Agricultural reform: environmental report - strategic environmental assessment

Chapter 1 Approach to the Assessment

Requirement under the 2005 Act

The Screening Report for the SEA of the Agricultural Reform confirmed that the Agricultural Reform falls under Section 5(4) of the 2005 Act and therefore an SEA is required.

Schedule 3(6) of the 2005 Act requires the Environmental Report to consider:

“The likely significant effects on the environment, including (a) on issues such as – (i) biodiversity; (ii) population; (iii) human health; (iv) fauna; (v) flora; (vi) soil; (vii) water; (viii) air; (ix) climatic factors; (x) material assets; (xi) cultural heritage including architectural and archaeological heritage; (xii) landscape; and (xiii) the interrelationship between the issues referred to in heads (i)–(xii); (b) short, medium and long-term effects; (c) permanent and temporary effects; (d) positive and negative effects; and (e) secondary, cumulative and synergistic effects”.

Scoping of SEA topics

In accordance with Schedule 2 of the 2005 Act, consideration has been given as to whether the environmental effects (both positive and negative) of the Agricultural Reform are likely to be significant.

Given the anticipated environmental effects of the proposed measures that could be set out in the Agricultural Reform, it is considered that all SEA topics required to be considered by the 2005 Act should be scoped into the SEA process. These are set out in Table 2.1.

Approach to assessment

The changes identified under each Tier of the support framework are assessed against the SEA objectives set out below (see Table 2.3). Each component of each Tier has been assessed within the context of pre-existing agricultural support framework mechanisms (i.e. existing EU CAP schemes). As such, the assessment focuses on the significance of effects of the change introduced by the Agricultural Reform, against this baseline. Recommendations for changes to the Agricultural Reform and potential mitigation measures are set out for each component of the Tier.

Schedule 2 of the 2005 Act identifies criteria for determining the likely significance of effects on the environment (see Table 2.2) which are reflected in the approach to scoring.

SEA Framework

The development of a set of SEA objectives (known as the SEA Framework) is a recognised way in which the likely environmental and sustainability effects of a plan, programme or strategy can be described, analysed and compared. The framework consists of a list of ‘sustainability objectives’ referred to in the report as the SEA objectives. These derive from the review of plans, programmes and strategies (PPS) and an analysis of baseline information and key environmental issues.

The SEA Framework is set out below; each primary bullet point constitutes an environmental protection objective and the sub-bullet points set out further guidance to help guide the appraisal of each objective. The SEA Framework is structured to encompass each SEA topic; however, some topics are covered in more than one SEA objective. Table 2.3 details each SEA topic and the corresponding SEA objective(s).

1. Biodiversity, flora and fauna

• 1: Biodiversity, flora and fauna: Protect, maintain, and where possible, enhance designated sites, habitats and protected species.
  • Does the Agricultural Reform and enhance designated and undesignated ecological assets, including promoting habitat connectivity; avoiding fragmentation; and adverse impacts on habitats and species from climate adaptation-related changes to air quality, water quality and soil quantity?
  • Does the Agricultural Reform support the restoration of habitats, including coastal habitats?
  • Does the Agricultural Reform support measures to prevent and control invasive non-native species?
  • Does the Agricultural Reform support maintaining and enhancing a ‘Nature Network’ of ecological assets, taking into account the impacts of climate change?
  • Does the Agricultural Reform promote the use of Nature Based Solutions, such as wetland creation, peatland restoration, or agroforestry, to deliver biodiversity gains alongside climate adaptation and mitigation?

2: Population and human health

• 2: Population and human health: Improve the health and wellbeing of the people of Scotland, particularly remote and rural communities:
  • Does the Agricultural Reform avoid adverse effects on health, health inequalities and quality of life/well-being?
  • Does the Agricultural Reform improve the resilience of communities, particularly those most vulnerable to climate change?
  • Does the Agricultural Reform protect and improve human health and wellbeing by improving the quality of the living environment of people and communities?

