Seòmar agus comataidhean

Some organic farms have been running for 25 years. It has taken 25 years to get to a point at which nearly all non-organic fertiliser—nitrogen or whatever—has been removed and the soil has regenerated to such a point that it is delivering yields that are sustainable both economically and in terms of biodiversity. Has any work been done to assess the condition of Scotland’s soils in order to give a timescale for their just transition—as I suppose we could call it—from artificial to organic fertilisers? We have a target to become net zero by 2045, and agriculture has a big role to play in that. What scientific work has been done to assess how long it will take for the soils, given their current condition, to start delivering in the future? Again, that question might be for Dr Black.

I have another question for you. Is there any calculation of how much peat has been displaced by the wind farms that we currently have and what their carbon impact has been? When local authorities grant planning permission, is there any obligation on them to use the wind farm carbon calculator to assess the suitability of new wind farms? Undoubtedly, through the new national planning framework, there will be a push for ever more new wind farms. Do we need the calculator to play a bigger role in the planning process?

We move to Jim Fairlie for a final question on sustainable agriculture management.

I am very conscious of the time: we have 20 minutes left. Rachael Hamilton has a quick supplementary question.

Before we move on to our very last questions, I have a question of my own that I just want a yes or no answer to, although I know that that is very difficult. Could the regional land use partnerships, which we know are underfunded, be the bodies to pull together all the data and the groups involved to ensure that we get national data gathering on, for example, soil? A nod of the head would be good.

I see Professor Metzger nodding, so that is one out of three. Thank you.

I call Rachael Hamilton to ask our final set of questions, which is on COP26 outcomes.

I thank the witnesses very much for their fascinating and useful evidence. That concludes today’s meeting.

Perhaps we will just stick with the issue of fisheries. I call Dr Marshall.

Thank you very much. Unfortunately, we have come to the end of the session, but I very much appreciate the fascinating evidence that the witnesses have provided.

I suspend the meeting briefly for a changeover of witnesses.

Indeed—we are really up against the clock now. I call Rachael Hamilton to ask our final set of questions, which is on COP26. I would appreciate it if the witnesses could keep their responses as brief as possible.

We talk about having the right tree in the right place, balanced with the need for timber. Surely that also applies to food: we need the right cow or the right sheep in the right place to fulfil our food security needs. I suppose that it is all down to regional land use and that sort of thing.

Is there another argument, however? We are talking about 25,000 hectares of sitka potentially being planted. It is a short-term product, so it captures carbon for a limited amount of time while it is growing, and it then gets cut down. In this country, it is generally used for short-term timber products, so that carbon goes back up into the atmosphere. Is there an argument that we need to do a lot more work to look into native species that might capture carbon more rapidly and for longer, and which stay in the ground for a lot longer before they are harvested? Is that work being done? Rather than having 25,000 hectares of sitka, perhaps we need 10,000 hectares of sitka and 15,000 hectares of traditional native broadleaf.