I think a lot of this has obviously been very controversial, and I would agree with what Rhys 2 said about the misconceptions out there and the oversimplification of the narrative, because I've found myself, over the past six months, having conversations with people who are basically describing a policy that doesn't exist. The Welsh Government had already added flexibility, particularly about appropriate areas for planting and things being excluded and, when you got into it, the 10 per cent wasn't really 10 per cent, and so on. But, leaving that aside, I think the wider problem has been—and part of what Niels said last week about this—that there's a little bit too much of a focus on trees and carbon. And I say that as an environmental NGO, in that the great benefit of trees is far beyond carbon as well; it is about that livestock, animal welfare management, that prevention of flooding, biodiversity as well, and if we focus a little bit too much on just that carbon issue, we're missing a trick here, really.
So, I think, ultimately, when you look at the evidence of sequestering and the combined multiple wins across the system, as far as I can see, from various organisations I've spoken to, trees do always come out at the top of that. And I think, as we heard today, nobody in this debate is anti-tree. I do think—and I know that the wider NGO sector thinks this as well—that having that universal requirement for woodland creation is very important, and I think that should stay. I think the argument is more over how much that commitment is, and it's the 10 per cent that has caused the debate rather than the idea of every farm could have more trees, and I think every farmer—almost every farmer—in Wales would say, 'Yes, there is capacity for some more trees here'. There are ways around this, and I know there have been lots of ideas bouncing around. One, for example, is to look at a scheme-level target. I think if you are going to go down that route, then you're probably going to have to set one that's higher than 10 per cent, to keep in line with what the UK Climate Change Committee are saying, particularly as they had—I forget the precise numbers—I believe, a 2 per cent addition by 2025 and a 5 per cent addition by 2035. Now, if you accept that tree cover currently on agricultural land is just shy of 7 per cent, then you're really looking at, probably, about 12 per cent by 2035. That seems like where you'd end up in that ballpark. So, that's one possibility.
Other people have suggested lowering the target to 5 per cent. I know the Nature Friendly Farming Network have suggested things like that, and then also there have been ideas about every farm having the requirement to expand the cover by 4 per cent on what they have. So, basically, just moving us out in a way that heads us towards 10 per cent as a nation, and all those, I think, the Minister is considering. If you do go down this route of lowering the ambition in 'universal', then there may have to be some requirements to enter 'optional' about minimum cover, so that's something to be explored. But, fundamentally, I would say you need to keep that woodland creation element in 'universal' as a requirement, and then debate how much that is and where it is appropriate, because, as we've known from the surveys that have been done, most farmers can do this. And if they get the money right, an awful lot more farmers will do it. I come back to that point about money: this is a business decision for a lot of farmers out there. If the cash is there and it makes sense from a business perspective to do it, they will do it.