Future farm support should slash the amount paid directly to farmers, with the vast majority paid instead for delivering agri-environmental outcomes, according to RSPB and WWF.

According to these organisations, continuing to pay the bulk of rural support through direct area payments and coupled support will not created the 'seismic' change needed in the countryside if climate change targets are to be met.

Head of land use policy at RSPB, Vikki Swales, said: “We don’t have an issue with three tier structures being proposed either by NFUS or internally with the government; we have proposed three types of farm support payments ourselves. The big question is how the money is divided between the tiers and what farmers have to do in each of them to receive payments. We want to see the bulk of conditional payments to farmers to have a much stronger focus on constructive environmental and climate change measures. And the top tier of investment must focus on agri-environmental measures which restore habitats and enhance the environment.

“Historically agri-environment schemes only received around 7% of funding but this needs a radical uplift," said Ms Swales. "Roughly from a budget of around £600m, 70% should be focused on the tier two conditional payments and the tier three agri-environment support. More should be spent on knowledge transfer and advisory services too and helping farmers adapt their businesses.

"Direct farm support or a base payment similar to the current BPS and greening model should account for 10% of the budget. We recognise the need for transition in how payments are made but need to make progress quickly.

“We are facing a climate and biodiversity crisis and farming is part of the problem and solution," she stressed. "If we are serious about tackling this crisis then we need to shift away from the current system of direct and coupled payments – they are too close to 'business a usual' and do not do enough to address what needs to be done to hit net zero targets and halt biodiversity loss and support genuinely sustainable food production.

"We need to question why we have a base payment and what it is for? We don’t think there is a need for coupled payments in principle, it is difficult to justify paying per head on cattle and sheep in the context of emissions.

Read more: Farmers must be able to find the ecological advice they need

“We understand farmers are struggling with the current costs and prices for products," she added. "We understand there are significant challenges in the agriculture sector but farming is not the only land use and we need to balance the demands we make on land to produce food and timber whilst also needing land to store carbon and provide more space for nature.”

These views were echoed by Ruth Taylor, agriculture and land use policy manager at WWF Scotland, who said: “Farmers are at the frontline of climate change impacts in Scotland. If we are going to tackle the climate and nature crises, urgent action is needed from the Scottish Government to transform the current rural support system to reward and incentivise climate- and nature- friendly farming, while guaranteeing a just transition for agriculture. The next stage of policy development will be crucial in setting this course, but current proposals to change the system don’t go far enough.

“We know that some farmers across Scotland are already taking steps that benefit both the environment and their businesses, but many status quo practices do contribute to climate change and nature loss. We now need to move towards a system that supports farmers to introduce practices that reduce emissions and restore biodiversity. All of this must be underpinned by a fully funded and resourced advisory service to maximise uptake of the new measures by ensuring skills development opportunities and knowledge sharing.”