Scottish Government

Appendix 1: Full results of stakeholder survey

A total of 846 responses were received, split between the groups as follows:

• RSS 228
• CPS 205
• OAS 60
• Non-participant 353

The first part of the results is presented in section 1.1 below, and outlines the demographics (farm size, farm type etc.). Any immediately evident differences between the groups are highlighted. The second part in section 1.2 analyses the responses to the parts of the questionnaire investigating the schemes and impacts.

1.1 Demographics

Farm size

The total area of farmland covered by the questionnaire survey was just under 295,000ha (excluding 50 respondents who opted not to complete this part of the questionnaire). Despite 42% of the respondents being non-participants, that land only made up 27.2% of the total, whereas the CPS participants alone (24% of the respondents) farmed just under 100,000ha (34%). This suggests that participant farmers had larger farms than non-participants, a fact borne out in Table 1.1.

Table 1.1 Farm size

The average farm size of a participant was 463ha, almost double that of the average non-participant. CPS farms were by far the largest at 522ha, with RSS and OAS farms being fairly similar in size. Having said that, the OAS farms were highly skewed towards larger sized farms: 25% of OAS respondents had farms of 500ha+, compared to 7.1% for non-participants, and 40% higher than the average for participants.

It is also noteworthy that the bias towards large farms seems to have lessened with the introduction of RSS over CPS - and it may be that this is no longer the barrier it once may have been. However, the issue of small farm size as a barrier to joining a scheme is also addressed in section 1.2.

Farm type

Each respondent was self-categorised by farm type and the results presented in Table 1.2. The initial findings from this data include:

• Participants were much more likely to be mixed farms - but this hides some intra-scheme differences;
• RSS had an increased number of arable farms, but a lower number of sheep farms. In part this may be a factor of high numbers of sheep farms already participating in existing schemes;
• OAS was dominated by sheep farms, with a lower mixed element (related to large farm size i.e. hill farms);

Table 1.2 Farm type

Farmer age

Broad age ranges of the participant and non-participant farmers were identified and the results presented in Table 1.3. Key findings are:

• Participants tended to be slightly younger than non-participants, as shown by the greater numbers of non-participants in the over 65 group;
• It is difficult to see a pattern in the data, but there was a concentration of RSS and CPS participants in the 41 to 50 range;
• The age range of OAS participants was slightly different, with nearly twice as many 55 to 59 year-olds compared to other participants and non-participants; also, the number of farmers aged 60+ was only 15% of the number of other participants aged 60+, and only 10% of the number of non-participants aged 60+.

Table 1.3 Farmer age

Organisation membership

To assess a broad measure of connection with environmental interests, membership of key organisations were identified and presented in Table 1.4. The initial main findings are:

• Membership of organisations was higher in participants, particularly of Historic Scotland and FWAG.
• CPS participants tended to be slightly more likely to have a membership(s) than others. Whether this is a cause or effect can only be speculated.
• OAS participants were less likely to be a member of any organisation than even the non-participants (with the exception of FWAG). This phenomenon may be a factor of farm size, and is particularly notable for wildlife charities.

Table 1.4 Organisation membership

1.2 Qualitative responses

The attitudinal responses and reasons offered by both participants and non-participants to specific areas of inquiry are explored in this section.

In those questions where a graded response ( e.g. extremely important = 1 and not important = 5) was requested, initial analysis focused upon a simple averaging of responses for comparative purposes. Consideration was given to subsequent analysis of a weighted scoring system to increase differentiation of the results. However a more accurate interpretation of the results is presented using graphs representing the individual percentage responses. The percentage data records for participants and non-participants are included in full in Appendix 5. Selected data are presented graphically within the following sections.

In each of the following sections, a specific theme is addressed and key findings from the participants and/or non-participants are highlighted. This data is subsequently supported by findings derived from additional comments provided by the participants and non-participants. Selected and direct quotations are used to further illustrate these findings.

Reasons for joining or not joining schemes

Reasons for joining a scheme were identified from 'extremely important' to 'not important'. Identical questions were used for RSS and CPS participants. OAS participants were offered an adjusted set of reasons to complement the nature of this particular scheme.

a) Participants

The most significant of a range of identified reasons for applying to join RSS or CPS are detailed in Figure 1.1. There were clear levels of importance attributed to environmental factors, including both increasing the variety of biodiversity and improving the landscape. The levels of importance given to the annual and capital payments are also detailed in Fig 1.1, and support the relative importance attributed to the financial benefits. The support attributed to fencing and to dykes and hedging is also likely to be directly linked and incentivised by the associated capital payments. In comparisons between RSS and CPS, there is an evident and high degree of consistency in these overall results.

