|
Back to Social/Economic/Political
Discussions and Impressions -
Royal Highland Agricultural Show 2003
James Irvine
Cultybraggan Farm, Comrie, Perthshire
Teviot Scientific Consultancy, Edinburgh
(Filed 23 June 2003)
© LandCare Scotland
CONTENTS
Introduction
Mid Term Review of Common Agricultural Policy
Machinery Trade
Draft Scottish Outdoor Access Code
Food Labelling
Improving the Quality of Scottish Livestock - Health
& Breeding
Education
Scottish Countryside Alliance
Socialising
Summary
Introduction
One of the main purposes of having an agricultural
show such as the Royal Highland, Ingliston, Edinburgh is to facilitate
communication between farmers and those with related interests.
It should also be an opportunity for the urban community to understand
a little more about how the countryside works.
As well as enjoying the magnificent display
of livestock and trade stands, I spent much of my two days discussing
topics that are highly relevant to today’s farming.
Mid Term Review of Common Agricultural Policy (CAP)
Nothing as yet has been agreed and the
agricultural industry and much else that depends on it is in limbo
until these last minute negotiations in Luxembourg (or do they meet
in Brussels this time round?) are completed. Is it to be de-coupling
of payments away from production with serious consequences for the
Scottish quality livestock industry (1), or is
there to be partial de-coupling with a degree of flexibility within
member states? If the latter, will there be a level playing field
across Europe? France is reputedly not liking Fischler’s proposals.
Apparently France arrived at its situation
of having numerous small farms on account of a law in France that
meant when a farmer-owner died the farm had to be split evenly between
the offspring. So if the farmer/owner had five sons then his farm
was heading to become five farms, and so on. Also remember the CAP
was created in the first place to get France out of a mess when
its numerous small farms were in dire straits and civil unrest was
imminent.
Clearly NFU Scotland was doing its best
for the quality livestock industry and was working closely with
Ross Finnie of SEERAD, and trying to get the UK delegation to see
the importance of maintaining quality livestock production in Scotland.
The livestock industry in Scotland is significantly different from
that in England. It is to be hoped that such regional differences
will be better recognised by Margaret Becket and Elliot Morley,
as well as by the EC.
I can think of no other industry whose
future is so uncertain with last minute negotiations still going
on that could potentially bring about rapid changes in its financial
base and feasible objectives. The reality is, however, that livestock
farming is a long-haul activity if quality is to be achieved - it
is not something that can change gear rapidly.
What is worrying - indeed very worrying
- is how effective might the Macauley Land Use Research Institute
(MLURI) be in its misguided promotion of downgrading production
and increasing land use for consumers in the form of recreation
takers (2). Not only is it unwise for an island
such as the UK to be depend on others for food in a world where
international terrorism is a reality, but such a concept could do
great injury to Scotland’s livestock industry which is just
beginning to regain its international position. It is not less quality
livestock we need in Scotland, but more.
The conservation/environment lobby is presently
too strong and its clear that most within that lobby have little
understanding of farming. As the environment/conservation interest
becomes more and more unreasonably predominant, so the control of
what happens to the land will pass to those who know less and less
about it. It will be recognised too late that in Scotland most of
the natural heritage is preserved by farmers and not by any official
body such as Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH) who takes conservation
and biodiversity to the level of an extremely expensive and poorly
managed obsession (3, 4)
Machinery Trade
At the Show my impression was that there
was little activity at the machinery stands - such is the chaos
of economic uncertainty in farming today. With the reduction in
skilled workers remaining in farming and the inability of farmers
to pay them directly even if they could be found, the farm machinery
on offer seemed to be getting bigger and bigger, aimed at the very
big farm or the contractor. That is not the way to conserve the
environment. Nor is the dispensing of unpopular management contracts
with the approval of SNH ever going to be the way forward.. Farms
in Scotland are already well above the average size in Europe, such
has been their efficiency while still preserving the landscape in
their traditional manner. The fact is that there is mighty little
wrong with Scotland’s landscape, but plenty of people with
a vested interest to say otherwise.
Draft Scottish Outdoor Access Code (SOAC)
The Royal Highland Show was a good opportunity
to try to sound out what people, and bodies of people in formal
associations of one kind and another, were thinking about this highly
controversial issue (5).
The Scottish Agricultural College (SAC)
had their usual enormous stand, but they were not keen to talk about
access. It soon transpired that the reason why is that SAC gets
its main funding from SEERAD, and indeed its applications for research
grants may need to have the approval of SNH whether or not SNH might
know anything about the subjects under consideration. The clear
inference was that it was not politically wise to query SNH or SEERAD
on matters of policy such as access to the countryside, although
it has huge implications as to how the countryside might be managed.
