Agriculture and Rural Communities (Scotland) Bill

The Soil Association is a membership charity, formed in 1946 by a group of farmers, scientists, doctors and nutritionists who were determined to pioneer a world where we can live in health and in harmony with nature. Our vision is good food for all, produced with care for the natural world.
Today, the Soil Association works to develop, innovate and scale-up solutions for sustainable food and farming. Our Food for Life programme in Scotland, funded by the Scottish Government, now works with 18 of 32 local authorities, encouraging the use of more local and organic ingredients in school meals.
Through our trading subsidiary, Soil Association Certification, we work with over 6,000 businesses including organic farmers, growers and crofters, caterers, food processors and manufacturers across more than 50 countries, and certify over 14 million hectares of forest globally.
The Soil Association is a member of Scottish Environment LINK, sitting on the Food and Farming and Marine and Aquaculture groups. We are also part of the Scottish Organic Stakeholders Group and a founding member of the Alliance to Save Our Antibiotics.

We understand the rationale for a framework bill approach to primary legislation. It is clear that much of the detail, particularly around funding splits and payment rates, will then come via secondary legislation.

That means there will be less opportunity for parliamentary scrutiny of decisions that will have a significant bearing on whether the Scottish Government is able to meet its statutory targets for emissions reduction from agriculture and (pending the Natural Environment Bill next year) for nature restoration.

We do not expect all of the detail of future schemes and costings to be within primary legislation, but this Bill could have provided more in terms of the direction of travel. There is a clear need to set overarching objectives and powers for Ministers to provide support for farmers and crofters. However, the framework Bill approach could also set the broad parameters of future schemes, set targets and outline a mechanism for monitoring and evaluating progress towards stated goals.

The Bill as drafted lacks that level of detail, and at the same time grants Ministers wide ranging powers. For example, in section 2, the Bill states the Rural Support Plan “may include such further information Ministers consider appropriate” while section 4 covers the core power to provide support for agriculture which is based on a schedule that can then be “modified” by Ministers via regulations. The Bill would benefit from greater clarity on how Ministers intend to use the powers granted.

The terms ‘rural’ and ‘agriculture’ appear conflated at times in the Bill and policy memorandum. For example, our understanding of the Rural Support Plan is that it will essentially be a strategic plan for supporting agriculture, which is not necessarily the same thing as ‘rural support’. This would be better termed as a Strategic Plan for Agriculture, in line with EU CAP Strategic Plans.

There are clear definitions relating to wider rural development and the rural economy in Schedule 1 – Purposes of Support, and section 4 of the Bill covers support for rural development. Our assumption is that the reason why the Bill is called the Agriculture and Rural Communities Bill is to emphasise the importance of sustaining rural communities, which we support. This is not always going to be about direct support for agriculture however, and we note from the policy memorandum the 73% support in responses to the Bill consultation for the inclusion of support for wider rural development.

In terms of a wider ‘foundation’ for rural policy and support, we think the Bill as drafted risks missing an opportunity to align the way in which we support food production (through the Agriculture and Rural Communities Bill) with the ambition of the Good Food Nation Act and the National Good Food Plan in relation to the wider food system, including tackling food waste and improving dietary health outcomes.
Our view is that the climate, nature and dietary health crises are interlinked.

The UK Climate Change Committee has highlighted the need for dietary change as part of efforts to reach ‘net zero’ by 2045. This has to be reflected in the balance of food that we produce, and if the direction of travel is to shift diets towards less and better meat, and more and better fruit, vegetables and pulses, then agricultural policy should reflect that. This can be done while allowing for the limitations of land capability in Scotland.

We agree with the overarching objectives of the legislation as drafted. However, the Bill could go further. The Scottish Government is committed to maintaining alignment where practicable with changes to EU policy and legislation. This is reflected in the policy memorandum, which states that Scotland needs to “move away” from current CAP schemes while staying “aligned on outcomes”. There is a strong argument to be made, therefore, that Scotland should adopt some elements of the 10 key objectives for the new EU CAP 2023-27.

For example, animal health and welfare is not included with the high-level objectives of the draft Bill. A key objective of the new CAP is to “improve the response of EU agriculture to societal demands on food and health, including high-quality, safe and nutritious food produced in a sustainable way, to reduce food waste, as well as to improve animal welfare and combat antimicrobial resistance”. There are many different and sometimes competing interpretations of how agriculture in Scotland should adapt to the climate and nature crises. Some of these could involve a greater degree of intensification, which could have negative implications for animal welfare and animal health. The Scottish Government Vision for Agriculture committed to 'continue delivering high standards, including enhanced animal health and welfare', but this has not been carried over into the overarching objectives.

