text
large_string | id
large_string | dump
large_string | url
large_string | date
large_string | file_path
large_string | offset
int64 | token_count
int64 | language
large_string | page_average_lid
large_string | page_average_lid_score
float64 | full_doc_lid
large_string | full_doc_lid_score
float64 | per_page_languages
large list | is_truncated
bool | extractor
string | page_ends
large list | fw_edu_scores
large list | minhash_cluster_size
int64 | duplicate_count
int64 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
FLOOD RISK
1. The Flood Risk Management (Scotland) Act 2009 (FRM Act) introduced a more co-ordinated and sustainable approach to flood risk management. The Act establishes a framework for the assessment and sustainable management of flood risk with the aim of reducing the adverse consequences of flooding from all sources. The FRM Act places a general duty on Scottish Ministers, SEPA and responsible authorities (including local and national park authorities) to exercise their flood risk related functions with a view to reducing overall flood risk.
Sources of flood risk
2. Scottish Planning Policy (SPP) states that planning authorities should have regard to the probability of flooding from all sources. Sources of flood risk include:
Watercourse (Fluvial Flooding)
3. The principal cause of watercourse flooding is excessive rainfall (or snow melt) within a limited period, which overwhelms the capacity of the watercourse, particularly when the ground is already saturated. It can also arise as a result of the blockage of a watercourse and/or associated structures such as small bridges and culverts.
Pluvial Flooding
4. Flooding occurs when rainwater ponds or flows over the ground (overland flow) before it enters a natural or man-made drainage systems (e.g. a river or sewer/drain). It can also occur when drainage systems are at full capacity. It is often combined with sewer flooding and groundwater flooding.
Sewer Flooding
5. Sewer flooding occurs when the sewerage infrastructure has to deal with loads beyond its design capacity. This occurs most often as a result of high intensity rainfall events.
Groundwater
6. Groundwater flooding occurs when the water table rises above ground level. In Scotland this is most commonly associated with the movement of water through sands and gravels, often connected to the rise and fall of river levels.
Coastal
7. Coastal flooding is largely due to combinations of high tide, storm surge and wave activity raising the level of the sea above adjoining land.
Understanding flooding
8. The impacts of flooding vary at different locations. Flooding in a densely populated area presents a greater threat to life and property than flooding of agricultural land.
9. The characteristics and nature of a flood will also determine its impact. Rapid flows from flash flooding, for example, pose a greater risk to life than a steady rise in water level.
10. A good understanding of the sources and impacts of flooding, and the links between them, can help identify the right combination of actions to tackle particular flooding challenges. For example, where high rates of run-off in rural upland areas are contributing to flooding problems, measures to store or slow run-off, such as tree planting or storage ponds, may offer some benefit. In urban areas, an understanding of sources and pathways of flooding can help identify appropriate Sustainable Drainage Systems (SUDS) and influence the layout and design of new developments. An understanding of flooding can also help to identify, retain and protect any important man made or natural features which help reduce the impact of flooding.
11. Flood risk management measures can be most effective when they are coordinated across catchments. The approach to flood management should, where appropriate, extend across administrative boundaries and in a way which understands the relationships between water and flood risk at a catchment scale. An integrated approach to flood risk management, across catchments, is important, allowing for a combination of structural and non-structural approaches and mechanisms to address flooding (see Figure 1 below).
Source: Introducing a new approach to flood risk management.
Avoidance of Flood Risk/Flood Risk Framework
12. The Scottish Planning Policy (SPP) promotes a precautionary approach to flood risk. The planning system should prevent development which would have a significant probability of being affected by flooding or would increase the probability of flooding elsewhere.
13. The avoidance of flood risk, by not locating development in areas at risk of flooding, is recognised as a key part of delivering sustainable flood risk management. This is stressed in the SPP which states that the planning system should safeguard flood storage and conveyance capacity and locate development away from functional flood plains and medium to high flood risk areas.
14. The undeveloped functional flood plain provides an important flood management role by storing and conveying water during a flood and should be protected from future development. The functional flood plain generally has a greater than 0.5% probability of flooding in any given year, also expressed as a ratio of 1:200 years.
15. The SPP sets out a flood risk framework to guide development. This establishes three categories of coastal and watercourse flood risk (little or no risk; low to medium risk; and medium to high risk) and the appropriate planning approach within each category. It sets out the types of development that may or may not be acceptable depending on the level of flood risk.
16. The flood risk framework also refers to surface water flooding. Infrastructure and buildings should generally be designed to be free from surface water flooding in rainfall events where the annual probability of occurrence is greater than 0.5% (1:200 years). Planning authorities should liaise with their flood prevention team if surface water flood risk may be an issue in relation to development. Surface water hazard maps (published by SEPA in 2014 as part of their flood maps for Scotland) may provide a useful tool for planning authorities in their technical assessment of surface water flood risk and potential management solutions.
17. The flood risk framework should be read in conjunction with SEPA's Land use vulnerability guidance to aid decision making. The guidance is particularly relevant where changes of use are being proposed.
Development in areas of flood risk
18. Avoidance of flood risk may not however be practicable and possible in all cases. Development in established built up areas, historical centres and regeneration areas may already be in areas at risk of flooding. The locational requirements of essential infrastructure such as roads, electricity generating stations or sewage treatment works may necessitate development in flood risk areas. The SPP states that where built development is permitted in medium to high flood risk areas, measures to protect against or manage flood risk will be required. In addition, any loss of flood storage capacity should be mitigated to achieve a neutral or better outcome. In such cases planning authorities may need to determine whether flood reduction (measures to reduce the volume and velocity of flooding), protection (e.g.
structural flood protection schemes) and resilience measures (e.g. use of flood resistant materials and construction techniques) can help to mitigate any flooding impact on development and adjacent land uses.
Site specific considerations
19. The flood risk framework provides a basis for decision making relating to flood risk. The SPP notes that the calculated probability of flooding is one of a number of considerations in assessing proposals and that the following points should also be taken into account:
* the characteristics of the site;
* the design and use of the proposed development;
* the size of the area likely to flood;
* depth of flood water, likely flow rate and path, and rate of rise and duration;
* the vulnerability and risk of wave action for coastal sites;
* committed and existing flood protection methods: extent, standard and maintenance regime;
* the effects of climate change, including an allowance for freeboard;
* surface water run-off from adjoining land;
* culverted watercourses, drains and field drainage;
* cumulative effects, especially the loss of storage capacity;
* cross-boundary effects and the need for consultation with adjacent authorities;
* effects of flood on access including by emergency services; and
* effects of flood on proposed open spaces including gardens.
20. These considerations can be examined in more detail as part of a Flood Risk Assessment (see below) to supplement evidence as to whether a proposed development meets the requirements of SPP as set out in the flood risk framework.
21. On flood protection, it is important to note that protection schemes can reduce flood risk but they cannot eliminate it entirely. The level of protection offered by a scheme will depend upon factors such as the design standard, the design life and the maintenance regime. Redevelopment in built up areas behind flood defences provides an opportunity to reduce overall flood risk by considering a reduction in the vulnerability of the development use, numbers of properties and more resilient design and construction.
22. Planning authorities should consider flood risk as part of their wider assessment of the effectiveness of development sites. This is particularly relevant for housing sites.
Flood Risk Management Plans
23. A key part of the FRM Act approach to managing flood risk is the preparation and implementation of flood risk management plans. These comprise Flood Risk Management Strategies and Local Flood Risk Management Plans. These plans aim to enhance our understanding, raise awareness and help deliver coordinated action and decision making to reduce flood risk. The first cycle of plans will run from 2015 to 2021 with plans being reviewed and updated every six years. Land use planning will have a pivotal role to play in the implementation of the plans.
24. Flood risk management plans are underpinned by the National Flood Risk Assessment.
- National Flood Risk Assessment (published December 2011) – a high-level assessment used to identify Potentially Vulnerable Areas where further studies, investment and actions may be required. The assessment identified 14 geographical areas known as Local Plan Districts for which Flood Risk Management Strategies and Local Flood Risk Management Plans will be prepared.
- Flood Risk Management Strategies (to be published by December 2015) - a total of 14 strategies will be produced, for each of the local plan districts. The strategies will identify the main flood hazards and impacts, set out objectives for reducing flood risk and identify the most sustainable combination of actions. These will include actions relating to land use planning. They are being prepared by SEPA in consultation with Scottish Water and local authorities. Together these 14 strategies will constitute a national flood risk management plan for Scotland.
- Local Flood Risk Management Plans (to be published June 2016) - a total of 14 plans will be prepared to complement the Flood Risk Management Strategies. The plans will coordinate the strategies into integrated actions to reduce the impacts of flooding. They will also include specific actions on surface water management. They will be prepared by lead local authorities in consultation with SEPA, Scottish Water, and local advisory groups. Local advisory groups will include local authority staff and stakeholders with an interest or responsibility for flooding issues. This is likely to include planning representatives.
- Surface Water Management Plans will be used to identify measures to reduce surface water flooding. The need for surface water management plans will be identified in Flood Risk Management Strategies and Local Flood Risk Management Plans. Where required, they will be prepared by local authorities in consultation with SEPA, Scottish Water, and local advisory groups. More information on the preparation of these plans is contained within Surface Water Management Planning Guidance.
25. The Town and Country Planning (Development Planning) (Scotland) Regulations 2008 (as amended) require that when preparing strategic development plans and local development plans, planning authorities must have regard to any approved flood risk management strategy or finalised local flood risk management plan relating to the strategic development plan and local development plan area.
26. More information on Flood Risk Management Plans is available in the publication Flood Risk Management Planning in Scotland: Arrangements for 20122016.
SEPA Flood Maps
27. SEPA published new flood maps for Scotland on 15 January 2014. These replace SEPA's Indicative River and Coastal Flood Map for Scotland. Publication of the maps will support the development of flood risk management plans. SEPA's web map viewer indicates flood extents, depths and velocities for individual sources of flooding (fluvial, coastal and surface water) for high, medium and low probabilities. Information is also provided on groundwater, flood defences, the impacts of flooding and natural flood management measures. SEPA has provided a 'planning subfolder' of the map to planning authorities which provides information on the 1:200 year, 1:1000 year and historical flood extent information. Planning authorities should use this information to screen proposed developments for fluvial and coastal flood risk, and assess the need to consult with SEPA. The surface water maps should be used as a trigger to consult local authority flood prevention teams. Flood map information should also be used in the preparation of development plans to identify areas at flood risk and to protect areas with potential for natural flood management.
28. SEPA's flood maps are indicative and do not cover all potential flood risks. There may be smaller scale and more localised flood risks, which can have significant consequences locally, which are not covered by SEPAs maps. Where available, other relevant information should be considered to help ascertain the extent and impact of flooding from any source. Planning authorities can use Appendix 1 of SEPA's Technical flood risk guidance for stakeholders which contains details on further sources of flooding information. Planning authorities should also consult with local authority flood prevention colleagues.
Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (SFRA)
29. Strategic Flood Risk Assessment is designed to inform the development planning process, primarily by showing areas of flood hazard. SFRA will provide a strategic overview of flood risk in development plan areas, informed by the collection, analysis and presentation of all existing available and readily derivable information on flood risk from all sources. As noted in the SPP an SFRA should be used to assess flood risk when identifying land for development. SFRA can also assist with the development of policies for flood risk management, including surface water management.
30. Planning authorities should prepare an SFRA in consultation with SEPA and other stakeholders to achieve co-ownership of the assessment. SFRA may also usefully inform flood risk considerations beyond the development plan process.
31. In order to support planning authorities in undertaking SFRA for development plans SEPA have prepared Strategic Flood Risk Assessment Guidance.
Flood Risk Assessment (FRA)
32. A Flood Risk Assessment is supplied in support of an application for development. The purpose of an FRA is to investigate the likely probability of flooding at a specific site and to assess the likely risk to the proposed development and to adjacent people and property. An FRA will assess factors such as the source and type of potential flood, flood depths, extent, speeds, flow pathways across a site, and details of structures which may influence site hydraulics. It will also detail flood mitigation options. The applicant is expected to provide an FRA, prepared by technical consultants with the required competency.
33. The scale, nature and location of a proposed development will help to inform the requirement for and the scope of an FRA. FRA should be required for development in the medium to high risk category of flood risk (1:200 years), and may be required in the low to medium category at the upper end of the probability range (i.e. close to 0.5%). It should also be required for essential infrastructure and the most vulnerable uses or where other factors indicate heightened risk. Figure 2 below outlines considerations relevant to the requirement for FRA.
34. SEPA have a role in assessing FRAs as part of their assessment of planning applications that they are consulted on. SEPA have produced Technical flood risk guidance for stakeholders on preparing Flood Risk Assessment which should be used to guide the development of FRAs.
Multiple benefits
35. Flood risk management can involve engineering and infrastructure works that can provide an opportunity to contribute to placemaking, a principal policy of the SPP. In addition to flood risk management, flooding infrastructure can contribute to green networks and biodiversity enhancement, access and recreation provision, public realm and streetscape improvements and economic investment. Where feasible, development planning and development management should be used to realise these opportunities to deliver wider benefits from flood risk management.
Planning advice
36. The planning system has a key role to play in delivering sustainable flood risk management through both development planning and development management.
Development Planning
37. The following points should be considered in the preparation of strategic and local development plans. They will be relevant to a greater or lesser degree depending on the stage of development plan preparation:
- Understand and identify flood risk from all sources at the earliest opportunity.
- Strategic Flood Risk Assessment should be carried out to inform preparation of the development plan.
- Develop policies setting out the planning authority's approach to flood risk based on the principle of flood avoidance in accordance with the Flood Risk Framework set out in the SPP.
- Indicate the functional flood plain and any other relevant flooding constraints on the proposals map/spatial framework.
- Where relevant to the development strategy, flood protection and reduction measures and opportunities, including natural flood management and coastal realignment, should be indicated in the development plan and protected and promoted as appropriate.
- Natural and man-made features which help reduce the impact of flooding or flood risk should be identified and appropriately protected from development.
- Ensure any assessment of the effectiveness of sites, especially housing sites, takes flood risk into account. Sites that have previously been allocated for development may need to be reassessed where flood risk has not previously been a consideration or where new information on flood risk has become available since allocation.
- Take forward opportunities to deliver multiple benefits through flood risk management approaches. There may be scope to complement other relevant policy areas in the development plan and to contribute to wider placemaking.
- Set criteria against which the need for FRA will be assessed.
- Consider the inclusion of policy highlighting opportunities to reduce flood risk through redevelopment (including change of use) in flood risk areas.
- Promote flood resilience through the design and construction of buildings, as appropriate.
38. SEPA's flood maps, SFRA and flood risk management plans (i.e. Flood Risk Management Strategies and Local Flood Risk Management Plans) should be used to inform all of the above.
39. Development plans should support the delivery of actions in the flood risk management plans for their area.
40. Consultation should be undertaken with relevant local authority departments, SEPA, Scottish Water, developers, the public and communities to establish flooding constraint issues and opportunities at an early stage in the development planning process.
41. Cross boundary working is important to address whole water catchments and flood plains that cross boundaries. This should reflect the catchment scale approach in flood risk management plans and enable planning authorities to work together to plan for and take an integrated approach to flood risk.
42. Planning officers should seek to be involved in local flood risk management planning advisory groups. Dialogue and relationship building will be important to ensure that the two planning regimes are coordinated.
Development Management
43. The following points should be taken into account as part of the development management process:
- Establish whether the development site is susceptible to flooding, from all sources, and whether development of the site would lead to an increase in flood risk elsewhere.
- Consider proposals within the context of the Flood Risk Framework, location and site specific circumstances, the characteristics and nature of any flood risk and the type and design of development proposed.
- Applications that may lead to an increase in flood risk on or off site should be supported, as appropriate, by a Flood Risk Assessment (see diagram 2 below) in accordance with SEPA's Technical flood risk guidance for stakeholders.
- Where development is allowed in a flood risk area measures to protect against or manage flood risk and loss of storage capacity should be agreed.
- For redevelopment and change of use proposals in areas at flood risk, consider options to reduce flood risk vulnerability through e.g. design, type and use of development or number of buildings.
- Consider the impacts of climate change during the lifetime of the development and whether the development needs to be designed to be adaptable to climate change, e.g. to potentially rising levels of flood waters.
44. Pre-application discussions can provide applicants with an early indication of whether development on a particular site is likely to increase flood risk on or off-site. Where flood risk is identified, discussions can help ensure that all parties have a shared understanding of the nature of the proposed development, the flood risk posed, the need for FRA and potential mitigation options that may be relevant.
45. Local authority departments should work together to address flood risk. Planners, flooding and drainage officers, environmental, building control, roads and access officers should communicate on how best to approach and manage flood risk. Internal local authority working groups on flood risk may provide a useful mechanism to support cross-departmental working. Where still active Flood Liaison and Advisory Groups may provide such a mechanism or can provide advice.
46. The passage and management of surface water across a development site should be an integral component of site design. This should be considered from the outset of a development proposal, including consideration of SUDS requirements, to minimise impacts and maximise opportunities such as delivering high quality places and green infrastructure.
Planning Authority Consultation with SEPA
47. Schedule 5 Section 1.(1) of The Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (Scotland) Regulations 2008 (the Development Management Regulations) requires that planning authorities must, before determining an application for planning permission, consult with SEPA where the development is likely to result in a material increase in the number of buildings at risk of being damaged by flooding.
48. SEPA - Planning Authority protocol (Policy 41) contains principles to be followed by SEPA and planning authorities regarding advice and consultation on flood risk issues. The protocol requires planning authorities to screen development proposals for flood risk before they consult with SEPA. In addition SEPA have produced Standing advice on Development Management Consultations for certain types of development where the flood risk is less significant. SEPA do not require to be consulted on these types of development. Where a proposal is not covered by SEPAs standing advice and poses a flood risk SEPA should be consulted in accordance with the Development Management Regulations.
49. Consultation with SEPA should be supported by adequate information on flood risk. This will usually be in the form of a Flood Risk Assessment.
50. A range of information can be used by planning authorities to screen applications for flood risk. In addition to the planning subfolder of SEPA's flood maps, SFRA and flood risk management plans, planning authorities can refer to Appendix 1 of SEPA's Technical flood risk guidance for stakeholders which contains details of potential further sources of flood risk information. An important source of information can be the local authority flood prevention officer who often hold considerable local knowledge of flooding issues within their area.
51. Planning authorities should not use the surface water hazard filter on SEPA's flood maps as a basis for routine consultation with SEPA. Instead they should ensure that appropriate assessment of surface water flood risk is carried out in consultation with their flood prevention team. Consultation with Scottish Water may also be necessary to clarify surface water drainage and flooding constraints from the sewerage system.
