³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

Again, I would be happy to come back to the committee and provide the list of projects and successful applicants to the fund this year, if that would be helpful. Some changes were made to the marine fund Scotland. It is the second year in which we have run it, and it is always interesting to get feedback. If you hear anything in relation to further adaptations that we need to make to the scheme, I am more than happy to consider that feedback. We obviously want to make sure that the scheme aligns with our blue economy vision and our ambitions in that regard. We funded 60 projects this year with a budget of £14.5 million, and that levered in about an extra £39 million as a result. That is a huge amount.

In December, I met the Clyde Fishermen’s Trust to discuss the vision document that you talked about. I am looking at that at the moment, and I want to go through it in more detail. I am keen to work with the trust.

I am happy to come back and provide the specifics on what has been funded through the scheme so far. I am also happy to take any suggestions as to how the scheme can be improved for future years.

As the fisheries minister, I am acutely aware of the issues that the industry faces and I have touched on them in my previous responses. I will continue to highlight the support that we have available, which will continue. The marine fund Scotland is an example of that support. I also touched on the work that we are taking forward on the blue economy and the outcomes that we will see from that. The food that our fishers provide is vital, and we want to continue to make the most of it.

It is also important to remind the committee of the economic link that has been introduced, because we want to see the value from what is caught in Scotland being landed into Scotland. We touched on offshore renewables and the HPMA network, but I would not want the committee to take from that that fisheries are not equally important in the discussions. They are, and it is my role to ensure that they remain as such.

I am happy to come back to you with more detail on that. There are other figures in that table. The figure of £33 million relates to the convergence, and a figure of about £30 million relates to Marine Scotland and the agriculture and rural economy directorate. There was a mixture of recruitment control across the portfolio.

I do not know whether Iain Wallace can provide more information on the figure for Marine Scotland.

Yes.

I make the point at the outset that, as you say, the spend cuts across other portfolio areas. The islands spend in my portfolio is not exclusive; it is not all the islands funding that exists. There is spend in other portfolios as well.

I appeared before the committee just before the summer last year to give evidence on the national islands plan, which sets out our strategic objectives, and we are taking forward work against each of them. You mentioned the particular challenge of employment. With Highlands and Islands Enterprise and Skills Development Scotland, we have provided £250,000 of funding for a project that is looking at employment and retention on islands. We have also funded a post at the University of the Highlands and Islands to look at how it can strengthen its connections with key island partners.

There is that specific funding but, again, I am more than happy to come back to the committee with further information, particularly looking across portfolios to some of the other spend.

The feedback that we have had from that has been really positive. We obviously want to take any learning from that example and share it as best we can. Officials are looking at that work and at how we can share good practice with other authorities that, as you say, cover a mixture of the mainland and islands—Argyll and Bute Council and Highland Council, in particular. We are actively looking at that.

I say again that it is really difficult. The budget is an annual process, so we do not have that certainty until the budget is passed and we receive the annual allocation. What we have seen through the resource spending review and the capital spending review is the overall funding envelopes that we might hope to receive over the period, which give an indication as to what allocations we might look to have.

We have been through a couple of iterations of the islands programme. I hope that, with the changes that we are proposing for this year, we will get the balance right in how the scheme runs and we will see that continue, which will help to resolve some of the issues.

Our focus is on the capital grant scheme, but, as you mentioned, not all businesses are the same, which is why our other funds are really important. Businesses vary across Scotland, so the support that we offer needs to be flexible in response to that.

That particular fund had to be targeted for the reasons that I have outlined. The other schemes that we have are really important in enabling transformation and allowing people to take part in that, as you have outlined.

AECS is an example of that. As I mentioned, we have £36 million for that for the coming financial year. Through those funds and through our work on the national test programme, we are encouraging people to take part in soil testing, as George Burgess outlined, and to undertake carbon audits. We are looking to incentivise people to undertake those practices as much as we possibly can and to fund that where we can. However, AECS is one scheme that we have to target where we think that it will have the biggest effect.

I will write to outline where the different supports lie and what each fund does.

That support falls not within the national test programme but within the agri-environment climate scheme that we support. We have £36 million for that in the budget for the coming financial year.

That is not the only work that we are doing on organics. We have funded a post in Scotland Food & Drink to look at organics, and I have been engaging with stakeholders to look at an action plan on organics, because we need to do more work in that space.

The support that is available at the moment is through the agri-environment climate scheme.

The ultimate ambition is to expand the programme. The carbon audits and soil testing were the first part of the programme. We have been looking at animal health and welfare measures that could be added to the programme, and, in coming years, we will be looking to include biodiversity audits. We have received strong feedback from ARIOB about introducing biodiversity audits, but they are not yet ready to be rolled out on a national scale. When we are ready to do so, we will look to include them as part of the programme.

As I said, the uptake has been disappointing, but it is the first year of the programme. When we were budgeting for the scheme, because it is demand led, we did not know how big the uptake would be. Obviously, we want to be better prepared. It is better for us to be in that situation rather than to be in the opposite situation, in which we overspend a fund and are then not able to fund all the claims that we receive as part of that.

All that said, I provided some of the figures in the letter to the committee. The forecast for the first part is £2 million; we expect a lot of claims to come through at the tail end. George Burgess might want to expand on some of the discussions that we have had about the feedback that we are hearing from agents.

The overall picture on carbon audits is that the uptake this year has been really positive. We also fund carbon audits through the Farm Advisory Service. Its budget for that was exhausted last summer because there had been such a high uptake. The fact that we have seen that increase in demand has been really positive, and I think that we will see more follow.

I will hand over to George, who will be able to provide some more information.