Seòmar agus comataidhean

Twice in this meeting so far, we have talked about trees falling, which is a real thing—we see that from storms such as storm Arwen. Do we need to be thinking about taking a more joined-up approach, where we are not looking at the carbon sequestered in a forest, but at the timber that goes into housing, where it cannot fall down?

I need a little bit more understanding for this conversation. This is not the question that I was going to ask, but I would like to get a sense of this from Nim Kibbler. You have talked a number of times about resource efficiency. At the very beginning of the evidence session, I noted down your mentioning healthy livestock and local food in that context. Could you unpack what you mean by “resource efficiency” a bit more, so that we can understand it?

You can perhaps also touch on the question that I was going to ask, which follows on from Emma Harper’s questions on opportunities with what could be used as fertiliser. That is also what Donna Smith talked about in discussing how crofters are using seaweed. The seaweed sector in Scotland is growing; it seems to be moving. Does that present a possible opportunity for more natural fertilisers, or does it become too technical?

Anyway—what does “resource efficiency” mean?

Okay. I guess that I will just have to go and research it.

That would be helpful. It seems to me that that is quite an important part of the conversation, which we need to unpack and understand more.

What about the seaweed? Do we think that it presents a possibility?

Is there enough funding and other support to allow you to think about where to put the trees and so on?

10:45

Nim, you talked about soil being a driving factor in the overall—you used the word “holistic”—practice that you and other farmers in the Nature Friendly Farming Network use. In the whole farm plan, there is a soil test that farmers can opt into voluntarily. However, it is surprising to me is that farmers do not test their soil, if soil is a driving factor. That testing is currently optional. What more do we need in place?

There is a spectrum of people, ranging from those who have never tested their soil all the way to Mr Griffin down in the Borders—I cannot remember his first name—who tests his soil to an incredible level. What more would we need, by way of support, training and so on, to help farmers to move to an understanding that soil really is a direct, driving factor?

09:30

It has been an interesting conversation so far. I can predict the answer to this question. The plan assumes that around 45 per cent of farmers will take up low-carbon measures, with most of that happening after 2030. As 2030 is the year before the next election, I think that the Government assumes that a lot of work will be done from 2026 to 2030, in terms of that rabbit that will come out of the bag.

From where you sit, does it feel realistic that we will get to 2030 and we will suddenly have that uptake? What would need to change on the ground for the uptake to scale now and into session 7? We have talked a lot about policy, but what other things do we need to help farmers to move in the holistic direction that we are talking about? [Interruption.]

Ah, tatties—great.

Do you have a sense that enough farmers already know what they need to do? We have legislated for regenerative and sustainable farming under the Agriculture and Rural Communities (Scotland) Act 2024. Do enough farmers know what that is and what they need to do, or does there need to be more support? We have tier 4, which specifies continuous professional development, but does that get to the point of helping farmers to understand the new context that they need to be working in?

We have talked about a cliff edge, and a hillock has now been introduced, but it seems that we are in a place where people who are working with the land—farmers—need to try things out. Nim Kibbler has talked quite a bit about how we have a nuanced, diverse landscape, with different land and soils. Do we need to do something more to recognise that and to encourage farmers to try things out, knowing that, if it fails, there is the just transition—or perhaps not the just transition but some kind of support—in place in case a farmer puts a field over to trying more integrated measures or whatever, or they try certain cover crops or something and it does not work and they do not get a yield? Do we need to recognise that there is time to try things out over the next five years, that some of that will fail and that farmers need to be supported in that work?

10:00

Thanks very much for that opening statement. I will start this morning’s conversation with a number of general questions.

Annex 3 of the draft plan shows that emissions reductions of only around 0.4 megatonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent are expected from residential buildings in the first carbon budget period, with the vast majority of that backloaded into the 2030s. Given that, I would be interested to understand how publishing a new heat in buildings strategy and delivery plan at the end of 2026 can be considered to be aligned with the pace of action that is required now to stay within the first carbon budget, rather than deferring delivery and risk to later periods.