Annex 2: Overview of responses to the first call for evidence
The initial call for written evidence to the Inquiry ended in October 2009. This call for evidence was conducted to canvas the views of organisations and individuals on the remit of the Inquiry and test the stakeholders views of the options for going forward.
Overview of responses
The Inquiry invited respondents to consider 3 general questions followed by 10 more detailed questions relating to the future support of agriculture
A total of 105 responses were received, comprising 58 responses from individuals and 47 from organisations. Some respondents addressed all of the questions asked in the call for evidence while some focused only on those within their remit or field of interest. Amongst the organisational responses received, the highest number came from within the farming sector.
The following section shows the main themes which emerged in relation to each question.
Delivering sustainable economic growth
The key theme to emerge in relation to the first question was the need for a broad definition of sustainable economic growth. Other key themes included:
- That future funding needs to be structured around achieving specific public benefits.
- That financial support should be tied to specific outcomes.
- The need for a variety of support mechanisms aimed at innovation and better business practices.
- The need to move away from the historic system of entitlements.
- That payments should be targeted at those involved in active farming or production.
Ensuring high productivity
Over half of those responding to this question acknowledged that agricultural production and biodiversity protection can go hand in hand.
Many thought sustainable or optimal production, rather than high productivity, should be the target for future support. Many respondents noted that good land management can produce both the food and fuel needed as well as public goods and benefits; incentives and rewards should be aimed at farmers and land managers who manage their land in a way that produces these benefits. Others felt that support should be targeted both at environmental measures and at ensuring viable farm businesses. There were also calls (from around one fifth of those respondents who answered this question) for the diverse nature of Scotland's farming land to be considered when assessing future support schemes and respondents thought that areas should be used for the production they are best suited to.
Delivering targets on Climate Change
The majority of those responding to this question identified encouragement for renewable energy or alternative fuel production by farmers and landowners as being a desirable area to support. The main practical measure, identified by over one third of respondents in relation to delivering the Climate Change targets, was the role of carbon sequestration or carbon storage. Respondents also expressed opinions on farming methods and practices in relation to meeting the Climate Change targets. In addition, respondents discussed sources of, and conditions for, funding and financial assistance to help achieve the changes needed to meet the Climate Change targets.
Distribution of Pillar 1 funds
Many responses directly mentioned the need to move away from an historic base for calculating payments. Again, a main theme to emerge was that support should only be directed at those actively farming or managing their land. More respondents felt that payments should be tied to the land, or the person actively farming the land, than felt they should be tied to the landowner.
Many respondents mentioned that any system introduced should be fair, transparent and/or simple with clear objectives with support targeted at producing social, public, economic and environmental benefits as well as at food production. Around a fifth of respondents were in favour of an area-based system than were against the idea and felt the use of Macaulay Land Use Classifications should be explored. Others suggested that land types could be used as a basis for distribution. Whichever system is to be used, respondents wanted to see support targeted at those areas in most need. With help for new entrants and restrictions of trading in entitlements also being key themes.
While many respondents felt that the current system should be changed as soon as was practical to enable a long changeover period, over a third asked for a transition period and emphasised the importance of ensuring that farmers have adequate notice of changes.
Securing public benefits
The majority of respondents felt Pillar 1 payments should be conditional on meeting some standards. Building on the current cross compliance system was seen as important by over a fifth, while a slightly smaller number saw current conditions as sufficient. The main theme to emerge, once again, was that support should only be given to land under active management. One quarter of respondents also mentioned the need to ensure support was directed at those producing food.
Pillar 1 and the Less Favoured Area Support Scheme
Respondents were fairly evenly split over whether Pillar 1 and Pillar 2 payments should remain separate or be merged into a single scheme or payment source. One quarter of respondents commented that the Less Favoured Areas Support Scheme ( LFASS) should be used to support land in High Nature Value land, disadvantaged or marginal areas. One main theme to emerge in relation to the LFASS was the importance of support for livestock farmers in these areas.
Payment levels and activity
Many respondents noted the need to link payments to farming activity or that the payment should be focused on those individuals who are genuinely active in farming. Over 10% of respondents also mentioned the need to link payments to delivered public benefit or the provision of public goods. Slightly fewer felt payment should be related to productivity.
Inclusion in future schemes
Almost all respondents agreed that future schemes should cater for agricultural holdings currently outside the SFP scheme. A main theme emerging at this question was that future schemes should cater for anyone who can meet eligibility criteria and comply with the relevant environmental conditions attached to payments. Support for active farmers or land managers was again highlighted as important and, again, some (one fifth of) respondents felt that schemes should encourage new entrants into Scottish agriculture.
Diminishing budgets
Many respondents stressed the need for any support payment schemes to be more focussed or targeted with clear objectives. Other key points included:
- The need for stringent negotiations with a view to retaining as much funding as possible.
- Advance notice of any changes was seen as important.
- The importance of paying support only to land under active management was reiterated.
- One other key theme was the importance of securing food production in the face of diminishing budgets.
Balance of Pillar 1 and Pillar 2
Respondents were split over where the balance of funding should be, with similar numbers favouring each Pillar and a similar number again in favour of a move away from the Pillar system. Over 10% of respondents commented on the complexity and inaccessibility of Pillar 2 measures and 10% suggested delivering enhanced public benefits through Pillar 2 measures with Pillar 1 support remaining for basic activity.
Targeting of future support
The majority (around two thirds) agreed that future support be targeted and that transformational change needs to be supported to address the challenges of agriculture in Scotland. The need to develop collaboration was also seen as important by around one third of respondents.
Scottish priorities
The priority mentioned by the highest proportion of respondents (one third) was identified as food security and production while another was the need to recognise the differences in Scottish land types and climate and the high proportion of HNV land in Scotland. The importance of support for rural communities, economies or sustainable rural development was also highlighted, as was the importance of halting the decline in livestock numbers, climate change and sustainable land use.