3a: Climate change mitigation

• 3a: Climate change mitigation: Minimise greenhouse gas emissions from natural and man-made sources.
  • Does the Agricultural Reform reduce emissions from natural sources?
  • Does the Agricultural Reform reduce emissions from man-made sources?
  • Does the Agricultural Reform support the development of low carbon and renewable energy generating and transmission sources?
  • Does the Agricultural Reform maintain and increase carbon stores and carbon sequestration?

3b: Climate change adaptation

• 3b: Climate change adaptation: Support climate adaptation and resilience to climate change impacts, including flooding.
  • Does the Agricultural Reform support climate adaptation and resilience?

4: Air

• 4: Air: Improve Scotland’s air quality and by reducing concentrations of harmful atmospheric pollutants and avoiding their emission.
  • Does the Agricultural Reform improve air quality through reduced reliance on and combustion of fossil fuels?
  • Does the Agricultural Reform reduce emissions of harmful atmospheric emissions from all sources?

5. Soil

• 5: Soil: Conserve and enhance Scotland’s soil resources and geological sites:
  • Does the Agricultural Reform safeguard and improve soil health, soil quality and quantity?
  • Does the Agricultural Reform protect, conserve and restore carbon rich soils?
  • Does the Agricultural Reform conserve designated and undesignated geological assets (geomorphology and geology interests)?

6. Water

• 6: Water: Preserve and enhance the quality and quantity of waterbodies and groundwater and reduce the risk and effects of flooding, both now and in the future.
  • Does the Agricultural Reform maintain or improve the quality and quantity of watercourses, surface water and groundwater waterbodies?
  • Does the Agricultural Reform increase the resilience of agricultural land and infrastructure to the effects of climate change, via drought and flood resilient design and nature-based solutions?

7. Cultural heritage including architectural and archaeological heritage

• 7: Cultural heritage including architectural and archaeological heritage: Conserve and enhance the character and built quality of settlements and Scotland’s historic environment and cultural heritage:
  • Does the Agricultural Reform protect, conserve and enhance designated and undesignated heritage assets and their settings?
  • Does the Agricultural Reform improve the resilience of the historic environment from the adverse effects of climate change?
  • Does the Agricultural Reform support the protection and continuation of traditional practices such as crofting, recognising their contribution to cultural heritage and landscape character?

8. Landscape, seascape and townscape

• 8: Landscape, seascape and townscape: Conserve and enhance the character and quality of Scotland’s landscapes / townscapes / seascapes.
  • Does the Agricultural Reform protect and enhance the character and quality of Scotland’s landscapes, townscapes and seascapes, particularly in designated or sensitive landscapes?

9. Material assets

• 9: Material assets: Use natural resources and energy more efficiently. Does the Agricultural Reform encourage the prudent use of natural resources, particularly scarce resources?
  • Does the Agricultural Reform minimise waste production?
  • Does the Agricultural Reform support responsible waste disposal, supporting a circular economy?

Use of the SEA Framework

The findings from the SEA are presented in SEA matrices, which describe the score of each option (including reasonable alternatives) against each of the SEA objectives along with a concise justification for the score given. The SEA matrices are presented as an appendix to the Environmental Report. Summaries of the findings for each component of the Agricultural Reform are described in the main body of the Environmental Report.

The use of colour coding assessment scores allows for likely significant effects (both positive and negative) to be easily identified, as shown in Table 2.3. A colour codes summary of scores is used in Appendix E to illustrate an overview of the assessment’s effects. The assessment framework for each objective is shown in Table 2.4.

The dividing line between environmental scores is often quite small. Where significant effects are distinguished from more minor effects this is because, using the appraisal questions and criteria and applying professional judgement, the effect of the option in relation to achievement of the SEA objective will be of such magnitude that it will have a noticeable and measurable effect compared with other factors that may influence the achievement of that objective.