Similarly, there is a strong argument to adopt the EU CAP objective of ‘improving farmers’ position in the value chain’. Farmers and crofters in Scotland face huge challenges with rising costs, greater frequency of extreme weather events and policy demands to deliver on climate and nature as well as food production. There is no guarantee that the current level of funding for agriculture will continue beyond 2024, and it may well be the case that the budget shrinks in future years. There are also clear power imbalances in the market. The EU CAP aims to strengthen co-operation among farmers, ensure market transparency, support the development of market driven production models and foster research and innovation – all of which could help improve the collective position of Scottish farmers within the supply chain. In the policy briefings accompanying the EU CAP objectives, there is also a clear rationale for how strengthening farmers’ position in the value chain can benefit organic production, for example, as well as local food systems and short supply chains.

We also suggest that the third overarching objective in the Bill, 1 (C), should be separated into two – to make the distinction between on-farm nature restoration, and climate mitigation and adaptation.

So the amended objectives could be as follows:

a) the adoption and use of sustainable and regenerative agricultural practices,

b) the production of high-quality and nutritious food,

c) halting and reversing biodiversity loss on-farm,

d) climate mitigation and adaptation,

e) efficient natural resource management (inc. water and soil)

f) maintaining and enhancing farmed animal health and welfare,

g) strengthening the position of farmers in the value chain,

h) enabling rural communities to thrive

In advance of the Bill’s introduction, we called for a strategic plan for agriculture to be produced, and for programming periods of around five years to provide some certainty for rural businesses.

Our understanding of the intention behind the Rural Support Plan is that it may deliver on both fronts, although, as outlined above, we still think that a strategic plan is a more accurate term for what is required. Regardless of what the plan is called, it would benefit from a clearer definition in the legislation of what exactly it will cover, and we go into more detail on that in our response to the next question.

The function of the Rural Support Plan should be to set out how the Scottish Government is going to use public money in each five-year period to deliver on its strategic priorities. There is a need, therefore, for a mechanism within the plan for monitoring and evaluation to ensure value for money and to measure progress towards meeting those objectives. The plan should not only be laid before parliament, but subject to a process of parliamentary scrutiny - including by this committee.

The Rural Support Plan should describe each scheme that will be funded and its purpose, and also provide indicative budgets for the five-year period, and what the expected outcomes are in terms of reduced GHG emissions or increased biodiversity.

We agree that Ministers should be considering 'relevant statutory duties relating to the environment and agriculture' such as nature restoration targets that might sit within a future Natural Environment Bill, for example, and to consider the proposals and policies in the Climate Change Plan update. However, we would go further and say that the plan should also align with other policies, particularly the National Good Food Plan and the Biodiversity Strategy.

Referring back to alignment with the EU, the new CAP explicitly supports organic farming through incentives in eco-schemes, in line with the Farm to Fork ambition to increase the share of organic land to 25%. Member states are also asked to set out in their CAP Strategic Plans how they intend to make progress towards the overall land target for organic. The Vision for Agriculture said that more farmers should be encouraged to farm organically, but this is barely mentioned in the Bill (although we recognise that the policy memorandum makes clear that the powers within the Bill will allow the government to continue to support organic farmers). In order to address the commitment within the Vision, we suggest that the Rural Support Plan should also set out how the Scottish Government intends to support more farmers to farm organically during that five-year period, setting out clearly the incentives and any changes planned to policy support for organic – and at least for the first version of the Rural Support Plan, it should be linked to the upcoming Organic Food and Farming Action Plan due in 2025.

With each iteration of the plan – i.e. every five years – there should be a consultation with relevant stakeholders, or a process of co-development.

Finally, under 2.1 (b) the Bill states that Ministers must have regard to the plan when exercising their functions under the Act. Our interpretation of this is that the first iteration of the Rural Support Plan must go through the process of parliamentary scrutiny and be agreed before any secondary legislation to introduce new schemes or payment rates is passed by parliament.

We agree with all of the above, but also would argue for the inclusion of a power to redistribute farm payments, in addition to the power to place an upper limit on support and assistance. Whilst we understand that capping payments would allow for redistribution to happen, that is not explicit in the Bill. Section 9 allows but does not require Ministers to place an upper limit.

