EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1. 'Scotland's Environmental and Rural Services', or SEARS, is a partnership of nine public bodies aiming to provide around 24,000 rural land managers in Scotland with more efficient, effective and co-ordinated services. Phase 1 of the operation of SEARS was launched in June 2008, and its development had been informed by research in early 2008 on the needs and experiences of its customer-base. 1 To start to assess whether SEARS is meeting its objectives, and to contribute evidence essential to the on-going development of the service, the Scottish Government commissioned this further research in 2009 to review and further explore land managers' needs and experiences, around six months into its implementation, and for comparison with the earlier findings.
2. During January 2009, 1,006 telephone interviews were conducted with a representative sample of land managers to explore their experiences of dealing with multiple environmental and rural bodies and with SEARS. This was complemented by a series of workshops and a small number of in-depth interviews that focussed on customers' experiences and views of the 'bureaucracy' they experience and potential ways to reduce this. Overall, the survey revealed that there had not been significant changes in experiences and opinions since the 2008 research, prior to the launch of SEARS, but where there have been changes these have generally been in a positive direction.
Contact with specific organisations and awareness of SEARS
3. There were no significant changes in the amount of contact that land managers reported having with the SEARS bodies in the first six months of its operation.
4. Only 29% of interviewees were aware that the nine bodies had been working together under the collective name of SEARS since June 2008. Those who were most aware of SEARS work in conservation or forestry; least aware were dairy farmers. Only 9% of interviewees had visited the SEARS website. On a scale where 1 is 'not at all useful' and 5 is 'extremely useful', the website received a reasonable score of 3.08.
Reducing bureaucracy
5. The findings from the workshops identified processes of registration and reporting as the most common causes of what land managers considered to be duplication in different organisations' information requirements. There was a perceived overlap or duplication in the information collected in the IACS system (for Single Farm Payment application) and that sought for the Scottish Government Agricultural Census. This was the most frequently mentioned example of (perceived) duplication, although participants also identified duplication in other sector-specific requirements (notably, UK registers for poultry and sheep and BCMS data).
6. Land managers expressed frustration with the number of inspection regimes they had to satisfy, many by bodies outside SEARS ( e.g. retailers, quality assurance bodies and local authorities). Although it was acknowledged that not all bodies use the same standards, or have the same needs, it was a source of frustration that land managers had to make their records, property, or animals accessible to many different organisations.
7. A review of the paperwork land managers may be required to complete by the nine SEARS organisations identified 200 separate forms. Participants understood the rationale for most of these, which is usually linked to a productive or developmental activity. The only administrative burden that received repeated criticism in the workshops was the NVZ recording process, for its complexity and the level of detail required. The NVZ guidance had been issued around the time of the research, which may account for its prominence in people's minds.
8. Although the research was not intended to explore experiences of SRDP, several workshop participants expressed considerable dissatisfaction with its operation. The forestry sector expressed specific criticism about the time taken, the lack of clarity in the process, and the difficulties faced by multi-site and multi-agent businesses.
9. Land managers were generally supportive of steps towards data-sharing and the use of single identifiers for customers, although some pointed out that not all rural businesses, communities or animal owners were already in any existing databases. It was also felt that any solution would need to be flexible enough to allow data to be stored and searched by business, by holding and by person (including distinguishing between owners and tenants).
Data-collection and data-sharing
10. In the qualitative workshops, there was strong support for systems and processes to reduce the burden of reporting and registration. Land managers acknowledged that this might require investment in IT, data-sharing and data-management, but this was supported, mainly because it would reduce the time managers need to spend to supply information.
11. Telephone survey interviewees spend an average of 1.84 hours per week completing forms and paperwork for SEARS organisations, almost exactly the same as in 2008. Completing forms for the SEARS bodies does not seem the most time-consuming element of bureaucracy managers face.
12. Interviewees whose main activity is specialist poultry or forestry and, unsurprisingly, those who deal with more organisations, reported spending the most time on SEARS organisations' paperwork. Those aged 44 and under also spend more time on paperwork.
