Seòmar agus comataidhean

It largely sets out the targets by when we intend to make payments and when we expect all those payments to be completed. We have been adhering to that.

I am sorry—I am not quite clear what the issue is.

Again, I do not want us to confuse a variety of issues here. We have some demand-led schemes; as George Burgess has just been talking about, the national test programme and preparing for sustainable farming scheme is one such scheme. Yes, uptake was low when it started, but it has been building gradually. Of course, we have to budget what we think we are going to use for that year. Again, it depends on the various different schemes that we have, and the payment strategy is separate to all of that.

There are a few points for us to clarify. In relation to the budget that is set out, the initial recommendations of the Bew review were never meant to be a long-term solution. In the first year of savings that are set out, all of that is from ring-fenced funding.

We got confirmation that the first allocation from the Bew review, which is highlighted as a specific budget line in that financial year’s budget, was coming too late in the year for it to be spent, which is why it then had to be offered up as a saving, as is highlighted in the table. As we set out in the letter, the Bew line was not separated out in other financial years, because it just became part of the baseline that we received from the UK Government budget.

That is the thing. Of course, we want our ambitions to be funded. We think that we can deliver so much more. We need to deliver in the areas of agricultural transformation, which includes supporting food production, lowering our emissions and enhancing nature and biodiversity. We have capabilities in peatland restoration and forestry, which will not only help to meet Scotland’s emissions targets but, more broadly, help the UK. If you look at all that, I think that we should have and are right to expect a higher proportion of the budget for those areas. That will be critical going forward.

The overall quantum that we receive in the ring-fenced funding is not the only spending that we make in the rural economy—you can see that from the published budget. The budget for the portfolio is approximately £1.1 billion. The figures that we have in the letter, such as the £620 million, represent a ring-fenced element, but we have other funding above and beyond the ring fencing that is all for the rural economy and for the other priorities across the portfolio.

Sorry?

I appreciate that point; we look to provide that information. I will use ATF as an example. It has its own budget line, and I like to think that we are transparent in that regard. When we open the fund, we set out what it can be used for. I am more than happy to look into particular concerns and to see whether we can provide any other information, but we try to be as transparent as possible.

Yes, absolutely.

Well, that is the thing. As was outlined in response to earlier questions, we have not had an FPMC scheme—

You are absolutely right. I think that there is no shying away from that. I have had engagement with Confor and the Woodland Trust, and I have heard those concerns directly. Ultimately, as I have said in this committee previously, this is absolutely not the situation that we want to be in, particularly at a time of record approvals. In the past year, we have planted around 15,000 hectares, more than half of which has been native planting. The cuts to the capital budget for this year mean that we hope to see in the region of 10,000 hectares of planting. That is a huge impact that means that we are not able to meet the targets that we had set for this year.

I understand and take on board the point about industry confidence; I have heard that directly. This is not where I want to be. I want to ensure that there is confidence and that we maintain the trajectory that we have been on, but—as I have already outlined—the capital funding picture that we face as a whole has been devastating to some of those budgets.

I absolutely appreciate the points that have been made. This is not where we want to be but, unfortunately, we will not be meeting our targets. Again, 10,000 hectares of planting is what we hope to achieve.

Brendan Callaghan might like to add further detail, but we are trying to maximise what we can do within that funding. I know that, through some amazing initiatives, such as the integrating trees network, we are looking at smaller-scale planting, which is really important. I also recognise the importance of other lines that you mentioned, such as AICs and other sources of funding. It might be helpful if Brendan Callaghan sets out some of the other work that we are doing to maximise the budget that we have.