The majority of all comments added to the participants' reasons for applying to join RSS (n = 75) reflected and supported either (i) an environmental interest or responsibility particularly for wildlife and landscape, e.g.: " To improve the farm for wildlife and keep it in good order for future generations", and/or (ii) the financial benefits including linkage with CAP reform e.g.: " To claim back subsidy payment". Almost all the CPS (n = 82) comments were broadly equivalent to RSS with an approximate split between environmental and financial benefits, but without specific reference to CAP reform and changes to agricultural support payments. Many comments reflected a combined reason for joining e.g.: " Financially assist income to allow stock reduction to help maintain environment".

Fig 1.1 Reasons for joining the scheme

Other reasons offered by RSS and CPS participants included a few with implications of positive peer pressure such as " long time supporter of FWAG and its aims". However, knowledge of people who had found RSS or CPS to be successful was not an important factor in the decision making process to join the respective scheme, as indicated in Fig 1.2.

Other noteworthy comments referred to the role that RSS and CPS can provide in the wider management context of the farm as a whole, e.g.: " to collect a fragmented conservation programme into a coherent scheme", " help to comply with ever increasing cross compliance", " making some value of the unproductive areas of the farm".

Fig 1.2 Importance of knowing people who have found the scheme to be successful

The factors and attributed levels of importance given by OAS participants did not indicate any initial pattern(s). However, the comments from OAS participants (n = 26), as with RSS and CPS, strongly reflected financial benefits, with one half of respondents citing this as a reason for joining the scheme. Some examples included alongside a secondary reason e.g.: " Income in the first instance, but now more enjoyment from farming". There were no comments directly related to the environment in the same way as for RSS and CPS, but a small number cited separate factors including a desire to get "out of the rat race", animal health concerns, and having a farm which was nearly organic anyway prior to applying.

To add further endorsement to the key reasons for joining, participants were asked to rank four key statements of importance in the decision made to join a scheme. The rankings of three of these reasons are compared in Fig 1.3 between RSS and CPS. Participants' role in the upkeep of the environment was supported, but concurrent with the value attached to needing the money to pay for the work.

OAS participants showed a decreased emphasis on the relative importance indicated for upkeep of the environment compared with RSS and CPS. However, the reason for joining that 'payments made it a good business move' was clearly ranked very highly by OAS participants; this reason is not ranked quite so highly with RSS and CPS. This was also supported by the equivalent ranking attributed to the need '…for payments to cover the cost of conversion'. In addition, participants were asked to rank reasons if they were intending not to reapply to RSS (covering both RSS and the closed CPS schemes) or OAS. No clear patterns were evident for the former schemes, but a high proportion of OAS participants (60%) were not intending to reapply. Of these (n = 37), over 80% ranked insufficient payments as the primary reason, as detailed in Fig 1.4.

The fourth reason, the 'Scheme pays me to do what I would do anyway', indicated no discernible ranking pattern from any of the scheme participants, thus the respective graphs are not presented.

Fig 1.3 Ranked reasons for joining scheme

Fig 1.4 Ranked reason for not joining maintenance element of OAS - "The payments are insufficient" (n=42)

b) Non-participants

The most significant of a range of equivalent reasons to elicit levels of importance given for not applying to a scheme are presented in Fig 1.5. There was not as strong a pattern of importance attributable to annual and capital payments as indicated with RSS and CPS, but 40% of non-participants still rated these factors as significant. Again, there was a low level of importance attributed to knowing people who have found the scheme to be unsuccessful. However, there were some concerns with the knowledge required for non-participants to accurately answer parts of this comparative set of questions.

Fig 1.5 Importance of factors influencing non-application by non-participants (n=353)

Comments were received from a large number of non-participants (n = 141), of which those most frequently cited, broadly reflect negative concerns with time, bureaucracy and/or interference with their farming decisions etc. (32). These are demonstrated in the following examples: " A desire to keep bureaucracy as far away as possible - desk drivers and farming are incompatible", and " Difficult to get enough ranking points for entry and administration burden can outweigh small financial benefits".

