Seòmar agus comataidhean

The problem is that it implies that there are no people.

But that will not work in an area that is made up of peat.

Thank you, convener.

This question is not meant to sound provocative. I understand the need to tackle the climate emergency. However, I am curious to know whether Mr Boyd-Livingston has ever had a meeting with a common grazings committee in the crofting counties and used the phrase “stock free”. As a representative of such an area, I am struggling to visualise what stock-free agriculture would look like, other than agriculture-free agriculture. Do you recognise the ecosystem resilience that already exists within low-intensity farming that includes stock?

A transition to what?

In an area like that?

I have two other questions. First, do you accept the arguments that are being made by, for example, RSPB Scotland that, in many areas of Scotland, biodiversity—certainly in terms of wildlife—depends on a grazed environment? It is difficult to see how that will happen for certain species if there is no such environment.

My other question, which is related to that, is about what you are advocating should be grown by these people. More to the point, how are you going to encourage behavioural change that does not involve all the people in this country who currently eat meat—whether that be right or wrong—simply getting that meat from Argentina or wherever?

I would not use it, if I were you.

I am just offering you the advice that, if you visit those communities, you should not use that word.

I will keep it brief, in that case, as many of the issues have already been touched on by others. Does anyone want to give a couple of examples of actions? We have heard today that actions are more important than outcomes. When we think about future food production systems, how do we get from here to there? Can anyone give a couple of examples of quick wins that would get us to where we want to be environmentally?