2.0 Description of practical and operational issues which could have a bearing on the use of SAF data for statistical purposes.
This section meets objective i.ii to describe any practical or operational issues which could have a bearing on the use of the SAF data for statistical purposes. It outlines the practical or operational issues that emerge when considering merging the June agricultural census ( JAC) and the single application form ( SAF).
In order to obtain the required information both primary and secondary data were collected. Interviews were conducted with RERAD staff over late December and early January, which included detailed conversations with key members of both the JAC and SAF staff.
Data
As a first step towards understanding the practicalities of using the SAF to meet the statistical requirements of the JAC, it is useful to consider in more detail the similarity of the information currently collected through the JAC and SAF processes. The meta-data analysis, reported in the appendix, outlines the areas of overlap and gaps between the two. It is clear from this analysis, and the discussion in section 1 that there are some significant differences in coverage (both in terms of number of holdings and items covered) and definitions which are obvious practical issues that have to be overcome. The impact of these differences will be quantified later in the projects. However, given that this preliminary analysis highlights that the scope and nature of the SAF would need to change, the following examines some of the operational and practical issues that might be associated with modifying the SAF.
Timing
The discussion in Section 1 highlighted that differences in the timings of information gathering could potentially be an important issue. For example, the SAF collects data on livestock numbers for the beginning of March, whereas the EU requires information for one day in May/June and one day in December. Changes of timing would have to be considered and agreed with the EU to allow the two to merge. Consequently, it would have to be shown that a change in dates for collection of information will not have a large impact on results. These timings were illustrated in Section 1.
Process Issues
From discussion, it is clear that there is potential to amend the SAF. However, a number of factors need to be taken into account. First, merging of the JAC and SAF may lead to collection of more data than currently required on the SAF. From a SAF point of view, the increase in information would lead to more checks, this may delay the process of all inspections, in particular cross compliance checking and, ultimately, may delay payment. Though there is a payment window, most farmers expect and are paid on 1st December. The SAF is responsible for administering around £420 million to Scottish farmers, with an additional £80 million for other schemes (this may increase to £120 million if other schemes are included within the SAF). Hence, if these payments are delayed then the Minister responsible for agriculture may have to face criticism.
The relationships between a business and a holding means that the farmer may be burdened with increased administration. This is due to the fact that business level data are collected at holding level. Thus a number of similar forms may have to be added to the major forms. Third, from a data collection point of view, holdings may be split up between a number of parties. Consequently, it may be the case that only part of the holding would qualify as IACS businesses. Farmers would have to be statutorily obliged to report details.
Variable Codes
An issue emerges with the number and definitions of codes used within both sources (as highlighted in the meta-data analysis in the Appendix). The SAF and JAC use a large number of farm codes and some merging and disposal of redundant codes would have to be considered. From the respondent's side, the number of codes may be confusing and time consuming. Consequently, this would require a fundamental review in co-operation with JAC and SAF staff, but may also include consultation with industry.
An implication of this is the loss of the time series of data from the JAC, which has run fairly constantly for over a 100 years. Consequently, if this were adopted there may be some loss of data, or a re-baselining of some data items as definitions may have changed.
Role of Other Data Sources
The British Cattle Movement Service has been adopted by the rest of the UK (after agreement with the EU) as the prime data source for satisfying the census requirements for cattle numbers and it is proposed to do the same in Scotland (once issues relating to differences in the categories uses for classifying animals are resolved). Consequently, some of the livestock information required from the Census can be covered by the BCMS. This does have implications for merging SAF and JAC because it reduces the burden of information required.
The BCMS data does highlight a further issue and that relates to the differences between the ownership of the holding and ownership of the livestock. BCMS records are interested in the keepers of cattle whereas census data relate to the holdings. These do not necessarily match and consistency in definition needs to be achieved in the merger of any of the data sources discussed as else there is a risk of either double counting numbers of livestock or not counting them at all.
Whilst BCMS covers cattle, for sheep there is also potential for rationalisation by considering how data from the Sheep and Goats Inventory could be used or replaced thus reducing the burden of form filling.
This does again though raise the issue of the relationship between the date of the SAF and the required census date (December). Though as with the JAC/ SAF timing discussion, there would appear to be some flexibility on the dates.
Policy Issues
Although there is ongoing discussion about changing the level of detail of information required by the EU from the Census, it is largely immune from changes in policy. This is certainly not the case for the SAF, with the 2003 reforms highlighting how major changes in information requirements can occur. The new SRDP (when implemented) is a further case in point as it is likely that their will be new participants, in particular forestry enterprises and sporting estates. If they decide to claim then they will be added to the SAF client list. Some items, for example, forest area, may be affected. There is obviously a question of how this fits in with the census, as the census is driven by definitions of an agricultural holding. Consequently, it has no interest in forestry or other non-agricultural holdings. This highlights a general issue in that any possible solution in terms of merging them has to be flexible enough to cope with changes into the future.
The European Commission also plans a health check in 2008. Proposals under discussion include the movement of payments to a flat rate area basis and cap large payments. Hence large payees may seek to split their businesses, as was the case in the US when payments per farm were capped, impacting on the structure of the business. In addition, in the future, further emphasis may be placed on environmental, rather than agricultural production, payments leading to fundamental changes or eradication of the SAF.
Cultural Change within the Scottish Government
A past study on merging data collection sources highlighted an issue of cultural change in terms of merging the activities of two distinct departments/groups. Raising this issue with both JAC and SAF staff found that the organisation would appear to be amenable to change, particularly if it released staff time to undertake development work that has been neglected due to the pressures involved in simply maintaining the current system.
Visual Design and Consultation of Change with Clients
As noted above the SAF is subject to change compared with census forms which have remained largely unchanged for over 100 years. Therefore, consideration has to be given to the design of the newly merged forms, as changes in the past have caused problems with data collection. This may require consultation with industry or an awareness raising exercise amongst recipients. This would be costly, but may obviate any data errors caused by confusion within the form.
General Issues
The SAF and JAC are two different forms which have a different purpose. Importantly, there is a legal requirement to complete a JAC form under the Agriculture Act 1947, whereas SAF offers a financial reward for compiling forms. A cynical point may be that this divergence of purpose may cause some bias in information provided.