The implementation of the emerging Agricultural Reform will take place on a phased basis over several years. In line with the 2005 Act, short, medium and long-term impacts (including secondary, cumulative, synergistic, permanent and temporary, positive and negative effects) are considered during the assessment. In terms, of interrelationships between topics, interactions are identified between all SEA topics.

Consideration of reasonable alternatives

Section 14(2) of the 2005 Act requires that:

The report shall identify, describe and evaluate the likely significant effects on the environment of implementing (a) the plan or programme; and (b) reasonable alternatives to the plan or programme, taking into account the objectives and the geographical scope of the Plan or Programme.

Therefore, the SEA must appraise not only the objectives and actions, but reasonable alternatives to these. This implies that alternatives that are not reasonable do not need to be subject to appraisal. It is important to note that when considering the scope of alternatives the 2005 Act does not specify whether this means considering an alternative plan, programme, or strategy, or different alternatives within the plan, programme, or strategy itself that should be assessed. Part (b) of Regulation 14(2) above notes that reasonable alternatives will take into account the objectives of the plan, as well as its geographical scope. Therefore, alternatives that do not meet the objectives of national policy are unlikely to be reasonable.

Consideration of alternatives was undertaken in discussion with the Scottish Government and NatureScot. The extent to which alternatives for the emerging Agricultural Reform could be considered ‘reasonable’ was influenced by the following factors: the legislative framework for the programme and the varied degree of committed policy and action embodied in the document, with several components of the Agricultural Reform still in the early stages of development.

Scheme-level reasonable alternatives

The Scottish Government identified several detailed scheme-level options which were considered during the development of Tiers and component schemes. The following alternative options for individual components of Tiers 1 and 2 were identified by the Scottish Government during development of these individual schemes:

• Options for new protections for peatlands and wetlands:
  • Adoption of a different definition for peatland (related to peat-depth).
  • This is considered further within this Environmental Report.
  • Adoption of stocking density measures: In addition to the protective measures introduced, stocking density measures were considered. However, a lack of data at business level and the complexity associated with validation of measures in a way that is consistent with a Just Transition, this option was not taken forward at the time.

For these reasons, this option was not considered reasonable and not assessed further within this assessment.

• Delivery options: Three options were considered for incorporating new protections into cross-compliance: A) incorporate new protections into existing GAEC (preferred option), B) create a new GAEC for protections and C) Option A or B plus additional Single Application Form.

Use of an alternative delivery mechanism is not expected to result in different environmental effects at a strategic level. Therefore, this alternative is not considered further in this assessment.

• Options for the Scottish Beef Suckler Support Scheme:
  • Payment options: Option A - single payment with added calving interval conditionality (preferred option) and Option B (reasonable alternative) - split payment between a base payment on all calves and a top-up payment on calves which meet the calving interval threshold.
  • Options for managing stakeholder concerns to mitigate the potential impact of calving interval condition on small herds (i.e. front loading (reasonable alternative) vs. small-herd derogation (preferred option [See reference 49])).
• Options for Enhanced (Tier 2):
  • Use of an alternative existing CAP scheme as the delivery mechanism for Enhanced (i.e. cross-compliance, Agricultural Environmental Climate Scheme (AECS) or Manage Application and Claims (MAC)) instead of Greening.

Alternative options for the schemes within Tiers 3 and 4 were not identified by the Scottish Government. These Tiers remain at earlier stages of development.

Strategic-level reasonable alternatives

In addition to reasonable alternatives related to the delivery of individual schemes, two strategic, high-level alternatives were identified through discussion with the Scottish Government and Consultation Authorities.

• The ‘do nothing’ scenario: The ‘do nothing’ approach is a standard option within SEAs. Legislation does not require the Agricultural Reform to make changes to the existing support framework. However, this option would perpetuate the existing EU CAP schemes within the limits of existing legislation and deliver the pre-existing policy outcomes for CAP as it was at the time. This option would have fallen short of the desired increased deliverables set out in the Vision for Agriculture which intends to push beyond the policy outcomes of the previous CAP.
  
