Supporting agricultural policy - The role of scientists and analysts in managing political risk

Abstract

This paper reflects on the role of scientists within research organisations and analysts within the Scottish Government in managing political risk for major policy changes. The particular change considered is the reform of direct payments to farmers through Pillar 1 of the Common Agricultural Policy, moving from payments based on historic entitlements to a multi-regional, area-based payment scheme. The move in Scotland to such payments is a major change in policy and one likely to result in significant redistribution in direct payments that underpin the financial viability of many businesses. The policy change thus involves considerable risk for stakeholders within the agri-food system but also politically for the Scottish Government for whom agriculture is an area of devolved responsibility. Considerable uncertainty surrounds the decision making process, partly as a result of EU processes requiring both EU Parliamentary and Member State agreement. Furthermore, the Scottish Government recognises and wishes to strike a balance between food production and associated economic activities conducted mainly in lowland areas and the ecosystem services delivered in the main by upland areas. Limited timescales for implementing the new policies also mean that research often needs to be undertaken before final decisions are made at EU and UK level. The uncertainty in policy objectives and the spatial heterogeneity of Scotland's agricultural systems also mean that the policy options cannot easily be subjected to simple, single objective cost-benefit analysis. This policy uncertainty combined with a desire for the process of analysis to be transparent and inclusive meant that multiple scenarios, performance metrics and summaries were required by Scottish Government. The paper presents examples of the most important outputs for the spatial analysis framework and how these were used. Over the course of the research, it has become increasingly clear that political risk management in a complex and uncertain environment strongly shapes both the timing and use of research-based analysis. The paper shows how the research contributed to this risk management strategy by quantifying uncertainties, testing scenarios and communicating with stakeholders both formally and informally. The paper concludes that the use of a spatial analysis framework was effective in highlighting the most significant redistribution effects - particularly those that occur within sectors or regions. These were useful to stakeholders in helping them articulate to government the likely adaptive responses from farming systems and to give an impression of the wider consequences for rural communities and the natural environment. From the experiences of working across the science-policy interface the authors conclude that simplistic structural models of science-policy interactions fail to provide diagnostic information needed to improve outcomes since they fail to represent the messy process of science-policy interaction. This process is dependent on the ability of individuals from either side of the science-policy interface to form mutually beneficial partnerships without compromising their independence. This network building is facilitated by the aim of the authors' research organisation to function as a boundary organisation, facilitating exchanges between science and policy and by the openness to close cooperation of individual analysts within Scottish Government analysis teams. There are significant differences in research cultures but sufficient common ground in terms of disciplinary skills, ontologies and epistemologies and common cause in tackling challenging policy risks. This capacity for cooperation is activated by Scottish Government funding models that support the long term development of strategically relevant research capacity, the building of networks and social capital bonds between analysts and scientists and additional flexible funding that can be deployed quickly by policy teams to address immediate questions. Within this environment, scientists can have a key role in bringing innovations into the analysis conducted in support of risk management, since their independence means they have greater freedom to work across Scottish Government departmental boundaries and within Scottish Government hierarchies. Success in this role, however, depends on institutional support for process wherein scientific credibility is translated into policy credibility incrementally through demonstration of salience, timeliness and adaptability.