Seòmar agus comataidhean

You are asking the questions that I asked at the beginning of the process. I said that my officials would cringe at me describing it as what goes in and what comes out, but that is how I like to think about the process. You can imagine how that would happen in food production, for example. For the nitrogen that is put into the food production system, we calculate the deficit, as I have been calling it, by looking at what is, not to be crude, excreted. The 25 per cent figure is essentially the baseline that has been calculated as being where we are just now across the board with the economy. That is explained nicely in the report—probably better than I can explain it today.

How I understand it is that we have figures for nitrogen use efficiency across, let us say, food production, and we can break that down into livestock farming and crop production. The overall figure for nitrogen use efficiency in agriculture is 28 per cent, so you can see that the national figure of 25 per cent is quite heavily dominated by the agriculture figure. However, because it is a whole-economy figure, we build in the figures for forestry, waste and industry, which is what gets us to 25 per cent. I can bring in Dr Russon, who is far more into the detail than I am, but that 25 per cent figure represents the state of play on average across the board in our economy just now. I hope that that is helpful, but I am happy to bring in my team if you would like a more scientific explanation.

Of course. That is an important point, which I have tried to make throughout, but I will do so again. Food production is at the heart of the issue, because nitrogen is at the heart of food production, but it is not the only flow-in and we have sought to reflect that in the balance sheet. It is categorically not just about agriculture and aquaculture. The balance sheet covers the use of nitrogen in forestry and flows of nitrogen that are associated with fossil fuel combustion in sectors such as transport, industry and energy supply. It also looks to waste management processes, which can serve to recycle nitrogen that is taken in through human nutrition back into parts of the wider system.

We have a picture across Scotland and, where data allows, into and out of Scotland. It is a very broad-scope approach that is unique in the world, and I hope that other countries will follow where Scotland has led, so that we have an international comparison of how efficiently Scotland is using nitrogen compared with our friends and neighbours across the world.

Good morning, everyone, I hope that you can hear me clearly.

I am very pleased to give evidence today in support of the draft regulations to establish Scotland’s nitrogen balance sheet. Nitrogen is present across our economy and environment. The benefits arising from it cannot be overstated: nitrogen is essential for the production of food—I am sure that we can all agree that we depend on food—and many other processes. However, the harms that are associated with losses of nitrogen into the environment can be significant. Those include contributions to climate change through greenhouse gas, impacts on human health through air quality pollutants and impacts on biodiversity through excess nutrients entering terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems.

That all means that the efficient use of nitrogen is an important issue with far-reaching consequences. I will give one example. The efficient use of agricultural fertilisers helps to reduce waste of nutrients, thereby minimising environmental harms and realising economic benefits for those who produce our food.

The importance of understanding nitrogen use at a national scale was recognised by the Parliament during the passage of the Climate Change (Emissions Reduction Targets) (Scotland) Act 2019, with a commitment to develop the balance sheet that we are discussing today. That work has been taken forward by the Scottish Government in a way that has provided key stakeholders across a range of sectors and interests with opportunities to input their views. I thank all those who have contributed and the scientific experts who have supported this very technical and complex piece of work.

In December 2021, we published the full data set for the first version of the balance sheet, accompanied by a comprehensive report setting out key findings. The draft regulations—if agreed by the committee today—will formally establish the following key aspects in law. First, we have prepared the balance sheet to be as broad in scope as possible, within the constraints of data availability. It covers not only the core engine of nitrogen use associated with food production but transport, industry, forestry and other sectors. It is very interesting that it looks at nitrogen flow not only within Scotland but into and out of Scotland, where that data is available.

That broad scope allows for a calculation that is truly economy wide of the efficiency of nitrogen use in Scotland. That term is defined in line with international scientific guidelines as meaning the ratio of nutrient contained in useful output, such as foodstuffs, to the total input of nitrogen through both human and natural processes. I like to think of it as the deficit between what goes in and what comes out—although perhaps my officials will cringe at that very simplistic approach. Application of that calculation to the initial nitrogen balance sheet—the data sheet that mainly relates to 2019—leads to a 25 per cent baseline figure for national nitrogen use efficiency. I emphasise that any one metric can capture only a small part of the rich and complex landscape. If members are interested in the details, I suggest that they read the accompanying report, which is very interesting.

