Seòmar agus comataidhean

That is right. We are significantly constrained. Obviously, we could do a lot more if we had the full allocation that we believe we are entitled to, but, instead, we received £14 million. From the regulations that we passed earlier in the year, the committee will be aware of what we can fund. We can fund a broader range of activities now, which is good, but we still have the same budget, of course. The resources that we have significantly constrain our ability to do more.

I believe that it is very effective. The ARIOB is critical, because we want to ensure that we are co-developing our policies for the future. It is really vital that we do that with the industries that are most affected by the policies that we are going to implement, because we need to make sure that the policies will work for our farming and agriculture industries.

An example of the impact of the ARIOB and how that has informed our work is the national test programme. I talked about the different phases within the programme. We launched track 1, on preparing for sustainable farming, earlier this year. We are looking at the roll-out of carbon audits and encouraging farmers to undertake those carbon audits, and, in the next phase of that, we will be encouraging farmers to consider doing soil testing as well.

The ARIOB was critical to how that developed, ensuring that the claims that people could make for carbon audits would be done in a way that was simple, accessible and easy for the industry to undertake, and its work has helped us to focus on the key areas that will make a big difference. That is where its work has been critically important, and that will continue to be the case. The ARIOB is, of course, an advisory group to the Scottish Government. It has been able to get all those interests together and hear those ideas, which has been really important for us, and I think that is why we have been able to do the work that we have done so far.

As far as emissions reductions and restoring and enhancing biodiversity are concerned, we already know a lot of the measures that work, and we will be able to show as much. We have a number of different networks that it is important to highlight, such as our integrating trees network. I have also talked about the farming for a better climate initiative and the work that we have done in that respect on soils, and we also have the agriculture, biodiversity and climate change network. We are asking farmers to join that, because the more who do so, the better we can showcase different types of work and their impact.

I go round and speak to farmers, and it is incredible to see the efficiencies that they have made, the impact that they have had on their emissions reductions and what they have done for biodiversity. We know that that will get better if farmers can see what is happening on similar farms; after all, they learn from each other more than from anything else. As a result, it is important that farmers look to those networks and take part in them.

Again, we are at the start of exploring what can be done. If there is potential there, we will need that extra investment, and either capping or tapering can help. It is important that we at least consider the option.

I can give you the example of our carbon audits. I do not know whether George Burgess has the exact figures—I will give him a minute to think about it—but there has been greater uptake in our carbon audits in the first quarter of this year than there was in the whole of last year, which is a really positive and encouraging sign. We will also open the window for the soil-testing component later this year. The committee will probably be aware from its visits that a lot of people are already undertaking a lot of the measures that we want to see, and, as I have said, the uptake in the carbon audits has been a really encouraging and positive sign.

As for next steps, various people have highlighted to me that we can encourage people to undertake audits, but what is important is what happens with the information on the back of that. In relation to future policy, we are thinking about continuing professional development and that extra element, so we hope to develop skills and help people take the next steps that need to be taken.

At the moment, it is not possible for me to say what areas we will be looking at, as that is something on which we will look to consult and engage. However, the sorts of activities that you have mentioned would not be permitted to be undertaken.

Every farm business is different. In the consultation, we have set out that, when we are considering what the future framework might look like, we will be looking at a whole-farm plan and all the different actions that will take place within it. We have many examples of people undertaking the practices that we want to develop and see going forward. We know that there is a lot of capacity for better integrated land use, but it is not happening in some places. Therefore, there is a lot of scope for it to happen.

However, I do not want to encourage such debates or go down the track of saying that this is an either/or situation. Instead, we must encourage businesses to look at the matter as a whole and consider all the actions that can be taken.

The future framework also covers levels of support, which include elective payments and complementary support. There is work that can be done on a landscape scale; indeed, we are already seeing that develop. For example, managing specific habitats might not involve only one farm area—it will be about tackling such problems on a landscape scale. All those factors will be really important, as is the feedback on the proposals in the framework.

No problem—I will try to answer that as best I can.

We absolutely support the overall objectives of the common fisheries policy and what the EU wants to achieve with the landing obligation, and we are trying to follow the same objectives. We know that the current system does not work; it is very complex and hard for people to adhere to. We are looking to simplify the system and to prevent unwanted catch in the first place.

With the fisheries management and conservation group, we have developed proposals on how to prevent unwanted catch in the first place through technical and spatial measures. We have also considered how to simplify the system and make it more transparent—and ultimately more accountable and effective—in delivering the objectives of the landing obligation in the CFP. That is ultimately what we set out in the consultation.

The consultation was an important step, because we want to know what people think about the policy. The consultation closed on 7 June and we are currently analysing the responses, so I cannot give the committee an answer on the outcomes yet, but I am happy to come back with further information once we have done that analysis.

I was not aware of the motion that Shetland Islands Council passed yesterday, but I am happy to examine it in more detail. I have, of course, previously had correspondence on the matter.

It is a legal method of fishing. We know that there are conflicts and we looked at the issue through the future catching policy, too. We will consider the responses that we have had to that before we set out next steps.

Your point about scientific research and evidence is an important one, and, of course, we want to ensure that our evidence base is as robust as possible. However, given the nature and size of our marine environment, it is just not possible for us always to undertake every bit of research that we would like. In a previous appearance before the committee, I talked about how we can work with others, be they our academic institutions or the industry, to help us with the various bits and pieces of research that we need to carry out.

As for your reference to blanket restrictions, I do not know whether you are referring to, say, the 3-mile limit, which I know there have been calls for. That is not something that we have been considering, because that kind of blanket approach is not a route that we would like to pursue. We do not think that it would have the impact that some might think, and we do not agree with those sorts of blanket restrictions. That said, we will, of course, continue to undertake the work that we need to do and identify any research gaps that we might have. That process will be very important.

I am happy to come back to you on the specific issue of monitoring. I think that, if we implement a policy, it is important that we find out what the impact of that has been and see whether it is meeting the objectives that we hoped that it would.