Any last thought, that an institute such as the SAC might function
as an independent body of thinking people and who would be able
to speak their minds, evaporated
I wonder if the SAC will be putting in
a response to the draft Code - closing date 30th June (5).
If they do it will be fascinating to read what they say, as there
are clearly parts of the Code that are incompatible with competent
farming as presently required by numerous statutory bodies.
In contrast the Scottish Landowners
Federation (SLF) who had their stand right next door to that
of SNH, gave the impression that they had swallowed the Code hook
line and sinker. To give them their due they had an attractive display
of model animals accompanied by signs for access takers. The trouble
was, however, that I got the impression that they were plugging
the code before it had been accepted, knowing full well that many
of their members had serious doubts about it (6,
7, 8, 9). There
was little indication as to what areas of the Code the SLF had concerns,
thereby alerting their members and the public at large to check
these areas out and respond to SNH as they themselves saw fit. In
particular the SLF did not indicate that the problems of enclosed
Lowland farmland are substantially different from the remote open
landscape of the Highlands, although heaven knows they have been
told often enough by their members. There must also be concern that
it is alleged that SNH is funding an access officer for the SLF
- is that access officer being put there to implement the code or
to listen to the worries of SLF members? Is the SLF a truly independent
body?
Indeed the SLF stand seemed to perform the function
of sales pitch for the draft Code, while Scottish Natural Heritage
(SNH) itself had a vast stand with virtually nothing in it. There
were the usual type of SNH slogans on the walls, a small central
stand containing copies of promotional material but not actually
saying anything, and a pile of copies of the draft Code along with
the usual array of conservation/biodiversity images. The stand had
no visitors when I looked in and when subsequently passing There
was again no attempt at educating the urban dwellers about the ways
of their rural colleagues, the Show being the major event of the
year in Scotland when town meets country. But then again, SNH is
not best versed on how the countryside actually works.
The Farming and Wildlife Advisory Group (FWAG)
had a stand at the show. Surely they must have a view on the draft
SOAC. Surely they cannot be in agreement with the conservation margins
of fields cropped for cereals being used for walkers with dogs,
for horses, mountain bikers or whatever. What about river banks
and their invaluable wildlife, especially near areas of high population?
Their spokepersons were very cagey. They did not have any policy
that they cared to divulge. It appeared that they too had taken
“the King’s shilling” - as they were funded by SNH
and kept permanently short of funds they did not think it politic
to argue with SNH. Therefore what is the point of joining FWAG apart
possibly from getting advice on how to comply with SNH?
The Scottish Wildlife Trust (SWT)
was the next stall to visit. When asked the open question if they
had a view or any comments to make about the draft SOAC, their charming
spokesperson was only a fraction less cagey than those I had already
visited. Starting off with confining her comments to areas for conservation
that were already established, I reminded her that to take such
a line excluded most farmland where most conservation was in fact
carried out. Stating that SWT had not decided (or perhaps even debated)
as to what its policy might be, she said that SWT had to be mindful
of its members. Perhaps also it had to be mindful of its source
of funding, such as SNH. I got the impression that it too had taken
“the King’s shilling”. Perhaps its members might
have liked some guidance form their executive as to what was responsible
access to the countryside and under what circumstances. It did not
look as though they were going to get it - so why be a member? The
charming lady’s invitation to become one was declined.
Next stop - Linking Environment And
Farming (LEAF). On my first visit to this stand I met an attendant
who was English and had never heard of the draft SOAC. That of course
would not be surprising because in England they have no such thing.
Their version of access to the countryside is to moorland only and
not to enclosed farmland.
He did however subsequently get in touch
with an official spokesperson for LEAF who made it clear that LEAF
did not “concern itself with policies”. They would not
be making any response to the consultation on SOAC. So much then
for their claim of integrating farming with the environment. Open
access by the public for all sorts of activities with few restrictions
will most certainly affect both farming and the environment. If
they too will not face up to the real problems of the interface
between urban and rural thinking over the matter of access to farmland,
why join their organisation?
I decided to attend the NFUS seminar on
the draft SOAC scheduled for the next morning, but so far as a result
of my tour of the other most relevant organisations things were
not looking good. It would appear that SAC, SLF, FWAG and SWT had
all taken “the King’s shilling” from SNH and that
LEAF did not want to get involved with Scottish politics no matter
how such politics integrated (or rather failed to integrate) with
Scottish farming.
