MENUAnimal
Health/ Economic/ Political
|
 |
|
Back to Social/economic/Political Homepage 16 January 2003New Enterprise - New BeginningsFarmers Workshop, Coupar Angus, June 2001A report by Dr James IrvinePerthshire Farmer & Fellow of the Institute of Directors LondonReproduced with permission from LandCare Scotland Although this workshop was held in the summer of 2001, there are lessons to be learned from it. Update Notes are included at the start of the report together with a list of references and further reading. If you wish to go straight to the article click here. The Workshop was held just as the Farm Business Development Scheme (FBDS) was being developed.
Update Notes - January 2003Although the following report was written in June 2001, the messages it contains are as relevant now as they were one and a half years ago - perhaps even more so. With regard to lectures on diversification for farmers, it is interesting to reflect that one of the sponsors of the conference - the Scottish Agricultural College - set about diversifying into perceived business opportunities outside farming. They ran into serious financial problems, had an audit performed on them by a distinguished firm, and were advised to focus on what they are good at. They were advised to concentrate on their core function which relates to agriculture. Indeed they got themselves into such a mess that some of their staff staged a walk-out in January 2003 and have planned further stoppages (1). Since the following article was written in June 2001 farming has been subjected to absurd pressures from Government to cut production and increase environmental work, while at the same time to concentrate on producing quality with all the assurance certification that goes with it (2). Unfortunately it is a reality that quality food does not come cheap - it is expensive. Thus if a farm has quality livestock breeding and management, it is absurd to have enforced limitations on the amount that can be produced of that same quality. Cashflow will not allow it (3). Sadly, farming is now being increasingly advised and directed by people with little practical knowledge of it, following a political and ideological agenda. For example, Scottish Natural Heritage is becoming more and more influential as to how agriculture in Scotland is to be managed (4), while at the same time their lack of expertise in this area is also being increasingly recognised. Time and again their focus is excessively on environment and biodiversity, failing to realise that the maintenance of the countryside is not significantly due to their efforts. SNH has only been around since 1992. The state of the countryside in Scotland is generally in good heart as witnessed by how keen the Tourist Board (Visit Scotland) is to exploit it. This is due to careful stewarship over the centuries by the farmers of Scotland. It must be a matter of some concern that this continued and increasing domination of farming in Scotland by SNH has been given a further impetus by the appointment of the previous Chief Executive of SNH (Roger Crofts) to the Board of Directors of the Scottish Agricultural College (5). There are serious concerns as to the ethical conduct of SNH in relation to land management in Scotland (6, 7, 8, 9), and in particular the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill (10).
References1. College staff strike over pay. BBC News, 9 January 2003. (Reproduced on Land-Care). 2. Farming & Food: a sustainable future. Report of the Policy Commission on the Future of Farming and Food. January 2002. (Visit Website | Download Report [PDF]). 3. Arbuckle, A. (2003). Warning That Scottish Beef Industry Could Collapse. Dundee Courier, 16 January 2003. (Reproduced on Land-Care). 4. Forward Strategy for Scottish Agriculture. Scottish Executive, 2001. (Click here to view). 5. Irvine, W. J. (2002). Scottish Agricultural College - what is going on? Land-Care, 17 October 2002. (Click here to view). 6. Irvine, W. J. (2001). SNH Conference September 2000: Enjoyment and Understanding of the Natural Heritage: Finding the New Balance between Rights and Responsibilities. LandCare Scotland, 1: 19-28. 7. Mitchell, I. (2002). Scientific Objection to the Designation of the Sound of Barra as a possible Special Area of Conservation. LandCare Scotland, 2: 3-49. 8. Miller, R. D. (2002). Justice 2's legal expertise in doubt. Scotland on Sunday, Letters, 22 December 2002. (Reproduced on Land-Care). 9. Irvine, w. J. (2000). Scottish Natural Heritage’s Policy on Access. Land-Care, 7 January 2003. (Click here to view). 10. Land Reform (Scotland) Bill. (Download from Land-Care).
