"Public support for green farming":
more spin from the Scottish Executive

Dr James Irvine

Teviot Scientific, Cultybraggan Farm, Comrie, Perthshire

Filed 10 Sept 04
©www.land-care.org.uk

On the 6th September the Scottish Executive (SE) posted a press release on its website entitled

"Public support for green farming" (1).

"The public gives full backing to changes in agricultural policy that encourage farmers to take better care of the environment, according to an independent study into public attitudes towards agriculture.

The Scottish taxpayer takes a very positive view of the role agriculture plays in the countryside and supports the new system of subsidy payment which backs environment and rural development.

The public showed most support for policies relating to the promotion of locally grown food, enhanced quality of lochs, rivers and wetlands, enhancing wildlife habitats and maintaining farming communities.

Farming subsidies are designed to ensure that the methods used help to deliver cleaner water, enhanced wildlife habitats, attractive landscapes and support wider rural development.

Findings from the report, conducted by the Scottish Agricultural College with Biomathematics and Statistics Scotland, mirror the principles behind the Executive's Forward Strategy for Scottish Agriculture and the reforms to European Common Agriculture Policy.

Both place greater emphasis on the provision of environmental goods and measures for rural development.

Later this week Minister for the Environment and Rural Development, Ross Finnie will set out new plans under the Single Farm Payment Scheme which will raise general environmental standards in farming practice.

The Executive is also undertaking a consultation on Land Management Contracts which set out the range of social, environmental and economic benefits that farmers should consider delivering under a new system of agricultural support".

The Executive states that their comments are based on an independent study.

That study was

"Beauty, beast and biodiversity: what does the public want from agriculture. A final report to The Scottish Executive Environment and Rural Affairs Department"

Dominic Moran, Alistair McVittie - Scottish Agricultural College
and
David Allcroft, David Elston - Biomathematics and Statistics Scotland

which was also available on the Scottish Executive website (2).

The question asked here is whether or not the content of the Press Release was justified by what the report actually said.

Review of the Report

There can be little doubt that the executives of the respective organisations who produced the report will have given their approval, but that is not the same thing as being peer reviewed as understood in the scientific community. That would involve the report being scrutinised by other authorities on the subject (or related subjects) and who were independent both financially and politically from the report's authors. As the report masqueraded as being scientifically based, independent peer review as to its scientific validity would have been appropriate, especially as its purpose was to inform government policies.

Both the Scottish Agricultural College (SAC) and Biomathematics and Statistics Scotland (BSS) are heavily funded by the Scottish Executive. Indeed the Scottish Executive presumably specifically funded this report*. The situation is therefore essentially no different to the concerns that are often expressed when a drug company commissions and pays for research to be done at a university or other academic institution. There is always the worry that the research is not as independent as it should be. Is it wise to bite the hand that feeds you?

The SAC is not a university. The name university implies a certain level of academic standards. Some of the activities of the SAC seem to confuse the boundaries between what is good science and what is commercial opportunism which in the opinion of some (i.e. it is alleged) may not be based on the highest standards of science. The link between the SAC and the Soil Association is an example (3). The SAC is a charitable company limited by guarantee. It provides services either directly or through its associated company SAC Commercial Ltd (www.sac.ac.uk/corporate/companydetails).

In the apparent absence of any other form of peer review of the report, I will try to fill the gap - relying on my years of involvement in clinical and laboratory research (both nationally and internationally), my experience as founder editor of what became one of the world's leading scientific journals within its subject, my enjoyment of the countryside over many years as a recreation taker, and my major involvement in agriculture for well over a decade.

Was the research properly founded using good subject selection and methodology?

As with everything in science, unless the information (data) on which any subsequent analysis is based is sound, the conclusions that are drawn from it will lack credibility.

It came as something of a surprise to read on page 6 of the report

2.2 Qualitative research in focus groups

....six focus groups of between seven and nine participants were held, spread over three locations....Recruitment of participants, moderation and transcription of the focus groups was undertaken by qualitative researchers from NFO Worldgroup."

No other information is given in the report as to how these few members of the public were selected, other than that they were in two age groups (20-34 and 35-55), were of mixed sexes and came from three areas - Inverness, Edinburgh and Jedburgh.