52. Circular 3/2009 Notification of Planning Applications sets out the circumstances in which proposals should be notified to Ministers where SEPA has advised against the granting of planning permission or has recommended conditions which the planning authority does not propose to attach to the planning permission. The Circular is clear that it is only notified applications where there is a national interest that Ministers would consider call in.
Figure 2 – Consideration of Flood Risk Assessment requirement in relation to fluvial and coastal flood risk.
Review SEPA Planning Sub-
folder
Map
to
establish
whether site is at potential risk
from
0.5.%
(1:200yr)
flood
event
Liaise
with
flood
protection
colleagues
to obtain site specific
information
Map
suggests
potential
flood risk
Map
suggests
no
potential
flood risk
Q1.Does the site have
a history of flooding?
Q2.
Is the site adjacent
to
a
minor/culverted
watercourse?
Q3. Is there any other
information that might
suggest a flood risk?
Potential fluvial
or coastal flood
The proposal may
be
at
risk
of
flooding
Flood risk assessment
unlikely to be required
Planning authority
requests applicant to
submit a Flood Risk
Assessment
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Check
whether
covered by Appx 1
of SEPA’s standing
advice to planning
authorities
|
<urn:uuid:f719ab7a-d74f-4015-afec-5b545a61a01c>
|
CC-MAIN-2024-30
|
https://www.gov.scot/binaries/content/documents/govscot/publications/advice-and-guidance/2015/06/flood-risk-planning-advice/documents/flood-risk-planning-advice-pdf/flood-risk-planning-advice-pdf/govscot%3Adocument/Flood%2Brisk%252C%2Bplanning%2Badvice.pdf
|
2024-07-17T09:51:17+00:00
|
crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2024-30/segments/1720763514759.39/warc/CC-MAIN-20240717090242-20240717120242-00045.warc.gz
| 688,697,165
| 4,989
|
eng_Latn
|
eng_Latn
| 0.994973
|
eng_Latn
| 0.996081
|
[
"eng_Latn",
"eng_Latn",
"eng_Latn",
"eng_Latn",
"eng_Latn",
"eng_Latn",
"eng_Latn",
"eng_Latn",
"eng_Latn",
"eng_Latn",
"eng_Latn"
] | false
|
docling
|
[
2033,
3741,
6854,
9695,
12384,
15842,
18163,
20805,
24198,
25780,
26623
] |
[
1.578125,
0.88671875
] | 1
| 2
|
12 Culture and Heritage
Main Findings
There are high and increasing levels of cultural engagement in Scotland. Around nine in ten (93 per cent) adults were culturally engaged in 2017, either by attending or visiting a cultural event or place or by participating in a cultural activity. The level of cultural engagement has increased by around six percentage points since first recorded in 2007.
Cultural attendance
Around eight in ten adults in Scotland had recently attended a cultural event or place of culture in 2017. The level of cultural attendance has increased by 10 percentage points since 2012.
Women, younger people, those with degrees or professional qualifications, those with good physical and mental health and those living in less deprived areas are more likely to attend cultural events. This profile has remained the same over time.
Cultural participation
Overall participation in cultural activities is high (78 per cent), and has remained largely unchanged since 2012. The most popular form of cultural participation was reading for pleasure.
Overall participation in cultural activities was higher among women, those with degrees or professional qualifications, those with good physical and mental health and those living in less deprived areas.
The overall level of cultural participation doesn't change with age. However, the types of cultural activities people participate in changes with age for most activities. This picture of cultural participation has not changed over time.
Cultural services provided by local authorities
Satisfaction with local authority services provision in 2017 has increased from 2007. Library services satisfaction declined during this period.
In 2017, around nine in ten adults who had used local authority cultural services were very or fairly satisfied with their provision.
12.1 Introduction and Context
Culture, creativity and a rich, diverse heritage sit at the heart of life in Scotland and play a critical role in the economy, communities and almost everything we do. The Scottish Government is committed to supporting, developing and advocating Scotland's culture, heritage and creativity, and ensuring that culture reaches a wide audience at home and abroad. The Scottish Household Survey is the primary source of data on heritage and cultural engagement Scotland.
The Scottish Government is currently developing a Culture Strategy for Scotland, in close consultation with partners and the general public. A public consultation was held in summer 2018 and the finalised strategy is due to be published later in 2018.
The strategy seeks to stimulate a step change that will bring about a shift in how society and government view and value culture. It is centred on the fundamental value of culture and its empowering and transformative potential for the whole of society.
The aims of the strategy are to:
- open up and extend culture so that it is of and for every community and everyone;
- recognise that culture and creativity are central to Scotland's cultural, social and economic prosperity;
- sustain and nurture culture to flourish and to evolve as a diverse, positive force in society, across all of Scotland.
A key development that will help to achieve these ambitions is the inclusion of a new national outcome for culture in the newly refreshed National Performance Framework 75 . This is an important development that signifies that Scottish Ministers and the Scottish Government recognise the potential and importance of culture as an intrinsic part of Scotland's wellbeing and that other policy areas should give consideration to it. The national outcome is:
"We are creative and our vibrant and diverse cultures are expressed and enjoyed widely"
Four new national indicators will monitor progress against this outcome. These are:
- Attendance at cultural events or places of culture
- Participation in a cultural activity
- Growth in the cultural economy
- People working in arts and culture
75 Scotland's National Performance Framework
The first two national indicators are measured using the data from the SHS at national and sub national levels on attendance and participation in cultural activities that is presented in this chapter.
This data helps the Scottish Government and our key partners across the public sector and cultural sectors to monitor the progress of culture strategy ambitions which in turn will inform strategic policy decisions.
Cultural engagement is defined as those adults who have either participated in a cultural activity or who have attended at least one type of cultural event or place in the past 12 months. The SHS is the only source of data on attendance and participation at local authority level. Questions on cultural attendance were introduced in the SHS for the first time in 2007. From 2012 onwards, it is possible to obtain data at local authority level every year. For 2017, these data will be published at a later date.
Attendance at "a cultural event or place of culture" is defined as those adults who attended at least one type of cultural place in the previous year. There are a number of different types of cultural events and places of culture: cinemas, museums, libraries and live music events, for example. Likewise, participation in any cultural activity means that adults take part in at least one activity in the previous year. Examples of cultural activities include reading for pleasure, dancing and crafts.
The Glossary in Annex 2: Glossary provides a full list of activities, places or events for cultural attendance and participation.
Please note that figures from 2012 onwards are not directly comparable with previous years, due to a change of wording in 2012. More detail about the culture questions can be found in the historical SHS questionnaires 76 .
12.2 Cultural Engagement
Figure 12.1 shows that around nine in ten adults had attended or participated in some cultural event or activity in 2017 (93 per cent). Trips to the cinema make up the majority of cultural attendance, and reading for pleasure is the most common participation activity. The level of cultural engagement in Scotland has increased by around 6 percentage points since it was first recorded in the SHS in 2007.
Cultural engagement is a composite measure of both cultural attendance and participation. Each of these will be reported on separately in the sections to follow.
12.3 Attendance at Cultural Events and Places
Figure 12.2 shows how attendance has changed since 2012. In 2017, around eight in ten adults had attended a cultural event or place of culture in the last 12 months (84 per cent). When trips to the cinema are excluded, the attendance figure was lower at 77 per cent. Since 2012, attendance when cinema trips are included has increased from 78 per cent to 84 per cent. When trips to the cinema are excluded, the attendance figure has increased from 70 per cent to 77 per cent.
Attendance has increased for almost all of the individual cultural events or places since 2012. The biggest increases from 2012 were in the number of adults who visited historical or archaeological places which increased by 8 percentage points (28 to 35 per cent). Similarly, the number of people who attended street art events has increased by 6 percentage points between 2012 and 2017 (12 per cent to 18 per cent). Attendance at libraries and book festivals or reading groups has remained static over this period.
Percentage of adults, 2012 to 2017 data (minimum base: 9,410)
12.3.1 Attendance by Gender and Age
Table 12.1 shows that in 2017, more women attended a cultural event than men (86 per cent and 83 per cent). Women also had higher cultural attendance than men after excluding trips to the cinema, with the gap between men and women increasing to 5 percentage points (79 per cent and 74 per cent).
More women than men attended the theatre (38 per cent, compared with 28 per cent). Women were also more likely than men to visit the library (32 per cent compared with 26 per cent).
Table 12.1 shows that in 2017, the younger age groups were more likely to attend a cultural event than the older age groups. Ninety four per cent of 16 to 24 year olds attended a cultural event compared to 63 per cent of those aged 75 and over. Sixteen to 24 year olds also had higher cultural attendance than those aged 75 and over after excluding trips to the cinema (80 per cent and 61 per cent).
People in the younger age groups were more likely to have attended the cinema. Eightyfive per cent of adults aged 16 to 24 and 75 per cent of 25-34 year olds visited the cinema, compared with 19 per cent of those aged 75 or over. Similarly, almost half of 16 to 24 year olds (43 per cent) attended a live music event, compared with 10 per cent of those aged 75 or over.
Table 12.1: Attendance at cultural events and visiting places of culture in the last 12 months by gender and age
Percentages, 2017 data
Columns may not add to 100 per cent since multiple responses were allowed.
12.3.2 Attendance by Highest Level of Qualification
Figure 12.3 shows that in 2017, adults with degrees or professional qualifications were most likely to attend cultural places and events; whereas attendance was lowest for those with no qualifications (96 per cent compared to 58 per cent). The pattern holds when cinema attendance is excluded (91 per cent compared to 52 per cent).
Figure 12.3: Attendance at cultural events and visiting places of culture in the last 12 months by highest level of qualification
2017 data, percentage of adults (minimum base: 480)
Table 12.2 gives a breakdown of attendance at each individual cultural event or place. As with the overall figure, attendance was consistently higher for adults with a degree or professional qualification at individual events or places. The most marked differences between those with degrees and no qualifications can be seen for attendance at the cinema (75 per cent and 25 per cent respectively) and at a historic place (55 per cent and 12 per cent respectively).
Table 12.2: Attendance at cultural events and visiting places of culture in the last 12 months by highest qualification level
Percentages, 2017 data
Columns add to more than 100 per cent since multiple responses allowed.
12.3.3 Attendance by Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation (SIMD)
Figure 12.4 shows that levels of cultural attendance increase as deprivation as measured by the Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation (SIMD 2016) decreases.
In 2017 there was a 16 percentage point difference in cultural attendance (including cinema) between the 20 per cent most and 20 per cent least deprived areas (77 per cent compared with 93 per cent). This gap has narrowed since 2014 when the gap was 20 percentage points. When cinema attendance is excluded, the difference is even greater, with 65 per cent in the most deprived areas and 88 per cent in the least deprived areas.
Figure 12.4: Attendance at cultural events and visiting places of culture in the last 12 months by Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation
2017 data, Adults (minimum base: 1,810)
Figure 12.5 shows the difference in attendance at cultural events between the 20 per cent most and least deprived areas and how this has changed over time. This shows that this gap has narrowed since 2012 when cinema attendance is included.
12.3.4 Attendance by Long-Term Physical/Mental Health Condition
Figure 12.6 shows that cultural attendance was lowest among adults with a physical or mental health condition that caused long term major reduced daily capacity (60 per cent compared to 89 per cent attendance for those with no condition). For those whose condition caused minor reduced daily capacity, the attendance rate was 78 per cent.
Figure 12.6: Attendance at cultural events and visiting places of culture in the last 12 months by long term physical/mental health condition
2017 data, adults (minimum base: 1,270)
12.3.5 Frequency of Attending cultural events or places
The library was the most frequently attended cultural place or event, with one in five people (20 per cent) attending at least once a week, and almost double that number attending at least once a month (36 per cent).
Cinema attendance was the next most popular, with 19 per cent of respondents attending at least once a month. Table 12.3 shows the frequency of cultural attendance in the past year.
Table 12.3: Frequency of attending cultural events and visiting places of culture in the last 12 months
Percentages, 2017 data
Columns add to more than 100 per cent since multiple responses allowed.
12.3.6 Reasons for non-attendance
Those who reported not attending any cultural place or event in 2017 were asked about potential reasons for non-attendance. In 2017, the most common reason for not attending cultural events or places was 'not really interested'. Forty-one per cent of non-attenders stated this as a reason for not attending, an increase of seven percentage points from 2013 (34 per cent). The next most common reasons were 'health isn't good enough' (at just under a third, 29 per cent), followed by 'It's difficult to find the time' (14 per cent), and 'it costs too much' (nine per cent) (Figure 12.7).
Figure 12.7: Reasons for non-attendance at cultural events/places in the last 12 months,
Percentage of adults, 2013 and 2017 data (minimum base: 1,910)
The reasons for non-attendance varied by age. Cost as a reason for non-attendance was significantly higher among those non-attenders in younger age groups, ranging from 26 per cent of those aged 16 to 24 to two per cent for those aged 75 and older. Poor health as a reason for non-attendance showed an opposite pattern, where younger age groups were significantly less likely to cite this reason than older age groups (12 per cent compared to 50 per cent respectively).
12.4 Participation in Cultural Activities
Figure 12.8 shows levels of participation by adults at specific cultural activities in the last 12 months in 2012 and 2017. Overall participation in 2017 was 78 per cent, which has remained unchanged since 2012. When reading is excluded, participation was 54 per cent. This has increased from 48 per cent in 2012.
Reading for pleasure was by far the most common cultural activity in 2017, with 65 per cent of respondents saying that they had done this in the last year.
The next most popular activity was doing creative work on a computer or by social media (27 per cent), followed by crafts (17 per cent). Participation levels in all other cultural activities was 12 per cent or less.
About one in five people (22 per cent) had not participated in any cultural activity in the last 12 months.
Figure 12.8: Participation in cultural activities in the last 12 months
12.4.1 Participation by Gender and Age
Table 12.4 shows that in 2017, more women than men participated in a cultural activity in the last 12 months (83 per cent and 73 per cent respectively), although this did vary by activity. When reading is excluded, the difference between women and men was slightly smaller (seven percentage points).
Women participated more than men in a number of cultural activities including reading for pleasure (71 per cent compared with 58 per cent), crafts (26 per cent compared with eight per cent) and dance (14 per cent compared with 9 per cent). Men had higher participation rates than women for playing a musical instrument or writing music (15 per cent of men and nine per cent of women) and using a computer or social media to produce creative work (29 per cent compared with 26 per cent).
Overall cultural participation was broadly similar for all age groups; however, participation decreased with age when reading was excluded from the measure.
For most cultural activities, younger adults, particularly those aged 16-24 were more likely than older age groups to participate in cultural activities. However, older people were more likely to read for pleasure and do craftwork such as knitting, woodwork and pottery.
Table 12.4: Participation in any cultural activity in the last 12 months by gender and age Column percentages, 2017 data
Columns add to more than 100 per cent since multiple responses allowed.
12.4.2 Participation by Highest Level of Qualification
As with cultural attendance, Figure 12.9 shows that participation in cultural activities in 2017 was highest among adults with a degree or professional qualification (92 per cent) and lowest for those with no qualifications (59 per cent). When reading is excluded, the difference between qualification levels is even greater (70 per cent for those with a degree or professional qualifications, compared with 31 per cent for those with no qualifications).
Figure 12.9: Participation in any cultural activity in the last 12 months by highest level of qualification
2017 data, percentage of adults (minimum base: 480)
Participation rates for specific cultural activities are shown in Table 12.5.
Table 12.5: Participation in cultural activities in the last 12 months by highest level of qualification
Percentages, 2017 data
Columns add to more than 100 per cent since multiple responses allowed.
12.4.3 Participation by Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation (SIMD 2016)
There was a large difference (24 percentage points) in cultural participation between those living in the 20 per cent most deprived and the 20 per cent least deprived areas (64 per cent compared with 88 per cent). This is consistent with the differences observed for cultural attendance.
Figure 12.10 shows that levels of cultural participation increase as deprivation, as measured by the Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation (SIMD 2016), decreases. Sixty-four per cent of adults in the 20 per cent most deprived areas participated in cultural activities, compared with 88 per cent of adults in the 20 per cent least deprived areas. When reading is excluded, the pattern is similar, with 41 per cent in the most deprived areas and 63 per cent in the least deprived areas of Scotland participating in a cultural activity.
Figure 12.10: Participation in any cultural activity in the last 12 months by Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation
2017 data, adults (minimum base: 1,810)
Figure 12.11 shows the difference in cultural participation between the 20 per cent most and least deprived areas and how this has changed over time. This shows that the gap in participation when reading is included has increased since 2012. When reading is excluded, this gap has also increased.
12.4.4 Participation by Long-Term Physical/Mental Health Condition
Figure 12.12 shows that cultural participation was lower for those with a physical or mental health condition (lasting, or expected to last 12 months or more). Participation was lowest where this condition caused long term major reduced daily capacity (65 per cent) compared with 80 per cent participation for those with no such condition. For those with minor reduced daily capacity, the participation rate was 77 per cent.
When reading is excluded, participation for those with conditions with major reduced daily capacity was 38 per cent and, for those with no condition, it was 56 per cent. For those with minor reduced daily capacity, the participation rate was 52 per cent.
Figure 12.12: Participation in any cultural activity in the last 12 months by long term physical/mental health condition
2017 data, adults (minimum base: 1,270)
12.4.5 Frequency of Participating in Cultural Activities
Table 12.6 shows that reading for pleasure was the cultural activity most frequently participated in. Of those who read for pleasure, 77 per cent did so at least once a week, and a further 12 per cent read at least once a month. Using a computer or social media for creative work was also popular among participants, with 68 per cent of those who participated having done so at least once a week.
Respondents participated in cultural activities more frequently than they attended cultural places or events. Twenty per cent attended a library at least once a week but, apart from this, attendance at cultural events at least once a week was low. However, participation in cultural activities at least once a week ranged from 25 per cent to 77 per cent.
Table 12.6: Frequency of participating in cultural activities in the last 12 months
Row percentages, 2017 data
Columns add to more than 100 per cent since multiple responses allowed.
12.4.6 Reasons for non-participation
Those who reported not participating in any cultural activity in 2017 were asked about potential reasons for non-participation. Overall, the most common reason for not participating was also 'not really interested'. Over half of non-participants (52 per cent) stated this as a reason (Figure 12.13). This figure has remained stable since 2013 (49 per cent). The next most common reasons were 'It's difficult to find the time' (over a quarter, at 26 per cent), followed by 'health isn't good enough' (14 per cent), and 'never occurred to me' (seven per cent).
The main reasons for non-participation varied by age. Lack of interest as a reason for nonparticipation decreased with age (61 per cent of those aged 16-24 compared to 50 per cent of those aged 75 and older). Poor health as a reason for non-participation increased with age, ranging from 4 per cent of adults aged 16 to 24, to 45 per cent of those aged 75 and older. Lack of time as a reason for non-participation was greater amongst those aged 25 to 34 (41 per cent), compared to those aged 75 and over (5 per cent).