There were several other reasons given with a degree of repetition from a number of farmers (the number of farmers is indicated in brackets) which are included as follows:

• Economic reasons, including a case directly relating to potential changes as a consequence of CAP reform (12), e.g. " As we are quite heavily stocked we could not really afford to have less grazing area. But with CAP reform things have changed".
• A sense of pride/desire to continue to manage their environment without schemes (12), e.g.: " I wanted to reclaim some control for the environmental work I did without having a policy enforced on me".
• The issue of age of farmer arises as a reason for not applying (11), e.g.: " Being retirement age I was not interested". This position is not consistent from broader anecdotal information and from a response picked up in a subsequent question: " As I've got older I've found the environment has become more important to me".
• The small size of a holding again is raised as an issue, which can include conversely, a perception of advantage afforded to large farms (11), e.g.: " I feel strongly that it is only the bigger farms that seem to be able to enter these schemes. I would not be able to get enough points if I applied and I would waste a lot of money trying".
• Problems arising between tenant and landlord (5), e.g.: " Need to include whole farm would have meant involving uncooperative landlord".
• Although this question was directed at non-participation of all/any agri-environment scheme, several clearly indicated their lack of belief in organic farming/products which would indicate their non-participation in OAS.

Scheme impacts on farm holding

An assessment of the levels of agreement to a number of statements directly connecting a range of impacts of the scheme upon the management of the farm holding was explored. Only those statements that indicate a clear pattern of agreement or disagreement are presented in the analysis. Identical questions were used for scheme participants. Non-Participants were asked an equivalent series of questions for comparative purposes.

a) Participants

There were clear consistencies in the levels of agreement covering a number of aspects across all three schemes as detailed in Fig 1.6. RSS, CPS and OAS participants generally indicated that they were satisfied that payments covered the cost of work involved (or of conversion in the case of OAS), but a quarter of RSS/ CPS respondents, and a third of OAS respondents, did not think the payments were sufficient. Further to this is the importance attributed to the income stream from the schemes as part of the total income from the individual holding, most notably with OAS. The findings did not indicate a pattern that scheme participation makes the management of the farm easier, but there was a clear indication that participants perceived that they manage their holdings in a more environmentally sensitive way. All scheme participants were generally pleased to have joined a scheme.

The additional comments offered in association with this area of inquiry into the scheme impacts produced a generally varied response from RSS (n = 67), CPS (n = 63) and OAS (n = 17). Several RSS and CPS participants did articulate some concerns with the lack of flexibility of scheme prescriptions. Generally there was understanding but an evident frustration with respect to grazing/cutting restrictions, e.g.: "Complicated to manage due to so many different dates and prescriptions"; the general benefit to the asset value of the individual farms: "As a tenant I am benefiting - and the landlord more so"; and a recognition of additional marketing value e.g.: " Whilst the income and capital are both important improving the environment also makes the farm produce easier to sell. Good PR etc." and "May help holiday cottage lets in the long term."

There were some clear concerns with the financial implications of annual and capital costs ( e.g. fencing) not being adequately matched by the scheme payments, particularly from CPS. However, this was not generally the case identified in Fig 1.6. A related aspect of some potential significance was identified by a comment from a RSS participant identifying the role of the schemes within the work cycles of the farm holding: " Provides work at slack times in the farm calendar".

Fig 1.6 Levels of agreement of scheme impacts on holdings

b) Non-participants

Non-participants were asked an equivalent series of questions for comparative purposes, and those that produced clear patterns of levels of agreement are detailed in Fig 1.7. The concerns around payments involved were evident, most notably the indicated uncertainty of costs and hidden costs of the schemes. Similar to the levels expressed by the participants, but less marked, is the pattern indicated that non-participants did recognise that they would manage their holdings in a more environmentally friendly way if in a scheme.

Fig 1.7 Levels of agreement of scheme impacts on non-participant's holdings (n=353)

A range of comments was offered from non-participants (n = 52) with a general antipathy and concern raised against paperwork and general interference, e.g.: " If these schemes are typical, the administration/bureaucracy would outweigh the advantages". Several (7) also recognised the positive environmental benefits that would impact on the holding, but a smaller number raised negative concerns for environmental impact, particularly in relation to increase in weeds and/or vermin.

