DOCSLIB.ORG

The Future for Food, Farming and the Environment in a Green Brexit Summary of Responses

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Future for Food, Farming and the Environment in a Green Brexit Summary of Responses Health and Harmony: the future for food, farming and the environment in a Green Brexit Summary of responses September 2018 1 © Crown copyright 2018 You may re-use this information (excluding logos) free of charge in any format or medium, under the terms of the Open Government Licence v.3. To view this licence visit www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3/ or email [email protected] This publication is available at www.gov.uk/government/publications Any enquiries regarding this publication should be sent to us at Agriculture Consultation Team 2 Seacole Building 2 Marsham Street London SW1P 4DF Email: [email protected] www.gov.uk/defra 2 Contents Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................ 4 Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 9 Number of responses ................................................................................................................ 9 About the respondents ............................................................................................................ 10 Responses by chapter .................................................................................................................. 11 CHAPTER 2. Reform within CAP ............................................................................................ 12 CHAPTER 3. An ‘agricultural transition’ .................................................................................. 18 CHAPTER 4. A successful future for farming ......................................................................... 26 CHAPTER 5. Public money for public goods .......................................................................... 45 CHAPTER 6. Enhancing our environment .............................................................................. 55 CHAPTER 7. Fulfilling our responsibility to animals ............................................................... 64 CHAPTER 8. Supporting rural communities and remote farming ........................................... 76 CHAPTER 9. Changing regulatory culture .............................................................................. 82 CHAPTER 10. Risk management and resilience .................................................................... 89 CHAPTER 11. Protecting crop, tree, plant and bee health ..................................................... 95 CHAPTER 12. Ensuring fairness in the supply chain ........................................................... 104 CHAPTER 13. Devolution: maintaining cohesion and flexibility ............................................ 109 CHAPTER 14. International trade ......................................................................................... 113 CHAPTER 15. Legislation: the Agriculture Bill ...................................................................... 119 Annex A: About the analysis ..................................................................................................... 124 Annex B: Types of responses ................................................................................................... 125 Annex C: Campaign responses ................................................................................................. 128 Annex D: Petitions ...................................................................................................................... 137 Annex E: List of responding organisations ............................................................................. 139 Annex F: Glossary ...................................................................................................................... 159 3 Executive summary 1. From February to May 2018, the government consulted on a range of possible paths to a brighter future for food, farming and the environment in England. At the heart of ‘Health of Harmony: the future for food, farming and the environment in a Green Brexit’ was a proposal to spend public money on public goods – principally, enhancing our environment and protecting our countryside. 2. The consultation generated a huge amount of interest, receiving 43,356 responses and 127,183 signatories across three petitions. This was accompanied by a series of regional events and policy roundtables around England, where we heard the views of over 1,250 land managers and other stakeholders. Our aim was to involve all those interested in farming and the environment: we want to make the right decisions to secure a bright future, producing high quality food from a high quality environment. The government welcomes this overwhelming interest and would like to thank all who contributed. 3. This document summarises the responses to the consultation. Reform within CAP 4. For 45 years agriculture policy in the UK has been determined by the EU’s Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). However, whilst we are still in the CAP, the government can still improve applicants’ experiences of the CAP and associated schemes. 5. The majority of respondents supported simplifying the current CAP during the last years of our membership. The current process was frequently described as being too complicated with excessive paperwork. Issues with scheme administration and delivery were also mentioned as reasons for wanting a simpler process. 6. On Countryside Stewardship, many respondents believed that making the application process simpler would improve the scheme and increase its appeal to farmers and land managers. Some wanted to see improvements in enforcement, regulation and delivery of payments. A more localised and flexible approach was favoured by several respondents, to allow a greater number of environmental benefits to be met. An ‘agricultural transition’ 7. More respondents preferred applying progressive reductions to Direct Payments through the agricultural transition period, than applying a payment cap. Many suggested that equal percentage reductions should be applied to all applicants. 8. The ‘delinking’ of Direct Payments from land was less popular amongst respondents than retaining and simplifying the existing schemes. Many also wanted to see the continuation of protections which maintain agricultural and environmental best practice. Respondents frequently asked for clarity on future measures. 