As Scotland develops its future agricultural support system towards 2030, there is one fundamental question we need to be prepared to answer – who, exactly, should public money be supporting?
It sounds like a simple question. But with growing demands being placed on Scottish agriculture and finite public funding available to meet them, it is a question we can no longer afford to avoid.
The Agriculture and Rural Communities (Scotland) Act 2024, the publication of the Rural Support Plan and the development of the new framework of support towards 2030 give Scotland a genuine opportunity to reshape the relationship between government, public investment and farming and crofting. We should seize that opportunity.
For more than two decades, the eligibility for most direct agricultural support has been fundamentally tied to land. That is the legacy of the Common Agricultural Policy and, more recently, the Basic Payment Scheme.
We should recognise what that system has delivered. Basic payments have provided stability, supported farm incomes and helped many businesses through exceptionally difficult periods.
But recognising the value of the existing system does not mean we should simply reproduce it for another generation.
If public money is intended to underpin Scotland's food production capacity, sustain rural communities and deliver environmental outcomes, then it should support those actively farming and crofting, carrying the risks and delivering those outcomes.
That is why I believe the future system needs to be much more explicitly aligned to active farming and crofting activity, rather than simply the area of land occupied or controlled.
This is not an argument for reducing agricultural support. Quite the opposite. It is about making the strongest possible case for agricultural support by ensuring public investment is directed towards those actually delivering the outcomes for which that support is intended.
In a constrained budget environment, better targeting may ultimately be the best way of protecting the long-term value and political sustainability of agricultural support.
Building on what already works
Scotland's agriculture is incredibly diverse, and the nature of the land fundamentally shapes the farming systems that can operate on it.
Those differences matter. But the answer should not simply be to pay differently because the land is different. It should be to recognise the different farming activities, challenges and outcomes associated with that land and design support accordingly.
The encouraging reality is that we do not need to throw away everything that currently exists to achieve that.
Scotland already has many of the building blocks of a better system. Less Favoured Area Support has an important role to play, while Coupled Support demonstrates that government can target support towards strategically important production systems, such as the suckler beef herd. Capital schemes, including the Future Farming Investment Scheme, also demonstrate the value of clear objectives and better targeting.
There is no need for revolution. But there is a need for reform. We should be much more confident about targeting support where it delivers the greatest strategic value for Scotland and Scottish agriculture.
A stronger foundation for future support
That is where the new Tier 1 and Tier 2 framework can provide real value.
Tier 1 should provide a strong foundation of direct support recognising the essential contribution made by active farmers and crofters across Scotland.
Tier 2 should go further, allowing businesses that choose to deliver more to receive additional support through investment in productivity, animal health, soil management, climate adaptation, biodiversity, resource efficiency and innovation. Crucially, Tier 2 must remain an agricultural activity payment.
The question should not be whether Scotland supports agriculture or nature. The question should be how we design a support system in which active farming and crofting become principal mechanisms through which Scotland delivers both.
We can support food production while encouraging better environmental performance. We can recognise the challenges of hill and upland farming and crofting. We can reward those who go further without undermining the broad foundation of support needed to sustain active farming and crofting.
Looking towards 2030
Farmers and crofters rightly expect government to recognise the contribution they make and provide the stability necessary to allow them to continue doing it. But politicians, policymakers and taxpayers are also entitled to ask what they are getting in return for public investment.
Our answer needs to be clear.
They are investing in an agricultural sector that produces food, maintains productive capacity, sustains rural communities, manages land and delivers environmental and wider public benefits that the market alone cannot fully reward.
As we move towards 2030, we need to establish a stronger relationship between public investment and active farming and crofting. That does not mean disruption for its own sake. The journey should be evolutionary – retaining what works, improving what does not, simplifying where possible and targeting support where necessary.
But we should be prepared to change the fundamental emphasis.
The future of agricultural support should not simply be about supporting agricultural land. It should be about supporting the active farming and crofting of that land.