Agriculture Reform Implementation Oversight Board minutes: 30 May 2025

Welcome and introductions: Agenda item 1

Co-chair welcomed the Minister for Agriculture and Connectivity and members to the thirteenth in-person meeting of the ARIOB and noted apologies. Co-chair offered a warm welcome to the new members of the Board while confirming the amicable resignation of another. He opened the floor to any comments on the papers circulated for information ahead of the first substantive item.

A correction was noted in previous minutes regarding comments relating to HNV (High Nature Value) and data. The Secretariat has since amended for the eventual public record.

Comments from members:

• a request for a rolling workplan was agreed
• a number of members mentioned frustration over limited progress within the Agricultural Reform Programme (ARP), that foundational issues still remain unresolved and citing industry urgency
• on the Agri Code of Practice, there were concerns over its clarity of purpose (best practice guide rather than directive?) as well as lacking the structure and authority of what you may expect from it, with many members keen to work with officials on the content
• the list of original Tier 2 measures do not align with the Code in its current form and the current draft risks being dismissed by farmers and crofters
• there was hope that a set of farmer-friendly ‘do’s and don’ts’ leaflets might follow publication with the equivalent example from the Republic of Ireland referenced
• the importance of advisory services and knowledge transfer was argued, as was the need for a clearer definition of sustainable and regenerative agriculture
• officials acknowledged the comments, noting that the interim version of the Code meets legislative requirements and would be published to coincide with the Royal Highland Show and a revised version would be co-developed afterwards into the Autumn Maintaining consistency of messaging will be at the forefront of evolving the document

The role of the ARIOB: Agenda item 2

The Minister expressed concern that ARIOB had been misrepresented during the committee sessions in March, and hoped to align with members on its purpose. Co-chair added that the Board is not a decision-making body but provides oversight and views from representatives across the sector. Final decisions rest with the Scottish Government (SG).

Comments from members:

• members welcomed the discussion, with consensus on a wider industry misconception that the ARIOB “signs off” decisions, which is misleading and problematic, stemming from poor communication
• one member warned against overstating the Board’s co-design function, and questioned the ARIOB’s value without sufficient strategic clarity
• there was a suggestion to reset expectations and possibly narrow the ARIOB’s scope to strategic issues with a view to empowering a working group model to accelerate progress – as has worked for the Scottish Suckler Beef Support Scheme (SSBSS) and Animal Health and Welfare workstreams
• the Board could be bolder as there is an internal perception that there is often no tangible progression of topics presented to them or clear rationale for eventual decisions made
• following on from that, there was widespread agreement that existing structures like Academic Advisory Panel (AAP) and Policy Development Group (PDG) were being underused and that they should generate proposals for the ARIOB to consider
• there needs to be a redesign of the process to better use members’ collective expertise, while the Vision for Agriculture now exists in legislation through the ARC Act, the delivery path is unclear
• chair acknowledged the feedback from members and committed to reviewing structures, improving communication, better utilising the PDG and an action was taken.

Post-2027 Policy Principles: Agenda Item 3

Ahead of the item, the Director for Agriculture and Rural Environment confirmed that they will be the Agricultural Reform Programme’s Senior Responsible Owner and that a Programme Director would be recruited imminently.

Officials covered some of the background to this work, including interventionist logic in terms of what Scottish Ministers are trying to achieve through the Tiered framework, noting the commitment of Government towards Net Zero.

In response to comments relating to the pace of change, officials then highlighted some of the key progress made thus far, including the Whole Farm Plan, calving intervals conditionality as part of SSBSS as well as protections for wetlands and peatlands. Following this will come the Agri Code of Practice and Rural Support Plan, in addition to Ecological Focus Area (EFA) increases into 2026. This also includes the passage of an enabling Act through the Scottish Parliament as well as the Land Reform Bill with the maintenance of direct, regular support payments for which the messaging has been consistent.

