RPSB Scotland want a cut in direct payments to farmers under the future payment regime, according to its submission to the Scottish Government’s Agriculture Bill.

Currently, direct payments account for around 70% of the farm budget and the environmental body is calling for this to be slashed. Senior land use policy officer, Andrew Midgley, said: “This type of payment is only weakly connected to outcomes, which makes this public investment harder to defend, and they do not provide ‘income support’ because they are not targeted at those that need it most.”

However, the body said it did not want to see the overall farm support budget reduced, but wanted significant changes on how it is spent. It argue there is a strong case for investing public money in farming and rural land management because farmers and crofters have a vital role to play in producing food, whilst tackling climate and nature emergencies.

Read more: NFUS confident its Ag Bill vision is simple and deliverable

The first change it wanted was for a much smaller proportion of the overall budget allocated to go directly to farm bank accounts. However, it recognised that government signalled intent to retain direct payments and is proposing enhanced conditionality on only 50% of future direct payments.

Therefore, RSPB Scotland wanted a much higher level of environmental conditionality on all direct payments as a pre-requisite for eligibility. Receipt of the Tier 2 Enhanced Payment, in particular, should depend on taking substantive action to reduce GHG emissions and deliver nature restoration and enhancement, it argued.

The charity also wanted a big expansion in the provision of advice, training, knowledge exchange and co-operation, which includes Continuing Professional Development (CPD) for farmers.

It also stated that LFASS and coupled support were not good ways of supporting farms and would prefer money be spent on a specific 'High nature value' (HNV) farming scheme. RSPB argued that low intensity farming and crofting systems, which continued traditional agricultural practices and occur predominantly in the Highlands and Islands, were essential to maintaining the biodiversity interest.

Significantly increased levels of funding to support targeted action for nature restoration and enhancement is another request. It said only around 7% is spent on the Agri-Environment-Climate Scheme (AECS) at the moment and that some farmers and crofters had found it difficult to apply.

Finally, given that there will be continued expansion of woodlands to hit climate change targets, RSPB Scotland believed that government must develop agricultural policy within a strategic approach to managing land use change. They argue this must happen as part of a just transition for farmers and to avoid negative impacts on wildlife.

Overall, it also called for more details and described the the government’s vision as ‘vague’ and lacking in clear direction. Mr Midgley added: “It is not clear what the government thinks being a world leader in sustainable and regenerative agriculture will look like in practice in 10- or 15-years’ time, which makes it difficult to know what support measures would be best to deploy to achieve it.

In its submission to the consultation, RSPB Scotland welcomed the prominence given to climate and nature. It stated: “Not only is it recognition of the challenges that we all face, it also strongly connects farm payments with a public outcome.

"We believe farmers have a huge role to play in tackling society-wide issues and that connecting investment of public money in farming with the nature and climate emergency is the best way to defend ongoing public investment in the long run.

“We disagree with the suggestion that a focus on the environment somehow equates to a marginalisation of food production. There must be no polarisation between food production and environmental issues, and policymakers should not view this as an either/or choice.

"Clearly, we need our farmers to be producing high quality food, but we also need this to be done in a more sustainable way.”

RSPB Scotland said government needed the power to deliver future funding and that flexibility was required so that the support regime can be changed over time. But a degree of stability was also required so that businesses could plan ahead, calling on government to produce a national strategic plan and adopt a programming period of 3-5 years to fund and deliver it.