4 9. There was a wide range of views on the length of the agricultural transition, with 5 years receiving the most support. Many respondents thought the length should be dependent on how and when funding would be made available through new environmental land management (ELM) system. Successful future for farming - Farming excellence and profitability 10. Respondents offered a broad range of views on how we can support our farmers to improve productivity, profitability and performance. Respondents felt that farming businesses in all sectors need greater access to, and uptake of knowledge to be able to adapt to the challenges of the future. This included farmer-to-farmer learning, knowledge sharing initiatives, and a more joined-up skills framework. 11. Respondents told us that existing circumstances may be stopping the farming sector from achieving their full potential. The current tenancy law was thought to limit opportunities in the tenant sector, whilst it was suggested that the availability of land could make it difficult for new, dynamic farmers to get into the industry. Many farmers felt that a combination of uncertainty about the future, low farm profits, and expensive equipment created barriers to investment in their businesses. - Agricultural technology and research 12. Respondents widely supported greater government involvement to boost collaborative and farmer-led research and develop innovative solutions to productivity problems. Key themes raised included environmental performance, soil health, and improved animal health and welfare. - Labour: a skilled workforce 13. The majority of respondents wanted to see the government support the farming workforce by addressing skill gaps in business and financial knowledge. Some respondents wanted more agricultural research skills to be provided. 14. Many respondents supported appropriate immigration measures to make sure that there was adequate access to labour for the industry. Public money for public goods 15. This chapter set out a new direction based on the principles of public money for the provision of public goods. Many respondents thought all environmental outcomes proposed as public goods were linked, with soil and biodiversity forming the foundations. Important non-environmental public goods included: high animal welfare standards; protection of crops, tree, plant and bee health; and preserving rural resilience, traditional farming and landscapes in the uplands. 5 16. Public access was a popular topic of discussion. Many supported the benefits of access, such as improved public health and engagement, however farmers frequently raised concerns about potential damage to their businesses and property. 17. It was felt by many that food and public health should have been included in the list of public goods proposed by the government. Enhancing our environment 18. Respondents felt that any approach to improving the environment should take into account the links between environmental outcomes. The outcomes ranked as the most important included improved soil, water, biodiversity and habitats.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Scottish Seeds Merchants, Processors and Packers
    PUBLIC REGISTER SCOTTISH SEEDS MERCHANTS, PROCESSORS AND PACKERS December 2014 SASA - A Division of the Scottish Government Agriculture, Food and Rural Communities Directorate Page 1 of 19 Name & Address Category Responsible Person Contact ACT Scotland Ltd. M Iain Davidson Email: Rosehall [email protected] TURRIFF Phone: 01888 569586 Aberdeenshire, AB53 4PT Phone: 01888 569585 Fax: 01888 569502 Agri Input Direct Ltd. M Lawson Galloway Email: [email protected] Moorpark Of Baldoon Phone: 01988 840385 Kirkinner Fax: 01988 840034 NEWTON STEWART Wigtownshire, DG8 9BY Agrii M Roger Sherriff Email: Glenearn Road [email protected] PERTH Phone: 01738 623201 Perthshire, PH2 0NL Fax: 01738 630360 Agrii M Neil Ross Phone: 01738 555400 Balboughty Farm Old Scone PERTH Perthshire, PH2 6AA Agrii M Gordon Stewart Email: [email protected] Farm Office, Prospect Buildings Phone: 01975 563200 Montgarrie Phone: 07801 197502 ALFORD Fax: 01975 564259 Aberdeenshire, AB33 8BA Agrii M PR PA Brenda Hay Email: [email protected] Seed Plant Phone: 01888 569601 Rosehall Phone: 01888 569175 TURRIFF Fax: 01888 569140/148 Aberdeenshire, AB53 4HD Richard Aitken Seedsmen Ltd. M Richard Aitken Phone: 0141 440 0033 123 Harmony Row Phone: 0141 552 2597 GLASGOW Fax: 0141 440 2744 Lanarkshire, G51 3NB D O Allan M PR D O Allan Phone: 01330 833224/429 Tillycairn Cottage Phone: 01330 833429 Sauchen Fax: 01330 833429 INVERURIE Aberdeenshire, AB51 7RX Page 2 of 19 Name & Address Category Responsible Person Contact W C & A D Allan M PR PA A D Allan
    [Show full text]
  • Healthy Ecosystems East Anglia a Landscape Enterprise Networks Opportunity Analysis
    1 Healthy Ecosystems East Anglia A Landscape Enterprise Networks opportunity analysis Making Landscapes work for Business and Society Message LENs: Making landscapes 1 work for business and society This document sets out a new way in which businesses can work together to influence the assets in their local landscape that matter to their bottom line. It’s called the Landscape Enterprise Networks or ‘LENs’ Approach, and has been developed in partnership by BITC, Nestlé and 3Keel. Underpinning the LENs approach is a systematic understanding of businesses’ landscape dependencies. This is based on identifying: LANDSCAPE LANDSCAPE FUNCTIONS ASSETS The outcomes that beneficiaries The features and depend on from the landscape in characteristics LANDSCAPE order to be able to operate their in a landscape that underpin BENEFICIARIES businesses. These are a subset the delivery of those functions. Organisations that are of ecosystem services, in that These are like natural capital, dependent on the they are limited to functions in only no value is assigned to landscape. This is the which beneficiaries have them beyond the price ‘market’. sufficient commercial interest to beneficiaries are willing to pay make financial investments in to secure the landscape order to secure them. functions that the Natural Asset underpins. Funded by: It provides a mechanism It moves on from It pulls together coalitions It provides a mechanism Benefits 1 for businesses to start 2 theoretical natural capital 3 of common interest, 4 for ‘next generation’ intervening to landscape- valuations, to identify pooling resources to share diversification in the rural of LENs derived risk in their real-world value propositions the cost of land management economy - especially ‘backyards’; and transactions; interventions; relevant post-Brexit.
