Better farming regulation not less
Farming, like most sectors, is subject to a wide range of rules and regulations but in recent years the industry has made the charge that it is subject to too much ‘red tape and bureaucracy’. In Scotland, this led to the Government asking Brian Pack OBE to conduct an independent review. The ‘Doing Better Initiative to Reduce Red Tape in Agriculture’ recently produced an Interim Report with 66 recommendations and Mr Pack has invited comments.
As a major land owner and active farmer ourselves, we understand the frustration felt by many farmers faced with unnecessarily bureaucratic administration. But, we believe that regulation (alongside other policy tools) has a vital role to play in helping farmers meet high standards which are good for business in the longer-term and assist in delivering competitive advantage, reducing costs and protecting natural resources. After all, Scotland trades on its clean, green and healthy environment in marketing its goods and produce, and the benefits of regulation – for farm businesses and society more widely – are seriously underplayed by Pack in his report.
An assessment of the costs and benefits of regulation in England by Defra stated that ‘...where £1 is spent on regulation (mainly by businesses and public authorities), there is a £2.40 return to society (mainly economic benefits to business and the public and environmental and health benefits). It seems likely that this ratio (2.4:1) may understate benefits compared to costs...’ I wonder what a similar assessment in Scotland would show? Why hasn’t Pack even looked at that?
One question we do need to ask is ‘where does all this red tape and bureaucracy come from’? The report acknowledges at the start that much of the burden farmers complain about – form filling, complex rules and subsequent inspections – comes not from environmental or other legislation but from farmers voluntarily claiming payments under various schemes of the Common Agricultural Policy. Such payments – funded by taxpayers - amount to almost £700 million each year in Scotland. The audit burden surrounding these payments is necessarily stringent to ensure that public money is spent effectively and fraudulent claims are not made. Whilst steps can clearly be taken to streamline application processes and inspections, and the report offers some ideas on how to do this, it should be no surprise to anyone that money from the public purse inevitably – and rightly - comes with strings attached.
One area the report does make a number of helpful recommendations on is the need to improve information, guidance and advice to farmers on complying with legislation. Work carried out in the last few years by the Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA) in priority water catchments has highlighted widespread non-compliance with simple rules designed to protect the water environment. These rules include not applying fertiliser too close to water and not cultivating land within 2m of any surface water or wetland. SEPA staff walked 5,000 km of waterways and identified over 5,000 breaches of these rules – roughly 1 per km. SEPA is now undertaking follow-up contact with land managers to advise them of breaches and to give advice on how to remedy this. But it is also critical that SEPA follow up this advisory approach with enforcement where land managers do not remedy these breaches. Similarly, with large numbers of SSSI's in unfavourable condition due to overgrazing and agricultural operations we should be pressing to know why Government isn’t tackling what appear to be some serious breaches of the rules.
Publicising the requirements - and showing why they are important - is a first step. But so is proper implementation and enforcement of regulation, particularly regarding the environment. This is an issue we raised with Brian at the start of his review but which is largely overlooked in the report. It’s an area we think the Scottish Government could do far better in. A good example is in relation to Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations which are in place to protect uncultivated and semi-natural land from certain damaging farming practices but which, in our view, are being very poorly enforced indeed. Looking at England, Wales and Northern Ireland as a benchmark clearly reveals Scotland is way off the pace. And this stuff matters if our countryside is to be something that continues to provide a home for nature and our producers can claim that caché of stewardship of a world class environment. The risk is that our competitors might ask a few hard questions about our commitment.