There was no indication as to who the NFO Worldgroup was. Reference to www.google.co.uk gave me a telephone number in Wembley, which provided the information that the group had changed its name to TNS, a corporate company whose website claims it to be a leading market information group (4).

On contacting TNS, I was informed that the SAC/BSS project was run from their Edinburgh office who kindly provided the following information as to how the persons for the focus groups were selected.

There were two types of focus groups: rural and urban.

The criteria for inclusion in the study were:

rural focus groups: at least half were required to be involved in some form of recreation in the countryside

urban focus groups: all must have visited the countryside in the past 6-12 months for recreation.

Persons were recruited by asking them in the street or by door to door calling.

Subsequent selection was based on getting as even a mix of the sexes within each small group of 7 to 9 persons. In addition it was aimed to get an even distribution between the two age groups (20-34 and 35-55).

They were also required to be available for at least a one and a half hour session, when their comments were tape recorded by what is now known as TNS.

There was apparently no requirement to have any particular knowledge of countryside matters.

Countryside activities that counted included walking-the-dog and taking a stroll/break from the day (p12).

What was called 'countryside' within these focus groups was also remarkable. Those living in the Borders tended to view themselves as living in the countryside, so that simply leaving their homes was deemed as an encounter with the countryside. Those in Inverness perceived the edge of town to be where the countryside began, classifying Inverness as a 'small town on the edge of the countryside'. Those resident in Edinburgh unequivocally classified themselves as urban dwellers. Where they partook of their countryside recreational activities varied from the Pentland Hills to the Highlands, but the distribution of this experience within this small group was not described.

One had to ponder how such a potentially diverse range of interests could be represented by so few people.

It would appear that people classified as living in rural areas included those living in substantial urban settlements within these area. Such so-called rural dwellers are well recognised to hold predominantly urbanised views. This probably explains why the report concludes

"there was no statistical evidence for variation in preference due to whether respondents lived in urban or rural areas" p 24

The design of the research therefore seemed strongly biased towards the urbanised recreational user. The trouble with this is that the urban dweller - whether in a city or a town in a so-called rural area - is known to have little understanding of how farming/agriculture works. Yet this report - according to the Scottish Executive press release - is claimed to "mirror the principles behind the Executive's 'Forward Strategy for Scottish Agriculture' (5) and the reforms to the European Common Agricultural Policy".

It should not be too much to expect that such a report - commissioned by the Scottish Executive - should take into account the opinions of those who work in the fields, moors, hills and mountains and whose livelihood depends on the rivers and lochs. This especially so when the question was asked "what would happen if farming were to cease in Scotland?'.

The lack of knowledge about the countryside by the members of the focal groups is transparent from the comments made on page 3 of the report (para 3.2 Responsibility for the countryside).

"During the discussion it became clear that responsibility for the countryside is an area that had been afforded little previous consideration. It was acknowledged that many of the benefits of the countryside, already generated by the participants, were taken for granted to a large extent. There was little engagement with the notion that there may be an element of management behind the Scottish countryside"

Put in basic English what this rather florid writing says is that the members of the focal groups did not have a clue how the countryside works.

At this point I was wondering what the terms of reference were for the report to be written in the first place. Strangely, I could not find any clear statement within the report which laid out what the Scottish Executive was commissioning - what exactly was the remit from the Scottish Executive?* Perhaps that explains why the report has such a strange name: "Beauty, beast and biodiversity".

A Postal Rating Survey

Emerging from the focal group stage of the study and based on a literature review (stated to be included as an Annex but not available on the Scottish Executive website*), was a further stage which involved a postal rating survey which in turn lead to a "choice experiment survey".

While the report does include a few of the questions put to the selected participants, one has to wonder how they could reasonably answer if they were so uninformed about country matters as the report itself indicates.

The justification would presumably be that the job of the researchers was to find out the views of the people, irrespective of whether they knew much about the countryside or not. But the trouble with that is that the views of people who work in and actually care for the countryside were seriously ignored - presumably because they are in a minority.

Also, without knowing what questions were asked (not just a chosen few) and how they were asked it is not possible to assess whether there was undue bias one way or another.

What if farming no longer existed?