A second feature of our proposed approach is for our balance sheet to be reviewed and updated annually with associated reporting to Parliament. That will support the on-going development of the evidence base as well as keeping track of progress in Scotland’s nitrogen use efficiency.

To our knowledge, we are the first country in the world to enshrine in law a nitrogen balance sheet that is both economy wide and regularly updated. I hope that we can all agree that that is a further example of the Scottish Parliament’s determination that Scotland should lead the way in addressing the climate emergency.

The balance sheet will provide the Government and Parliament with a powerful new tool to support evidence-based policy making at the interface of several strategic areas. I am very interested in the extent to which having a balance sheet that shows us how climate change, air quality and water pollution co-exist can indicate the levers that we can pull to meet some of our policy objectives. Put simply, striving towards the efficient use of nitrogen helps to ensure that economic, environmental and wellbeing outcomes can be achieved alongside one another.

Having established the balance sheet, we have provided an innovative new evidence base to support it. We are at an early stage in the journey, rather than the final destination, which is why we have committed to a review. I look forward to working with Parliament and others with an interest in nitrogen as that work continues and the balance sheet develops. I hope that, as we see other countries around the world follow where Scotland has led, there will also be international comparators.

My officials and I are happy to answer any questions that the committee may have.

That is a very good point. I repeat the point that it is early days. The balance sheet is complex and will require review. As the review continues and the evidence is gathered, it will become a more useful policy development tool. However, in the meantime, its primary use is the extent to which it shows us how all those areas that you identified interact with one another. That is what I am most excited about.

If we think about the state of play prior to having the balance sheet, we know that actions are being taken right across the Government—for example, in the climate change plan update, on agricultural emissions, and in the cleaner air for Scotland 2 strategy with regard to air quality. Those actions are being taken in their individual areas. The balance sheet will allow people both within and external to the Government to see how those actions interact. Not only will that help what we are doing in the individual areas; it will allow us to see what actions will provide the most co-benefits across those strategic areas.

In terms of the trajectory, once the balance sheet is established, it is about allowing it to develop with greater information and more data. Its use within the Government will be about complementing the actions that we are already taking across the piece. I hope that it will also be an important tool for analysis and to suggest outputs for all the folk outside the Government who are working hard across all those important areas.

If the committee indicates its support for the draft SSI, we will be on track to fulfil the legislative requirements well in advance of the deadline of 23 March, which was to have the initial version of the balance sheet formally established in law. That is what we will do. As I said in my opening remarks, the process will include annual review and updating Parliament on the balance sheet, which will begin from next year.

Yes, it is helpful, but I would suggest that we probably cannot take it down to that granular scale at this point, particularly as regards the 25 per cent baseline figure. That is a high-level figure. The data sets are not at regional or farm level. We might hope to develop something like that in time, but what we have established right now is a high-level Scotland-wide and economy-wide picture from which developments will come.

I do not think that that is the case. This was recognised from the very beginning as an unintended consequence. Indeed, given that the course of action to redress it was decided at that point, too, it has always been understood that it should not happen. I have no evidence that people have sought to exploit it. In fact, as I said to Alasdair Allan, there are two live applications, and one of those applicants is already applying for the felling licence, even though it is not strictly required at the moment.

I think that that is right. It is uncontentious because it is only intuitive that anyone undertaking a peatland restoration project that requires deforestation should apply for a felling licence. Indeed, that has been borne out in the behaviour of those who have sought to use the peatland PDR provisions. Something that I have been thinking about is the extent to which, in the interim period while this amended system has not been operating, people have been applying for peatland PDRs. I am aware of two such projects; one has already begun to prepare to apply for the felling licence, even though it was not strictly required, and the other is considering whether such a move is necessary. These amendment regulations are intuitive and uncontroversial.

You make a good point. The impact assessments were carried out across the board during the development of the peatland restoration permitted development right, and I am content that this small amendment, which puts in place the course of action to redress the matter that was agreed during the earlier process, is bound up with all that and that the previous assessments still apply.

I am not entirely sure what you mean, convener, but we will both agree that one of the reasons why we have these exceptionally stretching climate targets is that we have in our natural world an ample opportunity to sequester carbon. One of the biggest questions that we will all have to grapple with over the next five, 10 or 15 years is land use and the changes in land use that will best take us towards those targets fairly and in a way that is good for dealing with the nature crisis and for communities. In fact, what we are discussing is the epitome of that in the way these two issues have come together and the need to strike a balance with regard to public benefit.