Further Reading
The Original Report of the Farmers Workshop June 2001New Enterprise - New Beginnings
IntroductionThis Farmers Workshop was sponsored by Angus and Perth & Kinross Councils, and by Scottish Enterprise Tayside and chaired by a representative of the Scottish Agriculture College, starting at 9.30 am and finishing with buffet lunch at 1.30 pm, Friday 22nd June 2001.
AttendanceDelegates from Perth & Kinross area numbered a total of 56, 15 of whom (26%) where either employees of the Councils, SNH or Scottish Executive Environment and Rural Affairs Department (SEERAD). The corresponding figures for the Angus area were 32, 9 and 28%. In total therefore this amounted to a total of 88 delegates, 24 (27%) of whom were salaried through Councils (15), SEERAD (5), SNH (1), SAC (2) or WWF Scotland (1). Did the 64 persons who were self-financed or financed through private enterprise get value for using peak time in attending this workshop? Was such a large investment of public employees time well used?
ProgrammeThe programme consisted of:
Case StudiesBy far the best presentation was by Frances Fleming of Peel Farm in the Angus Glens. Clearly she had been helped significantly with various grants in setting up and expanding her teashop and other tourist attractions on the family hill farm, although there was no actual financial statement as to how the enterprise was doing on a business footing. One of the key factors was to get total rates relief for her cottage on account of the fact that she was also the local postmistress. Developing the business meant at least in the early stages opening the private quarters of her family home to passing tourists who wanted a cup of tea and a chat to hear about the countryside. It was clear that Mrs Fleming was a lady of great energy, enterprise and natural entrepreneurial and communication skills. However, it was also clear that in spite of her creating interesting farm walks for the public with explanations of how the farm worked, with farm animals at hand to see and pets to cuddle, the public were not prepared to pay. They expected it for nothing, although she told us that a few forced money into her hand, which must supposedly be as a form of charity after she had explained how much it all cost. Imminent further legislation regarding the risks of E. Coli infection in relation to farm visits, the apparent determination of the Scottish Executive to introduce free and essentially unrestricted access to the countryside both day and night, as well as the public being basically unwilling to pay for the facilities provided, would surely lead any hard-headed business adviser to conclude that, sadly, given such severe and apparently immovable impediments, further efforts would lead to little reward. This in the face of first-rate skills that would be hard to better. The dead hand of excessive government bureaucracy will be the main inhibiting and eventually destructive factor, together with the total lack of education of the public of the realistic cost of maintaining Scotland’s landscape and rural character. Her paper highlighted the very real problems of trying to get an enterprise in rural Scotland to work. I would hesitate to estimate the number of working hours she must put in per week (was it 70, 85 or higher?). Understandably, after she had given her clear and considered presentation and answered many questions she had to return to her many faceted enterprise to keep it going. What a contrast to the substantial number of Council employees present who were clearly there for the day and by the time they got back to their respective councils the day would be finished, apart from submitting their travelling expenses etc. Is it really on this basis that the Scottish Executive sees the way forward for preserving Scotland’s landscape and rural character so important to its tourist and other industries? The second case study was given by Ian Crawford of Wester Kinloch, who is held in high esteem for his work with the Farming and Wildlife Advisory Group (FWAG) and also for his conservation efforts on his own farm over many years. He described how he had converted 15 hectares of relatively poor yielding crop land to trees, planting them with a selection and manner such as to promote wildlife and a peaceful area in the centre of the woodland. He had recorded 128 different species of bird on his land (which is more than is found in many formal bird reserves) and many of them in substantial numbers. This enterprise had been successful, being viable both in terms of the bank balance and certainly in terms of conservation. However, what probably did not come into the financial balance sheet was the amount of time that he and any staff that he might have used to achieve this. I would have thought that had his time been allowed for at a realistic rate, the