13. Eighty-three percent would be happy for data to be shared across organisations. Those in the north of Scotland were significantly more willing for data to be shared than those in the south. The benefits of sharing data were identified as less bureaucracy, less duplication between organisations, time saved, less duplication of specific information, and saving money.
14. Only 11% said they would not be happy for the SEARS partners to share data. As in 2008, most objections related to issues of confidentiality and fears that personal information would get into the public domain.
15. Sixty-seven percent of interviewees were in favour of a shared customer reference number; 14% were not; and 18% said they did not know.
16. Suggestions for the basis of a shared single reference number included it being with reference to the holding (59%), the business (17%), the Croft Reference Number (10%), or the person (3%). Benefits associated with each identifier included simplicity/ease of use, permanence and the fact that the cited identifier is already used ( e.g. holding). Twenty-four per cent of those not in favour of a single reference number said they could manage and were happy with the current system; 17% thought it could result in more confusion.
Organisational overlap
17. Relatively small proportions of land managers had experienced difficulty in identifying the correct organisations to deal with, or had experienced any overlap in the functions of the SEARS bodies.
18. Eighty-eight percent said that they had never faced difficulties in identifying the most appropriate organisation to deal with specific issues. Participants most likely to have experienced difficulties were those whose main activity was tourism/recreation, forestry or 'other'. Eighty-four percent of interviewees had experienced no overlap. Most likely to have done so were those whose main activity was forestry or estates.
Visits and inspections
19. The majority of participants who receive a personal visit or inspection from the SEARS organisations do so at least annually. The percentage of participants receiving at least one personal visit from RPID in the last 12 months was 25% (down from 30% in 2008).
20. The main purpose of personal visits was: inspections; provision and requirement of advice and guidance; or pursuing a licence application/ exemption. The majority of interviewees were required to be present, at 76%-100% of the visits.
21. Nine percent of all participants had noticed a change in the way inspections had been undertaken in the last 12 months, which is consistent with SEARS targeting specific inspection regimes and the very recent introduction of any changes. Fifty-one per cent thought the changes they had noticed were positive, 42% thought they were negative. A slightly higher proportion of those whose main activity is forestry or estates had noticed change.
Organisation of services
22. Interviewees were asked to rate their level of agreement with statements about the organisation of Scottish environmental and rural services on a scale where 1 was strongly disagree and 5 was strongly agree. As in 2008, the highest level of agreement, with a mean score of 4.18, was with the statement that they would "prefer to deal with specialist staff in organisations focused on specific issues". Those whose main activity was forestry or estates were most in agreement with this.
23. Asked if they thought that a local office staffed by personnel from each organisation would provide a better service, 55% thought that it would. Participants were asked if they believed that an integrated approach would be appropriate for Scotland's rural areas and 65% thought that it would be.
Specific opportunities
24. In the SEARS programme, several specific activities or opportunities have been identified where co-ordination, co-operation or rationalisation of services would be beneficial to land managers.
25. Of the opportunities where SEARS could, or has, started to deliver an integrated service, 34% of participants said 'None' affect them. Of those opportunities which do affect or have an impact on participants, these were believed to be handled relatively effectively (mean scores ranged from 3.28 to 4.39 where 1 is very inefficient and 5 very efficient). Encouragingly, most effectiveness scores had increased since 2008. On some specific activities, even those who would have been affected had noticed little or no change.
Satisfaction with organisations
26. Overall, individuals' satisfaction with their contact with the separate SEARS partners was slightly improved on the 2008 results. On a scale, where 1 was dissatisfied, 10 was very satisfied, the mean score for the SEARS family was 7.47 (7.21 in 2008). It is encouraging that, during what have been challenging times, satisfaction with the SEARS family has actually increased.
27. It is early days for the SEARS programme and it is not surprising that some of the changes that have been introduced, however positive, have not attracted a great deal of attention from land managers. There is certainly some awareness of activity by SEARS, but work may be required to ensure that customers not only experience the benefits but that they are aware that SEARS is the source of these. Nevertheless, it appears that the greatest potential for a substantially noticeable change would lie in rationalising visits and inspections undertaken by a large number of organisations outside the SEARS family.