Scottish Government

5 FINDINGS FOR QUESTION 3: RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES

5.1 This section sought respondents' views of the proposed rationale and objectives for the LFASS in the future.

5.2 Section 4 of the consultation document proposed a rationale and a series of objectives for the second interim scheme.

• Paragraph 4.1 gave the LFASS Stakeholder Group's proposed rationale including the extent of the current LFA and number of farms/ crofts included, the need for active land management to achieve the aims of Scotland's Rural Development Programme (the SRDP), and the dependence of continued land management on support payments.
• Paragraph 4.2 reported the LFASS objectives as stated in the SRDP, which describes payments as compensation for disadvantage, that aim to sustain farming and crofting, in order to deliver economic, social and environmental benefits associated with land management, and to promote the uptake of agri-environmental measures under the SRDP.

5.3 The consultation question under consideration is Question 3:

"What are your views on this rationale and these objectives for LFASS?"

There were 69 responses to this question.

5.4 The main points emerging in the responses to question 3 were:

• The rationale and objectives received widespread support, but this was qualified in many cases.
• The respondents who qualified their agreement suggested additions to the stated rationale and objectives.
• Some respondents disagreed with the rationale and objectives outright, or felt they were too unclear to be agreed.

5.5 Table 4 below shows the responses split by respondent category. This shows the total number of responses to this question, and the degree of agreement indicated by: the number of respondents in full agreement, the number with qualified agreement, the number disagreeing and the number unable to agree due to a perceived lack of clarity in the objectives. Percentages are also given to show the distribution of degrees of agreement in the total number of responses.

Table 4: Number of responses to Question 3

5.6 The Total row shows broadly even proportions of qualified and unqualified agreement, and a far smaller proportion of respondents unwilling or unable to disagree. These proportions are illustrated in Figure 4.

5.7 Unqualified agreement was expressed by respondents who agreed fully with the rationale and objectives as presented in the consultation paper.

5.8 Qualified agreement describes responses that agreed with the rationale and objectives but also added their own emphases or supplementary aims, such as more effective targeting of support on more disadvantaged areas, avoiding depopulation, payment related to remoteness, prioritisation of environmental aims or wider public benefits, promotion of active farming or land management, and redefinition of "eligible activity".

5.9 The next column includes respondents who disagreed with the rationale and objectives fundamentally - for example, saying that the objectives of the scheme should be primarily environmental (Axis 2 of the SRDP), with socio-economic support as an incidental benefit.

5.10 The final column shows respondents who felt that the rationale and objectives were not clearly enough expressed to be agreed.

Figure 4: Number and proportion of agreement within total responses

5.11 In the following section, these degrees of agreement are analysed by respondent category, based on the data in Table 4.

Full agreement

5.12 Categories B (Individuals) and C (Crofters' Commission and Common Grazings) dominated with 15 (54%) of the 28 responses in agreement, or 7 and 8 respectively. These responses were all brief, but indicated a shared view of the dependence of crofting units on the support payments they currently receive.

5.13 Categories A (Local Authorities, Economic Development and National Parks) and F (Land-based or regionally-defined associations) each had four responses. Category A was evenly split in its reasons for agreement: half because of the perceived dependence on support payments, and half for the wider environmental, social and economic benefits of supporting farming. The response of a category A respondent exemplified this perception of dependence on payments:

Without an appropriate degree of public support many of these units - in the more marginal and less productive areas - will not be able to continue providing these benefits, therefore it is entirely valid that LFA support is used to overcome this market failure.

The category F respondents gave no further detail in their responses.

5.14 The three category D (Industry bodies) responses emphasised support and stability of the sector, whereas both category E (Environmental bodies) responses prioritised the environmental aspect of the SRDP objectives.

5.15 There was no unqualified agreement from categories G (Food Industry), H (Other) or I (Research Institutes and Colleges).

5.16 A few of the respondents who felt that the aims were appropriate, also felt that they were not being met by current scheme, or that the outcomes should be clarified further.

Qualified agreement with alternative suggestions

5.17 Seven of the 31 responses giving qualified agreement were from category A (Local Authorities, Economic Development and National Parks). The most common reason for this was that LFASS support was not perceived to be effectively targeted on the more disadvantaged areas; note that this view is repeated by common responses containing shared material, such as that of this category A respondent:

LFA support is not targeted towards the most disadvantaged areas, where agricultural activity is becoming increasingly fragile.

Further reasons included increasing the priority of support for the supply of premium beef and lamb, promotion of the delivery of public benefits, and a wider debate on reform of the CAP, the livestock link, and clarification of environmental benefits.

5.18 Category C (Crofters' Commission and Common Grazings) with five responses again had better targeting of support as the most frequent qualification. Others included increasing support to remote locations, and modifying the current LFA boundary and "adjusted hectare" mechanism.

5.19 Categories D (Industry bodies), E (Environmental bodies) and F (Food Industry) made four responses each. Three out of the four category D responses were qualified by a call for tighter specification of environmental outcomes and eligible activity; further points were to include dairy farming in LFASS support, and to acknowledge that farms outside the LFA depend on LFA farms to supply breeding stock.

5.20 Category E (Environmental bodies) responses all called for increased emphasis on and sharper definition of environmental outcomes. In addition, some considered land management simply as a means to the end of environmental improvement, and suggested carbon storage as an ancillary land-use.

5.21 Half of the category F (Food Industry) responses made qualifications for environmental outcomes, eligible activity and dairy farming as described for category D above. The others addressed the targeting of support, and a greater emphasis on sustaining communities and the rural population.

5.22 Categories B (Individuals), G (Food Industry) and I (Research Institutes and Colleges) made two responses each. Category B was split between a suggestion that environmental benefits should be rewarded, and another call for better targeting. Category G added a common aim of securing a sustainable supply of livestock. Category I was divided between the view that the aims might be impossible to achieve with the current budget, and the need for a clearer, defensible statement of measurable aims.

5.23 The only response from category H (Other) supported land management as a means of achieving public or environmental benefits, as previously described for category E (Environmental bodies).

Disagreement

5.24 Category F (Land-based or regionally-defined associations) made two of the seven responses (29%), whilst categories A (Local Authorities, Economic Development and National Parks), B (Individuals), D (Industry bodies), H (Other) and I (Research Institutes and Colleges) each had one respondent in disagreement.

5.25 All but one of these respondents proposed substitute scheme aims including matching the aims of the EULFASS, supporting high nature-value ( HNV) farming, promoting forestry, and prioritising public goods or community support.

5.26 No disagreement was expressed by categories C (Crofters' Commission and Common Grazings) or G (Food Industry).

Unable to agree

5.27 One respondent each in categories A (Local Authorities, Economic Development and National Parks), B (Individuals), and E (Environmental bodies) found the aims insufficiently well-specified for them to either agree or disagree.

Summary of the 69 responses to question 3:

• Full agreement (41%) was predominantly due to perceived dependence on support payments, and was expressed strongly by Local Authorities, Economic Development and National Parks, Individuals and Crofters' Commission and Common Grazings.
• The most common reason for qualified support (45%) was a perceived need for more effective targeting of support, which was highlighted particularly by Local Authorities, Economic Development and National Parks and Crofters' Commission and Common Grazings. The next most common qualification was a call for clearer definition of the scheme's aims.