Chamber and committees

Yes.

I make the point at the outset that, as you say, the spend cuts across other portfolio areas. The islands spend in my portfolio is not exclusive; it is not all the islands funding that exists. There is spend in other portfolios as well.

I appeared before the committee just before the summer last year to give evidence on the national islands plan, which sets out our strategic objectives, and we are taking forward work against each of them. You mentioned the particular challenge of employment. With Highlands and Islands Enterprise and Skills Development Scotland, we have provided £250,000 of funding for a project that is looking at employment and retention on islands. We have also funded a post at the University of the Highlands and Islands to look at how it can strengthen its connections with key island partners.

There is that specific funding but, again, I am more than happy to come back to the committee with further information, particularly looking across portfolios to some of the other spend.

The feedback that we have had from that has been really positive. We obviously want to take any learning from that example and share it as best we can. Officials are looking at that work and at how we can share good practice with other authorities that, as you say, cover a mixture of the mainland and islands—Argyll and Bute Council and Highland Council, in particular. We are actively looking at that.

I say again that it is really difficult. The budget is an annual process, so we do not have that certainty until the budget is passed and we receive the annual allocation. What we have seen through the resource spending review and the capital spending review is the overall funding envelopes that we might hope to receive over the period, which give an indication as to what allocations we might look to have.

We have been through a couple of iterations of the islands programme. I hope that, with the changes that we are proposing for this year, we will get the balance right in how the scheme runs and we will see that continue, which will help to resolve some of the issues.

Our focus is on the capital grant scheme, but, as you mentioned, not all businesses are the same, which is why our other funds are really important. Businesses vary across Scotland, so the support that we offer needs to be flexible in response to that.

That particular fund had to be targeted for the reasons that I have outlined. The other schemes that we have are really important in enabling transformation and allowing people to take part in that, as you have outlined.

AECS is an example of that. As I mentioned, we have £36 million for that for the coming financial year. Through those funds and through our work on the national test programme, we are encouraging people to take part in soil testing, as George Burgess outlined, and to undertake carbon audits. We are looking to incentivise people to undertake those practices as much as we possibly can and to fund that where we can. However, AECS is one scheme that we have to target where we think that it will have the biggest effect.

I will write to outline where the different supports lie and what each fund does.

That support falls not within the national test programme but within the agri-environment climate scheme that we support. We have £36 million for that in the budget for the coming financial year.

That is not the only work that we are doing on organics. We have funded a post in Scotland Food & Drink to look at organics, and I have been engaging with stakeholders to look at an action plan on organics, because we need to do more work in that space.

The support that is available at the moment is through the agri-environment climate scheme.

The ultimate ambition is to expand the programme. The carbon audits and soil testing were the first part of the programme. We have been looking at animal health and welfare measures that could be added to the programme, and, in coming years, we will be looking to include biodiversity audits. We have received strong feedback from ARIOB about introducing biodiversity audits, but they are not yet ready to be rolled out on a national scale. When we are ready to do so, we will look to include them as part of the programme.

As I said, the uptake has been disappointing, but it is the first year of the programme. When we were budgeting for the scheme, because it is demand led, we did not know how big the uptake would be. Obviously, we want to be better prepared. It is better for us to be in that situation rather than to be in the opposite situation, in which we overspend a fund and are then not able to fund all the claims that we receive as part of that.

All that said, I provided some of the figures in the letter to the committee. The forecast for the first part is £2 million; we expect a lot of claims to come through at the tail end. George Burgess might want to expand on some of the discussions that we have had about the feedback that we are hearing from agents.

The overall picture on carbon audits is that the uptake this year has been really positive. We also fund carbon audits through the Farm Advisory Service. Its budget for that was exhausted last summer because there had been such a high uptake. The fact that we have seen that increase in demand has been really positive, and I think that we will see more follow.

I will hand over to George, who will be able to provide some more information.

That is what I was coming to. We are getting a variety of feedback, based on some of what George Burgess touched on in his previous response. From what we hear, people are planning to undertake the work but have not done it yet and may do it in the coming year. It is to do with capacity as well—for some, carrying out that work has been an issue.

George, do you want to come in on the feedback that we are receiving?

You referred to the increase in funding that we have received from the UK Government, but, as I outlined in one of my previous responses, that equates to a 4.8 per cent cut since 2021. The inflationary pressures that we have seen—I think that inflation hit 11.1 per cent in October—mean that whatever increase we have had will always be worth less. When we look at the EU replacement funding—

First of all, thank you for raising the monitor farm programme, which I neglected to mention in my response. I was really excited to announce that initiative. Funding of £1.4 million will be provided for the programme over the next few years. We know that the programme works in terms of engagement, and that it encourages the sharing of knowledge and expertise. Undertaking a second round of the programme is really important.

Of course, we have done that with agri-tourism as well. Again, it is really important to see that really exciting part of the sector continue to grow and develop.

We continue to invest through schemes. We are funding the monitor farm programme through the knowledge transfer and innovation fund. We are investing £36 million in the agri-environment climate scheme over the coming year. I have mentioned other schemes, too.

You mentioned the Nature Friendly Farming Network, with which I have had quite a lot of engagement. It is a fantastic network. I have regular engagement with our key stakeholders. We also have an agriculture, biodiversity and climate change network, which we are encouraging people to get involved with, to share the knowledge and expertise that we have.

In my opening statement, I said that one of the priorities is the transformation to net zero and becoming a net zero economy. We know that we have to fund that and that we need to help with that transition where we can. That is why we have provided funding across those various schemes—to continue with that work, to invest in it, to drive the change that we want to see and, ultimately, to deliver on our vision for agriculture, too.