12.5 Satisfaction with Local Authority Cultural Services
Table 12.7 presents the results for satisfaction with three different types of local authority services in 2017. It shows that adults (including users and non-users of these services) were more satisfied with museums and galleries and with theatres or concert halls in 2017 than they had been in 2007. Satisfaction with museums and galleries increased by five percentage points (41 per cent to 46 per cent) between 2007 and 2017 whilst satisfaction with theatres or concert halls increased by three percentage points (44 per cent to 47 per cent). There has been a six percentage point decrease in satisfaction with library services (from 55 per cent in 2007 to 49 per cent in 2017).
Table 12.7: Satisfaction with local authority culture services Column percentages, 2007 to 2017 data
Table 12.8 shows levels of satisfaction with local authority provision is considerably higher when only users of the services are included in the analysis. In 2017, around nine in ten adults were either very or fairly satisfied with each of the three services (between 87 per cent and 91 per cent). As noted above, the overall level of satisfaction with library services has decreased since 2007, with satisfaction levels among non-users driving the decrease. In contrast, the levels of satisfaction among the service users have increased or remained stable since 2007 across all services.
Table 12.8: Satisfaction with local authority culture services. (Service users within the past 12 months only)
Column percentages, 2007 to 2017 data
|
<urn:uuid:4e5c634e-6924-48e9-b75e-d7ff7bbfb3b9>
|
CC-MAIN-2020-40
|
https://www.gov.scot/binaries/content/documents/govscot/publications/progress-report/2018/09/scottish-household-survey-key-findings-2017/documents/00539881-pdf/00539881-pdf/govscot%3Adocument/00539881.pdf
|
2020-09-22T12:00:29+00:00
|
crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-40/segments/1600400205950.35/warc/CC-MAIN-20200922094539-20200922124539-00241.warc.gz
| 873,701,457
| 4,822
|
eng_Latn
|
eng_Latn
| 0.991879
|
eng_Latn
| 0.998505
|
[
"eng_Latn",
"eng_Latn",
"eng_Latn",
"eng_Latn",
"eng_Latn",
"eng_Latn",
"eng_Latn",
"eng_Latn",
"eng_Latn",
"eng_Latn",
"eng_Latn",
"eng_Latn",
"eng_Latn",
"eng_Latn",
"eng_Latn",
"eng_Latn",
"eng_Latn",
"eng_Latn",
"eng_Latn",
"eng_Latn",
"eng_Latn",
"eng_Latn",
"eng_Latn"
] | false
|
docling
|
[
1842,
4037,
5824,
6420,
7524,
9027,
9597,
10945,
11125,
11367,
12414,
13239,
13864,
14778,
16232,
16906,
17553,
18248,
19296,
20271,
21574,
23009,
23160
] |
[
1.40625,
1.28125
] | 3
| 2
|
This activity is designed to help beginners understand the perspective which a map gives them and how this helps us to better understand our landscapes and how different areas relate to each other.
There are learner sheets for use with this activity, with suggestions for going further. As an introduction, you may wish to begin with a group discussion about where the building you are currently. This might be a school or community centre.
* Where is it in relation to other buildings and landmarks in the area?
* Where do people live in relation to the school or building you are in?
* Which street is it on?
* How do we know this? Imagine you are giving someone directions – is it easier to explain it or draw it out?
Worm's Eye, Bird's Eye
To get learners used to the idea of how maps look, ask them to draw their desk from a worm's eye and a bird's eye view, using the record sheets and explanations provided. Once they have done this, then you could have a discussion about which is the easier to use to understand where things are on the desk in relation to each other.
There is a matching game on the 'Mapping History' website which asks learners to match the bird's eye view of a site with the correct worm's eye view. This is very useful in helping learners to understand what the same site looks like from both perspectives and to begin to understand how to build the relationship between what can be seen on the ground
Try it yourself: What is a map? Teachers and Leaders Guide:
Finding your way
This activity helps learners to further understand how valuable a bird's eye perspective is in helping people find their way. Now that learners have got a good idea of how to draw a map, ask them to draw a map of a familiar route. You can use the explanation and record sheets which have been provided.
This route could be from home to school, from home to a relative's house, to the library – any route which they know well. They should then swap their maps with a partner who tries to find the route on an actual map of the area. This could be an Ordnance Survey map or a Google map. It might be easier if the start point is given! Then you can use the discussion point questions below to explore how useful maps can be.
Keep these maps, as there will be opportunities to build more detail into them in other activities.
Discussion point!
* How easy was it to transfer the route from the drawn map to the "official" map?
* Were there any landmarks which were missing?
* What could you not see from the ground?
* Were there high fences that you couldn't see over or other roads which hadn't been drawn into the map?
* Are maps a useful tool for navigating and finding your way?
|
<urn:uuid:b804b8b9-a853-4b1b-9391-460928c9ff5b>
|
CC-MAIN-2021-21
|
https://digital.nls.uk/mapping-history/PDF/what-is-a-map/teachers-guide/what-is-a-map.pdf
|
2021-05-17T00:00:29+00:00
|
crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2021-21/segments/1620243991921.61/warc/CC-MAIN-20210516232554-20210517022554-00117.warc.gz
| 227,954,351
| 562
|
eng_Latn
|
eng_Latn
| 0.999295
|
eng_Latn
| 0.999299
|
[
"eng_Latn",
"eng_Latn"
] | false
|
docling
|
[
1435,
2698
] |
[
4.09375
] | 1
| 0
|
Rura l Scotland Key Facts
2009
People and Communities
Services and Lifestyle
Economy and Enterprise
A National Statistics
Publication for Scotland
2
Contents
3
3
4
5
5
10
12
15
17
17
21
25
27
29
35
35
37
39
42
44
46
Introduction
Rural Scotland differs from the rest of Scotland but there are also differences within rural Scotland, for example between accessible and remote areas. The Scottish Government acknowledges that issues such as transport, education and health can have a particular impact on rural communities and seeks to reflect this in mainstream policy development. The purpose of this booklet is to summarise the key facts related to rural Scotland in order to provide a picture of the lives of its people. Improving the evidence base on rural Scotland will assist us in understanding the issues affecting rural Scotland.
Definition of Rural Scotland
Rural Scotland is defined as settlements with a population of less than 3,000 By analysing drive times to larger settlements we can divide rural Scotland into:
.
Accessible rural: those with a less than 30 minute drive time to the nearest settlement with a population of 10,000 or more;
Remote rural: those with a greater than 30 minute drive time to the nearest settlement with a population of 10,000 or more.
These definitions form part of the Scottish Government's urban rural classification. The map on the following page shows the full classification. Accessible rural areas are shown in a light blue colour and remote rural areas are shown in a light yellow colour.
In order to highlight differences between rural Scotland and the rest of Scotland, this booklet combines the first four categories into the Rest of Scotland figures. The rest of Scotland therefore includes large urban areas, other urban areas, accessible small towns and remote small towns.
3
4
Map of Rural Scotland
People and Communities
Demographics
Table 1: Population by Geographic Area, 2001, 2007 & 2008
Source: General Register Office for Scotland, 2009 (2008 mid-year estimates based on data zones) (All 2001, 2007 and 2008 figures are based on Scottish Government Urban Rural Classification, 2007-2008)
Around 5.2 million people live in Scotland, with almost 1 million of them living in rural areas.
Table 1 shows that between 2001 and 2007, the population has Increased in all areas of Scotland. The greatest increase in population has been in accessible rural areas, with an 8.4% increase between 2001 and 2007, compared to an increase of 4.7% in remote rural areas and 0.4% in the rest of Scotland. The population has increased in all areas over this period.
In all areas females make up a slight majority of the population: 50.6% in remote rural areas, 50.4% in accessible rural areas and 51.7% in the Rest of Scotland.
5
6
90%
The total land mass of Scotland is approximately 7.8 million hectares. Figure 1 shows that although rural Scotland accounts for 19% of the total population in Scotland (7% in remote rural and 12% in accessible rural), it accounts for 94% of the land mass in Scotland (69% in remote rural and 25% in accessible rural). In contrast the rest of Scotland accounts for 82% of the population of Scotland but only 6% of the land mass.
Figure 2: Differences in Age Distribution of Population of Rural Areas, Relative to the Rest of Scotland, 2008
Source: General Register Office for Scotland, 2009 (2008 mid-year estimates on data zones)
(Based on Scottish Government Urban Rural Classification, 2007-2008)
Table 2: Age Distribution of Population in Rest of Scotland, 2008
Source: General Register Office for Scotland, 2009 (2008 mid-year estimates based on data zones) (Using the Scottish Government Urban Rural Classification, 2007-2008)
Figure 2 shows that relative to the rest of Scotland (as displayed in Table 2), the population of rural areas have a different age distribution. Specifically, rural areas have a lower percentage of the population in the age bands 16-34 but a higher proportion in the younger bands and in the age bands 40-74.
7
8
Table 3: Internal Population Change and Migration by Geographic Area, 2007
Source: General Register Office for Scotland (Using Scottish Government Urban Rural Classification, 2007-2008)
Table 3 shows that there were more births than deaths in accessible rural areas and more deaths than births in remote rural. Relative to their populations, the number of births and deaths were roughly equal in all areas of Scotland.
The table also shows positive net migration into all three areas of Scotland over the year 2007/8, i.e. the number of in-migrants was greater than the number of out-migrants. Net migration was greatest in the accessible rural areas, where it was equal to 1.6% of the population.
Table 4: Country of Birth by Geographic Area, 2008
Source: Annual Population Survey in Scotland, 2008 (Using Scottish Government Urban Rural Classification, 2007-2008)
Table 4 shows the proportions of Scotland's current population that were born in Scotland, in the rest of the United Kingdom and in the rest of the world. Compared with the Rest of Scotland a relatively high proportion of the people in rural areas were born in the rest of the UK, while the proportion born outside the UK is lower than in the rest of Scotland.
9
Households
Table 5: Household Size by Geographic Area, 2008
Source: Scottish Household Survey, 2008 (Using Scottish Government Urban Rural Classification, 2007-2008)
Table 5 shows that, relative to the rest of Scotland, there are considerably fewer single person households in rural Scotland, but more two person households.
Table 6: Household Type by Geographic Area, 2008
Source: Scottish Household Survey, 2008 (Using Scottish Government Urban Rural Classification, 2007-2008)
Table 6 shows that, relative to the rest of Scotland, remote and accessible rural Scotland have lower percentages of single adult households. Rural Scotland also has a higher percentage of 'older smaller' households, that is, with one or both adults of pensionable age.
Neighbourhood and Community
Figure 3: Rating of Neighbourhood as a Place to Live by Geographic Area, 2008
100%
Figure 3 shows that relative to the rest of Scotland, a higher percentage of people in rural Scotland rate their neighbourhood as very good or fairly good. This is especially apparent in remote rural areas, where 76% of people rate their neighbourhood as a very good place to live, compared to 66% in accessible rural areas and 49% in the rest of Scotland. Nonetheless, in rural areas and in the rest of Scotland, over 90% rate their neighbourhood as a very good or a fairly good place to live.
Table 7: Experience of Neighbourhood Problems by Geographic Area, 2008 (% saying they have personal experience of problem)
Source: Scottish Household Survey, 2008 (Using Scottish Government Urban Rural Classification, 2007-2008)
Table 7 displays that in every category of neighbourhood problems, apart from 'abandoned or burnt out vehicles', a lower percentage of people in remote and accessible rural areas have experienced such problems. For example, only 3% and 5% respectively in remote and accessible rural areas say they have had a problem with noisy neighbours or loud parties while the figure is 10% in the rest of Scotland. Similarly, 13% and 17% respectively in remote rural and accessible rural areas, state that rubbish or litter lying around is a problem whilst 24% state this is a problem in the rest of Scotland.
Table 8: Perceptions of Safety when at Home Alone at Night by Geographic Area, 2008
Source: Scottish Household Survey, 2008
(Using on Scottish Government Urban Rural Classification, 2007-2008)
Table 8 shows that, relative to the rest of Scotland, people in rural Scotland perceive where they live to be safer when at home alone at night. For example, 89% in remote rural and 81% in accessible rural feel very safe while at home compared to 73% in the rest of Scotland. Having said this, over 95% of people in all 3 areas of Scotland feel either 'very' or 'fairly' safe when are home alone at night.
Table 9: Whether Gave Up Time to Help as an Organiser/Volunteer in the Past 12 Months by Geographic Area, 2008
Source: Scottish Household Survey, 2008 (Using Scottish Government Urban Rural Classification, 2007-2008)
In rural Scotland, more people give up their time to help as a volunteer or organiser than in the rest of Scotland. 47% of people in remote rural areas and 38% in accessible rural areas have given up time in the past 12 months to help as an organiser/volunteer, compared to 29% in the rest of Scotland.
Physical Environment
Table 10: Percentage of Population Living in Proximity to Derelict Sites by Geographic Area, 2007
Source: Scottish Vacant and Derelict Land Survey, 2007 (2006 mid-year population estimates based on data zones)
(Based on Scottish Government Urban Rural Classification, 2007-2008)
Table 10 shows that a higher percentage of people in the rest of Scotland live within 500 metres of land classified as being derelict relative to people in rural Scotland. Derelict land (and buildings) is that which has been so damaged by development or use that it is incapable of being developed for beneficial use without rehabilitation, and which is not being used for either the purpose for which it is held, or for a use acceptable in a local plan.
Table 11: Percentage of Population Living in Proximity to Sites on the Scottish Pollutant Release Inventory (SPRI) by Geographic Area, 2005
Source: Scottish Neighbourhood Statistics, 2008 (2004 mid-year population estimates based on data zones) (Using the Scottish Executive Urban Rural Classification, 2005-2006)
Sites that report to the Scottish Pollutant Release Inventory include Pollution Prevention and Control (PPC) Part A processes; Radioactive Substances Act (RSA) Band A and Band B sites, such as nuclear power stations, hospitals and universities; waste water treatment works; waste management sites and caged marine fish farms.
Table 11 shows that 47% of people in the rest of Scotland live within 2000 metres of a site on the SPRI register compared to 15% in accessible rural areas and 4% in remote rural areas.
Services and Lifestyle
Access and Convenience of Services
99%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
Figure 4 shows that, in general, people in rural areas are less likely to live within a 15 minute drive to key services, than are those in the rest of Scotland. This is particularly true for people in remote rural areas, of whom only 53% live within a 15 minute drive of shopping facilities, compared to 87% in accessible rural areas and only 86% live within a 15 minute drive of a GP, compared to 99% in accessible rural areas. The only service for which everyone had a drive of less than 15 minutes, regardless of area, was the Post Office.
100%
Figure 5 shows that a lower percentage of people living in rural areas than those in the rest of Scotland are within a 15 minute drive by public transport of key services. For those in remote rural areas the percentage is particularly low, with only 38% within 15 minutes of a GP by public transport and 20% of shopping facilities. In all the geographic areas, some places are not within 15 minutes by public transport of the key services listed.
Hospital outpatients department
100%
Figure 6 shows that, in general, a lower percentage of people in rural areas find that services are convenient. This is particularly so for accessible rural areas.
However, there are services such as the Post Office and the doctor's surgery which those in remote rural areas find more convenient than do those living in accessible rural or the rest of Scotland.
Figure 7 shows that households in rural Scotland are more likely to have home internet access than those in the rest of Scotland. However, those who do have internet access in rural areas are less likely to have a broadband connection than in the rest of Scotland.
Table 12: Households Recycling Items in the Past Month by Geographic Area, 2008
Source: Scottish Household Survey, 2008 (Using Scottish Government Urban Rural Classification, 2007-2008)
Table 12 shows households in accessible rural areas, are more likely to recycle than those in remote rural areas and those in the rest of Scotland. Households in remote rural areas are less likely to recycle plastic or newspaper/magazine/paper/cardboard but are more likely to recycle glass bottles than households in the rest of Scotland.
Travel Patterns
Table 13: Cars Normally Available for Private Use by Geographic Area, 2008
Source: Scottish Household Survey 2008 (Using Scottish Government Urban Rural Classification, 2007-2008)
Table 13 shows that in rural areas a higher proportion of households have access to one or more cars than do those in the rest of Scotland.
Table 14: How Adults Usually Travel to Work/Education by Geographic Area, 2008
Source: Scottish Household Survey 2008
(Using Scottish Government Urban Rural Classification 2007-2008)
Table 14 shows that people in rural areas are more likely to drive to work/education than are people in the rest of Scotland. The table also shows that people in the rest of Scotland are more likely to walk or take public transport to work/education than are those in rural areas.
Table 15: How School Children Normally Travel to School by Geographic Area, 2008
Source: Scottish Household Survey, 2008 (Using Scottish Government Urban Rural Classification, 2007-2008)
Table 15 shows that children in rural areas are more likely to travel to school by bus than by any other mode of transport, whereas children in the rest of Scotland are more likely to walk.
100%
Figure 8 gives an indication of the relationship between where people live and where they work. For those living in remote rural areas, the majority also work in remote rural areas (68%). For those living in accessible rural areas, 46% work in accessible rural areas, but 52% commute to work in the rest of Scotland. Of those living in the rest of Scotland, 9% work in rural areas. The number of people from rural areas who work in the rest of Scotland is just over 190,000 compared to approximately 160,000 who live in the rest of Scotland and work in rural areas.
Figure 9: Total Expenditure on Fuel for Cars per Month by Geographic Area, 2005/2006
100%
Figure 9 shows that residents in rural Scotland are more likely than those in the rest of Scotland to spend over £100 per month on fuel for their cars. This is particularly true in accessible rural Scotland with 36% of respondents indicating that they spend over £100 per month on fuel. 30% of respondents in remote rural Scotland spend over £100 a month, with only 23% of respondents in the rest of Scotland indicating that they spent over £100 per month.
Education Table 16: Highest Qualifications Held by Working Age Population by Geographic Area, 2008
Source: Annual Population Survey in Scotland, 2008 (Using Scottish Government Urban Rural Classification, 2007-2008)
Table 16 shows that a lower percentage of the working age population in rural areas hold no qualifications compared to the rest of Scotland.
Table 17: Average Tariff Score of S4 Pupils by Geographic Area, 2007/2008
Note: Based on pupil's home address. Not all pupils could be assigned an urban/rural classification due to lack of address details. This table includes 60,022 out of a total of 60,351 pupils. Source: Scottish Government, SQA Attainment and School Leaver qualifications in Scotland, 2007/2008 (Based on Scottish Executive Urban Rural Classification, 2007-2008)
Table 17 shows that pupils in S4 at schools in rural areas achieve higher average tariff scores than do pupils in the rest of Scotland.
Table 18: Destination of School Leavers from Public Funded Secondary Schools by Geographic Area, 2007/2008
Source: Scottish Government Education Directorate: Destination of Leavers from Scottish Schools, 2007/2008
(Based on school leaver's home address and Scottish Government Urban Rural Classification, 2007-08)
Table 18 shows that in rural areas a third of school leavers go into full-time higher education. Remote rural areas have the highest percentage of school leavers going into employment.