The CAP Strategic Plans Regulation (EU) 2021/21151 introduced a mandatory requirement for EU member states to allocate at least 10% of direct support to redistributive payments, so that more of the budget is directed at small and medium sized farms. The Bill should allow for a delivery mechanism for frontloading support. If the Scottish Government maintains direct payments and the current three region model, then we would propose at least 10% (and up to 30%) of the direct support budget is used to provide a single payment rate redistributive uplift for the first 32ha of each claim.

This would be in line with the Scottish Government ambition for alignment where practicable with changes to EU policy and legislation.

We think it is important to recognise that the way in which 'agricultural activity' is defined is changing, and may need to change in future, in light of the climate and nature emergencies. For example, as well as producing food, farmers may be integrating trees into their systems, managing woodland for timber in addition to in-field agroforestry for environmental and animal health and welfare benefits. Some areas of land may be managed for nature or habitat restoration, while in other cases, farmers and crofters may be engaged in peatland restoration. Our understanding of the development of secondary legislation is that farmers may be rewarded through the Tier 2 Enhanced Payment for these activities that may not be seen as directly related to food production, but nevertheless can help to maintain and restore the farm environment, increase biodiversity, improve soils or sequester carbon.

In Schedule 1, part 5, Plants and Soil (15), we would suggest that the reference to soil health covers the physical, chemical and biological characteristics of the soil, rather than just the composition, structure and carbon capacity. The wording could align with the definition of soil health in the proposed European Commission Proposal for a Directive on Soil Monitoring and Resilience, which defines soil health as “the physical, chemical and biological condition of the soil determining its capacity to function as a vital living system and to provide ecosystem services”.

On 9, the Power to Cap Support and Assistance, we agree that Ministers should have this power, which would enable for the redistribution of payments that we have suggested in previous responses. However, we would like to make the point that the capping should only be applicable to direct payments. As drafted, our reading of the Bill is that this could be applied to any payments (including for example, payments under agri-environment schemes). So it should be clear that the ‘overall amount’ in 9.1.a should only be in relation to direct payments, and not indirect payments under different schemes.

Yes, we welcome these powers and particularly the 24 (2) on the power to modify CAP legislation on aid for fruit and vegetable producer organisations, as we consider that co-operation between farmers will be vital if Scotland is to produce more fruit and vegetables domestically.

Yes, we have previously said that it is important for the Scottish Government to define “sustainable and regenerative” agriculture, and this Code of Practice will allow Ministers to do that, and to outline the methods the Scottish Government considers to be ‘best practice’.

While there are no legally defined set of standards or underlying regulation of regenerative farming, increasing numbers of farmers in Scotland and other parts of the world are embracing this approach. That is very welcome, and there is a tangible energy and sense of momentum around regenerative agriculture.

Many of those who consider themselves to be regenerative adhere to a set of five guiding principles – minimising soil disturbance, keeping the soil surface covered, maintaining living roots in the soil, growing a diverse range of crops and bringing grazing animals back to the land. This reflects in many ways the systems approach of organic or agroecological farming, with similar ambitions to improve soil health, build fertility, recycle nutrients and encourage greater diversity within farming systems. We think this is line with the ‘whole farm approach’ in the Vision for Agriculture, but interpretations of ‘regenerative’ differ and there is no guarantee that these principles are being adhered to in all cases.

We would also ask the Scottish Government to better define what this Code of Practice is for. Will there be any legal status to this guidance? Will the methods that constitute ‘best practice’ be a condition for receiving the base payment, along the lines of GAEC? In principle, we would welcome that, but it is difficult to say without having seen the Scottish Government definition and the approaches that are being recommended in the guidance.

Yes, as outlined in the response to the previous question, if the Code of Practice can define sustainable and regenerative agriculture and the methods that constitute that approach, then those principles could form part of the regulatory baseline for all farmers and crofters.

Yes, we agree this should be included in the Bill, and we are happy with the way this is presented.
We said in our response to the Bill consultation that some form of CPD should be part of the requirement for receiving payments. This could include knowledge transfer and skills development, and could focus on areas such as soil management, nutrient management, alternative forms of pest control and wider ‘sustainable and regenerative’ approaches.

As previously mentioned there has been a missed opportunity within the Bill to link this to Good Food Nation and particularly the outcomes in the National Good Food Plan. This should include addressing the environmental impact of food production, tackling food waste and thinking about calories produced and the nutritional content of the food that is produced. The Vision for Agriculture included an ambition to meet more of our own food needs sustainably. We agree but this is not covered in the Bill.

