Seòmar agus comataidhean

Absolutely.

The development support budget is for the whole modernisation programme within the agricultural reform programme. I think that that was the capital element of the funding that we had been looking at, which was sitting at around £10 million.

Initially, that budget line was for modernisation costs and potentially earmarking monies for information technology systems. As part of the agricultural reform programme, we are continuing to assess what those needs might be going forward, and we are still developing the case for that.

George Burgess might have further information to add to that.

When I appeared at the committee at this time last year, I said that we were extremely disappointed at that stage to not be able to run the FPMC scheme over the course of the 2023-24 financial year, because we know how valued it has been by the food and drink sector. However, we have used that time to undertake a review of the scheme, as you outlined. That work was undertaken by Scotland Food & Drink and is now completed. There were several recommendations in that. One of the key findings in the report was about how valued the scheme was by those who applied to it, as I have said. We can implement a few of the recommendations in the Scotland Food & Drink report quite readily, and there are a couple of recommendations that would take a bit more work, but we have taken all of that on board.

As you have outlined, the business development support line in the budget was the one through which we previously funded the FPMC grant scheme. The funding that is available in that budget line now is for the crofting agricultural grant scheme, so that is where the biggest reduction is. However, it would be our intention to reintroduce the FPMC grant scheme if we are able to do so at any point during the year. We would like to do that if the opportunity arises, but we cannot say today that we will definitely be able to fund that.

The target in the climate change plan was to increase woodland creation to 18,000 hectares of planting this year. To be perfectly frank with the committee, given our levels of funding, we will be unable to meet that target, which is particularly disappointing. I completely understand Stuart Goodall’s comments and how frustrating that is for the forestry sector, especially given that, because we did not meet our planting targets last year, we held a forestry summit towards the end of last year to look at the issues that were preventing us from reaching our targets and at the barriers and challenges that the sector was coming up against. We made a number of changes to the forestry grant scheme, and we increased rates to encourage more agroforestry and more trees to be planted on farms.

Obviously, I did not want us to be in a position in which we are looking at that level of cut to the forestry budget, and I know that that is certainly not what the forestry sector wanted. As I said, I understand Stuart Goodall’s comments in that regard.

What is important is the work that we do from here. The forestry summit that we held was valuable in many ways, so we need to look at what work we can do with the available budget, which should enable us to plant roughly the same amount as we planted last year or slightly more than that. We need to think about how we best utilise that funding.

However, when it comes to overall capital funding, if we were to provide more funding for forestry, what other capital budgets would we cut instead? Difficult decisions have had to be taken. As I said, I certainly did not want to be in this position when discussing the issue with the committee today.

It comes back to the point that, if we were to fully increase that budget, where would we take the capital funding from? As we have talked about today, each fund is vital in its own area.

I agree with the comments that you have just read out. The investment that we are making in the Atlantic rainforest—about £4.5 million this year—will help us to do exactly that work. It is about using our resources to manage our invasive species and best protect that resource.

We have done a power of work in relation to forestry. We can look at how the industry has grown—I think that we were still responsible for about 62 per cent of all planting in the UK last year. We want to ensure that we build confidence in the sector and a future for it, but there is no getting around the fact that there is a big cut to the capital budget for forestry. We have £27 million available for new planting this year, so we must utilise that as best we can to ensure that we get trees in the ground.

You are right and I completely understand why they would feel like that, being in that position. Unfortunately, we do go through these annual budget processes. You are also right about how vital their role has been. The project is successful, and I hope that it will continue to be successful. A lot of that success is down to the groundwork that the community development officers have put into making it a success and ensuring that we have true community engagement on the ground as well as buy-in to the process. We will continue to fund the programme. We recognise how important the roles and the jobs of the development officers are, so I will strive to offer them as much security as I can.

Within the budget as it is set out, there is a fall in the resource funding. Part of the reason for that is that there has not been as much requirement for resource funding because of the stage the project is at. All the carbon audits for the islands have now been completed. The community climate change action plans have been published and some projects are in the middle of being delivered.

The key focus of the next stage of the project is about the investment strategies and how we can look to leverage in and make the most of other sources of funding. That will be a critical piece of work.

One good thing about the funding that is available this year is that there is a slight increase in the capital funding, which I hope will be of benefit to the overall project. However, it is one thing that is proving to be successful. We have seen it develop and that is down to the work of the community development officers. I want to make sure that the project continues, because it gives us such a good platform.

We are now considering how we can share the learning, and Erica Clarkson might want to add something about that. It has been a critical part of the project from the start. It is not just for these six islands; it is about how we can share the thinking and the progress with other islands, as well as looking to share it internationally.

I do not have the exact information about the HIE budget. It is not an area that falls within my portfolio. I would be happy to follow up with more information about it.

As I have said about other parts of the budget, and particularly in relation to our islands, HIE does an important job, which is highly valued. HIE is our partner in a number of pieces of work, some of which I have touched on today. However, we cannot look at each of these things in isolation; it has to be about how we work across the piece. It is not down to one agency or one portfolio to deliver for our islands and ensure that we are addressing the challenges there. It takes cross-Government working and approaches to deliver. Again, I am sorry that I do not have the specific details about that with me, but I am more than happy to follow it up.

I absolutely have concerns about it, but I come back to the point that I made at the start of the meeting. I am not happy with the budget settlement that I have. Ideally, I would love to plough more funding into some more of these areas. The fact is that we have the envelope that we have. There are similar challenges across Government, and I know that none of these decisions are easy. Of course, it concerns me.

Some of the cuts to my capital budget also concern me, but, ultimately, we have to try to find a way to work within the envelopes that we have, and that will be no different for HIE. I will work with HIE and with Neil Gray, the Cabinet Secretary for Wellbeing Economy, Fair Work and Energy, to make sure that we are still maximising the positive impact that we can have on rural and island areas.

AECS is an important fund for us. Out of all the funds that we have, it is the one that delivers against the objectives on climate mitigation and the nature enhancement activities that we want to see. It is also one of the key mechanisms that we have for increasing the amount of land that is farmed organically, and it has been very successful in that regard.

In previous years, we have had to restrict certain rounds or restrict the things that we are looking to fund within that, because of various financial constraints that we faced. In the current budget—remembering, of course, that AECS contracts are essentially rolling ones year on year—just over £16 million of the AECS allocation will go on previous year’s contracts that have been agreed. With the remainder of the budget that we have for AECS, I believe that we should be able to finance the vast majority of applications that came through to AECS this year.

AECS is not the only funding mechanism we have that can help deliver the climate and biodiversity enhancements that we want. We have the greening payment. We have the nature restoration fund, which sits within not my portfolio but the net zero, energy and transport portfolio. We have the farm advisory service. We have several other pots that still contribute to the overall objectives, even though they do not sit under the AECS umbrella.

Yes. We are still to announce the outcome of the applications for the 2023 round. We are going through the budget discussions at the moment, but, as I said, through the funding that we have allocated in the budget, we expect to be able to fund the vast majority of the applications in the 2023 round.