Health
Figure 10 shows that in all areas of Scotland, the life expectancy of females is higher than that of males. It can also be seen that the life expectancy of males and females is higher in rural areas than in the rest of Scotland.
For males, the life expectancy in remote rural and accessible rural areas is 77 years, over two and a half years more than in rest of Scotland. For females, the life expectancy in rural areas is just under 81 years, which is one and a half years more than in the rest of Scotland.
Table 19: Rate of Hospital Admissions (Emergency and Cancer) (2007)
Source: Scottish Neighbourhood Statistics, 2008 (based on data zones) (Using Scottish Government Urban Rural Classification 2007-2008)
Table 19 shows that in the rest of Scotland the rate of emergency admissions is higher than in either remote rural or accessible rural areas.
The rates for cancer admissions are very similar in all three areas.
Table 20: Whether Respondent Smokes by Geographic Area, 2008
Source: Scottish Household Survey, 2008 (Using Scottish Government Urban Rural Classification, 2007-2008)
Table 20 shows that a higher percentage of people in the rest of Scotland smoke, compared to people in rural areas. Remote rural areas have the lowest proportion of people who smoke.
Housing
100%
Table 21: House Sales (Average Prices and Total Number) by Geographic Area, 2008
Source: Registers of Scotland
Using Scottish Government Urban Rural Classification 2007-2008
Table 21 shows the number of house sales on the open market, by geographic area (these figures excludes for example right to buy and block purchases by housing associations).
The highest average price was £183,000 in accessible rural areas, £18,000 higher than in remote rural areas and £49,000 higher than in the Rest of Scotland.
The prices do not compare like with like as prices are not adjusted for property type and size (Figure 11 on the previous page shows differences of property types by geographic area). It is also important to note that these prices are based only on prices for properties sold and not values of all properties in the area. In 2008 there was a large reduction in the number of sales. Compared with 2007 the number of transactions fell by 30% in rural Scotland and 37% in the rest of Scotland.
100%
Table 22: Use of Housing Stock by Geographic Area, 2008
Source: Estimates of households and dwellings in Scotland, 2008 (Using Scottish Government Urban Rural Classification 2007-2008)
1. Vacant dwellings include unoccupied dwellings that are exempt from Council Tax
2. Second homes include dwellings subject to second home discount (including holiday homes and selfcatering accommodation available to let for less than 140 days per year)
3. Dwellings with a single adult discount include dwellings with a single adult, or one adult living with one or more children, or adults who are 'disregarded' for Council Tax purposes.
Table 22 shows the percentage of vacant dwellings and those occupied as second homes or with only one adult. The largest proportion of second homes is in remote rural areas with 7% of dwellings being used as second homes. The rest of Scotland has the largest proportion (40%) of single adult households with both remote and accessible rural having under 30% of dwellings with just one adult resident.
The number of vacant dwellings is similar across all areas. The overall occupancy rate therefore is lowest in remote rural regions at 88% compared to 96% in both accessible rural areas and the rest of Scotland.
Figure 13: Energy Efficiency Rating by Geographic Area, 2007
100%
Energy efficiency of dwellings can be measured using the National Home Energy Rating (NHER). This procedure is based on a model (produced by the National Energy Services) of the theoretical costs of maintaining a standard heating regime for a standard level of occupancy derived from knowledge of the appliances, fuel sources, insulation, size and dwelling type of the premises. The model contains a factor for local climate variations to take into account differences across the UK.
Figure 13 shows that housing stock in rural Scotland is generally much less energy efficient than those in the rest of Scotland. In remote rural areas, 15% of households were classified as having a good energy efficiency rating compared to 56% in the rest of Scotland. Dwellings in remote rural areas are more likely to have poor energy efficiency with 14% of households being classed as having poor energy efficiency in remote rural areas compared to 2% of households in the rest of Scotland.
A household is defined as being in fuel poverty if it would be required to spend more than 10% of its income (including Housing Benefit or Income Support for Mortgage Interest) on all household fuel use. 'Extreme fuel poverty' is defined as a household having to spend more than 20% of its income on fuel.
Figure 14 shows that more households in rural areas are classed as being fuel poor or extreme fuel poor than in the rest of Scotland. In the rest of Scotland 77% of households have been classed as 'not fuel poor' compared to 66% in accessible rural and 56% in remote rural Scotland.
Economy and Enterprise
Industry Size
Primary sector industries are defined as agriculture, forestry and fishing. Secondary industries include energy, mining and quarrying, manufacturing and construction. Tertiary sector industries are made up of wholesale, retail and repair, hotels and restaurants, transport, financial services and education and health.
Figure 15 shows employment in registered enterprises* in Scotland. In all areas in Scotland the tertiary sector is the most significant in terms of employment.
The public sector accounts for a fifth of employment in rural areas and a quarter of employment in the rest of Scotland.
* A registered enterprise is registered for VAT and/or PAYE.
Figure 16 shows the distribution of employment across sectors within each of the geographical areas, with workers in the public sector shown as a single category. Roughly two thirds of these public sector workers are employed in 'Education, health, social work and other community, social and personal services'.
In remote rural areas 'Agriculture, forestry and fishing' is the largest source of private sector jobs followed by 'Hotels and restaurants'.
In accessible rural areas, 'Manufacturing' and 'Financial intermediation, Real estate, renting and business activities' are the two most significant sectors.
Agriculture, forestry and fishing is a sector that shows the greatest difference across Scotland accounting for 16% of workers in remote rural areas compared to less than 1% in the rest of Scotland. Financial intermediation accounts for 18% of jobs in the rest of Scotland but only 8% in remote rural areas.
Business
Figure 17: Employment by Size of Firm and Geographic Area, 2008
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
Source: Inter Departmental Business Register 2008
Using Scottish Government Urban Rural Classification 2007-2008
Figure 17 shows that micro and other small businesses account for over half of those employed in remote rural areas and 41% in accessible rural areas. Micro businesses (0-9 employees) are particularly significant in remote rural areas.
Large businesses account for 40% of those employed in the rest of Scotland but only 28% in accessible rural areas and 15% in remote rural areas.
Table 23: Business Births by Geographic Area, 2007
Source: Inter Departmental Business Register 2008 Using Scottish Government Urban Rural Classification 2007-2008
Table 23 shows the number of business births and closures as measured by the number registering for either VAT or PAYE. It therefore excludes only business with no employees and a turnover below the VAT threshold It shows that when compared with the size of the existing stock of businesses the business 'birth rate' in rural areas is relatively low: in other words there is more churn of businesses in the rest of Scotland. However when expressed relative to the size of population the rural areas, and accessible rural areas in particular, have a large number of active businesses and a large number of new businesses.
Economic Activity
Figure 18: Economic Activity by Geographic Area, 2008
100%
Figure 18 shows that a higher proportion of people in rural areas are economically active (i.e. employed or looking for work) than in the rest of Scotland. Correspondingly, inactivity rates (those neither employed nor unemployed) are lower in rural Scotland than in the rest of Scotland. The main reasons for being economically inactive are long-term sickness or disability, being a student and looking after family.
A higher percentage of the working age population is either employed, in education or training in rural areas than in the rest of Scotland.
The employment rate (the number of people employed as a percentage of the total population of working age) is again higher in rural Scotland than in the rest of Scotland.
The unemployment rate (that is the number of people unemployed as a percentage of all those who are economically active, of all ages) is lowest in rural areas.
Figure 19 shows that the employment rates are much higher for all sub-groups in rural areas compared to the rest of Scotland. The employment rate for males is highest in remote rural areas while the employment rate for females is highest in accessible rural areas.
Table 24: Patterns of Work by Geographic Area, 2008
Source: Annual Population Survey in Scotland 2008
Note: Includes workers of all ages, not just working age
* Homeworkers are people who work mainly in their own home, or in different places using home as a base, in their main job. Excludes people on government employment and training schemes Using Scottish Government Urban Rural Classification 2007-2008
The Annual Survey of Population in Scotland reports 2,528,000 people working in Scotland in 2008. Of these 7% live in remote rural areas and 13% in accessible rural areas.
Table 24 shows that self-employment is twice as common in rural Scotland as in the rest of Scotland. In all areas men are more likely than women to be self employed. Of employed males in remote rural areas, 25% are self-employed.
Women are more likely than men to work part time. Whilst percentages of men working part-time are similar across Scotland, there are variations for women with almost half female workers in remote rural areas working part-time in their main job.
The percentage of employed people in remote rural areas who have a second job (8%) is higher than in accessible rural areas or in the rest of Scotland (5% and 4% respectively).
A greater percentage of those employed in rural areas (particularly remote rural) are 'homeworkers' i.e. they work mainly in their own home or use home as a base.
Earnings
Figure 20: Median Hourly Rates of Pay by Geographic Area, 2008
Source: Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings
Figure 20 shows the median hourly wage rate for all male and female employees in each of the geographical areas. The median rate is highest for residents of accessible rural areas, with little difference between remote rural and the rest of Scotland. The pattern is the same for males and for females. The ratio between rates paid to men and to women is roughly the same in each type of geographic area.
Table 25: Gross Annual Pay for Full-time Employees by Geographic Area, 2008
Source: Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings
a Employees on adult rates who have been in the same job for over a year.
b Resident Earnings
Table 25 shows that the median gross annual pay (i.e. before taxation and other deductions) for full-time employees is highest in accessible rural areas and lowest in the rest of Scotland.
Income
Source: Scottish Household Survey 2008
(Using Scottish Government Urban Rural Classification 2007-2008)
Figure 21 presents net household income figures (for the highest income householder) by geographic area. The income figures include income from employment, benefits and other sources (after taxation and other deductions).
Relative to the rest of Scotland, there is a higher percentage of households in rural areas with a net annual household income of over £20,000, especially in accessible rural areas.
Table 26: Income and Employment Deprivation by Geographic Area, 2005
Source: Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation , 2006 (based on data zone) Using the Scottish Executive Urban Rural Classification, 2005-2006
Income deprivation is comprised of eight indicators including being in receipt of Income Support, Working Families Tax Credit, Job Seekers Allowance and Disability Tax Credits.
Employment deprivation is comprised of four indicators that identify those people that want to work, but due to unemployment, ill health or disability are excluded from the labour market. The indicators used are Unemployment Claimant Count, Incapacity Benefits, Disablement Allowance and Compulsory New Deal Participants.
Table 26 shows that the percentage of the total population that is income deprived is lower in rural areas than the rest of Scotland, and is lowest overall in accessible rural areas.
The percentage of the working age population that are employment deprived is also lower in rural areas than in the rest of Scotland.
Table 27: Characteristics of Businesses by Geographic Area, 2006
Source: Annual Small Business Survey, 2006 Includes only businesses with one or more employees Using Scottish Executive Urban Rural Classification, 2005-2006
Table 27 shows that more business in rural locations are family owned than those in the rest of Scotland.
Access to Finance for Small and Medium-sized Enterprises (SMEs)
Figure 22: Percentage of Businesses Who Applied for Finance, 2007-2009
100%
Figure 22 shows little difference in the percentage of SMEs who applied for finance in rural areas and the rest of Scotland.
Source: SME Access to Finance 2009
Figure 23 shows that across all areas overdrafts were the most common form of finance applied for however SMEs in accessible rural locations were more likely to apply for overdrafts then elsewhere and less likely to enter leasing or hire purchase agreements to finance there businesses. SMEs in rural areas were less likely then the rest of Scotland to apply for credit cards.
Figure 24 shows that SMEs in rural areas were less likely to make applications for finance that were rejected. Remote rural firms were the least likely to have applications rejected with just 7% compared to 26% for firms in the rest of Scotland.
5
For most of the variables identified SMEs in accessible rural areas view more as potential barriers to success then firms in other areas. The exception to this being access to finance which firms in remote rural locations and the rest of Scotland view as being greater obstacles. Across all SMEs getting orders and tax and regulations were highlighted as two of the biggest barriers to success for their firm.
Figure 26 Growth Amtitions Over the Next 3 Years, 2009
100%
Source: SME Access to Finance 2009
Figure 26 shows that SMEs in rural areas are more content with the size of their firm then those in the rest of Scotland. This is shown by the fact that 56% of firms in both remote rural and accessible rural areas said their ambition was to stay the same size or reduce the size of the business compared to 42% in the rest of Scotland. The rest of Scotland also has the largest proportion of firms whose ambition is to grow substantially.
Figure 27 shows that the majority of remote rural SMEs are over 15 years old and 85% of them are over 4 years old. This contrasts with the rest of Scotland where only 31% of SMEs are over 15 years old and 74% of firms are over 4 years old. This shows that a smaller proportion of rural Scottish SMEs are new or very young businesses then is the case in the rest of Scotland.
Notes
Background
This is the sixth edition of 'Rural Scotland Key Facts' – a publication intended to be an easily accessible reference for statistics on rural Scotland. This 2009 version updates statistics from the fifth edition where new statistics have become available. Some new items have also been introduced.
For hard copies of this publication or for further information on any of the tables/figures presented, please contact the Analytical Services Division of the Scottish Government Rural and Environment Research and Analysis Directorate. Telephone 0131 244 6143.
This is a National Statistics publication.
It has been produced to high professional standards set out in the National Statistics Code of Practice and Release Practice Protocol. www.statistics.gov.uk/about_ns/cop/default.asp.
Details of pre-release access is provided on the Scottish Government Statistics website at: http://www.scotland.gov.uk/topics/statistics/search/forthcoming.
Complaints and suggestions
If you are not satisfied with our service, please write to:
Mr Rob Wishart Chief Statistician Scottish Government St Andrew's House Edinburgh EH1 3DG
Tel: (0131) 244 0302
Email: [email protected]
Sources
For tables/charts referencing the General Register Office for Scotland, figures are derived from a number of sources including the Census and Registered Births and Deaths. Further information is available at http://www.gro-scotland.gov.uk/statistics/index.html.
For tables/charts sourced from the Scottish Household Survey, the unweighted base numbers for households population are 2,616 for remote rural, 3,139 for accessible rural, and 21,483 for the rest of Scotland. There are occasional variations in base sizes for individual tables/figures. Further detail on the base numbers is available in 'Scotland's People Annual Report : Results from 2007/2008 Scottish Household Survey'. The sample sizes are smallest for remote rural areas so there are larger confidence intervals associated with the statistics for this area than for the rest of Scotland figures. Further information is available at http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Statistics/16002.
Details from the Scottish House Condition Survey, are available in 'Scottish House Condition Survey: Key Findings for 2007' at http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2008/11/2609421/0. The Scottish House Condition Survey is not a National Statistics source.
Statistics sourced from Scottish Neighbourhood Statistics (including the Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation) are based on data zones – the small area statistical geography in Scotland. Further information on Scottish Neighbourhood Statistics is available from www.sns.gov.uk. More information regarding the SPRI can be found at http://www.sepa.org.uk/spri/index.htm. The SPRI and hospital admissions come from sources that are not National Statistics.
Statistics sourced from the Scottish Vacant and Derelict Land Survey are based on the 2007 survey that included 3,830 sites. Further information is available from http://cci.scot.nhs.uk/Publications/2008/01/24150145/0.
The SQA Attainment and School Leaver Qualifications in Scotland 2007/08 is based on figures drawn together from the various sources including the pupil census and are the best that the schools are able to provide at that time. Further information is available from http://openscotland.gov.uk/Publications/2009/03/09154229/0.
The Destination of Leavers from Scottish Schools 2007/08 uses figures put together from a number of sources such as the Pupil Census and Skills Development Scotland. Further information can be found at http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2008/12/08090751/0 .
The Inter Departmental Business Register, is maintained by ONS and is a database of all registered enterprises operating in the UK, i.e. enterprises that are registered for VAT and/or PAYE. It covers 99% of economic activity in the UK. Those excluded are small sole traders or partnerships with no employees and an annual turnover of less than the VAT threshold (£67,000 at April 2008). Figures from IDBR relate to 2008.
The Annual Small Business Survey in Scotland, includes the boost to the Labour Force Survey sample in Scotland resulting in a sample of approximately 23,000 households. The Annual Population Survey data follows on from the Annual Scottish Labour Force Survey data. Further information is available from http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2008/25095306/0 . Figures from this survey relate to 2008.
Information relating to the Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings (ASHE) is available from http://www.statistics.gov.uk/StatBase/Product.asp?vlnk=13101&Pos=2&ColRank=1&Rank =160. ASHE is a UK wide survey that was developed to replace the New Earnings Survey in 2004. Figures from this survey relate to April 2008.
Scottish Government Urban Rural Classification
Further information on The Scottish Government Urban Rural Classification 2007-2008 is available on the Scottish Government website:
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2008/07/29152642.
The Scottish Government Urban Rural Classification 2007-2008 updates the Scottish Executive Urban Rural Classification 2005-2006 with the latest available population settlement and drive time estimates. The classification is updated every two years although the definitions of urban and rural areas underlying the classification are unchanged. Two main criteria have been used to produce the Scottish Government urban rural classification: settlement size as defined by the General Register Office for Scotland (GROS) and accessibility based on drive time analysis to differentiate between accessible and remote areas in Scotland. The changes between the 2005-2006 and the 2007-2008 classifications stem from settlements whose population fluctuates around the 10,000 and 3,000 marks as these are the population thresholds used to distinguish between urban and rural areas. Further information on this is available from the above publication.
Where possible, it is appropriate to use the classification that relates to the year it is being applied to. Further information on the Scottish Executive urban rural classification 2003-2004 and 2005-2006 is available on the Scottish Government website:
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2004/06/19498/38784 and http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2006/07/31114822/0 respectively.
With the exception of data sourced from Scottish Neighbourhood Statistics, all data used have been assigned an Scottish Government urban rural classification based on unit post codes. For statistics based on Scottish Neighbourhood Statistics, data zones are classified into the Scottish Government urban rural classification using 'best fit' methods. Further information on this is available from the publication on 2007-2008 urban rural classification.
Edited by Paul Teasdale, Kathy Johnston and Bruce Golding Comments on the format and contents of this booklet would be most welcome.
Please contact:
Rural and Environment Research and Analysis Directorate Scottish Government
1-A Pentland House Edinburgh EH14 1TY
Tel: 0131 244 6143
Fax: 0131 244 6140
Email: [email protected]
We welcome any comments or suggestions that would help us to improve our standards of service.