Perceived environmental impacts of schemes

Participating farmers were asked for their assessment of the environmental impacts of the various schemes. There was a general and strong consistency of agreement between the participants of RSS, CPS and OAS, as detailed in Fig 1.8. A significant proportion of all participants (over three-quarters of RSS/ CPS and over half of OAS participants) believed there had been an increase in biodiversity ( i.e. an increased variety of wildlife), and that the schemes had increased their environmental knowledge. The positive impacts of participation on the appearance of the landscape were limited to RSS and CPS only, with no discernible pattern evident from OAS.

The additional comments offered in association with this area of inquiry into the environmental impacts of scheme participation are addressed in two parts: (i) changes in species abundance, and (ii) other environmental impacts. These are dealt with in turn as follows:

a) Perceived changes in species abundance

A high proportion of RSS participants (n = 182) responded to the question of scheme impact on abundance of plants and wildlife, over half (n = 118) answering none or variations on the negative. However, in a high proportion of these responses this was clearly perceived as due only to recent participation in the scheme, typified by comments such as " too early to say". Those who perceived an increase in species abundance frequently cited higher profile species including songbirds, gamebirds and raptors. Mammals such as rabbit and hare were also cited. Not all increases were viewed in a positive light, for example one respondent cited an increase in docks and couch grass.

In a changed status with CPS participants (n = 158), a relatively low proportion answered no or variations on the negative (26), and in only two cases was participation in the scheme typified by a comment equivalent to " too early to say". A very high proportion (130) answered positively to varying degrees, with a perceived increase in species abundance frequently cited for higher profile species including songbirds, lapwings, buzzards, and hares; also heather and wildflowers. Similarly to RSS, not all increases were viewed in a positive light, with a number (7) citing undesirable weeds including thistles, ragwort etc.

The responses from OAS participants (n = 53) were evenly spread between no or variations on the negative (18), and those answering positively to varying degrees (22). Those who perceived an increase in species abundance more frequently cited higher profile species including a variety of birds (13). Clover was also cited, as might be expected within an organic system, as well as a high proportion of undesirable weeds (9), and a single example cited of an increase in " advisers and inspectors"!

b) Other perceived environmental impacts of the scheme

RSS (n = 68), CPS (n = 73) and OAS (n = 25) participants generally provided additional positive responses but concerns were also raised in respect of weed problems. Non-participants (n = 52) were also asked for comment to an adapted question. A number thought there was no or little environmental impact of the schemes, but some recognised that there might be environmental improvements, e.g. increased bird numbers. Many were evidently proud of the environmental value of their land, and thought that scheme participation was not a prerequisite, and that managing the environment has been and is a part of their farming, e.g.: " I have always nurtured the wildlife and fauna on this farm and will continue to do so".

Fig 1.8 Perceived environmental impacts of schemes

Changes to farm management if scheme participants were not in schemes

All participants were asked to consider their farming and conservation activities if they were no longer in a scheme. The changes to specific activities for each of the schemes are detailed for comparison in Fig 1.9. A level of decrease in conservation land management was indicated across all schemes, with decreased levels of field boundary maintenance more evident for RSS in particular and CPS participants. However, a consistent and high proportion of all participants in all schemes indicated no change to either of these activities.

The levels of intensity of farming activity, measured by levels of perceived intensity of stocking and cropping, are also indicated for all schemes in Fig 1.9. Of particular note are the evident levels of increases cited for both activities by OAS participants, in contrast to the more moderate levels of change indicated by RSS and CPS participants. Again, however, a large proportion of participants indicated no change in these activities.

Fig 1.9 Changes to farm management if scheme participants were not in a scheme

Scheme management

An assessment of the levels of agreement to a number of statements directly connecting a range of impacts of the management of the schemes themselves was also explored. Only those statements that indicate a clear pattern of agreement or disagreement, or are part of a comparative dataset, are presented in the analysis. Equivalent questions were used for both participants and non-participants.

a) Participants

Both RSS and CPS participants showed some consistency in their views that the schemes are easy to implement, indicated in Fig 1.10. This was supported to a large extent by the more balanced and positive views expressed on amounts and complexity of paperwork, especially by CPS. However, a divergent pattern was indicated by OAS participants' views on the ease of the scheme's implementation, as detailed in Fig 1.10. That the paperwork is considered both too much and too complicated is also more evident.

RSS and CPS participants indicated that SGRPID/ SEERAD¹⁰ ran the schemes efficiently, as is evident from the data presented in Fig 1.11. This complements and supports the data on ease of implementation and paperwork. However, it is notable that OAS participants also rated positively SGRPID's efficiency in running the OAS scheme, in direct contrast to stated levels of agreement in the ease of implementation and negative views expressed on amounts and complexity of paperwork.

