« Previous | Contents | Next »
Listen
5.0. Report on Workshop Discussion to Understand the Impact of Merging the JAC and the SAF
This report aims to cover objective 5, namely ' to discuss with key members of RIPD and REAS current, planned and potential developments which could have a bearing on the closer integration of SAF and JAC'.
It presents findings from a half day workshop conducted within Pentland House with a number of key personnel involved with the administration of the single application form ( SAF) and the June Agricultural Census ( JAC).
5.1. Details of the Workshop
The meeting was conducted on the 26 th March 2008 and was facilitated by members of the research team, namely Keith Mathews ( MLURI) and Alan Renwick ( SAC),. Previous to the meeting, all Scottish Government staff were supplied with drafts of this report in order to familiarise themselves with the work conducted and the issues raised by these reports.
Attendees
In total, 3 members of the Analytical Services staff, and 9 people for the Rural Payments Department attended.
Format of the Workshop
The format of the workshop followed a number of key stages. When arrived, participants were welcomed Keith Matthews and were provided with a statement of the purpose of the workshop as well as introducing members of the research group and project manager (Adam Krawczyk).
This was followed by presentations of the key outputs by Keith Mathews, which outlined the major points of the SAF- JAC analysis. After this participants were allowed a ten minute session for clarification and questions regarding the output.
Participants were then split into two groups and asked to conduct a SWOT blitz exercise, facilitated by the research partners. The question participants had to consider was 'Can SAF data meet JAC requirements?'
Essentially this exercise allowed individuals to produce a number of post-it notes and then allowed grouping of these statements within the SWOT matrix. In total this took around 30 minutes to conduct this exercise.
A plenary session was then conducted to review the results of the SWOT exercise and to identify and clarify the organisational and operational requirements of the central question. Further discussion of how these changes could be implemented, with Keith Matthews as chair, was conducted.
5.2. Results
Results of the SWOT Blitz
The question asked was ' Can SAF data meet JAC requirements'. Full results of the SWOT blitz are included in Appendix 1. What follows is a summary of the main strengths and weakness identified by both groups.
Strengths
Major strengths identified by the groups were expertise offered by the two ( JAC and SAF) groups who have an understanding of the datasets. Similarly, there is a large degree of overlap, as around 89% of areas are common between datasets. However, the SAF may provide more accuracy, due to its underlying payment and inspection requirements.
Hence, a strength would be complementarity between the two data sets, where items missing from one data set could be provided by the other dataset. A similar strength is the willingness to share data among the staff involved in the two exercises, although it was pointed out that currently JAC data can only be used for statistical purposes.
Weaknesses
A major weakness would be reconciling the definitions of ' Business', 'Holdings' and other entities within the SAF and JAC. A mismatch in dates on which the data are captured is another weakness, as the SAF and JAC are collected on separate dates and numbers, especially those for livestock, may have changed in-between time.
There may also be technical difficulties in exchanging data between the two data models through a lack of common identifiers, i.e. BRNS (Business Reference Numbers), otherwise real problems would occur when integrating from an IT point of view
Unlike the JAC, which covers all farm holdings, there is an issue of coverage with SAF as it only represents the land on which payment claims are being made. There will be land on which there are no claims, or where businesses choose not to claim. In addition, the SAF population changes on a yearly basis, which would have an impact on any analysis of change within the industry.
Another issue is that this may lead to too many activity codes, as the JAC and SAF have a large number of different codes. This could mean an accumulation of codes if they were both merged. Similarly, the SAF and JAC are governed by separate legislation, which may present problems when merging the two.
Opportunities
There is an opportunity for increasing efficiencies, as it may lead to reductions in the number of activity codes, as well as farmers only having to complete one form. There would also be efficiencies from streamlining the processing by the Scottish Government, which would lead to possible cost savings and creating more freedom for staff to take on additional tasks. This could lead to savings on IT support if there is a move to one dataset. In addition, comparisons with SAF should allow evaluation and improvement of the JAC imputation process.
Threats
A major threat is the need to meet payment dates and there would be political consequences if these were not met. What is required and by whom, both statutorily and desirably needs to be resolved.
Merging the two could mean a loss of detail from the JAC, if just the SAF classes are used. In addition, merging into one form may be too large. Different requirements (esp. in the future) may mean that the two cannot amalgamate, for example the introduction of SRDP onto SAF from 2009 onwards may make SAF too complicated to accommodate all needs and requirements.