© Crown copyright 2009
This document is also available on the Scottish Government website: www.scotland.gov.uk
RR Donnelley B61169 09/09
Further information is available from: Rural and Environmental Research and Analysis Directorate Scottish Government
1A
Pentland House
Edinburgh
EH14 1TY
Telephone enquiries 0131 244 6143
Email enquiries
[email protected]
|
<urn:uuid:149935f8-b3a1-4164-ac9c-41d9d1366937>
|
CC-MAIN-2023-06
|
https://www.gov.scot/binaries/content/documents/govscot/publications/statistics/2020/11/rural-scotland-key-facts-2004-12/documents/rural-scotland-key-facts-2009/rural-scotland-key-facts-2009/govscot%3Adocument/rural%2Bfacts%2B2009.pdf
|
2023-02-03T20:44:06+00:00
|
crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2023-06/segments/1674764500074.73/warc/CC-MAIN-20230203185547-20230203215547-00002.warc.gz
| 803,953,407
| 8,494
|
eng_Latn
|
eng_Latn
| 0.983991
|
eng_Latn
| 0.997061
|
[
"eng_Latn",
"unknown",
"eng_Latn",
"unknown",
"eng_Latn",
"eng_Latn",
"eng_Latn",
"eng_Latn",
"eng_Latn",
"eng_Latn",
"eng_Latn",
"eng_Latn",
"eng_Latn",
"eng_Latn",
"eng_Latn",
"eng_Latn",
"eng_Latn",
"eng_Latn",
"eng_Latn",
"eng_Latn",
"eng_Latn",
"eng_Latn",
"eng_Latn",
"eng_Latn",
"eng_Latn",
"eng_Latn",
"eng_Latn",
"eng_Latn",
"unknown",
"eng_Latn",
"unknown",
"eng_Latn",
"eng_Latn",
"eng_Latn",
"eng_Latn",
"eng_Latn",
"eng_Latn",
"eng_Latn",
"eng_Latn",
"eng_Latn",
"eng_Latn",
"eng_Latn",
"eng_Latn",
"eng_Latn",
"eng_Latn",
"eng_Latn",
"eng_Latn",
"eng_Latn",
"eng_Latn",
"eng_Latn",
"eng_Latn",
"eng_Latn",
"eng_Latn",
"eng_Latn"
] | false
|
docling
|
[
151,
243,
1868,
1894,
2821,
3258,
4080,
4785,
5320,
5649,
6077,
6687,
7518,
8644,
9404,
10233,
10890,
11344,
11747,
12013,
12882,
13730,
14303,
14853,
15786,
16289,
16809,
17580,
17595,
18598,
18604,
19846,
20894,
21485,
22189,
23113,
23737,
24525,
25497,
25763,
27167,
27691,
28099,
29010,
29983,
30666,
31327,
32241,
33720,
35937,
37075,
39108,
39552,
39937
] |
[
1.6875,
0.85546875
] | 1
| 0
|
Rural Affairs and Islands Committee
Wednesday 15 March 2023
Wednesday 15 March 2023
CONTENTS
RURAL AFFAIRS AND ISLANDS COMMITTEE
th
8
Meeting 2023, Session 6
CONVENER
*Finlay Carson (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
EPUTY CONVENER
D
*Beatrice Wishart (Shetland Islands) (LD)
COMMITTEE MEMBERS
*Karen Adam (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
*Alasdair Allan (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Ariane Burgess (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
*Jim Fairlie (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
*Rachael Hamilton (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
*Jenni Minto (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Mercedes Villalba (North East Scotland) (Lab)
*attended
THE FOLLOWING ALSO PARTICIPATED:
Mairi Gougeon (The Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs and Islands)
James Hamilton (Scottish Government)
Ross Lilley (NatureScot)
Kevin Matheson (Scottish Government)
Professor Des Thompson (NatureScot)
LERK TO THE COMMITTEE
C
Emma Johnston
LOCATION
The Mary Fairfax Somerville Room (CR2)
Scottish Parliament
Rural Affairs and Islands Committee
Wednesday 15 March 2023
[The Convener opened the meeting at 10:00]
Decision on Taking Business in Private
The Convener (Finlay Carson): Good morning, and welcome to the eighth meeting in 2023 of the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee. I remind members who are using electronic devices to switch them to silent.
We have received apologies from Ariane Burgess and Mercedes Villalba.
Our first item of business is a decision on whether to take agenda item 5 in private. Do members agree to do so?
Membersindicated agreement.
Subordinate Legislation
Alcoholic Beverages, Fruit and Vegetables (Miscellaneous Amendment) (Scotland) Regulations 2023 [Draft]
10:00
The Convener: Our second item of business is consideration of an affirmative instrument. I welcome the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs and Islands, Mairi Gougeon, and her officials: Kevin Matheson, policy manager in the food and drink industry growth team, and James Hamilton, a lawyer.
I invite the cabinet secretary to make an opening statement.
The Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs and Islands (Mairi Gougeon): Thanks for inviting me to speak about the regulations. On 28 February last year, the United Kingdom signed a free trade agreement with New Zealand. During negotiations, the UK committed to making three minor changes to domestic legislation on how wine and other alcoholic drinks are described and marketed.
The Scottish Government remains of the view that the best option for the UK as a whole and for Scotland is the one that Scotland voted for—that is, remaining in the European Union. The Scottish Government's default position is to align with EU law where appropriate and where that is in Scotland's interests. However, as a responsible Government, we are required to observe and implement the United Kingdom's international obligations. The instrument is required to implement the New Zealand free trade agreement.
The changes that are set out in the instrument will bring some flexibilities to how wine and other alcoholic drinks can be labelled and marketed. However, it will not impact on the practices that are currently employed by producers and traders, who can continue to label and market as they currently do.
The changes allow producers and sellers of wine and other alcoholic drinks slightly more flexibility in respect of the information that they choose to include on their labels. The instrument will make three changes to retained EU law.
First, the instrument will allow any wine product to show alcoholic strength to one decimal place— for example, the strength could be 12.2 per cent or 12.7 per cent. Retained EU law currently limits wine to being labelled to show alcoholic strength to whole or half units—for example, 12 per cent or 12.5 per cent. That will continue to remain a possibility for wine that is marketed here or exported.
The concession to label wine to a single decimal place is not new. That possibility was already extended to Australian wines by the EU in its wine trade agreement with Australia, which the UK retained after exit.
The instrument will also introduce a change to rules concerning the labelling of grape varieties for wine that is marketed in Great Britain. It will require that, where more than one grape variety is listed on a wine label, the named varieties must total at least 95 per cent of the content of the wine. Current retained EU legislation requires that to be 100 per cent. The changes will mean that up to 5 per cent of the content may consist of varieties that are not shown on the label.
The changes that are proposed in the instrument will provide businesses that market and produce wine of multiple grape varieties with the scope to vary the production of a wine, to bring improved consistency and quality. UK domestic wine producers have warmly welcomed the flexibility that that will bring.
The regulations will also allow flexibility in how the terms "alc", or alcohol, and "vol", or volume, appear with the numerical alcohol content on wine and other alcoholic beverages. The current rules require that "alc" appears before the numerical alcohol content of the drink and "vol" after. The instrument will allow the term "alc" to appear after the numerical alcohol content of the drink.
Together, those changes will facilitate the trade between the UK and New Zealand. They may also help smaller producers in both countries who might wish to exploit a niche for their product in the market but for whom the size of the order would mean a full label change that would not be economically viable.
I stress that the changes are optional. We expect that many in the industry with established markets in Northern Ireland and/or the EU will continue to label and market wine as they currently do to support sales in those markets.
The Scottish Government consented to a Great Britain-wide consultation seeking views from stakeholders in the sector and more widely on the proposal, and the UK wine industry firmly supports the changes set out in this instrument and welcomes the flexibility that it provides.
I hope that I have said enough to assure members of the need for this instrument. It represents just one part of the changes being made that will allow the new free trade agreement with New Zealand to come into force, but in making those changes we have taken the opportunity to give our thriving wine and alcoholic drinks sector flexibility that will support it to trade in the future.
Finally, the instrument also amends article 11 of retained regulation (EU) 543/2011 to correct a minor error that is contained in regulation 5(5) of the Agriculture (Retained EU Law and Data) (Scotland) Act 2020 (Consequential Modifications) and Agricultural Products, Aquatic Animal Health and Genetically Modified Organisms (EU Exit) (Amendment) Regulations 2022. I am happy to take any questions that the committee might have.
The Convener: Well done on the title of that regulation. We will move to questions. Do you expect that more such Scottish statutory instruments to implement trade agreements will come to this committee?
Mairi Gougeon: There is what is set out in the Government's legislative programme, obviously. You will have seen the debate on the legislative consent motion that took place in the Parliament yesterday, and this instrument is coming forward, but I will ask Kevin Matheson to say whether we expect any more, particularly in relation to food and drink.
Kevin Matheson (Scottish Government): No, I am not expecting any. Trade deals with Canada, India, Mexico and Israel are under discussion, and those might filter down, but I have not been given a heads-up about any.
The Convener: It seems a bit odd that the only SSI that we have to deal with on a trade deal comes down to labelling and the content of the wine or the grape varieties that are used. We drink Australian wine as well, so is this a result of the flexibility within retained EU law or were there already concessions for Australian wine but not New Zealand wine?
Mairi Gougeon: As far as I am aware, New Zealand asked for this during the negotiations primarily to benefit some of the smaller producers that provide mainly for the home market at the moment but could see an opportunity to export to the UK.
James Hamilton (Scottish Government): The EU and Australia have a trade deal that covers wine, which was rolled over by the UK, so that trade deal with the EU and the UK already provides some of the flexibility that we see in this deal, such as the ability to label wine to 0.1 of a decimal point, so we already see that flexibility in other trade deals that the EU has.
Mairi Gougeon: I also point out that, in its negotiations with New Zealand, the EU is looking at similar changes with greater flexibility with regard to, for example, the percentage of the grape variety that should be on the label.
The Convener: Okay. So, one of the main reasons for this SSI is that existing legislation dealt with the issue with regard to Australia,
because there was an EU deal with Australia, but similar regulations did not exist within EU legislation in relation to New Zealand. I get that now.
James Hamilton: The EU labelling regulations provide for exemptions for trade deals that the EU has done with other countries, so some of those are already incorporated, and the Australian deal, in particular, has been rolled into the UK agreement with Australia. Therefore, New Zealand not having had a trade deal is potentially an outlier. This will give New Zealand the flexibility that it has asked for, and the deal that it has negotiated with the EU has the same flexibility that is going through the EU ratification process at the moment.
Rachael Hamilton (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con): I think that you have probably answered my question about the flexibility. I was going to ask you whether, within the free trade deal, this is one way of ensuring that New Zealand can export multiple grape varieties, which it probably does not do at the moment. The main varieties are probably Pinot Noir, Merlot and Sauvignon—we have a great taste for those in the UK—and there is the issue of the alcohol content, too. I assume that, as you say, this provides flexibility.
However, within a free trade agreement, surely it also removes the burden of labelling and provides help with that to allow greater choice, which provides flexibility. I presume that that makes a great free trade deal and that that is one of the negotiations that they had. Weather might also affect the grape variety and the alcohol content.
Mairi Gougeon: It also provides more clarity and transparency on the percentage of alcohol, which the lower-alcohol-volume producers have also welcomed. Other varieties can be used to up the consistency of the wine product, but producers on both sides have welcomed that.
Rachael Hamilton:
Good.
The Convener: As there are no other questions, we move on to our third agenda item, which is formal consideration of the motion to approve the instrument.
Motion moved,
That the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee recommends that the Alcoholic Beverages, Fruit and Vegetables (Miscellaneous Amendment) (Scotland) Regulations 2023 be approved.—[Mairi Gougeon]
Motion agreed to.
The Convener: Is the committee content to delegate authority to me to sign off our report on our deliberations on the regulations?
Members indicated agreement.
The Convener: That completes consideration of the regulations. I thank the minister and her officials for attending.
We will suspend briefly to allow a change in witnesses.
10:11
Meeting suspended.
10:13
On resuming—
Future Agriculture Policy
The Convener: Our next item of business is pre-legislative scrutiny of Scotland's future agricultural policy. Our evidence session will focus on biodiversity, and we will take evidence from NatureScot. I welcome to the meeting Ross Lilley, head of natural resource management, and his colleague Professor Des Thompson, principal adviser on biodiversity and science, who join us remotely.
As normal, I ask you to type R in the chat box if you wish to speak. Given that there are only two of you, allowing that should not be too difficult. We have approximately 60 minutes for questioning. I thank you for joining us.
I will kick off with a broad question. Will you give us an indication of the drivers of biodiversity loss within agriculture? What changes have driven that loss historically? What practices have led to the decline or maintain pressures on biodiversity today?
We will kick off with Ross Lilley.
Ross Lilley (NatureScot): Actually, may I refer that question to my colleague for an answer?
10:15
The Convener:
That is fine.
Professor Des Thompson (NatureScot): Good morning, and thank you for the question.
Agricultural intensification is one of five principal drivers of biodiversity loss, not just in Scotland but globally. To answer your question directly, it is the intensification of agriculture that is putting considerable pressure on biodiversity. Agricultural intensification reduces the amount of space that is available for nature and reduces the available time for birds—especially farmland birds—to breed successfully. Overall, the intensification of agriculture reduces space and time.
The Convener: I should declare an interest as a former farmer.
Twenty-five years ago, there were schemes to help farmers to fence off watercourses, increase field margins, fence off wet areas, rebuild dykes and stop cutting grass until later in the season. Methods of cutting grass, such as starting in the middle of the field rather than starting at the outside and working your way in, were introduced. Why have those interventions not caused a halt or slowdown in the decline in biodiversity? Why is there still a rapid and concerning decline?
Professor Thompson: It is because of the scale of the changes that you have described. The changes in watercourse management and introducing field margins are very helpful for sustaining bird life but, if you sit back and think about farmland birds such as lapwings, oystercatchers, corn buntings and skylarks, you will realise that they need very large areas of farmland in order to breed successfully.
Small, piecemeal efforts to improve farmland will not help biodiversity as a whole. The awful thing now is that we have an extensive database that shows that we have lost many of our farmland birds and pollinators because we have not been able to transform agriculture at a sufficiently large scale to benefit many of those birds.
I give the example of skylarks and the production of silage. Often, the repeated cutting of silage does not provide space and time for skylarks to build nests, lay eggs and rear chicks successfully.
The Convener: You are saying that, for the past 20 years, farmers have been encouraged to undertake certain activities in a certain way but, in effect, that has been a waste of time because they were not done on the scale on which they should have been done. When did you realise that that was the case? Why was more not done sooner?
Professor Thompson: Farmers realised the plight of biodiversity more than anyone else. You are a farmer, and I know and talk with many farmers. Many of them are heartbroken at seeing the changes. Birds such as lapwings in rural areas are red-listed birds now. Those declines have been charted since the 1970s and especially since the 1990s, and we now have a biodiversity crisis. Governments in Scotland and globally have referenced the climate and nature emergencies, so we now have the courage and conviction to say, "Actually, this has to stop. We need to transform the way that we manage the land in order to halt the loss of biodiversity."
Ross Lilley: We have had 50-odd years of the common agricultural policy, which has been a very effective European policy that has been applied in the UK in that it has driven and supported farmers to be ever more efficient and effective food producers. That was the fundamental purpose of the common agricultural policy. In latter years, it sought to achieve other public outcomes, but with a very compartmentalised approach.
On the one hand, the main driver of support is ensuring that farmers are resilient and that their income is supported for food production; on the other hand, they are asked to put land aside for nature and other public interests. That system is not going to continue to work in our current climate, and it is not going to allow farming to
deliver the multiple public outcomes that we need from it.
Instead, each aspect makes farming less resilient, which means that, from a food production point of view, with the changing climate that we have now, let alone future climate change, the systems that—[Inaudible.]—as they used to be in terms of food production. Combining that with managing land for nature or using nature systems would not only make food production more resilient but restore the biodiversity loss that we have had over the past few years.
The Convener: Jim Fairlie has questions. He will be followed by Rachael Hamilton.
Jim Fairlie (Perthshire South and Kinrossshire) (SNP): I want to go back to the point that Ross Lilley has just made about intensification, if that is okay. We are talking about a whole-farming approach—that is, one that goes across the industry—but it is a fact that, if you take just two farms, the climate and biodiversity challenges that each faces will be different. Indeed, there will be different climate and biodiversity challenges on just one farm alone, never mind the challenges facing a full-scale system.
I am going to talk predominantly about semiupland, upland and hill farming. If we are saying that intensification is part of the issue with regard to biodiversity loss, I would just point out that you cannot get farming that is more about landscape than those kinds of farming. Why, therefore, are we seeing the same drop in numbers in upland farms as we are in the big, intensive arable farms?
Ross Lilley: Of course, a lot of the upland farming habitats and the species that depend on them are far more sensitive than they are elsewhere, and even a small change in farming intensification has an impact on them. However, you are right. We have, for instance, seen quite a significant drop in sheep numbers on some hill— [Inaudible.]—farm support has been changed— [Inaudible.] In other areas, we still have quite high livestock densities. From the point of view of the types of habitat restoration that we need in the uplands for climate and biodiversity reasons, such as woodland regeneration and peatland restoration, the numbers are still too high. However, that is not to say that there is no sustainable form of upland or hill livestock management. After all, we do not want the abandonment of hill ground by rural livestock, because there is a fundamental need to keep habitats open and diverse. There is a sweet spot to be hit there.
Jim Fairlie: I am glad to hear you say that you do not want there to be no livestock in those areas—I should declare an interest as a hill sheep and cattle farmer and a shepherd for 30 years.
Has any consideration been given to predation of wading and ground-nesting birds? I have experience of what happens to lapwings, curlews, redshanks, golden plovers and so on when there is an influx of ravens. I used to have to mark where the nests were as I drove round my lambing fields but, by the time I had come out of all that, raven numbers had exploded and there was literally no point in doing that work, because there were no full nests. Have you considered what predation has done? I know that RSPB Scotland will deny that it happens but, anecdotally, I have witnessed the huge effect that it has had.
Ross Lilley: Do you want to answer that, Des?
Professor Thompson: Yes. Your observation with regard to predation is spot on. Very considerable work is being done on waders, in particular, at the moment.
Waders such as golden plovers, lapwings, redshanks and snipe are facing a number of pressures. There is the loss of heather, for example, and fragmentation of upland landscapes, especially piecemeal forestry. Very small areas of forestry will encourage nesting by crows, for example. From just one or two tiny stands, crows—and, indeed, foxes—can wipe out whole populations of lapwings. The science points to ravens not being such a problem as crows and foxes, but things vary considerably from area to area.
To go back to your original observation, it is really the fragmentation of the upland landscape that is encouraging predation and the trampling of nests by deer in some areas and by sheep in a very few areas.
Jim Fairlie: Does that not highlight the complexity of the situation? We are trying to get farmers to buy in to woodland creation and to have timber as part of their ability to make a living off the land, but that will contribute to a decrease in the number of wading birds. If we are going to do that properly, we do not want wholesale hill planting; we want that to be done in stands that will create shelter belts and environments for wildlife, but the same environment will create a breeding ground for predators that will wipe out the ground nesters.
