Seòmar agus comataidhean

Yes—I want to ask the rest of my questions.

In a way, Stuart Goodall has touched on what I want to ask about, and it was good to hear from David Robertson about that initiative. The draft climate change plan includes two policies on harvested wood products. One is to continue to collaborate with the private forestry sector on the timber development programme to promote and develop wood products for use in construction, and the other is to work with the sector through the forestry and wood-based industry leadership group.

However, we do not have clarity on what the Government is aiming to do in that regard. Are there targets? What is the Government looking for in relation to production and the speed with which it wants to get more harvested wood products into the construction sector, other than just timber frames and some of the things that Stuart Goodall articulated? Can you give us a bit of clarity on harvested wood products? The policies seem to be somewhat vague. The Government has said that it will work with the sector, but what are we trying to achieve?

I asked a question earlier about whether funding streams support what we are trying to do. Certainly, from my conversations, I do not have a sense that existing policies and funding streams support the kind of integrated approach that you have described. Alan McDonnell, can I hear a little more from you about that?

Thanks for that great and comprehensive answer. I imagine that some of what we grow also ends up getting burned almost immediately.

To move on to the policies—

Alan, you touched on the trade-offs, which I want to come back on. We want to establish woodland in some areas, but we could be using that land for other things, and there could be other benefits. It would be interesting to hear about that.

Dr Gimona, when you talked earlier about planting, you were very careful to mention that we would not be planting on arable land and that we would not be moving out farming; the planting would be integrated. You talked well about the multifunctional land use strategy, which would be more integrated rather than moving away from the idea of trade-offs and would look at that nuanced approach of integration.

We have established where we should prioritise: arable land, field margins, riparian corridors, urban fringe—which Mike Perks talked about in relation to Glasgow—and, potentially, brownfield sites. Does the draft climate change plan, or do the existing policies and funding streams, actually prioritise those areas?

So, you are saying that we need to encourage the Government to look more broadly at opportunities for how we finance restoration. Basically, you think that the committee might need to highlight that in our report on the plan. I think that I am hearing you.

My next question is: do you have confidence in the development of a values-led, high-integrity market for responsible investment? You might know about Professor Jill Robbie’s work on a public carbon trust. I was working with her in an attempt to get that brought forward so that we can have a system that pulls together all the carbon codes and so on and allows them to be verified, validated and monitored. Do you have any thoughts on the issue of a values-led, high-integrity market? Are we moving in that direction?

Are producers who are based in England part of the three POs that we have now?

A pilot capital fund. What does that mean?

I want to go back to something that George Burgess said. We are continuing the scheme, which is to do with the fact that English producers could access the Scottish budget. That is not catastrophic, but it is concerning that they could tap into the budget. However, there is an exclusivity in the programme, because market gardeners or direct-to-sales people cannot get into the schemes.

George Burgess spoke about the requirements for a £1 million turnover and for a minimum of five producer organisations. I think that there is also a requirement to contribute 100 per cent, or at least 75 per cent, of your production to the producer organisation. If you have a direct-to-sales set up and already sell direct to your customers, that will not work for you.

People are trying to access the funding, because it provides the support around production planning, quality improvement, and so on that would help them to develop and grow. However, they cannot access that because the producer organisation requirement does not fit their business model. More and more people are selling direct to the market or are small-scale market gardeners who produce locally. I know that the minister is very fond of farmers’ markets in Scotland, as he was involved in setting up the first one.

We have the design of an SSI. The minister is saying that the scheme is working for the three POs that support a number of farmers, but it is excluding many other people who are doing the best that they can and are struggling with climate and nature challenges. They also feeding people in Scotland; they are involved in the good food nation resilience that we really need. For me, that is the issue.

I also want to flag up the implication that, if you are not in a PO, you do not want to collaborate; I do not think that that is true. Some small producers cannot be in producer organisations and are incredibly collaborative. Some are in parts of Scotland where the geography makes it difficult to collaborate in some of the ways that POs would ask of them. I hear the need to pass the SSI, but I am concerned about why we are hurrying to do so. If there are existing contracts and the existing POs are okay for another 18 months or so—

That was revelatory. It also added more confusion, in a way. There is possibly something else going on here as well. There are a couple of different needs for the agricultural budget. There are people who want to produce food that feeds people in Scotland—to produce it locally and direct to sale and all that—and there are producer organisations. My research shows that a small percentage of what those organisations grow feeds people in Scotland—the rest goes for export south of the border and, potentially, elsewhere.

I wonder whether we need to acknowledge that there are two different strands: there is a commodity side to agriculture and food production that is producing for export further afield, and there is the good food nation approach whereby we need to support those local producers, so that when climate change and nature breakdown hit, people in the islands or other rural communities can get food that is locally produced.