    [Show full text]
  • Register of Lords' Interests
    REGISTER OF LORDS’ INTERESTS _________________ The following Members of the House of Lords have registered relevant interests under the code of conduct: ABERDARE, Lord Category 1: Directorships Director, WALTZ Programmes Limited (training for work/apprenticeships in London) Director, Twist Partnership Limited (promoting leadership through learning) Category 2: Remunerated employment, office, profession etc. Publications Consultant, Freemasons' Grand Charity (irregular employment) Category 10: Non-financial interests (c) Trustee, Berlioz Society Trustee, St John Cymru-Wales Category 10: Non-financial interests (e) Trustee, West Wycombe Charitable Trust ACTON, Lord Category 2: Remunerated employment, office, profession etc. Barrister (non-practising) ADAMS OF CRAIGIELEA, Baroness Nil No registrable interests ADDINGTON, Lord Category 7: Overseas visits Visit to India, 26 September-4 October 2009, under auspices of Liberal Democrats Friends of India; business class flights and accommodation paid for by Government of India Category 10: Non-financial interests (d) Vice President, British Dyslexia Association Category 10: Non-financial interests (e) Vice President, UK Sports Association Vice President, Lakenham Hewitt Rugby Club ADEBOWALE, Lord Category 1: Directorships Director, Leadership in Mind Ltd Non-executive Director, St Vincent Healthcare (retains 5% shares in this organisation) Category 2: Remunerated employment, office, profession etc. Chief Executive Officer, Turning Point (social care registered charity) Occasional income from broadcasting
    [Show full text]
  • White Meat Animals
    Report on the Welfare of Farmed Animals at Slaughter or Killing Part 2: White Meat Animals May 2009 Farm Animal Welfare Council Area 5A, 9 Millbank, c/o Nobel House, 17 Smith Square, London SW1P 3JR CONTENTS Chairman’s letter to Ministers Executive summary i-iii PART I: IntroDUCTION 1 PART II: BacKGroUND 6 PART III: WELFARE ISSUES Catching and loading on the farm 9 Transport 12 Lairage 14 Handling of animals prior to stunning, including shackling 17 Stunning, slaughter and killing – general requirements 20 Electrical stunning and killing 21 Controlled atmosphere systems 26 Slaughter in abattoirs 31 Slaughter without pre-stunning 32 On-farm slaughter or killing 33 Mass killing for emergency disease control 36 Surplus day-old chicks killed in hatcheries 39 Farmed gamebirds and rabbits 40 Licensing and training 40 Legislation and enforcement 42 Equipment design and approval 43 APPENDIX A MEMBERSHIP OF THE FARM ANIMAL Welfare COUNCIL 45 APPENDIX B THOSE WHO GAVE EVIDENCE AND assistance 46 APPENDIX C GLOSSARY OF TERMS 48 APPENDIX D Contact Details 52 Hilary Benn MP, Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, England Richard Lochhead MSP, Cabinet Secretary, Rural Affairs and Environment Department, Scotland Elin Jones AM, Minister, Department for Rural Affairs, Wales May 2009 Dear Secretary of State, Cabinet Secretary and Minister I have pleasure in submitting the Council’s Report on the Welfare of Farmed Animals at Slaughter or Killing Part 2: White Meat Animals. This Report is wide-ranging and considers the welfare of poultry (and other white meat species) in the last few hours of their lives up to the moment of slaughter or killing.