It is to the great credit of the Royal Highland
Show that it was possible to get such a quick survey of the positions
of these various bodies regarding the draft SOAC, a document with
immense potential to change the way farming works. Yet these highly
influential bodies had virtually nothing to say. They professed
to be interested in wildlife but seemed unwilling to flag up the
obvious threats to it as contained in the draft SOAC.
Quality Meat Scotland (QMS) had a
fine big stand at the Show but they were emphatically not interested
in talking or doing anything about the draft SOAC. “Too busy
- far too many other things to do” said Jim Walker, chairman
of QMS since April of this year. Yet an objective of QMS is “To
provide co-ordination and leadership for the whole of the industry”
(10). The proposed day and night open access to
livestock farms next urban settlements will certainly compromise
the ability of such farms to function properly within the industry.
As a subscription payer to QMS I fell let down, as I am sure others
will. But then we have no real option but to pay our subscriptions
to QMS, even although it sometimes seems that it is hype that is
being promoted rather than the real issues. I suggested that if
they were too busy they might at least support the line taken by
the NFUS.
The odd thing about QMS is that their principal
marketing man, managing director Alasdair Muir, was resigned following
the appointment of Jim Walker as chairman and Jan Polly previously
from SEERAD as chief executive . Apparently the expert in marketing
is not going to be replaced - so who is going to do the marketing?
The National Farmers Union of Scotland
(NFUS) was the only organisation as far as I am aware who organised
seminars on the draft SOAC at the Show. It was run by Craig Campbell
in the NFUS HQ immediately next door to the Royal Highland Show.
He had already presented at workshops in different parts of the
country. He indicated that he had had more responses in relation
to the consultation on the draft SOAC than to any other previous
consultation. The NFUS appears to be the only body that is talking
basic sense about how farming, wildlife and access can effectively
interact.
It is to be hoped that they will manage
to be persuasive with their logic when the final version of the
Code is being considered. Yet this organisation is being stretched
to the limit with the goings on in Brussels/Luxembourg. They could
do without additional ideological, unrealistic and unhelpful activities
on the home front. If there is not economically sustainable farming
in Scotland producing quality products, a lot of wildlife will be
lost and the quality of access will go with it.
I did not even try to see if the Macauley
Land Use Research Institute (MLURI) had a stand at the Show.
There would be little point in visiting it if they had - it seems
to me that they have taken the “King’s shilling”
by the bucketful in the hope of commercial opportunism for themselves.
While chatting with a number of individuals
at the Show it would appear that few are prepared to face up to
the daunting task of responding to a 70 page document, when they
have little faith in their efforts making any difference. The image
of government and its agencies is that hype is now the norm and
consultation is in name only - the decisions having been taken before
consultations are started. The Government had better do something
to reverse that image or they will be building serious problems
for themselves come future elections in the form of even greater
apathy.
Food Labelling
While visiting the Quality Meat Scotland
(QMS) stand, which sported large adverts for Selected Scotch
Beef and Lamb, I encountered what sounded like an Englishman demonstrating
the cooking of lamb dressed up with what looked like some kind of
curry. As there seemed to be no tastings in the offing I interested
myself in the posters on the pillars that claimed to explain food
labelling. Sadly it did nothing of the kind. “The first number
indicates the country of origin” the poster said, pointing
to it. Enquiry to the attendant at hand led to the usual type of
extemporary confabulation that one gets in supermarkets if one is
daft enough to bother asking the same question -”what is
meant by the country of origin?” . I was duly referred
to the top brass for an answer, only to find that the problem of
obtaining and using a brand name to indicate meat products as derived
from livestock born, bred and slaughtered in Scotland is still with
Brussels. The 90 day rule still holds in terms of qualifying as
originating in Scotland for the word Scotch to be used. But surely
we have heard this story now for a very long time. Is it really
the problem with Brussels or are there members in our own camp who
are trying to put a spanner in the works? Matters seem after all
this time to be still “out for consultation”. How many
years does it take?
Sadly from attending the AGM of the Scottish
Beef Council there stills seems to be a strong lobby, that goes
back to the days of Scotch Quality Beef and Lamb Assurance (SQBLA)
that predated QMS, that wants the 90 day fudge to qualify as the
country of origin to continue. They argue that it worked fine before
so why not now, The trouble is of course that the consumer is nowadays
much less tolerant of being told things that are only partially
true. Indeed the Advertising Standards Agency has had something
to say about it.
If the public are being asked to pay more
for a brand then it had better be the genuine article and not a
convenient approximation to it. Also, consumers are now much more
aware of the distance livestock travel throughout their lives. If
the animal is born and bred and slaughtered in Scotland at least
the overall travel will have been limited. A label that means what
it implies or says should also give the opportunity to reflect further
improvements in livestock health that hopefully will be developed
in Scotland.