On page 18 para 3.3 the report states that this question was asked so that

'respondents were required to give greater consideration to what farming actually contributes to the Scottish countryside".

Asking the uninformed about a subject that had not previously entered their consciousness as to how the countryside was managed, seemed to reduce this report to something not much better than a hosted chat show on TV as a form of amusement for housepersons doing the ironing. But the trouble is that this was dressed up in the report with all sorts of jargon to give the impression of science.

Who wrote this report?

The frontispiece of the report impressively states that it was prepared by the SAC and the BSS, giving the names of its authors but no indication of the positions they hold within these organisations or indeed any other indicator of their credentials.

The only information that I could get out of a quick reference to friend www.google.co.uk was

Dominic Moran

Specialisation: Formerly UCL: environment and resource economics, development economics

Dominic was a CSERGE Research Fellow from 1991 to 1996 during which time he worked on the economics of biodiversity conservation in developed and developing countries. After a few long-term assignments overseas he is now Senior Natural Resource Economist at the Scottish Agricultural College in Edinburgh. His research interests remain split between developed and developing countries; covering the economics of agri-environmental policy, forest economics, water management and biodiversity conservation. He is currently undertaking a large scale project for the Scottish Executive to determine public preferences for agriculture outputs in Scotland.

Where are the statistics?

Two authors on the staff of Biomathematics and Statistics Scotland (BSS) were cited on the report's frontispiece, but where are the statistics? The statistics seemed to be largely confined to talking in percentages with no mention of significance (Figures 4: 1-5). The main reason for this of course would be the small numbers of people taking part in the study, making statistically valid statements difficult, incredible or impossible.

Some statistics talking about 95% confidence limits were included in Figure 4.7 of the report, but what they mean is obscure. As statisticians love to do, they played around with the data to see if anything meets the criteria of a statistical test. The trouble here is that two quantitative methods of analysis (referred to as CE and AHP) were used and the results did not always agree.

The possible explanation given is revealing:

"This is perhaps due to the directness of the questions associated with the AHP" p.27

This brings me back to the point that the reader of this report has little to go on in terms of how reliably the data was collected, and therefore what it all means.

The report finds that the public do not have access to the countryside as a high priority

The report finds in its conclusions that

"...the Scottish public has preferences for existing landscapes and that the policy agenda on access is not a high priority.." (p30)

Understandably the report makes no mention of Single Farm Payments

The report does not make any reference to the new form of farm subsidy payment - the Single Farm Payment - for the simple reason that this has only recently been defined. The participants in the Report would not have heard of it at the time the data was being gathered.

It is therefore disingenuous for the Scottish Executive in its Press Release to state:

"The Scottish taxpayer .....supports the new system of subsidy payment which backs environment and rural development."

They should have added

but not at the expense of food production.

For all its failings the findings of the report were strongly supportive of those trying to make a living from farming

The findings of the report are summarized in figure 4: 1-7 of the report. There was huge support for Scottish farming, including the targeting of agricultural subsidies and payments to produce more food (not less). Only a small minority thought that farm payments result in environmental damage, or that farmers receive too much support, or that farm payments result in too much food being produced.

In response to the possible scenario of cessation of farming in Scotland, the overwhelming majority - in terms of quoted percentages - thought that the landscape would become less attractive, land would become derelict, the Scottish economy would suffer, the rural economy would suffer, fewer people would live in the countryside, food would become more expensive, land would be used for property development. Few thought that the quality of lochs and rivers would improve and just about as many agreed as disagreed that conditions would be more favourable for wildlife. It is also interesting to speculate why such a question was included in a study commissioned by SEERAD.

It is to be remembered that the work of this report in terms of getting information from respondents was being done in 2002/2003 - long before the CAP midterm review got transformed into the CAP review with radical changes advocating the downgrading of food production in favour of so-called consumer services (environment, access, tourism and the ilk).

For what it is worth, the findings of the report strongly supports Scottish farming and the way it has been farmed over the years. There is little if anything in the report that suggested that Scottish farming had not looked after the countryside well or cared for its biodiversity.

Specifically the report concludes that

"the Scottish public has preferences for existing landscapes and that the policy agenda on access is not a high priority"

Are the claims made by the Scottish Executive in response to this report justified?

