The Scottish Government

« Previous | Contents | Next »

Listen

1 INTRODUCTION

Background

1.1 The Common Agriculture Policy ( CAP) was established in 1962 and brought together farm policies from the six founding members of the European Union ( EU), or Common Market as it was then, into a set of legislation and practices to form a common policy. The CAP is a system of agricultural programmes and subsidies which results in a single market; with common rules and standards and without competition. Since its introduction it has been amended to take account of changing conditions and the entry of additional Member States.

1.2 At present there are 27 Member States in the EU and they decide on the support given to farmers. CAP payments cost over €50 billion per year which equates to around 40% of the total EU budget.

1.3 In 2003 major reforms of the CAP took place and these included proposals to reduce import controls as well as the introduction of cross-compliance which transfers subsidies to land stewardship, thus breaking the link between direct aid and production. In order to receive subsidies farmers must adhere to a set of standards; this includes environmental standards. The 2003 reforms also introduced a package of aid aimed at encouraging the production of crops for energy use.

1.4 In May 2008 the EU published their proposals for the next round of reforms; the CAP Health Check. This Health Check will review the 2003 reforms as well as looking ahead at the future of the CAP.

1.5 As some of the proposals will have a significant impact on agriculture in Scotland, the Scottish Government launched a consultation on the "Future Implementation of the Common Agricultural Policy in Scotland" to gather written views on the current proposals as well as further changes proposed from 2014 onwards. The consultation ran from 13th June until 5th September 2008.

1.6 As well as the consultation paper being placed on the Scottish Government website, the paper was also emailed or issued in hard copy to interested organisations and individuals. Responses were also received from members of the CAP Reform Stakeholder Group which, as stated in the consultation document, was established "To offer the Scottish Government advice and views on the implications for Scotland of EC proposals for CAP Reform Health Check; this will include offering views on Scottish priorities for CAP reform which emerge from wider discussion/consultation and from other analysis of the evidence base."

1.7 The consultation document asked fourteen main questions, many of which sought views on more than one topic or solicited open responses, so much of the data gathered was qualitative in nature. The questions related to particular themes in the consultation document which related to the proposed changes:

• longer-term considerations;
• potential opportunities:
  • maintain environmental benefits of set-aside;
  • help new entrants;
  • address concerns with current Single Farm Payment ( SFP) system;
  • secure the sustainability of livestock farming and crofting in Less Favoured Areas ( LFAs).

Respondents

1.8 Fifty-five written response were received:

• 51 on behalf of an organisation;
• four from individuals.

Table 1.1 - Total number of Respondents by Category

* Categories were based on those already assigned to the members of the CAP Reform Stakeholder Group, as set out in the consultation document.

1.9 Fifteen of the 18 members of the CAP Reform Stakeholder Group responded and are referred to throughout the report as stakeholders while the other organisational respondents are described as organisations ¹.

1.10 Where respondents have agreed to have their responses made public, these will be available in the Scottish Government Library and on the SG website.

Reporting and analysis

1.11 The following chapters document the substance of the analysis and present the main issues and views expressed in the responses. These follow broadly the ordering of questions in the consultation document.

1.12 Owing to the small number of responses (55) and the fact that none of the respondent sub-groups contained more than 11 respondents it was not appropriate to use a statistical analysis package and, therefore, responses were analysed qualitatively.

1.13 Responses to specific consultation questions were summarised and key themes extracted. Comments on each question were grouped together, compared and, where possible, quantified. Responses from sectors with particular expertise in, or experience of, an issue raised at a particular question were noted as were any differences in opinion between sub-groups.

1.14 Where responses did not directly answer the questions set out in the consultation, text was, where possible, assigned to a specific question and comments analysed alongside those from the questionnaire-type responses

1.15 Appropriate verbatim comments were selected both to illustrate key themes and to provide extra detail for any specific areas of interest.

1.16 Given the open nature of the questions it should be remembered that although, in some cases, it has been possible to quantify where some respondents agree or disagree with specific proposals, no assumptions can be made about the remainder as there were those who chose not to answer or who gave more general, descriptive answers.

Factual accuracy

1.17 The views presented in this analysis have not been vetted in any way for factual accuracy. The opinions and comments submitted to the consultation may be based on fact or, indeed, may be based on what respondents perceive to be accurate, but which others may interpret differently. It is important for the analysis to represent views from all perspectives. The report, therefore, may contain analysis of responses which may be factually inaccurate or based on misunderstanding or misinformation on the issues but nevertheless reflect strongly held views. In some instances, such inaccuracies and misunderstandings will be relevant findings in themselves.

Interpretation of findings

1.18 While the exercise was intended to give all those who wished to comment an opportunity to do so, views may not be representative of the Scottish population. This must be borne in mind in interpreting the findings presented in this report.

1.19 Given the primarily self-selecting nature of the respondents to any consultation exercise, it should be noted that any figures quoted here cannot be extrapolated to a wider population outwith the consultation population.

1.20 Analysis showed that where respondents were satisfied with proposals at a particular question, they tended to give fairly short replies with little detail. Where there was some uncertainty or concern, responses tended to be much longer and more detailed.

« Previous | Contents | Next »