Professor Thompson: You describe very neatly what might happen. In relation to forestry, it is therefore absolutely vital that there is resourcing of predator control. That is very important. In many areas in which we have lost lapwings, the only change that we have seen in the landscape is a couple of shelter belts. On the face of it, they appear to be perfectly innocuous, and they are often very well managed, but they provide cover for predators such as crows and foxes. Finding a way of managing predation in such areas and
providing suitable support would make a great difference.
Deer are another issue. In some areas in which there are very small plantings, cover for deer is provided. Even in the lowlands—never mind the uplands—we have seen a marked increase in the number of deer. We need sufficient resourcing for deer control.
Rachael Hamilton: On 13 May 2022, I visited a grouse moor in my constituency of Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire. The owners practise managed muirburn and they have an active grouse moor below which is a farmer who has a lowland farm of mixed livestock enterprise. I will read to you a list of what I saw on that day: lapwing, oyster catcher, curlew, golden plover, snipe, heron, red-legged partridge, black grouse, red grouse, corvids, meadow pipit and whinchat. I have never seen such a large amount of biodiversity in my entire life, and it was a fabulous experience. That proved to me that a managed farm, a decent stocking density and the rest of it, including the managed upland, was working. I just wanted to make that point.
My question is on where the biodiversity loss is occurring. Are we calculating biodiversity loss across Scotland and the islands, including marine, when we talk about these things, or are you talking specifically about agriculture when you cite intensification? The 60 per cent decline in curlew numbers is twice the rate of the decline in England. Why is that the case if we have similar agricultural practices? Is the agri-environment climate scheme reversing biodiversity loss?
The Convener: Who would like to go first on that?
Ross Lilley: If Des Thompson starts, I can then talk about AECS.
Professor Thompson: First, I thank Rachael Hamilton for that observation. That is what I see on a number of grouse moors and other wellmanaged hill farms, especially for waders such as curlew. It is just such a joy to see curlew and lapwing in those areas.
You contrasted England with Scotland. One fundamental difference between the two is that we have more forestry plantings in Scotland. I come back to my argument about the crow and fox predation that is particularly associated with those areas. Had you visited grouse moors in the north of England, you would have noticed much more extensive tracts of grouse moor, and much less forestry, and therefore much less risk of predation for the nesting waders. That is one observation that I would make.
To make another, rather harsh, observation regarding the birds that you have mentioned, since
1994, we have lost 50 per cent of our kestrel, lapwing and greenfinch populations in Scotland, as well as 50 per cent of our oystercatcher and rook populations. I mean—rooks, for heaven's sake! We might think of how common they are, but there has been a halving of their population.
Across the board and across the Scottish landscape, we are witnessing some really awful losses, and that brings into sharp focus those areas that we may visit that are extremely well managed and where we are managing to sustain those wonderful bird and pollinator populations.
10:30
Rachael Hamilton: Is there a geographic pattern in that, and is that taken as a whole when making calculations?
Professor Thompson: We are very fortunate, because of the work done by the British Trust for Ornithology and RSPB, to be able to provide regional statistics. We can contrast numbers in the north-east of Scotland with those in the south-west of Scotland, for example. We can contrast islands with the mainland. There are some marked regional differences. For instance, we are seeing some very worrying trends in declines of upland waders in parts of north-east Scotland. Even there, however, where good management is in place, there are thriving populations.
I will home in on one area and one bird that we are extremely concerned about: corn bunting in the Western Isles. The corn bunting is an absolutely marvellous bird, with a fascinating life cycle. It is one of the latest breeders that we have. We now have only about 1,000 singing males. There was a healthy population in the Western Isles, but the chances are that we will lose the corn bunting from the Western Isles. The corn bunting in the Western Isles has such specialised habits that it is now viewed as a sub-species, and it is globally important. In other words, there is an outlier population in the Western Isles. Unless there is active intervention with some straightforward measures put in place to improve the overwinter food supply and to look after the nesting habitat that is so important for those birds, we will lose the corn bunting from that wonderful area of Scotland.
I highlight the corn bunting because it has a very distinctive song. As a breeding bird, it is fascinating. The male can have up to seven or eight females in its nesting territory, and the birds vary considerably in their productivity. Going back to the 1930s and 1940s, people would hear corn bunting singing at virtually every rural railway station they might go to to catch their train in the morning. I doubt there are more than five rural rail
stations in Scotland where we can hear those wonderful birds singing now.
That brings into sharp focus the awful loss of biodiversity that we are witnessing in Scotland at the moment. In each part of Scotland we can point to small stories like that. We know what is causing the decline, so we need to put in place adequate resourcing.
To return to an earlier point, farmers are witnessing and decrying those changes more than anyone else. They are the people who need the support to recover our biodiversity.
The Convener: We are—
Rachael Hamilton: Can I ask Ross Lilley about
AECS?
Ross Lilley: AECS has been an exceptionally good scheme, providing the deep and narrow support that farmers need. It provides specific support for particular measures, but it is highly prescriptive. Because of its limited nature and limited funding, forming only a small part of the past common agricultural policy series of schemes, it can generally only be applied in very small areas of a farm. A broad-brush approach is required for a lot of species, with measures at the sort of scale that Des Thompson has described.
Moving on to talking about future agricultural reform, the programme needs to build in broad and shallow measures that farmers would like to adopt, complementing the specific habitat measures that the scheme currently supports.
The Convener: We will get over this section, which is all about the devastating loss, to consider some of the important solutions.
Just before we move on, I would note the pressures on land and land price. The CAP has driven farmers to try and get as much as possible out of the land that they own. Given the cost of land, many farmers are trying to improve the land that they have. As a result, in many areas, and particularly Dumfries and Galloway, hedgerows are being pulled out, knowes are being taken off and fields are being flattened at a rate that we have never seen before. I am not blaming farmers; they have to maximise their output from the land that they have. However, who is responsible for ensuring that there is compliance: the planning department, the Scottish Environment Protection Agency or NatureScot?
No one appears to take any responsibility for compliance when there are questions about whether rocky knowes that have been categorised as unimproved would require an environmental impact assessment before they are removed, or whether fields that have not been ploughed for decades or more should revert to being classed as unimproved. There should be regulations in place that prevent that type of land clearance from happening. Who is responsible, and what is NatureScot doing to make sure that, right this minute, a bulldozer is not in a field destroying a habitat forever?
Ross Lilley: That is mostly regulated through agriculture payments. If a farmer claims under the basic payment scheme, the good agricultural land condition should cover those aspects. Obviously, that would then fall under the work of the rural payments and inspections division. If land sits within a protected area, or a site of special scientific interest, NatureScot has a role in enforcing the minimum conditions for an SSSI.
The Convener: Does NatureScot do any enforcement? Do you have examples of where the organisation has gone in and said, "Wait a minute, this is unimproved land. This has not been ploughed before. You need an EIA"?
Ross Lilley: Within the EIA process, RPID has picked up a number of cases in the past about improvements to permanent pasture, which is a gate condition. We have used the Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act 2004 to enforce SSSI conditions.
The Convener: Alasdair Allan will, I hope, move on to something more positive.
Alasdair Allan (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP): will certainly do my best, convener.
I
I agree that we have heard a lot about the problems, and I am keen to hear about whether there are existing solutions that we can build on to an extent. As I am prone to do, I will mention crofting. There are mown grassland schemes and other forms of less intensive agriculture that are helpful to species such as ground nesting birds. Which of those schemes can we build on in future? Professor Thompson mentioned the corn bunting; I am thinking of corncrakes. I represent the Western Isles, so I can recognise what you are saying. However, my origins are in the Borders and my father could remember being kept awake at night routinely by corncrakes when he lived on a farm in Berwickshire. There have been huge changes. What forms of agriculture or agricultural support should we be building on?
Ross Lilley: We recognise that crofting is a good system that produces multiple outcomes for the public. It is a way of life and a way of farming that is about not only food production but all the other things that you have mentioned. We want to continue to support crofting, or the crofting style of management, as a model to follow.
One of the issues that we have had with the way that farming has been supported through the CAP is the fact that there has not been the chance for the individuals—farmers and crofters—who are
best placed to join the dots with land management to do that in such a way that the land can be best used and can secure the multiple outcomes that the public are looking for from farming. The way that schemes have been run and developed means that farmers and crofters have chased them individually; integration has happened at a national policy level in terms of what is prescribed, measured and incentivised, rather than on crofts or farms.
A way of supporting that type of farming in the future could be trying to delegate the responsibility for joining the dots—so, joining funds and public support and making those things work best for the individual farmers in the circumstance that they are in. An example of where that worked quite well with regard to crofting was the environmentally sensitive areas programme, back in the 1990s and early 2000s. It involved a clear prioritisation exercise in particularly distinctive biogeographical regions. As you will know, there was an ESA for the machair regions of the Western Isles and the Argyll islands that articulated the particular priorities for the area, with corncrake, machair and machair croppings the key priorities for the Western Isles ESA.
It reassured crofters that, if they entered into the scheme, they would be able to take measures that were relevant to them, with the biodiversity and farming interests in the area being delivered. In another ESA—the Borders, for instance— hedgerows would have been the priority, but that would not have been relevant to the Western Isles. That same sort of regionalisation and move to put more power into the hands of crofters and farmers so that they can make the funds work for them in their circumstances is where we want to go.
The Convener: Thank you. We move to questions from Rachael Hamilton.
Rachael Hamilton: I have asked my question on that specific section, convener.
The Convener: Okay. Beatrice, did you have a supplementary on this?
Beatrice Wishart: I think that it has been answered.
The Convener: I call Jenni Minto.
Jenni Minto (Argyll and Bute) (SNP): My questions have been answered, too. As I represent Argyll and Bute, I was very interested to hear those comments about regionalisation and making things fit for purpose for different types of farming.
If it is okay, convener, I will move on to the next section of questions.
The Convener: There is a question on data collection to be asked.
Jenni Minto: My apologies.
Are there any gaps in data collection? Is data collection consistent across Scotland, or are there specific areas where you need additional information? If so, how can that be achieved?
Ross Lilley: I will kick off on that, and Professor Thompson can perhaps come in later.
What we do not have is comprehensive and detailed land-based data on the condition of our natural assets. Various attempts have been made; for example, the James Hutton Institute, as it is now, has attempted various things to measure habitats, and we have done the same in NatureScot. However, we need the sort of analysis that is down at the level of individual fields and habitats that potentially only the farmer is aware of.
There are various satellite-based technologies that the Government could use to generate data to put into the hands of farmers and give them a better understanding of where their performance sits, but farmers themselves will be able to do the same through what we are hoping to build, which is a biodiversity audit approach or tool. That will put the data in their hands in the form of an app and allow them to record what they are doing and how effective it has been. It will certainly help to fill the gap and provide some of the data that we are missing.
Jenni Minto: Thank you. That was really helpful. I have to say, though, that farmers are being asked to fill in lots of different reports, whether they be for carbon audits, land use or whatever, and now there is this. Is there any way of pulling the different systems together?
Ross Lilley: Yes. I have certainly been encouraged by the way in which other UK countries are tackling this issue. Wales and Northern Ireland, in particular, have been developing and exploring the use of light detection and ranging—LIDAR—technology to get accurate digital data on the condition of habitats and vegetation. That has been largely from a climate perspective, because that helps us understand the emissions balance and sequestration in those countries.
I understand that there is interest in having the same thing in Scotland. It would certainly provide the base-layer data that everybody could draw from for their carbon or biodiversity audits—it is the same type of data that is used.
Jenni Minto: Thank you.
Jim Fairlie: I have a brief question for Ross Lilley. You said that the Government does not have the level of data that it needs. As a farmer, I used to have a crop plan every year and I knew what was going into every single field and what I
was going to do in that field, based on the soil analysis that I had done and what I was looking to achieve. Is there not a way that you or the data gatherers could speak to the farming community? A vast amount of that field-level detail is already available—we just have to tap into it and speak to the farmers to get it.
10:45
Ross Lilley: Yes, absolutely—I totally agree. What has perhaps been lacking is the tools to make it easy for the farmer to share that data and for Government to collate it in a way that allows us to understand what is going on. The development of modern technology and app-based data handling tools, which many farmers are engaging with—particularly in the dairy industry—to record what they are doing with crops and yields and so on, make that easier than it has ever been before. Behind that, the Government has LPIS—the land parcel information system—that farmers use to declare their data through their single application forms every year. That is a huge resource that we can build on. There is a lot of data in that that is already accessible to the farmer and to us in Government and which we can use as a baseline.
The Convener: Following on from that, I note that you have talked about apps and collecting data. We were due to take evidence from Dieter Helm, who is regarded as a leading expert in natural capital and biodiversity, but, unfortunately, he has not been able to join us today. We have heard about farmers being asked to soil test, and we have heard about farmers having carbon audits, but, last night in Parliament, we heard from representatives from Farming for 1.5°C that one of the biggest problems is that there is no destination. Farmers do not know why they are doing these things and what the ultimate outcomes are to be.
Are we a bit like that with biodiversity, too? We used to have FWAGs—farming and wildlife action groups. Officers would come out and help farmers put together plans for restoring waterways, building dykes and improving habitats; they worked with farmers to see what improvements had been made. We have lost that over the past 15 to 20 years. Do we need more people from NatureScot on the ground working with farmers not only to look at what they need to do but to record the positive outcomes? That is what appears to be lacking.
Moreover, what are the timescales for this? We are in a crisis. There is lots of talk about how slow everything is and the fact that things have been delayed. When can we get the app, and when can we get to the point where farmers are realising the benefits of the actions that they are taking?
Ross Lilley: We support about 19,000 regular claimants—farmers and crofters. That is quite a big population to engage with one to one. AECS supports about 3,000 farmers in their contracts, through which they receive some support and advice from SRUC and others. We need to get to a point where every farmer and crofter has a learned individual to go to. From the work that we have been doing in NatureScot on the farming and nature programme that we have been developing, we know that a lot of farmers and crofters take advice and guidance from their peers first and foremost, particularly within the family and among their neighbours, before they go to their formal adviser, which quite often will be the industry, with Government bodies such as NatureScot sitting at the bottom of the pile.
However, to get the wholesale shift in land use that we are seeking for the climate and biodiversity agendas, we need every farmer and crofter to be able to get support and help in terms of advice and guidance in an affordable way. That must be done through a combination of peer-to-peer support, scaling up the advisory industry out there—and, indeed, enabling it to scale up its support—and support from us as NatureScot and from the agriculture officers in RPID, who have a lot of the expertise. SEPA, too, is in the same game. We need a common understanding of the key drivers, but that will not happen overnight, as it will take a number of years to reach those 19,000 claimants.
That said, with tools such as the biodiversity app that we are trying to develop, people can start to have a go themselves in the simplest way possible. Over time, we can build in the advice and support that they need, given that everybody is starting from different points. Some farmers are happy to do this themselves and have the wherewithal while others will need more support.
Rachael Hamilton: The James Hutton Institute did some work on the increase in biodiversity that came about from certain actions. For example, it found that, where there was woodland and scrub, there was an increased number of biodiversity species but there was also a loss of meadow pipit and merlin. How do you prioritise one species over another in the actions proposed by the Government? Have you done any modelling on loss and gain?
Professor Thompson: It is a real challenge, but we are fortunate that both the James Hutton Institute and the SRUC have excellent data in this area.
For a start, it is really important to set priorities at the regional level. With regard to the example that you have just given, we have some internationally important heathlands in north-east Scotland; if we have forestry and woodland regeneration there, we will lose some
internationally important habitats. In some areas of the west Highlands, though, there is a dearth of species-rich woodland, and, although woodland regeneration there will come at the expense of wet heaths that might be fortunate to have meadow pipit in some areas but not much else, moving the landscape in that direction will actually be a very good thing. As a result, in the newly published draft Scottish biodiversity strategy, we have been reflecting on regional variation and the importance of biodiversity in different areas, while also thinking about the different levers that we need to pull in order to maximise the biodiversity benefits.
I also want to comment on the issue that we have just been discussing of clusters of farmers or crofters working together. Having one person or adviser interacting with a group of crofters or farmers to provide advice on biodiversity audits, on how biodiversity is changing and on how practices can be tweaked can make a massive difference for biodiversity. I am thinking, for example, of the farmland bird lifeline that has been operating for corn buntings in north-east Scotland. We had reached a point at which there had been an 83 per cent decline in corn buntings, but, through the concerted efforts of 53 farmers to put in place some very simple farmland measures, we have managed to halt the loss of corn buntings to the extent that, where we have active management and co-operation, there is now a 5 per cent per annum increase in their numbers. Those kinds of targeted measures and cooperation, whether between crofters in the west or farmers in parts of the east, make a world of difference.
The Convener: We will now move on to more detailed scrutiny of the forthcoming agriculture bill.
Jenni Minto: I would be interested in hearing about NatureScot's inputs to the development of the tiered route map, specifically those that might impact on the west coast of Scotland, where my constituency is. Have you been involved in discussions on less favoured area support scheme payments?
Secondly—and this is at a slight tangent—I would also like to ask about the geese payments that NatureScot manages.
Ross Lilley: So far, we have been engaged in what is termed as a tier 2 element—and, to some extent, a tier 3 element—of the four-tier approach. We have an interest in all four tiers, and we have been advising that, for farmers and crofters to deliver right across the biodiversity and climate agenda, all four tiers need to play their part in providing support. I think that, starting with the base tier, the regulatory baseline that is set, with good agricultural and environmental conditions and other cross-compliance measures being taken into account, must reflect the baseline that farmers need to be at, not only from the point of view of good farming and good agricultural conditions but from the point of view of good environmental conditions, too. Such an approach through the baseline will ensure that—and this comes back to a point made by the convener—we stop any further damage to important habitats.
It is in tier 2—enhanced conditionality—that we have had most input in recent years, and it is about developing the broad and shallow measures that can be supported by the proposal for the 50 per cent of the basic payment to be based on conditionality. We have designed those climate and environment measures.
Tier 3—the elective tier—is where AECS has been sat, and we are now thinking about which measures the scheme has been targeting could fit into it. Finally, tier 4 is, as we understand it, where the advice, the knowledge transfer and those aspects of helping farmers to build up their professional capacity to transition sit, and that will be important. That is how all four tiers work, and we are involved in the farm advisory service steering group in making sure that what it is currently doing with tier 4 is supporting it.
As for LFASS, which you asked about, an issue that cuts across the four tiers is how the payments are distributed. We have not had a lot of involvement with that, but we are interested in supporting the thinking around how much funding is required in each tier to make sure that it plays its part. Up to now, LFASS has been a way of supplementing the incomes of disadvantaged farmers who work in environmentally disadvantaged areas, but the logic of that approach can be turned around by pointing out that those farmers are also sitting on some of our most carbon-rich stores in peatlands and woodlands and therefore have the greatest potential to deliver on carbon sequestration and the biodiversity elements that such habitats support. One might well argue that that could be the justification for those areas receiving the additional support that LFASS has traditionally provided.