    [Show full text]
  • United Kingdom Poultry and Poultry Meat Statistics September 2020
    22nd October 2020 United Kingdom Poultry and Poultry Meat Statistics – September 2020 This release shows the latest monthly information on poultry statistics, including hatchery output, slaughtering and meat production volumes. The key results for September 2020 in comparison to September 2019 are given below: • UK commercial layer chick placings were down 27% to 2.4 million chicks. (Table 2.3) • UK broiler chick placings were down 1.2 at 82.2 million chicks. (Table 2.3) • Turkey chick placings were down by 1.1% at 1.6 million chicks. (Table 2.3) • Turkey slaughterings were down 36% at 0.6 million birds. (Table 3.1) • UK broiler slaughterings were up 7.7% at 87 million birds. (Table 3.1) • Total UK poultry meat production were up 3.9% at 152.98 thousand tonnes. (Table 3.4) Section 1 – Commentary The number of eggs set each month indicates how many chicks will be available for placing into poultry systems in future months. Hen eggs take around 21 days to hatch, turkey eggs take around 28 days. The number of placed chicks each month indicates future volumes of poultry meat and egg production. Consumer demand strongly affects broiler chick and turkey poult placings. There are clear peaks (of turkeys) and troughs (of broilers) in the average weekly placings figures in the months running up to Christmas (Figs 2.1 and 2.2). This translates into equivalent high/low levels in the slaughtering volumes over the Christmas period (Figs 3.1 and 3.2). Section 2 – Numbers of eggs set and chicks placed by UK hatcheries This section contains tables and charts that indicate the number of eggs set and chicks placed by United Kingdom hatcheries in the most recent months.
    [Show full text]
  • Evaluation of the EU Legislative Framework in the Field of GM Food and Feed Framework Contract for Evaluation and Evaluation Related Services - Lot 3: Food Chain
    I European Commission Directorate General for Health and Consumers Evaluation of the EU legislative framework in the field of GM food and feed Framework Contract for evaluation and evaluation related services - Lot 3: Food Chain Appendices to Final Report Submitted by: Food Chain Evaluation Consortium (FCEC) Civic Consulting - Agra CEAS Consulting - Van Dijk Management Consultants - Arcadia International Project Leader: Agra CEAS Consulting European Commission DG SANCO Rue de la Loi 200 1049 Brussels 12 July 2010 Contact for this assignment: Dr B. Dylan Bradley Imperial College London Wye Campus, Wye, Kent, UK Phone: + 44 1233 812 181 [email protected] www.ceasc.com Evaluation of the EU legislative framework in the field of GM food and feed Appendices to Final Report Prepared by the Food Chain Evaluation Consortium (FCEC) Civic Consulting – Agra CEAS Consulting – Van Dijk Management Consultants – Arcadia International Project Leader: Agra CEAS Consulting Food Chain Evaluation Consortium c/o Civic Consulting Potsdamer Strasse 150 D-10783 Berlin-Germany Telephone: +49-30-2196-2297 Fax: +49-30-2196-2298 E-mail: [email protected] Expert Team Agra CEAS Consulting: Dr Dylan Bradley Conrad Caspari John Nganga Mariana Ricci Lucia Russo Arcadia International: Dr Rodolphe de Borchgrave Daniel Traon Civic Consulting: Philipp von Gall fcec Food Chain Evaluation Consortium Civic Consulting – Agra CEAS Consulting Van Dijk Management Consultants – Arcadia International EVALUATION OF GM FOOD AND FEED LEGISLATION DG SANCO Evaluation Framework Contract Lot 3 (Food Chain) This evaluation was commissioned by the European Commission, in the context of the framework contract signed between the European Commission and the Food Chain Evaluation Consortium.
