Agriculture is not just a vital industry, but is also one of the most significant sectors in terms of emissions in Scotland, responsible for nearly 20% of greenhouse gases. For the previous 10 years, since 2009 the sector had done very little to tackle its emissions, and in 2019 there was a recognition from the farming community, as well as government and other industries that agriculture needed to step up and start to make inroads. So back in 2019 I was asked to co-chair an inquiry into how farming could deliver against our national net zero ambitions. At the time, I was very conscious that the conversation in farming had become very one dimensional and largely mired in how much livestock farmers should or shouldn't hold. For me, the problem was much broader.

There were 50 ways farmers could help to tackle emissions. Livestock was only one of them, and my belief was that the amount of livestock would ultimately be determined by the market for meat, farmers, after all, respond to the market, so we needed to get beyond this single issue blockage and discuss the things they could actually adopt and influence in the shorter term. The enquiry focused on the practical things that any farmer could do on farms. I have to say the experience of the Farming 1.5 inquiry was a really positive one. We had arable farmers and livestock farmers as well as scientists, bureaucrats and campaigners all around the table, and we wrote a series of proposals which had pretty broad support. I even presented our findings to the NFUS AGM in early 2020, and it was extremely well received by the room and by civil servants at the time. Then after announcements about the need to review future farm payments post-Brexit, the Scottish Government set up a body called ARIOB, effectively an advisory board to guide the decision making in how to transform agricultural subsidy payments. Largely drawn from the then ‘Farmer led groups’ I was asked to join the group, to represent the both the climate angle and the Farming 1.5C enquiry group. I couldn't really say no – here was an opportunity to help to shape the future of all agricultural funding in Scotland with a very clear stated aim to steer agriculture down a more Net Zero and biodiversity rich path. Without agriculture, Scotland would never be able to deliver against its national targets, so this remains critical.

Farms are already feeling the impacts of early climate change. Many farmers are dealing with the day to day consequences of disruptive weather patterns, changing seasonality, increasing drought, increasing flooding and all sorts of other factors. It's costing farms money already and will continue to do so. So my sense was that the agricultural community understood that this was not optional. The Scottish Government had some very bold statements in its outline purposes for agricultural funding and therefore for the ARIOB – the transformation of Scottish agriculture to deliver against biodiversity targets, regenerative farming and Net Zero targets, and deliver Rural Economic sustainability. It was a very bold but welcome vision.

ARIOB is actually comprised of a very diverse group of people who bring all sorts of expertise, and in large part, I have found it to be more in agreement than disagreement. However, this has not translated to changes in policy or in government progress. There is no sense of urgency either, despite our creeping ever closer to 2030 and 2045 – critical dates for climate and nature commitments and achievement. Decision making remains laboured and opaque at best and progress is largely imperceptible, with timelines being stretched out and a disappointingly negative sense that its all a bit difficult and complicated. We have now been meeting for four years and I sense that every member of ARIOB desires clarity, action and purpose. But it feels as if we have been going round in circles, largely agreeing about what needs to happen, mostly in accord about the direction of travel, yet still nothing really happens. The biodiversity representatives on the ARIOB have come to the end of their tether, viewing progress as glacial at best. As one of the key representatives on climate change, which is, after all, one of the primary purposes of ARIOB, I share that concern. Agriculture remains a critical sector for Scotland, and climate is only growing in its urgency, but I struggle with having my time used so unproductively. For four years I have clung to the optimistic hope that it will eventually start to deliver and yet, if anything, this sense of urgency and responsibility has dissipated over time.

The last four and a half years have seen almost universal back-pedalling by UK & Scottish Governments on most environmental measures despite almost universal cross party support for the 2019 targets. The removal of the resultant 2030 emissions target last year should be a wake up call, and an admission of the failure of policies and failure of agreement over the previous four or five years to deliver any significant change. The UK Climate Change Committee did not state that the targets were unachievable in Scotland until 2024 (because nothing much had happened since 2019) and yet this government clings to the false belief that the targets were simply too challenging in the first place. The 2030 target became impossible because of inaction, not because of ambition, and if we carry on the way we are going, we are going to miss all future targets too. Something needs to shift. In 2019, our school children showed us an absolutely unprecedented concern and demand for our generation to do better. UK and Scottish Governments declared climate emergencies, but they haven’t backed them up with action. It’s like breaking the glass to sound a fire alarm and then standing watching the flames take hold without bothering to evacuate the building or trying to put the flames out.

Yes, there was covid and various other distractions since then, but what have we got to show them since? Back in 2019 I could hand on heart say Scotland was one of the leading countries in the world on climate change. Five years later, we have done almost nothing to add to that early achievement.

I don't know what exactly is holding people back. I know that there's a political pushback from people who would rather dismantle scientific institutions than understand the science and there are dark forces that would rather pretend none of this is happening. But survey after survey says that the vast majority of the public want to see more action. But for Government and industry, simply acknowledging climate change as a crucial concern and even giving powerful speeches about climate change is not enough of a response. We need action, and action is the one thing that we're not getting.

I did not make the decision to leave ARIOB lightly, and actually, I find it hugely disheartening. I've committed more than four years of my life to it, nearly seven years to agricultural advisory boards, and it feels like a personal failure that I haven't helped manage to deliver more progress. Agriculture will become even more difficult and fragile and economically unviable as climate change takes hold, so it is vital we invest in this change. It isn't optional, and there are so many spheres of our life, from housing to energy to grid infrastructure to transport, that will actually improve our quality of life, but which we are failing to support and to fund. We are lost in austerity and inequality with no real vision of how to climb out of it. Instead, we're in danger of simply blaming each other for it instead of solving it. I know I’m not alone in ARIOB in feeling it isn’t delivering, and that the pace of change is glacial. For a body set up to drive nature and biodiversity gains and reduce climate emissions and bolster our resilience to the impacts of climate change, as well as supporting the growing of food, it is desperate if we have got to the point where the nature and climate voices feel the need to withdraw. Somehow we need to inject some urgency and direction, or all we're going to grow is frustration.