Overview of costs and benefits associated with regulation in Scottish agriculture

Footnotes

1. http://www.sears.scotland.gov.uk/
2. purchasing power parity
3. The rankings of costs and benefits are subjective assessments of the relative scale of costs and benefits within case studies, and are not comparable across case studies
4. The cost estimates include all the administrative costs imposed on farmers to comply with the CAP requirements. The total includes costs for external assistance and internal costs related to resources spent by the farmer. The estimates do not include the value of time spent by the public sector in administration of schemes or helping farms. Italian farmers get public assistance free of charge, hence the reason for their very low administrative costs.
5. The rankings of costs and benefits are subjective assessments of the relative scale of costs and benefits within case studies, and are not comparable across case studies
6. Moray, Aberdeenshire, Banff & Buchan; Strathmore & Fife; Lothian & Borders; Lower Nithsdale.
7. Lomberg (2001) explains that the 50mg/litre limit was actually set with regard to reducing bacteria pollution. Most of the nitrates humans consume come from vegetables. However, through his review of scientific evidence, Lomberg did confirm the strong link between nitrogen (fertiliser) and oxygen depletion and eutrophication. His review of the exhaustive American research on the impact of the fertiliser affected Mississippi river on the health of the Gulf of Mexico was particularly revealing. Yet the accompanying cost-benefit study completed by Doering (1999) concluded that the cost of cleaning up the river exceeded the benefits.
8. Maberly et al (2004) also discuss the scientific link between nitrogen and eutrophication.
9. Grant aid will be available in Scotland.
10. The rankings of costs and benefits are subjective assessments of the relative scale of costs and benefits within case studies, and are not comparable across case studies
11. Fuel oil is now covered by the Controlled Activities Regulations, see case study 3
12. Known as the SSAFO Regulations
13. For the purpose of this study the term "Regulations" may be taken to mean this most recent amendment, unless otherwise stated.
14. Explanatory note appended to the Control of Pollution (Silage, Slurry and Agricultural Fuel Oil) (Scotland) Regulations 2003.
15. At the time (2000) accounting for some 60% of all agricultural water pollution incidents.
16. Of the 379 such pollution events in 2000 40% were caused by livestock slurry or manure.
17. Taken from the Draft Regulatory Impact Assessment for the 2001 SSAFO Regulations
18. Mark Aitken, Principal Policy Officer, SEPA Land Policy Unit. Personal communication 2 May 2008
19. The rankings of costs and benefits are subjective assessments of the relative scale of costs and benefits within case studies, and are not comparable across case studies
20. Farmers Weekly June 2008
21. The rankings of costs and benefits are subjective assessments of the relative scale of costs and benefits within case studies, and are not comparable across case studies
22. The Scheme is implemented by The National Fallen Stock Company ( NFSCo) which is voluntary and is designed to assist farmers and horse owners to comply with the Animal-By Products Regulation.
23. The rankings of costs and benefits are subjective assessments of the relative scale of costs and benefits within case studies, and are not comparable across case studies
24. Council Regulation ( EC) No. 21/2004 (establishing a system for the identification and registration of ovine and caprine animals and amending Regulation ( EC) No. 1782/2003 and Directives 92/102/ EEC and 64/432/ EEC)
25. Sheep and Goats (Identification and Traceability) (Scotland) Regulations 2006
26. The rankings of costs and benefits are subjective assessments of the relative scale of costs and benefits within case studies, and are not comparable across case studies
27. The rankings of costs and benefits are subjective assessments of the relative scale of costs and benefits within case studies, and are not comparable across case studies
28. The rankings of costs and benefits are subjective assessments of the relative scale of costs and benefits within case studies, and are not comparable across case studies
29. The rankings of costs and benefits are subjective assessments of the relative scale of costs and benefits within case studies, and are not comparable across case studies
30. purchasing power parity
31. US dollars
32. MAFNZ
33. (2006). Agriculture in New Zealand - past, present, future. NZMAF
34. A stock unit (su) is a measure used to compare the nutrition requirements of different grazing animals (eg, 1su = one 55kg ewe producing 1 lamb, a dairy cow = 7su).
35. The Treaty of Waitangi is an agreement between the MÄori people and the New Zealand Government.