Main Points of the Plenary Discussion
The participants where then invited to discuss the implications of the SWOT blitz in order to develop a richer picture of the issues related to merging the SAF to the JAC. What follows are summaries organised under specific headings. The main notes from the discussion are provided in Appendix 2.
Process Requirements
From an IT perspective there are questions over how to handle the new 'data model' that may be needed for merging the two. There are a number of options in terms of technology, namely
- is the JAC technology frozen to handle these changes,
- is the database migrated to the SAF, or
- are there opportunities for the systems to be used for other areas.
Essentially, the SAF would be the claim mechanism behind the SRDP. Hence there could be an opportunity to rewrite the application to develop a new 'data model', and subsequent opportunities to adopt various more flexible platforms, e.g. Java etc.
In addition, some debate revolved around the data capture process. At present the majority of SAF forms are completed on paper format, but a growing number are using the web based facility (17% in 2007). In addition, with the SRDP producers are being forced down an on-line route, through information provision at the application stage.. Hence, if produces have a positive experience of this it may encourage more on-line usage. Consequently, if there is a new system, from merging the JAC and the SAF, there opportunities for more web based entry which improves flexibility, allows more data checking on-line and reduces processing costs.
However, this opportunity may be treated with caution as there are a number of producers happy to use the paper form, which is extremely straightforward for someone who maintains the same amount of land and activities on a year to year basis. Similarly, merging may have to be conducted whilst both systems are running and, it has to be emphasised that it is essential that there is no disruption to normal business. Some of the group argued that if it were to threaten payment on the 1 st December then it would not be worth doing. However, it could also be argued that the merging of the two is driven by a desire to streamline bureaucracy.
Timing Issues
There are different elements of timing within the forms to consider. Namely, what is the difference between land use of the 15th May to the 1 st June? The single farm payment is now based on activity on a single day. However, it is questionable whether the two week gap in reporting would have a significant impact on measuring land-use activities.
Use of Other Data Sources
The rest of the UK are using BCMS data for cattle instead of the census which has been accepted by the EU, after Defra have used some modeling to estimate precise requirements.
There is an issue with matching the JAC to the BCMS, as a recent SAC study had problems matching the two, in fact finding negative cattle numbers between parishes. There are other sources, such as the sheep and goats inventory, and after the introduction of the tagging directive these will record movements of livestock.
On a wider note, EUROSTAT are currently looking at requirements for the next decade and it looks like every member state would have to collect information through a survey of agricultural production methods, e.g. irrigation. The question is whether it is collected separately or as part of a census.
Streamlining the Form
There is an opportunity for the SAF to move away from numerous codes measuring specific activities, e.g. no collection of spring barley, just a general set of crop codes.
In terms of streamlining the efficiencies within the form, there are still codes that are land use related from non-eligible areas, which may be from previous administrations.
5.3. Options for Change
Given this debate there were a number of options for change identified by the group, namely:-
- we don't change anything;
- we reduce the quantity of the SAF, which is something can be done easily and presented as a reduction in bureaucracy and may be welcomed by farmers;
- we reduce the JAC, which might be possible by using alternative data sources and statistical modelling to meet EC statistical requirements
- combining the two forms
Some of the group argued that items 1 & 4 may not have majority support, but there is an appetite for change and improvement. An option to consider, they argued is number 2 and 3, where the SAF or JAC are simplified. This is driven by the need to focus on securing payment deadlines for farmers and not diverting resources to create awareness of the merging forms etc. However, others argued, that a 'mock-up' form could be made to fully appreciate the implications of merging the two.
Stakeholder Presentation
Essentially, producing a 'mock up' would be important in presenting the idea of merging to the stakeholders. It could also be used to test the form with some piloting. In addition, some cost-benefit analysis may have to be conducted to understand the various options.
The legal requirements have been mapped within Section 1.1., however some categories within the JAC and SAF may not have a direct requirement to collect them, but there is a requirement for calculation of farm income etc. Consequently, there is a question whether Eurostat can be convinced that some areas can be modeled instead of directly collected.
It has to be made clear on the forms sent out that the JAC form is for statistical purposes, i.e. not for assessing individual farms. A disclaimer on a joint form would have to be provided. Though there would have to be some consultation with the legal department regarding this.
« Previous | Contents | Next »