think outside the box a number of people have already mentioned it peer-to-peer learning advisors to farmer crofter learning can be important but we also have to think how else it's going to be more effective at actually more effective at achieving those sort of outcomes and as a number of people have already mentioned some level of sort of facilitation going forward for some groups groups of farmers maybe akin to producing a better outcome even if it's more expensive to achieve. KTF has already been mentioned but if we look to the Republic of Ireland we're doing nothing like the scale of KTF type projects that the Republic of Ireland have done from a bottom up sort of perspective putting facilitation in place and then just to bring it full circle you know CPD is not just about upscaling individuals in terms of the knowledge and understanding there's a big role to play there in terms of we mentioned data we mentioned technology having a big role to play going forward we need to ensure that that's on the table and we and our farmers and crofters get sufficient training to allow them to understand what's actually happening on their on their farms and crofts where they currently are to benchmark where they are and know what's best to actually do to actually move them forward. Thank you I've got Ross Lillian then Ross McLeod. I'll just thank you, Lady, but not repeating, that it's more important to focus on the diversity of knowledge and expertise that is across the industry and the advisory network and those of us within specialist organisations and facilitate that rather than focus particularly on CPD at the stage there is a standard organisation the Chartered Institute of Environmental Managings is a good baseline for a lot of the stuff we've been talking about to to clear on climate and biodiversity and as other chartered institutes particularly forestry that can come in here in terms of sitting up a standard but I think the point thing is tier four the way it's framed at the moment can be better framed as being a cross cutting tier rather than the fourth tier is actually the first tier before tier one, tier two, tier three and then cuts across those three and in procurement of publicly supported advice and guidance and so on out there let's diversify that and so it unlocks that expertise that sits amongst farmers and crofters and as much as the academic institutions out there rather than focuses on a one-end institution providing that advice. Thank you. Ross McLeod followed by Alasdor Seaman. Thank you convener. Well I don't think I come close to Davey's description of CPD and what's required there I think the only thing I would add is looking at the nature advice given to farmers at the moment it will need to balance the focus on productive efficient farming with biodiversity and I'm not sure that the skill sets of those advisors at the moment are sufficient for that purpose and that's really really important because as farmers try to grapple with where they could make some sacrifices in order to to maintain a biodiversity outcome that's going to be critical Ellen I think points to this as well so just that important making sure we balance those two competing requirements productivity and biodiversity is essential for those advisors to have those skill sets. Alasdor and then David Harley. Three things yes to farm advisory service really crucial and recognising that we need to support them so I'd like to see a plan to upskill them. Agree with Davey's point having graduated from SRUC about a million years ago the sad reality is that there's now less input into my specialist area of integrated trees on farms today than there was 30 years ago and so we've got to see that change I think there are a number of us in this room who'd be really keen to be a productive part of supporting that journey we've got real skills and expertise to bring to that and we'd like to find a way to do that. I think peer-to-peer learning is absolutely crucial here because we need to recognise this isn't just about skill and knowledge it's really about a lot of this is about culture and a lot of this is about fear and safety and therefore making sure that we're putting farmers who are already doing this right in front of that is really crucial we're running really effective crofter network gatherings and we don't do the teaching we get crofters to do that so I think that's got to be really important and then lastly I think you asked the question Jim around the sort of official certification versus informal route I'd really encourage you to go and look at what teachers are doing I worked in education for quite a while and they've got a really nice balance of a mixed economy where there's really high quality academic certified stuff but also a really rich range of other things that people can just pick up and do at their own pace and in their own way including that peer-to-peer learning which I think is really fundamental so some good lessons we can potentially learn from teaching provision thank you David and then vicki thanks yeah just building on the last four or five contributions completely agree that cpd has a role but not at the expense of that dedicated farm farm level advice our experience in regulating the sector is that that advice been given by people who understand farming far and farmers is absolutely crucial and I think that culture point that allister raised is really at the heart of this I think it's not so much about it's not so much about much about education or information provision it's really around that culture and that's that's a very sophisticated and something we need to really invest in be happy for a conversation around that thank you vicki thanks I mean clearly this is a we can talk a lot about this is a clean important issue and how you go about delivering this is really matters and there's a whole diversity of approaches and very sort of farmer centered approaches but I just wanted to add something which is about the need for this and the sort of evidence base around that so in a paper the Scottish government submitted to the just transition commission and the figures are a little bit a while ago but the vast majority of farmers farm based on practical agricultural experience and of course that's important so about 72 percent but only 28 percent had any formal agricultural training and just over 1 percent of those managing farms in Scotland this was in 2016 said they had undergone any kind of vocational training in the last 12 months if we compare that with countries like Germany and the Netherlands where 70 percent of farmers have had formal training 60 in France and it just highlights how much there is to do and we're increasingly asking farmers to do more diverse and more complex things and I think we're doing them a disservice if we don't put in place the mechanisms the investment that the ways of helping them through that process and upscaling on whether that's through mandatory or whether that's voluntary or all of those kind of mix of approaches but the need for it is absolutely essential I think. Thank you, Jim. That's more a question for the cabinet sectors to be honest. Okay, that's just arrived at the end of our session very much on time so I very much appreciate. I wonder how many multi-zards I get for becoming 15 seconds of our deadline but thank you all very much for your valid contributions and that will help us for my views when we move towards stage 1 report. I'm now going to suspend the meeting for 10 minutes to allow witnesses to leave and give members a short comfort break. Our third item of business is consideration of two UKSI consent notifications the movement of goods Northern Ireland to Great Britain, animal feed and food, plant and health etc regulations 2024 and the amendment to the definition of qualifying Northern Ireland goods EU exit regulation 2020. Do any members have any comments on either of these notifications? Nope. Are members content to agree with the Scottish Government's decision to consent to the provision set out in the notifications being included in the UK rather than Scottish subordinate legislation? That concludes our business in public. I move into private session.