financial balance sheet would be in the red. He was asked, had his farm been close to an urban settlement, what would be the effect if the Draft Land Reform Bill on Access became law (as the Scottish Executive and its agencies are determined that it will) giving the public unrestricted access both day and night to properties such as his. He agreed that much of what had been achieved would be lost. The incentive to continue would also be lost. Vandalism, litter and dogs - all against the proposed, but essentially unregulated, country code - would finish all that. Again a good scheme supported by a highly motivated farmer executed with a skill based on a love of the countryside is liable to be destroyed by the ideological but impractical hand of a different government department (ironically under the jurisdiction of the First Minister for Justice).Marketing Robin Barron of the Scottish Agricultural Organisation Society Ltd gave the first of the two papers on marketing. He logically spelt out some of the basic facts about the dire situation agriculture is in at the present time. However, his company is really only concerned with large organisations getting together. What he had to say was already all too painfully obvious for the average-to-small farming enterprise in Scotland trying to get a decent price for the quality product that he is already producing. What he did not do was to highlight what are the major obstacles to good marketing in Scottish Agriculture, but then his organisation (as stated in the handouts) is supported by SEERAD. Again it is the dead hand of Government at work, whether it be local in terms of Councils, national in terms of the Scottish Executive or Westminster, and above all the impossibly slow and inefficient EC, which tries to square innumerable circles representing the wide and essentially incompatible needs of agriculture in the different countries of Europe. What really was beyond belief was the arrogant twaddle talked by Marcus Thomson (Strategic Market Analyst, Contracting Markets Scotland). The hand-outs informed the delegates that he teaches part-time at Stirling University in the Department of Marketing and the Department of Entrepreneurship, and that he has recently completed the MBA Elective entitled “E-business - the Entrepreneurs Perspective”. Surely the students of Stirling University deserve better. Marketing should not be about presenting a few obvious facts in an intensely myopic manner, thus avoiding the need for any understanding of the particular market that is being considered. Thus his opening statement that agriculture was no different from any other business showed that he had not researched the subject that he was asked (and presumably paid) to address - “Farmers Workshop - New Enterprise: New Beginnings”. The basic lesson that every lecturer should have learned is not to talk down to your audience. In discussion with him at the end of the meeting it was clear that he had very little idea of agriculture as a business and the massive obstructiveness at various government and other levels that make it extremely difficult to see the way forward. It is just arrogant nonsense to talk as though such major problems are not relevant and were beyond his interest or what he perceived to be his brief. I doubt if I have ever heard a lecturer start his presentation by saying that he expected some 80% of the audience to switch off and then proceed to display a very poor lecturing technique, only to follow by responding to intelligent questions from the audience in a meaningless and flippant manner. My impression was that among the farmers there (rather than civil servants of one form or another) the switch off rate probably reached about the 95% level. Most of the farmers, being highly practical people and with many first rate entrepreneurs among them, had recognised the obvious (that Marcus Thomson managed to eke out to 30 minutes) a long time ago. The marketers could have stressed to the bureaucrats that the ability to legally label the genuine source of origin of a farm product from Scotland would be helpful for starters. After years of asking, this is apparently going to happen in January 2002. (Note: in fact as far as the label Scotch Quality Assured is concerned this will not happen until July 2003). However, what both marketing speakers emphasised strongly was the very major risks that there are in diversifying. I think most farmers know that, but it might be important that the civil servants get the message, rather than putting it abroad that diversification was the way forward, instead of taking a more in depth look at why actions at the various levels of government have very largely created the situation. We live in hope that the impending SEERAD publication on Rural Development may have some more logical content. (Note: Presumably