The press release from the Scottish Executive in response to this report that was commissioned by them boldly states:

"The public gives full backing to changes in agricultural policy that encourage farmers to take better care of the environment, according to an independent study into public attitude towards agriculture"

Well, the report can hardly be regarded as being independent. Neither does the report really say what the Scottish Executive - somewhat selectively - claims.

Rather the report reinforces the confidence the public has had in Scottish farming over the years and clearly expresses its concern about its present welfare. The report infers that this support long predates the development of any "Forward Strategy for Agriculture" by the Scottish Executive, and it gives the lie to the fact that the public think that farmers in Scotland are producing too much food.

What the report says emphatically is that the public want more locally produced food. But the public has wanted that for as long as I can remember. In other words, the public has confidence in the product and this has little or nothing to do with the Executive's largely misguided Forward Strategy with "sustainable" this and "sustainable" that (6, 7).

The findings of the report give no support to the Scottish Executive's policy of downgrading food production in favour of environmental issues. The report finds that the public want both food production and care of the environment, and that they were quite happy with the way the landscape looks and they want it preserved.

The public especially wants locally produced food. Well, you cannot have that unless farmers can run viable businesses in terms of food production - rather than producing biscuit box scenery and paying excessive attention to "conservation" and "biodiversity".

The findings of the Report should come as no surprise

But all this should come as no surprise. After all, prior to the last election for the second term of the Scottish Parliament (and before the start of the Iraq war) BBC Newsnight conducted a poll of a thousand voters. The participants were asked to rate a list of 21 priorities for parliamentary action after the election. The first priority was for "more policemen on the beat". The second was for "more pay for nurses". Coming in third was more "more money for farmers and fishermen" (8).

The Newsnight poll was not scientific (it did not pretend to be), but neither is the SAC/BSS report (which does). Essentially they come to the same broad conclusion, but the BBC one was free. However, more than a year later there is little sign of the Scottish Parliament delivering on what the voters clearly wanted in terms of their bronze medal priority. Rather the Scottish Parliament is off on an ideological trip that bears little resemblance to reality under the misguided notion that they are backing a vote catcher.

An additional worry is that the Scottish Executive may be exerting financial pressure on those research agencies and organisations that are substantially funded by them to come aboard their crazy ship with rich pickings for those that do.

Conclusion

Could it be that the purpose of the Scottish Executive in commissioning such a project was at the end of the day to say that they had an "independent report that supported their policies"?

That might be fine if the report had been truly independent, had been properly constructed (admittedly a very difficult task) and especially if the Scottish Executive had quoted its findings in a balanced way without the inevitable spin to suit their own purposes.

* Confirmation or further information has been requested from the press office of SEERAD on these points, but as yet no response has been received. In particular Land-Care has not received any annexes that were attached to the report.

References

1. Scottish Executive Environmental and Rural Affairs Department (2004). Public support for green farming. Press release, 6th September 2004
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/News/Releases/2004/09/06095042

2. Moran, D., McVittie, A., Allcroft, D. and Elston, D. (2004) Beauty, beast and biodiversity: what does the public want from agriculture?
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/library5/agri/bbbwdp-oo.asp?mode=view

3. Irvine James (2003). Agriculture: the primary health service? Soil Association and SAC conference - Paisley 28th May, 2003. High in hype but pure in credibility.
See FOOD HOMEPAGE, filed 29 May 03, www.land-care.org.uk Click Here to View

4. TNS: www.tns-global.com

5 SEERAD (2001). A forward strategy for Scottish agriculture.
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/library3/agri/fssa-OO.asp

6. MacKerron, D.K.L., Hillman, R. J. and Duncan, M. J. (2003). Sustainability in agriculture.
http://www.scri.ac.uk/Document/AnnReps/02Indiv/06Sustai.pdf

7. Irvine, James (2003). Sustainability in agriculture.
See ENV|RONMENT Homepage, filed 07 May 03, www.land-care.org.uk Click Here to View

8. Editorial (2003). The public supports Scottish farmers and fishermen more that the pollsters imagined.
See FISHING Homepage, filed 02 Apr 03, www.land-care.org.uk Click Here to View

Finis

MENU

"Public support for green farming": more spin from the Scottish Executive