Jenni Minto: That is an interesting way of looking at it: they are not less favourable areas, but areas that can create great biodiversity and that can be used for carbon sequestration. The other important thing that I should mention is the sustainability of the rural population, which must be built into the thinking on all of this.
If the convener does not stop me from doing so, I want to ask specifically about the geese payments and where you see them fitting into the tiers, if at all.
Ross Lilley: There is no doubt that farmers are facing the additional burden of supporting
protected and globally important geese populations, particularly those on Islay, and that they need dedicated support for that. There is certainly a habitat element to what they are doing through, for instance, grassland management. Livestock farmers dealing with geese are going to have to adopt resilient and regenerative grazing systems, with grasslands that are more robust and permanent, that have more legume content and that, as a result, could be less attractive to geese. Coupled with setting more land aside for nature and wildlife where geese roost and where their natural habitat is, that might take the pressure off in some of those more conflicted situations between geese and grasslands. I would also mention the scaring support and additional licensing support that NatureScot provides. All of those aspects need to work together, and we can try to build that kind of approach through agricultural reform and the evolution of the schemes that NatureScot has been running up to now.
Jenni Minto: I have one very quick question. We have been focusing on trying to maintain different bird species across Scotland, but do you have any thoughts on plants? There are, for example, rare orchids in my constituency. What about the impacts that agricultural reform will have on them and on insects such as the marsh fritillary?
11:00
Ross Lilley: The reason why we still have good marsh fritillary populations in Argyll as well as Irish lady's tresses on Colonsay and Islay is largely the low-intensity cattle-based farming systems that we have. Therefore, in the drive to make livestock more efficient for emissions, we must ensure that livestock support still supports farmers who use low-intensity cattle management, because they are generally good habitat managers. The diverse habitats on the edges of woodlands and wetlands in Argyll and the west Highlands are good examples of that.
Jim Fairlie: I want to pursue that a little bit further, Ross. As someone who used to graze hill cattle, I am absolutely in favour of ensuring that we have coos on the hill. I used to get LFASS support, and I just want to put it on record that I would much rather have seen much bigger payments. If LFASS support is to be increased to encourage low-intensity cattle farming, is any consideration also being given to maintaining critical mass so that we have the numbers of calves needed to keep the industry working? I keep on asking that question, but it keeps getting skipped over. One cannot survive without the other.
Ross Lilley: One opportunity to ensure that we have the critical mass to keep the infrastructure for cattle grazing in the hills alive is for farmers to cooperate. We need to build in co-operation not just for using specific biodiversity measures, such as those that Des Thompson mentioned with regard to corn bunting, but to make a group of farmers work together so that the outcomes that they are trying to achieve—in this circumstance, using cattle—all come together and they are allowed to apply the scheme and support in a way that works for all of them, not just for individuals. However, it is for them to lead that process.
We need to ensure that the system of support across the four tiers gives them maximum opportunity to do that. That is a starting point. After that, it is obviously about the funding levels within the individual schemes.
The Convener: You touched on cattle. NatureScot recently came under a lot of criticism for removing cattle from a farm in Galloway, and it would be interesting to find out what the biodiversity count is now on that hill on the Cairnsmore of Fleet.
My question concerns the tier system and baselining. We want improvements in biodiversity. Farmers should, in some way, be rewarded for such improvements. How do we baseline where we start from? Some farmers will have planted hedgerows and sacrificed some productive land to improve biodiversity. Other farms will be biodiversity deserts. Should we give more money to the latter farms to reverse the deserts and allow the farmers who have done the right thing for 20, 30 or 40 years just to continue? That might have an implication for capping. A big, productive farm might get high payments because of its output, but it might require a big level of input to reverse or address biodiversity loss.
How do you view capping? How do we baseline farms that have done the right thing for generations and those that have been less kind to biodiversity?
Ross Lilley: The farms that are likely to have done less on biodiversity are the ones that are in the most productive agricultural areas, where they can afford to maximise their food production. As a result, the biodiversity that there was might have suffered.
I would argue that, in relation to mainstream farm support and the main measures, if farmers adopt more regenerative agricultural systems in the areas concerned, that alone could do so much for biodiversity, before they are paid to set aside ground—although there is obviously a need for both. In some of those areas, the heavy lifting can be done through regenerative agricultural support,
rather than necessarily having direct biodiversity support.
For farmers who have already delivered and are already managing high-nature-value habitats, we want to maintain and sustain that. Those farmers should be recognised and rewarded for the value that they put in, and they would perhaps get that reward from the more direct pilot schemes.
The Convener: We have heard from many environmental non-governmental organisations that the proposed tiers are the wrong way round and that we should not have 50 per cent of payments guaranteed and ring fenced, with conditionality, in tier 1. Do you subscribe to the argument that we should have more funding in tiers 3 and 4?
Ross Lilley: It all comes down to how much conditionality we can build into all four tiers. If there are clear, readily achievable conditions within tiers 1 and 2 that will deliver broad— [Inaudible.]—management, there does not need to be a huge amount of distribution. If we cannot get that into tiers 1 and 2, however, we need to ensure that tiers 3 and 4 are adequately funded in order to deliver the targets.
Karen Adam (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP): I thank both witnesses for their fascinating evidence. I am particularly interested in what is happening in the north-east, where my constituency is. In Banffshire and Buchan Coast, we have seen the real effects of climate change, as we have been at the forefront of a lot of storm damage, flooding and coastal erosion, and that has been compounded by the bird flu epidemic. There have been massive losses in the numbers of our coastal birds, particularly at Troup Head. The devastation could linger on for decades to come because of what has happened. At the same time, the perception is that we are overrun with gulls, because they make themselves a bit of a nuisance with the locals.
We are trying to build knowledge about the changing environment in the north-east, given the impacts on our climate, our wildlife and our biodiversity. As you suggested earlier, farmers see those changes, and they know and understand what is going on. They are keen to help as rapidly as they can by, for example, encouraging more clover growth. They are concerned about the lack of butterflies—they are saying that there have not been as many butterflies as they would normally see. There has been a rapid change in the landscape, but there is perhaps not so much public awareness of what is going on.
In the light of COP15—the 15th conference of the parties to the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity—and given the Scottish Government's biodiversity strategy, what good is coming out of what is going on? What does it mean for the future agriculture policy? How can we energise and educate people to get on board with what is happening?
Professor Thompson: What a great way of putting it.
The problem is that, although people recognise that we have a climate emergency, for the very reasons that you have described, I do not think that people get the point that we have a nature emergency, too. There is a growing realisation of it, but we have a very long way to go.
I go back to what you described in relation to gulls. What has happened with gulls is a catastrophe, but it is because of what has happened at sea. The food base for gulls has declined for a great many reasons, so gulls are having to move inland. They are moving into towns and cities, where they are not adapted to breeding, to the extent that herring gulls and lesser black-backed gulls are now very good at tracking schoolchildren on a daily basis, knowing where there will be ready food for them. We are very fortunate that good guidance is available from NatureScot and local authorities on how we should manage and control gull populations.
The broader realisation that climate change contributes to the nature crisis and, therefore, to the problems that we have on our doorstep is a parable for what is happening more widely. Farmers get it, probably more so than people in any other land use enterprise in Scotland, because they witness and understand the changes that are taking place—if only we could get across in schools and wider communities that wider realisation as to what is causing this conjoined nature and climate crisis and the measures that we need to put in place to tackle it.
Gulls are such a good example—do not blame gulls, because what is happening with gulls is a symptom of the decades of change that have resulted in massive redistributions in nature.
The Convener: We have touched on wholefarm plans, and we know that NatureScot is involved in developing a natural capital assessment template. There were high hopes that that would be delivered and that it would give us an indication on baselines, which goes back to my previous question. How is the assessment template progressing? Are you still as confident that it will be a useful tool for whole-farm planning?
Ross Lilley: We are trying to simplify the natural capital approach, which is an internationally recognised theory about how to assess multiple public outcomes and how to use that to inform decision making. We have adapted that process to the farming context in Scotland and have tested it out with about 40 farmers and
crofters, mostly to find out whether they can grasp the concept and use it effectively in their farms.
For those who are not familiar with the natural capital process, it considers not only biodiversity but production on the farm, the labour force and soil conditions. It is about finding a way of putting those issues side by side and considering the trade-offs for a particular farm in a particular location in relation to how the farmer can maximise the farm's natural capital. It is about more than biodiversity; it also embraces carbon audits, for example. We have got to the stage at which it could, in effect, be a form of whole-farm planning.
However, that process depends on, as we discussed earlier, getting good data about conditions down to the field level, which is lacking in some places. The level of publicly available, free-to-use data is good on some farms and not so good on others. To take the process to the next stage, as a starting point, we would need to develop that database, so that farmers find what they have and what condition it is in easier to understand through the natural capital approach. We also need to discuss with Scottish Government colleagues whether that could form the basis of, or inform, a whole-farm planning approach for tier 1.
Jenni Minto: Do you have any preliminary findings from the pilots on outcome-based approaches? Are they helping to influence the payment model? What connections do you have with other projects that are going on, such as Quality Meat Scotland's monitor farm programme and the work that the Nature Friendly Farming Network is doing on peer-to-peer support and on how things could and should change?
Ross Lilley: Over the past three years, we have tested an outcome-based approach with between 80 and 100 farmers and crofters, largely on a theoretical basis. We asked them how being supported on an outcomes basis—as opposed to a prescriptive basis, which is how farm support has been provided up to now—would work for them and what their understanding is of the outcomes for their circumstances. The response was that farmers overwhelmingly respond far better to that approach than to having a prescriptive, top-down—[Inaudible.]—measure this way, otherwise we will not pay you or we get penalised. We have learned that fundamental lesson from that work.
11:15
Then, of course, the question is, what is an outcome? We have managed to come up with a series of outcomes that are quite similar according to the farm type and type of habitat that we are talking about. We have used a scorecard approach, which has been tested and used in southern Ireland and elsewhere in Europe. We set out the outcome and how you would get there using a number of simple-to-use parameters that a farmer could understand, see in the field themselves and score. That is largely what we have been testing.
That scorecard approach, on a 1 to 10 scale, is probably the biggest element that we have learned. In effect, a farmer and their adviser—the Scottish Government official running the scheme—could use it as a base. They could take a hedgerow or a species-rich grassland, for instance, and use the scorecard to score where they were at. If they were a number 4 on a scale of 10, they could progress up to 5 or 6 by adopting a number of measures to improve the score in their context. The farmer would draw down their payment to do that. The measure for somebody in Argyll, in the west of Scotland, would be different from the measure for somebody in Aberdeen, but the outcome would be the same.
That is how the outcome approach can work better in relation to how payments are constructed and work. The payment would be the same whether you were in Aberdeen or Argyll, but the way that the outcome would be achieved would be different. An example of that relates to dates. In the AEC scheme, we have measures whereby farmers are expected to shut off their fields in springtime to allow waders to breed and nest. There is a standard, set date in the scheme for that, but, of course, the date changes according to where you are in Scotland. The prescriptive, audited way that we deliver the scheme means that it is difficult to vary the date. However, if we take an outcome approach, the farmer can decide when they shut off the field, according to the waders' behaviour in their location, but still receive the payment.
Jenni Minto: Have you been linking into the monitor farms and the work of the Nature Friendly Farming Network?
Ross Lilley: Yes. We have a steering group for that project, which includes the Nature Friendly Farming Network, NFU Scotland and others. We are starting to engage with Quality Meat Scotland's monitor farm system, because the farmer clusters that are being set up are asking for understanding about how, in their location— [Inaudible.]—including one on Islay. They are saying that they want to know what they can do for biodiversity in their location. We are looking to share with those monitor farm groups the tools and scorecards that we have been using and testing with our 80 farmers. We will ask them to test them in their situation to see whether they
work for them and what outcomes they achieve in their areas.
Alasdair Allan: I am interested in your response to the CivTech challenges. Challenge 8.2 is:
"How can technology help drive effective resource management for a multiskilled workforce in a constantly changing environment?"
That seems to relate to the rural payments and inspections division. I ask you to respond to that or to how the CivTech challenges more generally might be applied when developing future agriculture policy.
Ross Lilley: It was a CivTech challenge that kicked us off in developing the outcome-based approach. The POBAS—piloting an outcomebased approach in Scotland—project was partly funded by the CivTech process to come up with an app for doing the scorecard exercise that I just explained. We worked with a new start-up technology company based in Edinburgh to develop the application process. That company is now looking to get support for its product in not just the public sector but the private sector— supermarkets and so on. Whether or not we use what it developed to support future payment distribution, it is now looking to sell the tool to farmers, supermarkets and others. For instance, a supermarket could use the app to set a premium on biodiversity delivery. There are a number of examples of things being developed in a similar vein.
The Convener: Before we move on to the next question, I note that we are probably going to run a little over our expected time. Will you be available for a period after half past 11, gentlemen?
Ross Lilley: Yes.
Professor Thompson: Yes.
The Convener: That is helpful. Thank you. We will move on to questions from Rachael Hamilton.
Rachael Hamilton: First, I am going to ask you a broad question. What is the difference between a catchment management approach and a landscape-scale approach?
Ross Lilley: Those are two different ways of explaining what a landscape might be. There are different ways of arguing what we mean by "landscape". We can articulate that through biogeographical terms. For example, a landscape could mean a glen with a river in the middle, which is the catchment leading down to the shoreline, or it could mean a cluster of farms on a particular soil or land type that all have a very similar type of farming activity. A landscape could mean a group of hills, and so on. In many ways, the terms define landscapes in organic terms.
In general, our understanding is that the most effective landscape-scale partnerships are generated organically by the fact that a logical number of individuals come together before things become unwieldy. That tends to form an area of land of between 10,000 and 50,000 hectares, which makes sense as they are likely to have similar geographical characteristics.
Rachael Hamilton: That is really helpful. Thank you. I take the opportunity to say that this has been a really useful session.
I understand that the approaches are very similar. They bring together urban and rural, industry and tourism; they prioritise goals for water quality and wildlife; and they basically look at the land use strategy. Bearing in mind what has been said about the regional approach, what work have you been doing that could help to create a future agricultural payments scheme? How do you envisage all the stakeholders who are trying to reach the same goal being part of that payments scheme?
Professor Thompson: One difference between the catchment management and landscape-scale approaches is that, when we use catchment management, we go from summit to sea, which means from the highest areas—I am thinking about mountainous areas—down to the sea, and, at each step of that, we put in place measures that benefit biodiversity. In areas that are high up, a measure might be peatland restoration through our peatland action project. There is also the creation of riparian woodland along river margins, which helps to mitigate the effects of climate change and benefits salmon and other fish species. We then work our way down to the sea, where the measures are for flood risk reduction.
If we work at catchment level and we can incentivise land users and communities to come together, we will get a disproportionately greater benefit for biodiversity than we would get if we adopted a piecemeal approach. For instance, riparian woodland is massively important as it enriches water quality and benefits biodiversity around the area in which it is put in place. However, unless we have sufficient deer management, we will have to put expensive fencing in place, which is not sustainable. It is about adopting a holistic approach and ensuring that the resources cover all the land uses and the management that we put in place from summit to sea—or, as Scottish Water refers to it, from source to tap.
Ross Lilley: Rachael Hamilton may be referring to regional land use partnerships and that approach to prioritising land use.
There is no doubt that agricultural support, important as it is, particularly in the farming sector, is only one part of the metrics or the support that will be needed to bring about land use change for climate and biodiversity. We are talking about £20 billion, potentially, being required in 10 years or so to get nature to where we need it to be in the next 10 or 20 years. That is not going to come from the public sector or from the agriculture budget, which is currently about £500 million a year in Scotland, under the CAP regime. We are going to have to lever private investment into land use, and farmers can be part of that.
I am talking not just about land purchase for nature or carbon codes but about some quite big private investment—capital investment—in land use change. For instance, there are flood management models whereby the private sector could invest in flood management across fields upstream in order to prevent flood damage downstream. That does not need to come from the public sector; it can come through natural capital markets in a tradable format that brings a good income and support to the farmer, in addition to the capital measures that are required to do it.
We need to ensure that the public support that the farmer gets through farm support schemes dovetails with that, helping those measures to happen rather than going against them. At the moment, farmers are naturally holding off from engaging in that private market investment at landscape scale because they do not know how they are going to be supported through farm support.
Rachael Hamilton: That is exactly the answer that I envisaged you would give. I love the description of the agricultural payments dovetailing with all the other things that are happening.
I will use my constituency as an example. The Hawick flood risk management scheme was funded only to a certain point. Residents who live beyond that point still get their houses flooded, and the scheme is not bringing the whole community within the project. If it had extended from the Teviot to the summit, things would be different, but it was confined by resource, unfortunately. I think that that is exactly what you have just described. A whole load of things need to be involved, such as the national planning framework 4, planning applications, investment in flood risk management and the agricultural payments system.
Ross Lilley: The natural capital tool that we mentioned earlier involves a farmer using the natural capital process for their own farm management interests. NatureScot is building a tool that works at landscape scale. It is a tool, so we are not dictating what should happen at a landscape scale; we are providing a means to develop a partnership of multiple land users, farmers being a major part of that. Scottish Water, SEPA, local authorities, different landowners, foresters and others would use the tool collectively to work out their priorities at a regional scale.
The Convener: We sort of have that already with the biosphere in Galloway and southern Ayrshire, which covers around 5,500 km 2 , but it has no powers, although it got £1.7 million of funding. That model might be an exemplar for a landscape or catchment area type of management. As Rachael Hamilton said, there is a missing link between the commercial side, agriculture and whatever. However, we have a model there, to an extent, for delivering some policies.
Jim Fairlie has a supplementary question.
Jim Fairlie: I return to what Ross Lilley said about dovetailing. Like Rachael Hamilton, I like that analogy. As we heard from Martin Kennedy last week, we must remember that the bill that we are scrutinising and talking about today is an agriculture bill. It is there to support agriculture to produce food and to create resilience in the food system. Does it seem to you that we are trying to do too much with one bill and with a limited pot of money?
11:30
Ross Lilley: At the moment, the CAP payments are split largely into pillar 1, which is food production and farm income support, and pillar 2, which is where a lot of the wider public goods that we are talking about have been delivered so far, and funding has been split appropriately.
The intention should be that the agriculture budget will continue to support the broader public goods and services that we get from farmers and to pay them for what they produce. We should not lose that. The critical question is to what extent the way that farmers produce food can also deliver wider public benefits.
There are good examples out there among farmers who are operating today, and the science and the evidence show, first, that farmers can produce food for that part of their support in a way that will continue to be resilient and sustainable given the climate shocks that are coming right now, and secondly that they can actually deliver way more in the way of biodiversity and wider public interest than they have been able to deliver up to now because of the way that they have been supported.
