Clark B, Proctor A, Boaitey A, Mahon N, Hanley N, Holloway L
Centre for Rural Economy, School of Natural and Environmental Sciences, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE1 7RU UK.
The James Hutton Institute, Craigiebuckler, Aberdeen, AB15 8QH Scotland, UK.
Agric Human Values. 2024;41(4):1841-1856. doi: 10.1007/s10460-024-10585-0. Epub 2024 May 30.
This paper presents a novel perspective on an evolving policy area. The UK's withdrawal from the EU has led to the creation of a new Agriculture Act and proposals for significant changes to the way farming subsidies are structured in England. Underpinned by a 'public money for public goods' approach, where public goods are those outputs from the farm system which are not rewarded by markets, yet which provide benefits to many members of society. New schemes include the Animal Health and Welfare Pathway, where certain aspects of farm animal health and welfare (FAHW) will be subsidised through government support, raising a much-debated issue in the literature regarding the representation of FAHW as a public good. For policy to be responsive to societal demands and accountable to citizens, understanding public attitudes and preferences towards FAHW as a public good, and how the public might prioritise this in relation to a wider suite of environmental public goods from farming, is important. An online survey of 521 members of the UK public was conducted and analysed with descriptive statistics and ordered logistic regression. Findings reveal low awareness of the changing agricultural policy context, but strong support for public money being used to provide public goods, particularly for FAHW. Findings also indicate a need for more effective public communication of farming and FAHW issues from farming stakeholders to ensure public policy in this domain is responsive and accountable to its citizens. Further work is needed to inform future debates and engagement surrounding FAHW, including through which combination of funding mechanisms (public or private) it is provided.
本文提出了一个关于不断发展的政策领域的全新视角。英国脱欧导致了一项新的农业法案的出台，以及对英格兰农业补贴结构进行重大变革的提议。其基础是“用公共资金提供公共产品”的方法，这里的公共产品是指农业系统产生的、未得到市场回报但却能为社会众多成员带来益处的产出。新计划包括动物健康与福利路径，其中农场动物健康与福利（FAHW）的某些方面将通过政府支持获得补贴，这在文献中引发了一个备受争议的问题，即FAHW作为一种公共产品的代表性问题。为了使政策能够响应社会需求并对公民负责，了解公众对FAHW作为公共产品的态度和偏好，以及公众如何在更广泛的农业环境公共产品中对其进行优先排序，是很重要的。我们对521名英国公众进行了在线调查，并运用描述性统计和有序逻辑回归进行分析。研究结果显示，公众对不断变化的农业政策背景的认知度较低，但对使用公共资金提供公共产品，尤其是对FAHW，有着强烈的支持。研究结果还表明，农业利益相关者需要更有效地向公众传达农业和FAHW问题，以确保该领域的公共政策能够响应公民需求并对其负责。需要开展进一步的工作，为围绕FAHW的未来辩论和参与提供信息，包括通过何种资金机制组合（公共或私人）来提供FAHW。