Improving the Quality of Scottish Livestock - health and
breeding
If the Scottish livestock industry is to
survive it must concentrate on the quality market, otherwise it
will be flooded out by commodity imports. Not only for its image
but also for its efficiency, the health of Scottish livestock must
improve. DEFRA seems to be at a loss as to how to control the escalating
spread of TB in England (11). Robert Foster, chief
executive of the National Beef Association seemed to despair of
ever getting tuberculous badgers culled, and the fear is that with
the spread of TB into the south west of Scotland through cattle
movements (12) it may well infect the local badgers
with consequent further spread. Calls were at the meeting made for
all cattle coming into Scotland to be TB tested. Although the tuberculin
test is not 100% reliable it is the best we have at present. It
is certainly better than nothing. Scotland should be encouraged
to get ahead with its own health schemes as they will be important
in promoting the genuine Scotch or Scottish brand as an something
of true worth and therefore added value. It would be good to see
our research institutes such as the Moredun being more involved
in programmes that lead to better animal health, such as improving
the diagnostic tests for tuberculosis. Rather many other diseases
of livestock also need a coordinated plan for improvement.
For all the hype from the Meat and Livestock
Commission (MLC) and Signet, the fact is that livestock breeding
programmes in the UK have now fallen sadly behind the rest of the
world (13). The Estimated Beef Values (EBV’s)
much promoted by MLC/Signet over the years have failed to introduce
important new developments. As an initial ardent follower of EBV’s
as used in the UK, I among many have become disillusioned and frustrated
with the lack of incorporation of new ideas either through mental
stagnation or lack of co-ordinated funding. Much of the rest of
the world has moved on and is now years ahead, as exemplified by
the Australian based BreedPLAN (14). Since it
is now too late to try and beat the Australians at their own game,
it would be better to join them.
Since this article is centred on the Royal
Highland Show let us consider what BreedPLAN could do for
us in Scotland. Although their programme can be used for any breed,
the lead breed that BreedPLAN interested itself in was - and continues
to be - Aberdeen Angus. The home of Aberdeen Angus is in Scotland
and in the consumers’ eyes is the flagship of all breeds internationally.
It is imperative that Scotland keeps up with the latest advances
in breeding to improve the quality of Scottish Aberdeen Angus products
as view by the consumer - no matter where these advances come from.
The present UK EBV system run by MLC/Signet
does nothing to improve eating quality of the final product. It
ignores the contribution of intramuscular fat (marbling) that much
of the rest of the world values. As a result of persisting in its
state of denial over this matter over many years, there are no persons
in Scotland (other than one expatriate Australian) who are accredited
to scan live beasts for marbling. This situation needs to be urgently
addressed.
Attempts to bring all the major breeds
on board to adopt the BreedPLAN system are not looking promising
(15, 16). Rather than wait any
longer it would be better in my view that the Aberdeen Angus Cattle
Society with its HQ in Perth should lead the way and go it alone,
if necessary. Official sales of pedigree Aberdeen Angus Cattle would
carry the BreedPLAN data only. The Aberdeen Angus Cattle Society
should lead the way in the UK.
Education
Each year I search for evidence at the
Royal Highland Show for attempts to educate the urban based public
on the ways of the countryside and how they should conduct themselves
when taking access to places of rural business, such as farms. I
would have thought this was getting urgently important with the
publication of what may be the penultimate draft of the Scottish
Outdoor Access Code (SOAC). But the situation was the same as in
previous years - good on education for young kids at primary school
through the Royal Highland Education Trust (RHET), but very little
evidence of education for their parents and other adults, or teenagers.
Ironically it was the SLF that was doing something in this direction,
but sadly as mentioned above seemed to be selling what was in the
Code rather than highlighting problem areas . As mentioned above,
SNH had zero information on the subject (or indeed anything) at
its big marque.
When I enquired at RHET as to why the web
education programme called Farm and Countryside Education (FACE)
(17) and other related programmes available on-line
(18, 19) appear not to be promoted
in Scotland (20), the answer was in terms of devolution
with boundary rivalry problems and lack of funding through SNH.
But surely to promote an education programme that is already on
the Web can hardly be an expensive exercise. The FACE programme
appealed to me as being the best I have seen and in general gets
the main information about farming across very well, albeit with
an English flavour. Why do we have to suffer petty politics and
apparent penny pinching from SNH when SNH spends extravagantly on
their conservation/biodiversity pet projects? Why could SNH with
its vast funds and massive staff not have this programme running
at its stand - it is a programme about what goes happens on farms.