In response to aforementioned concerns on co-development, officials have been and are continuing to co-design with cohorts of farmers and crofters. Some of that is reported at the ARIOB but a lot of user design has been carried out that doesn’t require further development from the Board, which many will be understandably unaware of. Officials are currently preparing a range of options for Ministers on future operations. The four-tier framework means that any model must have the capability to:

• focus on simplicity and cost-effectiveness in implementation for both customers and staff;
• provide a clear transition plan with consideration for the capabilities of future technology
• complement existing commitments of Scottish Ministers
• deliver the four-tier approach.

The Board were then presented with a range of challenge statements and questions around the following themes:

• who should we support: Eligibility and Conditions
• what do we support them for: How do we define activity?
• what is the basis of payments (how do we scale the support) for Base and Enhanced, respectively?

It is the aim to provide advice to Ministers on activity, eligibility, regions and other key topics via an options paper, which will include feedback received from members. Officials will continue to co-develop post-2027 policy with the ARIOB and a wider set of stakeholder organisations to inform the Cabinet Secretary’s and Minister’s decision-making process with a view to having a more targeted discussion as part of the Board’s Q3 meeting.

Comments from members:

• members welcomed the questions, mentioning that there will be commonality on some, differences on others, but many were equally frustrated that they hadn’t been answered already
• some answers are contingent on priorities going forward and are heavily influenced by available budget, noting the real terms reduction in budget (inflationary)
• respective organisations and individuals should be tasked with answering the questions as set out, many of which are similar or identical to what was contained with the Agri Bill consultation in 2022
• NFUS, for example, needs clear, defined positions on these questions, and what was set out as part of the agenda item is a framework to work with following on from the earlier discussion, potential PDG involvement, backed by the AAP
• assistance for poultry, pigs and dairy would be welcomed as often “forgotten” sectors – investment beyond the farm gate
• there was warning that Tiers 3 and 4 aren’t as regularly discussed as Tier 1 (Base) and Tier 2 (Enhanced), as it is the former two that will deliver for climate and nature
• tier 1 is ensuring business viability, Tier 2 isn’t the driver of change it might have been and with Tiers 3 and 4 already weaker in terms of share of budget, we need to be clever about it
• land isn’t profitable; businesses are – productive capacity of the land is the key and we must not lose sight of ensuring a Just Transition to avoid cliff-edges
• one member saw it as a two-phased approach: firstly, to make best use of the system we’ve got (first 5 years) ahead of a fundamental rethink about how we support the sector in the medium to long-term
• what is the confidence that this will continue to deliver against targets? There is a pressure to tell people what actually is moving forward, so it can be shared more widely and tie into an improved comms approach that is required
• there was a note of caution against unpicking the work of the last few years, particularly to give time for measures already implemented to deliver against the outcomes
• The Whole Farm Plan question was referenced as an example of where frustration can stem from, where some matters are agreed upon and then return to be discussed
• The Board wanted clarity on the outcome from this, with a timescale – to start making strategic policy suggestions to the Board for debate in a meaningful context
• officials agreed that they are keen, with the Board’s help, to get answers to these questions in the coming months with a view to providing options for Ministerial decisions soon
• agreement needs to be sought on when the answers should be submitted and what happens after that
• co-chair added that the perceived lack of decisions being made historically is frustrating – we can’t just keep talking about the issues, there has to be action taken
• alternatively, is there capacity for officials to provide answers based on already submitted evidence (through consultations, FLG reports etc.) and then present potential answers to debate?
• the industry is moving on, led by the market, and leaving Government behind. Where is the next generation within the context of what we’re doing?
• we need to have young people coming into the industry to ensure its future, and for that to be as accessible as possible – young farmers are clear that they want support payments for active farming
• officials have gone down an avenue of detailed questions, but if you tackle the more fundamental strategic considerations, you will then answer those by default
• there is a need for innovation in the land use sector whilst many “unknown unknowns” exist. you can’t always make a perfect decision so will have to try things; trial and error
• the answer to these questions should inform the Rural Support Plan, through an evolutionary start using the current system and then think about what the new system could do, similar to the two-phased approach raised earlier
• the first version of the Plan may be unsatisfactory, but will be improved through time (each iteration lasts 5 years but can be reviewed when necessary during that period) to deliver on the outcomes
• a more fundamental discussion on activity is needed – there are vast tracks of upland/moorland that have no grazing
• it is demonstrative of the fact that future support mechanisms should be fundamentally different to reflect what’s happening in practice
• policy doesn’t often align with what’s happening on the ground
• there was some discussion on the current payments system, with officials pointing out that it does deliver against what it has been previously required to do and could be tweaked to help deliver the policy (capping, for example), and a member noted that a new system won’t be an immediate “cure”

