Agricultural tenancies, small landholdings and land management tenancy proposals - strategic environmental assessment: consultation analysis

Annex 3. Coding framework example

Table 3 provides an example taken from the coding framework, and lists the codes and sub-codes used to analyse responses to question 10:

• ‘Please identify and describe any environmental impacts associated with the Game Damage Compensation proposal’

Table 3. Coding framework example

Codes: Positive responses

Sub-codes

• Support for the proposals, as game damage can be a significant concern for tenant farmers
• Agreement with the proposal to remove black game from the definition of game
• The need to apply a balanced approach that considers both conservation needs and impacts on agricultural businesses
• Agreement with proposals to strengthen tenant’s rights in terms of compensation for damage (e.g. deer, game)
  • For example, it will encourage landlords to manage numbers effectively
• Proposals are reasonable

Codes: Critical responses

Sub-codes

• Lack of sufficient detail around the potential compensation threshold per hectare of damage, the traceability of game birds and animals causing damage.
• The need for greater clarity on how compensation can be claimed;
  • For example, its application in specific contexts, such as damage by wild animals, due to the difficulty of identifying the source of the damage, or the landowner or sporting rights holder from whom compensation is required.
• The need for a clearer definition of the ‘reasonable opportunity’ mechanism;
  • For example, to increase understanding of how these proposals will work in principle;
  • The need for further stakeholder consultation.
• Unreasonable to include compensation for damage to trees by wild deer;
  • It is the responsibility of individuals planting trees to take reasonable action to protect crops from damage.

Codes: Other

Sub-codes

• Question not relevant to respondent