���˿���

Thank you. Your point about a streamlining approach is true; the issue is where the intervention point is that will give us the most impact for the activities that we carry out.

That leads nicely on to questions from Willie Coffey, who will lead on the theme of leadership, accountability and audit.

I do not know whether this is the right place to ask this question, but I will do so. We have NPF4, local development plans and, my favourite topic, local place plans—I see Andy Kinnaird smiling, because he knows that I often bring them up. One of my concerns is about local development plans, which you have said might take five years to create—that is an interesting and useful bit of information. A community might not have wanted to create a local place plan or get on board with its local development plan. If people just put in place a done-and-dusted local development plan and say, “Here it is,” how could that be opened up at a later stage, to give space for community expression to be honoured and respected through a local place plan?

Yes. My question comes back to questions around ecosystems and food security in Scotland. I will direct it to Morgan Vaughan and Ian Boyd-Livingston. In the papers that we received for today’s meeting, there is the statement that

“agroecological approaches can provide sufficient nutrients for healthy diets without impinging on natural habitats”.

However, we are told that

“these assumptions imply systemic change which, while possible, would require significant political and social shifts, and shifts in production systems to support e.g. more fruit and vegetable production.”

What do we need to see in the bill or in the criteria for support payments to incentivise the required political and social shifts and a shift towards more fruit and vegetable production?

Thank you very much for that. It is important for us to be aware of all those issues.

My next question comes under the area of ecosystem pressure points—we have started to touch on that matter already—but it is also related to the agriculture bill. I hear the points that have been made about the need to point towards actions rather than be focused on outcomes. The bill will be a framework bill, which will be challenging in some ways.

I will address my question to Pete Smith and then Tim Benton. I am interested in hearing really clearly what should be specified in the agriculture bill to ensure that policies and financial support are put in place to enable the sector to adapt to climate and environmental change in the most ecological and sustainable way. We have talked about agro-ecology and regenerative practice, but what do we need in the bill to ensure that any future subordinate legislation, any powers that are given, or the tier 1, 2 and 3 payments move our farming production in the right direction so that it addresses the weak link on food security that Tim Benton mentioned, which is concerning?

That is perhaps a big question. I will start with Pete Smith and then go to Tim Benton.

It kind of does, yes.

That is probably something that we should take away. We should reflect seriously on the idea of food being part of our national security, given how events have brought that idea to the fore.

Is anyone else able to take that question? Maybe no one else was paying attention because I said that it was for David. Will livestock production be more at risk from climate change than other farming sectors, because of heat stress in animals and a shortage of forage? If that is the case, how can the sector adapt to climate impacts while minimising its contribution to climate change?

It seems that those questions were too geeky for people. Brilliant—we have some takers. We will hear from Morgan Vaughan, then Tim Benton.

Thank you for that response. I will move on to question 4, on resilience, if that is appropriate. My question follows on from what Tim Benton was just saying. I am sorry if that muddles things up, deputy convener.

I will stick with Tim Benton, because you said that you could talk about this all day. You have touched on this, but it would be good to continue with the idea of food security. The papers for today’s meeting make it clear that ecosystem resilience affects food security and the resilience of farm businesses, which you have been talking about.

Our nation’s ability to continue producing food and feeding our citizens depends on working within planetary boundaries. You have described two ways of doing that: intensive farming and working with nature. What do we need to see in our agriculture and land use policy, including in the agriculture bill—which I keep coming back to, because I really want us to get it right—and what should be the criteria for support in the future payment framework in order to ensure long-term food security? What do we need to see in the payment systems?

I have a number of questions to ask under question 3, the first of which is for David Harley. You might not be able to respond to this question, but it is triggered by work that SEPA has been doing. I am aware that SEPA has been working on a sector plan for livestock production. Is livestock production more at risk from climate change than other farming sectors, because of heat stress in animals and a shortage of forage? If that is the case, how can the sector adapt to climate impacts while minimising its contribution to climate change?

Do members agree that we do not wish to make any recommendations in relation to the instruments?

Members indicated agreement.