In terms on next steps, officials will provide an options paper with pros and cons against each of the questions and bring it back to the Board, informed by work already done and feedback received. Following further discussion, officials agreed to set out the main themes, with detailed questions set out underneath each of those, organised by urgency of decision.

Chair agreed that the Board would require a session solely on the paper, with the potential for the PDG to review in advance, and an action was taken to circulate one AAP member’s written response to the questions.

PDG to look at it in advance of ARIOB, and cover the morning session of the September meeting.

Design Principles: Agenda Item 4

Following a previous discussion at the Board, officials ran through the current 11 design principles with a brief summary of the rationale – namely, that the principles should act as a set of guidelines for the new target operating model and the starting point is the strategic ARP outcomes and sub-outcomes:

• User-centred design
• Alignment with Vision for Agriculture
• Prioritisation of Objectives
• Evidence-based interventions
• Sustainability and Regeneration
• Cost transparency
• Flexibility and Adaptability
• Simplification of processes
• Clear communication
• Digital First approach
• Learning Organisation culture

Comments from members

• the educational element can’t be lost, the upskilling of farmers and crofters needs to be helped if Government wants to see meaningful changes, perhaps linked to conditionality
• lot of focus on simplicity but it shouldn’t always be the driving force.
• in some cases, the process may need to be a little bit more complex
• evidence-based interventions can inform decisions but the evidence doesn’t always reflect the data
• assumptions made about cohorts of farmers that aren’t always accurate
• alignment with the Vision for Agriculture is a misnomer - the Act should be the centre point
• on co-design, the insight of agents are vital
• Risk strategy in inspection / verification on the ground is missing, with margin differences given as an example through fear of penalty
• there should be more tolerance / flexibility to encourage change
• on data and digital considerations, protection of user data should be reflected
• dignity and respect should be reflected
• could there be a Principle that recognises and rewards good practice? There was some discussion about whether changes made to make a business more profitable and efficient should be rewarded by Government
• the point was then made that we need to avoid the situation where a business may undo historic good work to have a lower baseline from which to start
• what comes after baselining?

Officials thanked members for their feedback, noting that the Principles were at the draft stage and will look to reflect comments where possible.

AAP Overview on EFA weightings and Deliver Models: Agenda Item 5

For the benefit of new members, the AAP representative gave a brief overview of the Panel’s role. They aim to bring a science and evidence-based approach to address specific questions raised by members of the ARIOB, meeting at the same cadence to ensure optimal alignment.

Review of weightings applied to potential new EFA options

Greening was introduced to enhance the environmental sustainability of farming. To broaden the policy outcomes that Greening could achieve, four potential new Ecological Focus Areas (EFA) options were identified. The Panel was asked to review process of assigning weightings – values used to calculate support payments – to these new options.

The AAP made the following recommendations:

• document the process to ensure traceability and support future expansion
• use caution with existing EFA weightings when used as reference point to introduce new measures as their applicability may not be directly transferable
• incorporate uncertainty ranges to account for the diversity in stakeholder feedback and variations in key assessment factors such as biodiversity outcome, length of management period, financial costs, income forgone, and greenhouse gas emissions
• allow for flexibility in weightings and developing a clear strategy for effectively communicating that weightings may change over time and the policy implications of such flexibility.
• adjust weightings as below:

EFA option (new)	High level Requirements	Proposed Weighting	AAP Recommendation
EFA Agroforestry Low density planting	Not eligible on Rough Grazings, trees planted at 20-50 per ha, trees must be native including fruit trees and protected with suitable tree guards.	2	2
EFA Unharvested Crop	Must be around or separating two crops, 6 to 12 meter wide, no nitrogen fertiliser or spray applied, single species sn but must remain unharvested until the 31 Dec.	1.5	1
EFA Legume and Herb Rich Pasture	Must have at least 3 different herbs or legumes in the seed mix with a minimum of 1 legume from the list of eligible seed types.	1	1.5
EFA Low Input Grassland	No inorganic/ artificial fertiliser applied, no poaching.	0.2	Do NOT take forward

Comments from members:

• alignment is required across the various schemes and that must be a recommendation
• there was support for not placing too much onus on previous weightings. Weightings above 1 can be problematic in allowing people to meet the threshold. Optimise the area of habitat on farm encouraging farmers to increase biodiversity and decrease water pollution
• several factors with weightings – the resulting area should deliver the policy outcome but take into account capital costs and loss of income
• knowledge exchange is needed, making sure that alignment is identified early on as this can become expensive for farmers and crofters to get right, especially in the absence of a clear support plan and so comms is crucial
• officials added that with regard to weightings, they took on board a lot of feedback from the panel, 39 agents and advisors, as well as other stakeholders, including seed suppliers
• the main focus of meetings with agents was developing guidance and the first phase of implementation will be closely monitored in 2026
• the aim is that the minimum requirement element will allow for flexibility

Potential Delivery Models for Agricultural Payments

Moving on, as part of the ARP, Government is exploring new delivery models that better align with their strategic outcomes. Discussions with the ARIOB have considered various models (eligibility-based, measure-based, outcome-based, and hybrids) with a focus on how best to structure payment criteria to support long-term agricultural and environmental goals. The Panel was also invited to provide their professional opinion on the extent to which these options could deliver on the strategic outcomes.

The Panel recommended a hybrid model, which blends eligibility, measures, and outcomes, as the most promising approach. However, they cautioned that outcome-based models, while ideal, may be difficult and costly to implement in the short term. A balanced model offers flexibility but requires careful prioritisation and robust monitoring systems. The panel stressed the importance of clear, measurable outcomes linked to payments, supported by scientific evidence and integrated data systems. They also highlighted the need to distinguish between payment criteria and mechanisms, ensuring that policy design considers both the conditions for receiving payments and the types of payments themselves.

Comments from members:

• co-chair warned of unintended consequences of fulfilling actions but outcomes not being achieved through no fault of the farmer or crofter, with adverse weather events being an obvious example
• members agreed on the blend of approaches, no one-size-fits-all solution
• the length of payment should be matched to the length of time required to achieve the outcome
• effective baselining is critical to the success of whatever model is chosen
• the importance of LIDAR was discussed, including timing of its national mapping exercise (which will conclude by July 2027) and linking data into a national inventory for wider collective benefit
• the Minister and other members discussed ensuring engagement with farmers and crofters on how we might use data better and welcomed the ARP Data Strategy topic for the next meeting of the Board (Q3, 2025)

AOB: Agenda item 6

Comments from members:

• in relation to the recent UKCCC advice, an action was taken to add the topic and the Scottish Government’s response to the workplan as a future agenda item (once advice had been considered by Ministers)
• further actions were taken to add adaptation and knowledge exchange / Knowledge Transfer and Innovation Fund (KTIF) to the workplan for future discussion and debate
• co-chair mentioned the Small Producers Scheme, which is included in the workplan, but reiterated its importance to the future of the industry, otherwise smaller-scale farmers and crofters could walk away
• there needs to be a wider discussion on where thresholds should be for smaller farms/producers as part of that
• in addition, he hoped to see further progress on regionalisation
• chair agreed that a reset was required on that, perhaps via a working group
• finally, tying into previous discussions on the Board being used more strategically, one member hoped that the time the Board has together could be more effectively utilised in terms of the presentation-to-discussion ratio

Chair thanked members for their contributions and looked forward to the Board’s next meeting (likely September 2025).

 

Attendees and apologies

Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs, Land Reform and Islands. Mairi  Gougeon (Co-Chair)

Martin Kennedy (Co-Chair)