We also think that ‘high-quality’ food production should be better defined. We said in our response to the Bill consultation that here may be different interpretations of what that term means. It is not defined in the Vision for Agriculture, nor in the Good Food Nation Act. We think the method of production should be a factor in determining quality. For example, beef, lamb, venison, pork, chicken, fruit, vegetables, pulses and dairy products certified as organic should be considered high quality. There is currently no official certification for food produced in agroecological, nor in High Nature Value systems, but those systems would, in our view, deliver high quality food production.

We mentioned previously in this response that there are no targets within the Bill to drive the ‘transformation’ required in the Vision for Agriculture. These could include targets to reduce the use of and harm from chemical pesticides, reduce the waste from synthetic nitrogen fertilisers, increase the amount of land farmed organically or increase the area of land under agroforestry systems. The Bill could include a provision to grant powers to Ministers to set targets, and these could be included within the Rural Support Plan along with an outline of how progress towards meeting those targets will be measured.

In our response to the Bill consultation, we also commented on the threshold for eligibility for the Tier 1 base payment. At present, many small-scale farmers and market gardeners are not able to access payments because they are below the 3ha threshold. Several UN Special Rapporteurs on the Right to Food have emphasised both the great environmental and community value of production at small scales, including the potential of job opportunities and the fact that many small-scale units may and can be more productive than large farms when productivity is calculated per hectare rather than per worker. Many of the small-scale producers in Scotland have adopted agroecological or organic approaches. Scottish Government should consider lowering the threshold to 1ha, abolishing it altogether or offering a Small Farms Scheme with a simplified process and a one-off flat rate payment, in line with the new CAP (which defines small farms as 10ha or below).

The Scottish Government provides funding for the Soil Association Food for Life programme under the Rural Affairs budget. This is a proven mechanism for getting local and organic food into public kitchens (school meals) and should be expanded in line with previous commitments from this government. This should include support for local authorities (and other public bodies such as health boards, colleges, prisons etc) to help remove barriers to enable more organic food to be purchased. This would support Scottish Government aims to increase the amount of land farmed organically and would also provide an avenue for non-organic Scottish farmers to provide local food for the public sector (provided it meets the criteria e.g. farm assured meat).

We think this Bill can deliver on the Scottish Government’s ambitions and provide an appropriate framework to replace the CAP, provided that decisions around funding are taken with the need for transformational change in mind. That will mean more of the budget being targeted at approaches that can deliver the emissions reduction and biodiversity improvements that the Scottish Government is committed to achieving as part of the transition to ‘sustainable and regenerative agriculture’.

There is huge uncertainty at the moment around future funding for agriculture, with a commitment to maintain present levels until 2024 only. We would like to see the next UK Government commit to doubling the budget for agriculture and food across the UK nations, including a ring-fenced, multi-year settlement for the devolved administrations, in line with the multiple objectives that our farmers and crofters are being asked to deliver on (climate, nature, food).

We have made points in previous responses about the need for a strong link to Good Food Nation outcomes, but there are many other pieces of legislation and policy working through the Scottish Parliament at the moment or expected to be introduced during this parliamentary term. These include the Land Reform Bill, the Just Transition Plan for Agriculture, the Climate Change Plan update, the Natural Environment Bill, the Organic Food and Farming Action Plan, the Community Wealth Building Bill and the Circular Economy Bill. There is a need to ensure policy coherence across all of this.

There is also interaction between the Agriculture and Rural Communities Bill and the UK Internal Market Act and the UK Subsidy Control Act.

As noted in responses to previous questions, decisions on the funding splits across the planned four-tier payment framework will be made under secondary legislation, rather than via this Bill. However, we do want to make a point about making the best use of public money.

We argued in our response to the Bill consultation that the process of CAP replacement offered an opportunity to improve upon the current model of area-based, direct payments. This position has been supported by the Scottish Government's own analysis of published research which highlights the ways in which the CAP has failed to meet its intended objectives or deliver value for money. This included evidence that direct payments had little environmental benefit (and in some cases, had a negative impact), reduced innovation, structural development and productivity growth.

We have supported the Scottish Environmental LINK campaign for at least 75% of funding to be targeted at measures that help farmers and crofters to restore nature and tackle climate change. That means funding must be shifted away from direct payments with few strings attached and towards the wide range of measures that will need to be supported, including ‘sustainable and regenerative’ agricultural methods under the Enhanced Payment Tier 2, but extending to farm advice, knowledge exchange (particularly peer-to-peer learning) and support for capital investment, as well as approaches where is already strong evidence of delivery for climate and nature objectives such as organic farming and the integration of trees on farms and crofts.