this is the publication called Forward Strategy for Scottish Agriculture published in 2001). The marketing experts did seem to have completely missed the main marketing strength that agriculture now has. There has been a dramatic reduction in skilled farm staff - staff that are skilled in cultivating and caring for the land that has so enhanced the landscape over the centuries and which is so beloved of the tourism marketers (shambolic though they are - they apparently could not even write a proper job description and devise a competent contract after taking an interminable time to find a chief executive). The Scottish Executive has just resolved to have no upper limit on the expenditure for their new house at Holyrood with costs escalating some 400% out of control (currently some £250 million and rising). (Note: the current cost is certainly above £300 million, may well reach £400 million and will not be ready for the Autumn session of 2003 - or is 2004?). Perhaps if our politicians could display a better business sense themselves, we might be less hesitant in following their business advice to us. Tourism (which should be Scotland’s largest industry) contributes nothing to the maintenance of most of Scotland’s landscape but benefits massively from it. The Foot and Mouth crisis (the impact of which was grossly exacerbated by what can only be described as professional negligence on the part of Government officials in not having a proper contingency plan and not testing it properly in the presence of known high risk) has demonstrated how dependent much of Scotland’s industry is on its rural economy. Agriculture now holds the rare commodity of the skilled workforce that is essential to maintain that landscape. It was clear from their responses that neither marketing speaker had realised what should be agriculture’s main marketing strength. The reply from one that the taxpayer thinks he is paying farmers enough when in fact he knew fine well that current subsidies to farmers are not significantly related to environmental aspects, but arise historically through out-dated and inappropriate EU diktats to produce cheap food in the name of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). Nor did he appreciate that since farming incomes were so low (that is why the workshop was being held) that it was he and other city dwellers who were the beneficiaries. His response to the suggestion that perhaps the public should be better informed of these facts seemed to fall on his deaf, and possibly politically fixated, ears. He was happy to let the 26% civil servants in the audience continue to believe that farming is currently heavily subsidised to look after the environment for the urban elite to use as its play place once in a while and for free, or to use it frequently, if next to urban settlements, for dogs to toilet and rummage amongst the nesting wildlife, etc. Livestock and people with little rural sense do not mix and are best kept a part. Marcus Thomson’s response was that the fickle whim of the consumer is all. In agriculture the time-scale of the basic activities that Scotland can do is limited by the necessity for long term planning simply on account of the biology of breeding livestock (especially cattle), the seasons and the inherent nature of the land, its geography and its climate. I would have thought that the marketing “experts” at this meeting were doing agriculture far more harm than good in the context of “New Enterprise - New beginnings”.Council Input One of the reasons why I applied to go to this Farmer’s workshop (and did a round trip of some 70 miles on a glorious sunny day when I should have stayed on the farm for silage/hay making, etc, etc) was that Councilors from Angus and particularly from Perth & Kinross were listed as speakers, and would presumably be there for discussion with delegates rather than just being an image for themselves and their councils. Joy Mowat, the deputy convenor of the Angus economy committee spoke well, and referred to the rural poverty and high unemployment in certain parts of her region. She clearly had genuine concerns and was more than happy to respond to delegates’ questions in a one-to-one discussion at the coffee break when the chairman rightly encouraged us to network. The situation with Perth & Kinross Council was a very different story. Arriving with seconds to spare before giving his 5 minute presentation, he read most of it off in a largely inaudible manner and promptly left. Since Perth & Kinross Council are among the main inhibitors of progress on my farm this was more than a little frustrating. My impression that Perth & Kinross Council are poorly motivated as regards agriculture in their region was reinforced, although it is such an important aspect that it is incredible they should behave so badly towards it.