    [Show full text]
  • List of Consultees ADAS Agriculture and Horticulture Development
    List of consultees ADAS Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board All Party Parliamentary Group for Animal Welfare Animal Health & Veterinary Laboratories Agency Animal Welfare Network Wales Ark Open Farm NI Assured British Meat Assured British Pigs Assured Chicken Production Assured Dairy Farms Assured Food Standards Aviagen Bio-Dynamic Agricultural Association Biotechnology Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC) Bocketts Farm park BPEX British Alpaca Society British Cattle Veterinary Association British Deer Society British Egg Industry Council British Equine Veterinary Association British Free Range Egg Producers Association British Goat Society British Institute of Agricultural Consultants (BIAC) British Llama Society British Pig Executive British Pig Association British Poultry Council British Retail Consortium British Society of Animal Science (BSAS) British Veterinary Association British Veterinary Association (Scottish Branch) British Veterinary Poultry Association (BVPA) British Veterinary Camelid Society Cannon Hall Farm Cattle and Sheep Health and Welfare Groups Cattle Health and Welfare Council Cobb Europe Ltd. Compassion In World Farming Countryside Alliance Countryside Council for Wales Country Landowners and Business Association Crowshall Veterinary Services DairyCo Dairy UK Department of Agriculture and Rural Development Northern Ireland (DARDNI) EBLEX Environment Agency Environment Agency Wales Farm Animal Welfare Committee Farm Animal Welfare Network Farm Assured Welsh Livestock Farmers Union of Wales Farming
    [Show full text]
  • The 21St International Farm Management Congress “Future Farming Systems” 2Nd to 7Th July 2017
    Patron HRH The Princess Royal THE 21st INTERNATIONAL FARM MANAGEMENT CONGRESS “Future Farming Systems” 2nd to 7th July 2017 1 2017 IFMA CONGRESS COMMITTEE IAgrM – Tim Brigstocke, Trevor Atkinson, Richard Cooksley SRUC – Dave Roberts, Cath Milne, Lorna Paton E XECUTIVE MEMBERS President: Trevor Atkinson (UK) Vice Presidents: Damona Doye (USA) & David Hughes (Argentina) Patrons: Malcolm Stansfield (UK) & Robert Napier (Australia) Past President: John Alliston (UK) Hon. Secretary / Treasurer: Tony King (UK) O THER MEMBERS IJAM Journal Appointee: Eric Micheels (Canada) C OUNCIL MEMBERS Africa, Southern: Frikkie Maré Africa, West & Central: Grace Evbuomwan Africa, East: Philip Nyangweso Australia: Don Cameron Canada & Social Media Lead: Heather Watson Poland (Central Europe): Edward Majewski New Zealand: Tricia Macfarlane Scandinavia: Brian Jacobsen The Netherlands (West/Mid Europe): Abele Kuipers USA: Jay Smith Scotland, UK, 21st Congress 2017: Tim Brigstocke Tasmania, Australia, 22nd Congress 2019: David Armstrong Secretary / Treasurer Elect: Richard Cooksley (UK) REGISTRATION ORGANISING COMMITTEE & HELP DESK Tim Dave Richard Cath Lorna Trevor Victoria Sara Brigstocke Roberts Cooksley Milne Paton Atkinson Bywater Cooksley 2 I am delighted to have been asked to be your Patron for your 21st meeting of the International Farm Management Association (IFMA). There is no doubt that we live in interesting and challenging times for the farming sector; successful agriculture is key to global well-being and effective and sustainable farm management is the very “bedrock” to ensure that this happens. Thus the overall theme of this Congress on Future Farming Systems is highly appropriate and topical. The importance of young people to the industry cannot be overestimated and I am therefore pleased that the final day of this 21st Congress is looking specifically at this vital issue.
    [Show full text]
  • Invention of the Technological Chicken’ in Britain
    gareth.jones Section name School of Management Democratizing luxury and the contentious ‘invention of the technological chicken’ in Britain by Andrew Godley 2007 054 Henley Business School University of Reading Whiteknights Reading RG6 6AA United Kingdom www.henley.reading.ac.uk Democratizing Luxury and the Contentious ‘Invention of the Technological Chicken’ in Britain1 ABSTRACT In 1950 poultry was a rare luxury in Britain, only one per cent of the total meat consumption. But over the next thirty years chicken consumption grew at the remarkable (compound) rate of 10 per cent per annum, while the overall consumption of meat remained stagnant from the 1950s to the 1980s. By then poultry had become the single most important source of meat, with a quarter of the total share of the market, replacing former favourites like beef, mutton and bacon in the British diet. This transformation was made possible by the emergence of intensive rearing in poultry farming. This was a dramatic change in production, dependent on technological innovations across several otherwise unrelated sectors: in pharmaceuticals and feedstuffs production, in refrigeration, slaughtering and packaging. The widespread distribution of cheap chicken led to its mass adoption throughout the country. But such a transformation in meat eating habits was not without its controversies. Contemporary concerns emerged from the late 1950s over the possible long term dangers to human health from the technological transformation inherent in intensive rearing regimes. The paper emphasises that it was the leading retailers, in particular J. Sainsbury, who acted as a key intermediary in this contested market, reconciling consumer uncertainty by attaching their own reputation to product quality, and then furthermore by intervening in the quality standards employed in its supply chain.