  The assessments presented in this Environmental Report focus on the environmental effects of the change between pre-existing CAP requirements and the scheme changes introduced by the Agricultural Reform. As such, the ‘do nothing’ approach has therefore been considered within the individual assessment for each scheme.

A second strategic-level alternative was identified in consultation with NatureScot. This option considers the budget allocation.

• Options for the potential pace of budget allocation shift between Tiers within the support framework: The Agricultural Reform Route Map sets out that:
  
  ‘To give farmers and crofters an indication of how funding will be targeted, we have made three commitments:
  • over time, at least half of all funding will be targeted towards nature restoration and climate mitigation and adaption
  • 70% of funding will be allocated to Tiers 1 and 2
  • we will apply a funding split of 70 / 30 between Tiers 1 and 2’.
• This therefore presents a sliding scale of reasonable alternatives in the percentage of budget split, both between T1:T2 (currently 70:30) and between T1/T2 and T3/T4 (currently 70:30).

Assessment of reasonable alternatives is presented in Chapter 5 and Appendix D.

Mitigation proposals and opportunities for enhancement

A key part of the SEA process is the identification of opportunities to mitigate adverse effects and enhance benefits. The process also includes the development of proposals for monitoring post adoption. Initial feedback on mitigation and enhancement measures was provided to Scottish Government to allow this to be reflected in the actions as appropriate.

Recommendations for mitigation and enhancement are covered in Chapter 6.

Monitoring

Monitoring significant environmental effects is a statutory requirement within the 2005 Act. Monitoring seeks to ensure that plans avoid generating unforeseen adverse environmental effects and enables the responsible authority to undertake appropriate remedial action.

Recommendations for monitoring are covered in Chapter 7.

Difficulties encountered

The main difficulties encountered in the SEA relate to the varied degrees of detail and certainty about different elements of the Agricultural Reform. While short- and medium-term changes to be introduced in 2025 and 2026 are known and developed, other components of the Agricultural Reform remain at early stages of development. In addition, the SEA covers changes which are already in place.

The changes introduced by the Agricultural Reform are closely related to wider legislative changes across agricultural and environmental policy. The scope of this SEA focuses on the changes outlined in the Agricultural Reform Route Map, whilst recognising the context within the wider legislative framework of agricultural reform. This includes the Vision for Agriculture and the forthcoming Rural Support Plan.

Many of the changes introduced by the Agricultural Reform are building on pre-existing CAP schemes. The assessment has sought to focus on the magnitude of environmental effects in relation to the change being brought about by the Agricultural Reform. In some cases, this was challenging to assess as it required an analysis of pre-existing CAP mechanisms to accurately reflect baseline and the magnitude of change. Further to this, while the changes introduced by the Agricultural Reform could be assessed, there is considerable uncertainty around the scale of these changes (e.g. the number of farms or land area that these measures would be applicable to). This created challenges for identifying the magnitude of change at a national level.

The context of Tier 4 of Agricultural Reform refers to increased education, knowledge sharing and training. The scale of environmental effects achieved through these is difficult to assess as they are more dependent on the design of schemes, as well as the reach, uptake and influence they have.

Regarding reasonable alternatives, there were several challenges in identifying alternatives that could be considered both reasonable and appropriate to the strategic nature of the assessment. There are several individual schemes which make up the support framework and therefore numerous alternatives that could be considered in their development. Additionally, more strategic options regarding the overall structure of the support framework have been included.

The Agricultural Reform is an incremental and continuously evolving programme of change. As such, varying degrees of information and certainty about the future development of individual Tiers and delivery mechanisms are known at the time of the SEA. This means that the assessment varies in detail, with some elements having higher levels of uncertainty.