News from SEERADThe main aspects of the Farm Business Development Scheme that had just been announced by SEERAD were described by Karen Jackson. £50 million over 5 years on a competitive tendering basis for capital expenditure only, with a maximum for any one agricultural holding of £25,000 over that 5 years. While hopes were raised during the early part of her presentation, it was soon realised, after a pertinent question or two from the delegates, that this was for diversification away from traditional farming. There was to be no help to renovate or construct new livestock buildings to promote the breeding of high quality livestock for which Scotland is internationally famous, but only for rare breeds or goats for which there is very little market and no real commercial future. Tea-shops and crafts and even more essentially unproductive tourist enterprises that are already over-supplied and struggling seemed to be the order of the day. No mention of course of the ludicrous level of tax on petrol and the extortionate council rates that would apply to non-agricultural businesses. Integration with the local community seemed to be the buzz word. A local committee would be set up to adjudicate with representatives from the Council, SNH and other bodies including a farmer. It was mentioned that it might be possible that National Farmers Union Scotland (NFUS) and the Scottish Landowners Federation (SLF) could be called upon for advice but would not be represented on the adjudicating committee. No wonder so few people are prepared to put their heads above the parapet and criticise the Council, SNH or SEERAD. What an opportunity for nepotism! With regard to the competitive aspect of this capital-funding-only scheme, it is relevant to recall Ian Crawford’s remark during his clear presentation - he failed the first time to get any CPS funding and had to reapply the next time round thereby necessarily delaying any start to his imaginative program for a further appropriate season (probably a year way). Having just been told by the marketing speakers that you have to get in with your idea first and see it through in a highly competitive market, and reminded by SEERAD that anyone who starts a programme of diversification without approval of the local committee ratified by SEERAD will not get any grant ever for any of that project, you can understand the conflict that deadens much enterprise in Scotland - the authorities offer with one hand and inhibit with the other. Angus Council appointed Prue Dowie as their rural economic development officer. She is described as an agricultural economist who has worked for many years in Paris as a consultant to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Rural Development Programme and the directorate for Agriculture. She was also the Agricultural Officer at the British Embassy in Paris and returned to Scotland in 1996. Has she any experience in actually running a business? Perth & Kinross Council appointed Maureen Wright as their Rural Economic Development Officer. We were informed that after raising three children, she began a second career with the Finance & Investment Department of the Scottish Devolvement Agency in 1984. During her five years with the SDA she returned to part-time education and obtained a degree in Business Studies. She then became an Investment Executive with Scottish Enterprise Fife where she was responsible for giving loans and grants to small business. Following restructuring of the investment section at Scottish Enterprise Fife (presumably that means redundancy), she returned to her native Northern Ireland to take up a position as Programme manager for the European Union special Programme for Peace and Reconciliation in Northern Ireland and the Border Counties. Family ties brought her back to Scotland in April 1999 when she took up her current position with Perth & Kinross Council. The workshop was told that the rural development officers will be the key persons who will liaise with and advise farmers wanting to apply for the capital grants aimed at encouraging diversification i.e. to get away from what they are very good at and what the country needs. Even so, are the rural development officers adequately qualified to advise?
Organisation of the MeetingPerhaps it would not be too much to expect that the meeting be held in a venue where the acoustics are clear and the projection facilities work, and where after coffee the speaker does not have to compete with the rattle of numerous coffee cups being cleared at the back of the same room. Perhaps those who wish to control business ideas put forward for support could actually organise something themselves with a greater semblance of competence. Heaven knows there are enough of them working away in their numerous conflicting departments assessing others on what they can or cannot do, but having no coherent plan themselves.
ConclusionScottish Agriculture deserves better than this, both in terms of the organisation of the meeting and its content with the clear exception of the speakers from the farming community itself, who were running their own hands-on personal enterprises. Overloaded bureaucracy (27% of the audience) with misleading or irrelevant information promoted by the marketers together with a financial diversification scheme that merely tinkers at the edges of a fundamental problem is really of very little use. It will allow the politicians to “hype” and “spin” that they are doing something about the dire situation that they and other government colleagues at various levels have largely created. Where much more attention should be placed is:
Quite frankly I would have liked to see the business initiative, natural communication skills and shear hard work clearly displayed by Frances Fleming, the hill farmers wife from the Angus Glens together with the councillor from Angus, Joy Mowat, working together in the Scottish Office. We might get somewhere, but I fear the dead hand of government bureaucracy would stifle them. For me the Workshop demonstrated that there was not much wrong with the business acumen of the farming community, but a great deal wrong on the part of those who are so misguidedly misdirecting it, and in a manner that does makes little business sense. ©Teviot-Kimpton Publications |
Irvine, W. J. (2003). Scottish Natural Heritage’s Policy on
Access. Land-Care, 7 January 2003. (