Agricultural tenancy data collection for Scotland: findings report

Context

This section provides an overview of the context underpinning this research, informed by insights from in-depth engagement with sector experts, farmers, and land managers in Scotland (i.e., ‘stakeholders’). We first summarise our engagement approach before presenting combined stakeholder insights on the importance of agricultural tenancy data and the implications of data gaps for the wider sector. We then summarise five issues identified as potentially contributing to the quality challenges in historical tenancy data collection.

Summary of our approach

Our research approach was designed to explore practical, effective, and user-friendly ways for improving agricultural tenancy data collection in Scotland. A summary of our methodological process is included below, and further details are available in the accompanying report.

An exploratory literature review was first conducted to develop an initial understanding of the factors influencing general survey reception and response rates. This included a high-level review of international agricultural tenancy practices from other comparable countries to identify good practice and transferable insights.

In parallel, ten scoping interviews with sector experts in Scotland were conducted to explore historical and current factors influencing the quality of tenancy data, the value of collecting such data, and potential approaches for improving data collection (including from international comparators). Emerging findings from the literature review were tested, and participants were also asked to provide additional recommendations for relevant sources to supplement the desk-based research.

A diagnostic Issue Map and the long list of tenancy questions were developed following the scoping phase, reflecting the initial issues and best practice identified. The long list was then reviewed and tested with sector experts in three workshops (and one written submission), gathering feedback on a number of usability considerations. Two additional in-depth interviews were also conducted to review the legal accuracy of our materials and the feasibility of our SAF question set. Actionable feedback was integrated into the long list of questions prior to testing.

Question testing was conducted with farmers and land managers through five interviews and a survey (n=15 responses) to assess clarity, usability, and accuracy in a real-world context. Given the small sample size, the potential to draw robust conclusions was limited. To arrive at the short list of tenancy questions, findings from the testing phase were combined with prior insights from sector experts to triangulate findings and deliver evidence-backed recommendations.

The two question sets and the insights presented in this report reflect the perspectives of the stakeholders engaged during this research. These recommendations should be considered alongside certain limitations and areas requiring further investigation. Full details are provided in the ‘Recommendations’ section of this report.

Value of agricultural tenancy data

Through interviews and workshops with stakeholders, the lack of comprehensive and reliable agricultural tenancy data in Scotland was identified as a significant challenge to effective policy development and legislative oversight. Accurate data on tenancy structures was viewed as essential to inform ministerial decision-making and to support legislative changes with confidence.

Stakeholders noted that such data provides important insights into the types of tenancies held and the patterns of land tenure across the sector. It also enables monitoring of changes over time and allows decision-makers to assess the implications of these trends for the sustainability of tenant farming in Scotland.

Stakeholders reported that the lack of a robust and coordinated approach to data collection, since the removal of the questions from the JAC after 2021, limits the ability to analyse the impacts of policy and legislative changes on agricultural tenancy arrangements. In the absence of reliable data, it was considered difficult to substantiate anecdotal evidence to determine how many individuals or businesses are affected by reforms, and to assess the overall impact of tenancy-related legislation.

This gap was seen to reduce confidence in the existing evidence base underpinning policy decisions and to constrain the ability to support a sustainable tenant farming sector. Stakeholders highlighted this as particularly important in the current political context, citing issues such as the potential effects of inheritance tax changes, concerns about declines in certain tenancy types, the implications of an ageing tenant population without successors, and an apparent shift towards shorter-term tenancy arrangements.

There was support among most sector experts for establishing a coordinated and systematic approach to collecting and maintaining agricultural tenancy data. It was suggested that this would strengthen the analytical foundation for responsive and forward-looking policymaking. Improved data quality would also enable more accurate monitoring of sectoral trends, facilitate the evaluation of policy impacts, and help ensure that future decisions are based on a comprehensive understanding of the structure and dynamics of agricultural tenancies in Scotland.

Factors affecting the quality of historical tenancy data

A range of issues affecting the quality of historical tenancy data collected through the JAC was identified through engagement with stakeholders. These issues have been grouped into five overarching themes, which are summarised below. They are presented broadly in order of frequency with which they were identified.

1. Limited motivation to complete the June Agricultural Census

The most frequently raised issue related to a lack of clear motivation or consequence for completing tenancy questions in the JAC. Sector experts, farmers, and land managers reported that respondents often see no direct benefit or repercussions associated with participation, describing the JAC as “particularly elusive” in its purpose and value.

Others remarked that, with the JAC, “you don’t get any benefit, you don’t get any threat,” and that the issue stemmed from the form being optional and without incentive. Completing the JAC was viewed as “an act of public cooperation,” undertaken for the wider benefit of policymaking rather than for any personal gain. As a result, some respondents were thought to invest limited effort when completing returns, which may contribute to inaccurate responses, while others may choose not to respond at all.

Views varied as to whether this issue reflects a lack of willingness to engage or a lack of understanding of the tenancy questions. Some stakeholders suggested that certain respondents, particularly older respondents or those with more complex tenancy arrangements, may be unsure of their tenancy type or lack confidence in their responses. Others noted that responses are sometimes completed by family members who may not have direct access to relevant records, leading them to rely on memory rather than official documentation.