    [Show full text]
  • IFMA Website Page Change
    IFMA 21st CONGRESS PLENARY DRAFT PROGRAMME 3rd, 5th, and 7th July 2017 in John McIntyre Conference Centre, Edinburgh Monday 3rd July [N.B. Speaker biographical notes follow the schedule.] 09.00- Congress Opening and Welcome Plenary Session Trevor Atkinson, President of the International Farm Management Association. Day 1 “World perspectives on Future Farming Systems” “Introduction to United Kingdom and Scottish Farming” Tim Brigstocke, Chairman of 21st IFMA Congress Organising Committee. CEO of Tim Brigstocke Associates, a specialist livestock consultancy Tim Brigstocke “Globalisation effects on farming systems around the world” Beth Hart, Head of Agriculture at Sainsbury’s Beth Hart “Resilient farming systems to deal with change” Prof. Geoff Simm, Head of the University of Edinburgh’s Global Academy of Agriculture and Food Security Geoff Simm 10.30-11.00 Tea / Coffee Break 11.00 - “Farming in different countries ” Nathan Dellicott, Barfoots of Botley Nathan Dellicott “Integrated Farm Management – challenges across the world “ Caroline Drummond, LEAF (Linking Environment and Arable Farming) Caroline Drummond “My view on future systems” A panel of four farmers from around the world Followed by discussion. 13.00- Lunch Break – 14.00-17.00 Contributed Paper & Seminar/Workshop Parallel Sessions in 6 rooms of the Conference Centre Wednesday 5th July 08.00-08.45 IFMA General Meeting. 08.50- Welcome and introduction Plenary Sessions “Operating farm businesses in global and local environments.” Day 2 Chairman – John Giles, Chairman of the Institute
    [Show full text]
  • Translational Research and Knowledge in Agriculture and Food Production
    CHILDREN AND FAMILIES The RAND Corporation is a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and EDUCATION AND THE ARTS decisionmaking through research and analysis. ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT HEALTH AND HEALTH CARE This electronic document was made available from www.rand.org as a public INFRASTRUCTURE AND service of the RAND Corporation. TRANSPORTATION INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS LAW AND BUSINESS NATIONAL SECURITY Skip all front matter: Jump to Page 16 POPULATION AND AGING PUBLIC SAFETY SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY Support RAND TERRORISM AND Browse Reports & Bookstore HOMELAND SECURITY Make a charitable contribution For More Information Visit RAND at www.rand.org Explore RAND Europe View document details Limited Electronic Distribution Rights This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law as indicated in a notice appearing later in this work. This electronic representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for non-commercial use only. Unauthorized posting of RAND electronic documents to a non-RAND Web site is prohibited. RAND electronic documents are protected under copyright law. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of our research documents for commercial use. For information on reprint and linking permissions, please see RAND Permissions. This product is part of the RAND Corporation technical report series. Reports may include research findings on a specific topic that is limited in scope; present discussions of the methodology employed in research; provide literature reviews, survey instru- ments, modeling exercises, guidelines for practitioners and research professionals, and supporting documentation; or deliver preliminary findings. All RAND reports un- dergo rigorous peer review to ensure that they meet high standards for research quality and objectivity.
    [Show full text]
  • A Comparative Analysis of Co-Operative Sectors in Scotland, Finland, Sweden and Switzerland
    "DPNQBSBUJWFBOBMZTJTPG DPPQFSBUJWFTFDUPSTJO4DPUMBOE 'JOMBOE 4XFEFOBOE4XJU[FSMBOE "VUIPS+PIOTUPO#JSDIBMM /PWFNCFS A comparative analysis of co-operative sectors in Scotland, Finland, Sweden and Switzerland CONTENTS WHO WE ARE ........................................................................................................................................................................................................ 3 WHAT WE OFFER.................................................................................................................................................................................................. 3 FOREWORD ............................................................................................................................................................................................................ 4 Author profile........................................................................................................................................................................................................ 5 Acknowledgements..............................................................................................................................................................................................5 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY........................................................................................................................................................................................6 Chapter 1: INTRODUCTION...............................................................................................................................................................................10
    [Show full text]