Jim Fairlie: The farming community absolutely accepts that it has a massive role to play in this— nobody denies that. However, it seems to me that, given the scale of the challenges that we face, the
things that the farming community will do within the confines of the funding that will be available to them will not be nearly enough. You talked about private equity coming into the landscape-style approach and the gains that we have to make. Is there a need to shift some of the focus away from the funding for agriculture and look at how we will do it on a much bigger scale?
Ross Lilley: Yes, absolutely, if we are to meet the nature targets. Reaching the climate targets will require more than the public money that is currently available or is likely to be available. The question is, who in the private sector wants to pay for this? Are supermarkets prepared to put a premium on food that is produced more sustainably and environmentally sensibly? Is the customer prepared to pay that premium? Will the private sector want to pay for natural capital goods that are currently in the carbon markets?
Lots of work is being done to understand the additional benefits of having carbon targets and nature targets, and that investment is sitting there. The banks are starting to get interested in investing directly in regenerative agriculture, because they want to make sure that their investments in farming are more sustainable and resilient, and they can do that by supporting that type of farming.
Jim Fairlie: You mentioned whether supermarkets should put a premium on that type of food. We have been down that road before. Generally, these things are brought in as incentives, but they become sticks to beat people with at a later date. Given that we are in a cost of living crisis, people will not be able to afford to pay that premium, so that funding will have to come from different sources, will it not?
Ross Lilley: If we consider the carbon in some of the key habitats that we need for biodiversity and our climate—such as woodland, peatland restoration, hedgerows and organic soils—and the nature benefits on top of that given the way that those habitats are managed, there is a value there that the financial sector is prepared to invest in.
Jim Fairlie: However, that leads to Scotland being in danger of losing the value of its natural capital to big organisations that do not live here. That might be a bigger question than the ones that you are here to talk about today, but the process is going through my mind as we speak.
Ross Lilley: The farmer can receive an income from that in a way that they have not been able to up to now.
Jim Fairlie: Okay. Thank you.
Beatrice Wishart (Shetland Islands) (LD): I echo what other members have said about this being an interesting and informative session. We spoke earlier about knowledge gaps, and Ross Lilley mentioned digital data. When looking at improving biodiversity on farmland, what are your key research and development areas? How do you envisage the evidence that is generated through research will feed into the Scottish Government's agriculture policy?
Ross Lilley: I will kick off, and then we can hear from Des Thompson.
We are saying that there are five actions that all farmers can take for nature. Number 1 is ensuring that they plan and integrate what they do in a whole-farm approach. That is the approach that we discussed.
Number 2 relates to soil. If there is one takehome message for what we want to do to support farming, it is that we need to improve our soil health, because that generates so many outcomes across the public agenda, not just resilient food production but outcomes for the climate agenda in terms of reducing emissions from soils and sequestering carbon and then for biodiversity. We have not mentioned so far that half our biodiversity is below the soil surface rather than above it.
Number 3 is enhancing the habitat network. That involves creating a space for nature by providing field margins, hedgerows, pieces of woodland, species-rich grasslands and unimproved grasslands and linking them up across the farm.
Number 4 is creating new habitats so that we get the scale that we need, and number 5 is specific species targets—the sort of actions that Des Thompson has mentioned that we can take.
Those are all easy to implement and measure. We need to ensure that we get enough of it happening at scale and that we are able to know when it is happening. That is where the data comes in. We have a truly national database that allows us to be updated regularly enough to know that all those five elements are happening.
Professor Thompson: I absolutely agree with Ross Lilley about soils. We are learning so much about them. Brilliant work is going on at the James Hutton Institute. We are finding species new to science in the equivalent of a teaspoonful of soil— particularly in some of our mountain and woodland soils. The composition of fungi, in particular, within the soils is important for influencing carbon sequestration. If only we could communicate more to farmers and other land users about the importance of soils and soil condition, it would make a world of difference. People are fascinated by soils and understand their importance not just for sustaining biodiversity and food but for sequestering carbon.
The Convener: Jenni Minto has a supplementary.
Jenni Minto: I do not have a supplementary, but I was agreeing, because I remember being at a meeting where a farmer spoke passionately about that. He is based on Lismore and, in the 1970s, he had been thinking about how to increase crops, specifically strawberries. He said that, from the smell when he put the chemicals on the field, he should have realised that he was killing things.
I was just nodding in agreement, convener. I am not entirely sure why you have come to me. I apologise for going off on a tangent.
The Convener: I am mixing up my J Ms and J Fs. My apologies.
When it comes to soil, there is one area of contention at the moment. It has an implication for NatureScot. Improving soil is important, and one of the ways in which we can do that is by decreasing the input of nitrogen fertilisers and reducing the use of pesticides. However, to maintain our output, we have to improve how crops fix nitrogen or are able to uptake and use more effectively the nutrients that are in the soil, because, if we do not, there will be a drop-off in yield. What is your view on the use of the genetic modification of potatoes, cereals or grass to ensure that the crop can uptake the available nutrients in the soil far more effectively than currently? Should that be in the mix?
Ross Lilley: There is a different question about the unknown consequences of genetically modified crops on nature, which would concern us. If we are going to introduce genetically modified crops, do we have enough science and evidence about the likely unforeseen impacts on nature?
Separately, but not to sidestep your question, whatever crop we are putting in the soil, if it requires a lot of extractive, additional and inorganic inputs and treating the soil as a substrate, that is not the direction that we need to go in if we are going to have resilient soils for food production and for climate and nature.
We need crops that are able to make the most of the ability of the organic matter in the soil to provide nutrient contents. Whether they are genetically modified or otherwise, that is the fundamental question.
The Convener: The likes of the James Hutton Institute would suggest that there are huge advances in technology that we could apply to crops to reduce their impact on the natural environment.
Ross Lilley: Let us diversify cropping systems, because the more diverse crops are, the more likely the soil will improve. Let us bring legumes into the system. Livestock will have to be part of it if we are using agroecological regenerative systems as part of cropping, because they produce a lot of organic matter. At the bottom of the tree is the use of inorganic inputs. They will have to continue to be there in order to maintain productivity, at least while we transition to our agroecological system, but we need to minimise them. There is good technology to target them better so that they have the least impact on wider nature.
Jim Fairlie: I have a wee supplementary question in this section.
You talked about research on soil, and I will find more out about the stuff that you have been looking at. I echo my colleagues in saying that this has been a fascinating evidence session.
Farmers will take up whatever we ask them to, if they believe and trust in it, but we hear a lot from the farming community that different science with different requirements is being thrown at them. How do we get a set of scientific data that farmers can put their trust in and buy into so that we achieve these outcomes?
Ross Lilley: There are a number of carbon auditing tools around and, in Scotland, as I understand it, the majority of farmers are using the Agrecalc tool that was developed by the SRUC.
This is for the industry to lead on. Ultimately, the use of such tools has helped the industry to understand and improve its performance, and the tools can support individual farmers. By sharing the results that farmers get from those tools, the metrics that the tools use can be rationalised. It is equivalent to how technology has developed in other spheres such as video technology— ultimately, a single commonly used metric will emerge. We cannot easily build a metric that everyone in the system uses. It needs to come from the bottom up and through sharing the data and understanding where the variables are.
Professor Thompson: Developing a series of biodiversity metrics that everyone signs up to and therefore more people have confidence in is an important challenge. The Scottish Government has committed to having a centre for biodiversity expertise, and there is some early planning around that. That will be a very important focal point for providing the evidence base on the drivers of biodiversity change and what we need to do to get the best outcomes. People would have a lot of confidence in that. We are fortunate, in Scotland, that many of our research centres work together.
We have terrific collaboration across Scotland between centres such as the SRUC, the James Hutton Institute, the University of the Highlands and Islands and some of the mainstream university departments, and we need to build on
that. We also have great expertise in Scottish Government itself—within the rural and environment science and analytical services division, for instance.
The Convener: Rachael Hamilton has a brief supplementary question.
11:45
Rachael Hamilton: You talked about streamlining the process that we use to look at agriculture outputs. Last night in Parliament, the committee met representatives from Farming for 1.5°C, and I asked the question of which measure of global warming potential we should use to calculate methane emissions—GWP100 or GWP*—and there was an overwhelming consensus that we use one calculation rather than both, because that is skewing the data. What is your opinion on that?
Ross Lilley: There is an issue that the way in which the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change measures emissions and sets emissions targets tends to confuse the ask from individual farmers. For instance, it deals with net emissions rather than total emissions from land. I suppose that the difference between the two metrics for methane is an example of that.
I do not know what else to say on that other than that we must not let that confusion prevent people from starting to take action. Over time, as the science gets better and we understand how those targets are measured, it will become apparent that one is better than the other. However, at the moment, we just need to get farmers to look at ways to reduce methane emissions from animals and not worry too much about which target they are hitting.
Any effort that farmers are making to reduce emissions that is not recognised by the IPCC targets should be recognised in the way in which the effort is supported, if you know what I mean. The effort that they put in should be supported by the agriculture support system rather than by being measured against IPCC targets.
The Convener: Thank you very much. It has been a fantastic evidence session. Given that Ross is a former Aberdeen agri colleague of mine, I would expect nothing less. Thank you very much, Des Thompson and Ross Lilley, for a great session and for giving us extra time for our questions.
That concludes the public part of our meeting, and we now move into private session.
11:48
Meeting continued in private until 12:12.
This is the final edition of the Official Report of this meeting. It is part of the Scottish Parliament Official Report archive and has been sent for legal deposit.
Published in Edinburgh by the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body, the Scottish Parliament, Edinburgh, EH99 1SP
All documents are available on the Scottish Parliament website at:
For information on the Scottish Parliament contact Public Information on:
www.parliament.scot
Information on non-endorsed print suppliers is available here:
www.parliament.scot/documents
Telephone: 0131 348 5000
Textphone: 0800 092 7100
Email:
[email protected]
|
<urn:uuid:a458c4a4-ab1d-4d3b-95ba-764047dfa6ce>
|
CC-MAIN-2023-23
|
https://external.parliament.scot/parliamentarybusiness/report.aspx?r=15209&mode=pdf
|
2023-06-07T13:03:35+00:00
|
crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2023-23/segments/1685224653764.55/warc/CC-MAIN-20230607111017-20230607141017-00549.warc.gz
| 282,308,908
| 17,879
|
eng_Latn
|
eng_Latn
| 0.969052
|
eng_Latn
| 0.999244
|
[
"unknown",
"eng_Latn",
"eng_Latn",
"eng_Latn",
"eng_Latn",
"eng_Latn",
"eng_Latn",
"eng_Latn",
"eng_Latn",
"eng_Latn",
"eng_Latn",
"eng_Latn",
"eng_Latn",
"eng_Latn",
"eng_Latn",
"eng_Latn",
"eng_Latn",
"eng_Latn",
"eng_Latn",
"eng_Latn",
"eng_Latn"
] | false
|
docling
|
[
60,
997,
3912,
9075,
11697,
16602,
21888,
26969,
32094,
37069,
42407,
47799,
52929,
58165,
63319,
68233,
73465,
78611,
83800,
86060,
86685
] |
[
0.66796875,
1.3203125
] | 1
| 0
|
Scotland exported £87.1bn of goods and services in 2019.
International exports were valued at £35.1bn in 2019, which is 40% of Scotland's total exports.
Of the total exports, 19% (£16.4bn) were to the EU, and 21% (£18.7bn) were to non-EU countries.
Exports to the rest of the UK accounted for 60% (£52.0bn) of Scotland's total exports.
Scotland's exports continue to increase.
Since 2018, Scotland's international exports increased by £1.1 billion (3.4%) and exports to the rest of the UK increased by £2.5 billion (5.0%).
Scottish exports to the rest of the UK and international countries have generally increased since 2010.
Between 2010 and 2019, EU exports (up 49.6%) have grown at a faster rate than non-EU exports (up 37.7%).
International exports rely more heavily on manufacturing than exports to the rest of the UK.
In 2019, manufacturing sectors accounted for 53% of international exports compared with 21% of exports to the rest of the UK.
Service sectors made up 56% of exports to the rest of the UK, compared with 39% for international exports.
Scotland's Exports by Destination, 2019
Scotland's exports to the rest of the UK, EU and non-EU
Industries that make up Scotland's exports in 2019
*Other includes Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing, Mining and Quarrying, Utilities and Construction https://www.gov.scot/publications/export-statistics-scotland-2019/
Source: Export Statistics Scotland 2019 (published 21 October 2021)
Top five sectors for international exports in 2019
Top five sectors for rest of the UK exports in 2019
Top five international export destinations in 2019
https://www.gov.scot/publications/export-statistics-scotland-2019/
Source: Export Statistics Scotland 2019 (published 21 October 2021)
Food and beverages continues to be the largest industry for international exports in Scotland.
Scotland's exports of food and drink made up almost a fifth (19%) of total international exports in 2019.
International exports of food and drink increased by 4.0% in the latest year, underpinned by strong whisky exports.
Financial services continues to be the largest sector for exports to the rest of the UK.
Despite a slight decrease in 2019, exports of financial services were valued at £9.0bn in 2019.
The biggest growth in value terms was seen in exports of utilities, which increased from £5.5bn to £7.3bn (33.6%) in 2019, driven by strong growth in electricity exports to the rest of the UK.
The USA continues to be Scotland's top international export destination country.
The top five international export destinations accounted for £15.5bn (44%) of Scotland's total international exports in 2019.
Four of the five top Scottish export destinations (France, Netherlands, Germany, and Ireland) were in the EU.
|
<urn:uuid:dad80a9f-c94f-459c-9224-5d6eb31bf16f>
|
CC-MAIN-2022-05
|
https://www.gov.scot/binaries/content/documents/govscot/publications/statistics/2021/10/export-statistics-scotland-2019/documents/export-statistics-scotland-2019---visual-summary/export-statistics-scotland-2019---visual-summary/govscot%3Adocument/Export%2BStatistics%2BScotland%2B2019%2B-%2BVisual%2BSummary.pdf?forceDownload=true
|
2022-01-28T22:49:15+00:00
|
crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2022-05/segments/1642320306346.64/warc/CC-MAIN-20220128212503-20220129002503-00183.warc.gz
| 818,972,010
| 660
|
eng_Latn
|
eng_Latn
| 0.997323
|
eng_Latn
| 0.997512
|
[
"eng_Latn",
"eng_Latn"
] | false
|
docling
|
[
1454,
2769
] |
[
1.6796875
] | 2
| 0
|
"Summarised inspection findings\n\nSt Duthus School\n\nThe Highland Council\n\n14 March 2023\n\nKey (...TRUNCATED)
|
<urn:uuid:db032315-56e9-41a7-a9f6-b06c1f34716d>
|
CC-MAIN-2023-14
|
https://education.gov.scot/media/fgcg4a0h/st-duthus-school-sif-140323.pdf
|
2023-04-02T06:02:21+00:00
| "crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2023-14/segments/1679296950383.8/warc/CC-MAIN-20230402043600-20230402073600-0020(...TRUNCATED)
| 268,933,972
| 5,049
|
eng_Latn
|
eng_Latn
| 0.994488
|
eng_Latn
| 0.998152
| ["eng_Latn","eng_Latn","eng_Latn","eng_Latn","eng_Latn","eng_Latn","eng_Latn","eng_Latn","eng_Latn",(...TRUNCATED)
| false
|
docling
|
[
85,
904,
4562,
5097,
8790,
11097,
13178,
14252,
14624,
17939,
18818,
21973,
25558,
28063,
28278
] |
[
1.109375,
3.234375
] | 1
| 0
|
"Title\n\nA Collaborative Strength Based Intervention Promoting Resilience through Solution Oriented(...TRUNCATED)
|
<urn:uuid:8e559050-dbc6-4f13-8902-d64082d78ddc>
|
CC-MAIN-2021-39
|
https://education.gov.scot/improvement/Documents/West-Dunbartonshire-Solution-Oriented-2019.pdf
|
2021-09-24T11:51:36+00:00
| "crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2021-39/segments/1631780057524.58/warc/CC-MAIN-20210924110455-20210924140455-006(...TRUNCATED)
| 258,312,170
| 1,732
|
eng_Latn
|
eng_Latn
| 0.968111
|
eng_Latn
| 0.997643
|
[
"eng_Latn",
"eng_Latn",
"eng_Latn",
"eng_Latn"
] | false
|
docling
|
[
2312,
4877,
8163,
9193
] |
[
1.7890625
] | 1
| 0
|
"Factors Affecting Children's Mental Health and Wellbeing: Findings from the Realigning Children's S(...TRUNCATED)
|
<urn:uuid:942da51d-4efe-4941-b0d3-4a824b2b61bb>
|
CC-MAIN-2024-42
| "https://www.gov.scot/binaries/content/documents/govscot/publications/research-and-analysis/2020/01/(...TRUNCATED)
|
2024-10-08T21:50:41+00:00
| "crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2024-42/segments/1727944253563.54/warc/CC-MAIN-20241008202049-20241008232049-004(...TRUNCATED)
| 672,909,161
| 13,839
|
eng_Latn
|
eng_Latn
| 0.987457
|
eng_Latn
| 0.998001
| ["eng_Latn","eng_Latn","unknown","eng_Latn","eng_Latn","eng_Latn","eng_Latn","eng_Latn","eng_Latn","(...TRUNCATED)
| false
|
docling
| [185,373,501,712,3393,5993,6923,9564,12109,14231,16805,19595,21912,24606,26485,28164,28653,29053,299(...TRUNCATED)
|
[
1.265625,
1.765625
] | 2
| 0
|
"Summarised inspection findings\n\nArmadale Academy\n\nWest Lothian Council 29 January 2019\n\nKey c(...TRUNCATED)
|
<urn:uuid:3c01ebad-e59b-49da-8207-14fbfd66e7ab>
|
CC-MAIN-2023-06
|
https://education.gov.scot/media/yjzlfjqu/armadaleacademysif290119.pdf
|
2023-02-01T22:49:30+00:00
| "crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2023-06/segments/1674764499953.47/warc/CC-MAIN-20230201211725-20230202001725-003(...TRUNCATED)
| 232,374,289
| 8,802
|
eng_Latn
|
eng_Latn
| 0.9924
|
eng_Latn
| 0.998868
| ["eng_Latn","eng_Latn","eng_Latn","eng_Latn","eng_Latn","eng_Latn","eng_Latn","eng_Latn","eng_Latn",(...TRUNCATED)
| false
|
docling
| [86,622,3878,7816,9806,13309,16507,19902,21235,23851,24216,27542,31279,32411,35477,38792,41944,46113(...TRUNCATED)
|
[
1.03125,
1.328125
] | 1
| 0
|
End of preview. Expand
in Data Studio
No dataset card yet
- Downloads last month
- 25