Although tenancy questions were generally considered to be clear and tenancy records up to date (“anybody in a tenancy knows or would be easily able to find their tenancy type”), stakeholders emphasised that, in the absence of any formal requirement or incentive, respondents may not prioritise accuracy or completeness when providing tenancy information in the JAC.

2. Competing administrative priorities

A related issue raised by stakeholders was that farmers and land managers are increasingly “overloaded” with paperwork, which reduces the priority given to optional forms such as the JAC. Stakeholders noted that, while most respondents can identify or verify their tenancy type without significant difficulty, the pressures of daily farm management mean that forms without material consequences often receive less attention compared to others, such as the SAF. As one stakeholder explained, completing the JAC can be difficult given that administration is “massive” and respondents are often juggling multiple jobs, meaning the form frequently goes “to the bottom of the pile.”

3. Complexity of tenancy legislation

The large majority of stakeholders agreed that most, if not all, genuine tenant farmers in Scotland are aware of their tenancy arrangements or could readily access their tenancy records if required. This view was supported by the survey findings. Although the sample size was small, the results indicated that the majority of respondents were aware of their tenancy types and understood the definitions of key tenancy categories and technical terms used in the form.

As such, this was not viewed as the primary cause of data quality issues in the original JAC form. However, there was broad acknowledgement by sector experts in particular that the complexity of Scottish tenancy legislation could still create confusion for certain tenancy types. While some arrangements, such as 1991 Act Tenancies, were reported to be well-understood, others – particularly Short Limited Duration Tenancies (SLDTs), Limited Duration Tenancies (LDTs), and Modern Limited Duration Tenancies (MLDTs) – were described as more “fluid” and potentially difficult to categorise. Possible complexity was also noted for seasonal and short lets, multigenerational family holdings, and informal or private agreements, especially where farmers or land managers may not consider themselves tenants, even if they are administratively recorded as such.

Further examples given included limited partnerships, which may be misunderstood as many secure tenants operate as family partnerships, and ambiguity between smallholdings and small landholdings. Crofts were also considered a potential challenge, with common misunderstandings regarding crofter status and associated legal obligations, such as definitions of “cultivate” or “use.”

However, while the farmers and land managers we engaged with recognised that tenants may not always recall the details of their tenancy agreements from memory, most agreed that this information could easily be obtained, provided respondents are motivated to do so.

4. Reluctance to share tenancy information

Stakeholders identified hesitations among respondents to share tenancy information as a potential factor affecting data quality. Farmers and land managers may be reluctant to report tenancy arrangements for fear that disclosing certain information could negatively impact them, for instance, their eligibility for subsidies, particularly for older, complex, informal, or atypical leases. In some cases, the absence of a written lease or lost documentation increases uncertainty, as tenants may worry that providing incorrect information could prejudice their legal position or lead to disputes with landlords. Stakeholders noted that these concerns can influence respondents’ willingness to seek clarification or report accurately, even when questions are clear.

Social considerations were also highlighted by stakeholders. Farmers and land managers may be cautious about sharing information that could become known within their local communities, particularly where land is viewed as both an economic and social asset. This includes sensitivity around disclosing tenancy status, landlord relationships, or previous land sales. While some stakeholders noted that the anonymised nature of the census should mitigate these concerns, the perception of potential repercussions, whether legal, financial, or social, could remain a behavioural driver affecting response rates and accuracy.

5. Survey design and clarity

Stakeholders raised several issues with the design and content of the original JAC questions that may have affected both completion rates and data quality. A particular concern was the perceived complexity of reporting tenancy areas to the nearest 0.01 hectare, which stakeholders described as “unrealistic” and “error-prone,” noting that minor changes, such as moving a fence line, could alter the reported area each year.

Some stakeholders also highlighted that pre-populated responses created a “perverse nudge,” encouraging respondents to submit answers without verifying accuracy. Others suggested that the purpose of the JAC was unclear, with many respondents not understanding how their data might be used to benefit the sector and therefore considered it “pointless.”

While the original form was generally considered “bog standard easy,” stakeholders provided some technical recommendations to improve survey design and clarity. These included keeping the questionnaire practical and accessible by focusing on essential questions and avoiding fine-grained legal distinctions that farmers and land managers may not understand, using plain language so respondents do not need legal expertise to identify their tenancy type, and clarifying terminology and scope. For example, stakeholders suggested specifying that the form refers only to land farmed in Scotland, and removing redundant questions asking respondents to sum the total area of their long- and short-term tenancies.

Terminology adjustments included using ‘tenant’ and ‘landlord’ rather than ‘rented in’ and ‘rented out,’ ‘tenanted croft’ rather than ‘rented croft,’ and clarifying that 91 Act tenancies could also be referred to as ‘full’ or ‘secure’ tenancies. Stakeholders emphasised that these targeted improvements could reduce confusion and improve the quality and completeness of the data collected.