Just under 50% of the additional comments offered on scheme management by RSS participants (n = 52) broadly reflected concerns with: complexity of application procedure, delays in approval of works and lack of management flexibility. Comments also indicated that any problems with paperwork etc. were to some extent avoided by use of advisory consultants. Scottish Agricultural College ( SAC) were cited on several occasions, and Farming and Wildlife Advisory Group ( FWAG) once. A selected comment supporting this synopsis is: " The scheme and its demands are quite onerous and not particularly flexible. Its administration and entry demands are too complex. It should not require an approx ±800.00 fee from management consultants ( i.e.SAC or FWAG) to enable entry to be assured."

A substantial proportion (40%) of CPS participants (n = 47) provided favourable responses covering a range of aspects. Similarly to RSS participants, SGRPID/ SEERAD was cited on a number of occasions in either very positive or very negative responses. Evidently some participants have had good experiences, others less so. Respective examples include: " SEERAD have been as helpful as usual" and "… CPS participation needs sensitive and flexible and understanding management not only by those directly involved but also by SEERAD. The latter find it easier to police agreements rather than manage them in the spirit required". The use and role of SAC or other farm advisors was raised in only two cases.

The additional comments from OAS participants (n = 14) were an opportunity to raise concerns about the amount and complexity of associated bureaucracy, and the parallel demands of organic assurance (such as Soil Association / Scottish Organic Producers Association ( SOPA), e.g.: " Paperwork and complicated paperwork apply to Soil Association, not SEERAD which requires minimum paperwork", and " I think SOPA overcharge for all they do, seem to sit in an office making rules". There was a clear distinction between OAS and assurance schemes made by these individual participants, but it is possible that there is a blurring of the associated scheme paperwork etc. in the responses given in Fig 1.10. At the very least, the negative concerns with the assurance schemes, and the implications to OAS, need to be considered.

Fig 1.10 Scheme management

Fig 1.11 Opinions on whether SGRPID/ SEERAD runs the schemes efficiently

b) Non-participants

Non-participants were asked for their perception on the ease and paperwork associated with scheme participation, with the equivalent data detailed in Fig 1.12. Non-participants tended towards the view that the schemes are not easy to implement, and similarly to the OAS participants that there is too much complicated paperwork. No pattern was evident on the views offered about SGRPID/ SEERAD's efficiency in running the schemes.

An unexpectedly high number of non-participants responded to this opportunity to comment upon the management of schemes (n = 50). Some concerns were raised within a number of responses (14) about both the complexity and time needed for the schemes set against financial returns; general concerns about the lack of practical knowledge of the staff involved in running the schemes; and about there being no guarantee of application success. A summation was poetically described as: "The view from the 'cliff face' is not as rosy as that from the office window afar".

Fig 1.12 Opinions on scheme management - non-participant (n=353)

Further comments on agri-environment schemes

The levels of agreement to a number of more general statements surrounding the role of conservation management, farmers and scheme participation were assessed. Slightly adapted questions were used for non-scheme participants.

a) Participants

There was strong consensus across all participants that conservation management should be an integral part of farming, that it is not detrimental to this activity, that schemes do have a role in raising its awareness, and that farmers should take more responsibility for the environment. This is clearly indicated in Fig 1.13, which shows comparative datasets for all three scheme participants.

The additional comments following this part of the questionnaire provided a final opportunity to comment on the scheme(s). In the main RSS (n = 62), CPS (n = 71) and OAS (n = 20) participants took the opportunity to re-emphasise a varied range of previously stated points. In particular these addressed concerns with payment levels especially for capital works. Positive aspects were also recognised, by both RSS and CPS participants, e.g.: " Its great to be paid for what we used to do on the estate but lately we couldn't afford to do it until RSS came along…"

b) Non-participants

There was also a similar and strong consensus amongst the non-participants that conservation management should be an integral part of farming, that it is not detrimental to this activity and that farmers should take more responsibility for the environment. This is clearly indicated in Fig 4.13. There was also strong indication that generally non-participants considered that joining a scheme would raise their awareness of conservation management.

The final comments offered by non-participants (n = 69) again gave an emphasis to previously stated points, with particular concerns about red tape, paperwork and complexity of the schemes raised by several respondents (9).

Fig 1.13 General comments on the schemes