Education about a code (i.e. one that is ultimately agreed) relating
to access to farm land could follow. I understand that the programme
is shortly to be widely promoted at the Royal Show in Stoneleigh.
Scottish Countryside Alliance (SCA)
The SCA really is to be congratulated on
their display and demonstrations relating to country sports. Their
marquee and the surroundings with demonstration “field”
and “loch” with a burn running into it under an attractive
stone bridge was most impressive. Coming into the Show by the West
Gate on the first day, I soon came across the genuine article of
a Highlander displaying consummate casting skills while giving an
authoritative running commentary. A delightful scene, to be followed
by demonstrations of dog training, falconry and coursing. The surrounding
trade stands selling quality countrywear and the flag of the British
Association for Shooting and Conservation (BASC) fluttering proudly
in the breeze added to the scene. All-in-all this patch of the Show
was a winner with the public.
Other commendable activities of the SCA
earlier this year include their “Connecting Communities”
conference (21) and four workshops in different
parts of Scotland on the draft Access Code.
Socialising
There was a lot to get through at the Show
in terms of trying to find out what was happening in Scottish agriculture,
where it might be going and how one might possibly be able to influence
that future (rather than just accept it when it comes). But there
should also be time for a bit of socialising. For me, and a good
many others, this was splendidly provided by Brodies, the
distinguished firm of Edinburgh solicitors and estate agents, through
their kind invitation for a buffet lunch in the President’s
Marquee. It was a delightful occasion which may hopefully lead to
co-operating with other livestock farmers in shortening the food
chain and better targeting of the market for quality beef - good
networking of the social variety. The legal profession is in for
a Klondyke of cases that are bound to arise from the poor drafting
of the Land Reform (Scotland) Act.
Summary
My visit to Royal Highland Show highlighted
the severely confused state Scottish (and indeed UK) farming is
in as a consequence of being part of the EC. Last minute fundamental
decisions concerning the Mid Term Review of the Common Agricultural
Policy have again been delayed. There is no stability as to how
agricultural subsidies are to organised throughout the expanding
European Community as form January 2004 and thereafter. Farming,
especially livestock farming, is a long-term business and instability
in terms of economic direction is a serious problem.
As if that was not bad enough, Scotland
seems to be adding in some more self-made problems in the form of
overambitious plans for open access by the public to virtually all
farming land in the hope that it will be politically attractive
to the urban majority, but based on a poor understanding of how
farms work. Matters are made even worse with research institutes
such as the Macauley apparently jumping on the bandwagon and advocating
that Scottish farming land should produce less and be primarily
used for recreation. My understanding is that the days of food mountains
are long past.
What did surprise me was just how many
organisational bodies with admirable intentions seem to have had
to take the SNH “King’s shilling” and thereby curtail
their criticisms in order to preserve what meagre funding they get.
What was impressive is just how unpopular SNH now appears to be.
For all the talk that tries to tell us
otherwise, there is a massive problem within SEERAD in terms of
a lack of joined up thinking. The main culprit is the Scottish Executive’s
advisory body, SNH, being in such a powerful position as regards
what happens to Scotland’s land
while being so ignorant of the basics of land management.
©LandCare Scotland
References
1. Editorial (2003). Impact of
the Mid-Term Review of the CAP on the Red Meat Sector in Scotland
(Filed 23 May 2003, www.land-care.org.uk, Click
here to view)
2. Irvine, James (2003).
The Arrogance of Academics pontificating about Rural Affairs: Are
they letting us down?
ECRR Conference: Scotland’s Landscape
- a Fixed Asset?
Battleby, Perthshire, 8th May 2003
(Filed 14 May 2003, www.land-care.org.uk, Click
here to view)
3. Irvine, James (2003).
Conservation and the Misuse of Science: Hedgehogs, Bats and Badgers.
(Filed 15 April 2003, www.land-care.org.uk, Click
here to view)
4. Editorial (2003). SNH
hedgehog farce degenerates into expensive grotesque.
(Filed 21 May 2003, www.land-care.org.uk, Click
here to view)
5. Scottish Natural Heritage
(2003). Draft Scottish Outdoor Access Code: a document for consultation
(www.snh.org.uk/soac/)
6. Mylius, Andrew (2003).
Draft Scottish Outdoor Access Code: Response to Consultation.
(Filed 17 June 2003, www.land-care.org.uk, Click
here to view)
7. Mylius, Andrew (2003).
Land Reform and the Access Code: Problems and Unanswered Questions.
(Filed 26 February 2003, www.land-care.org.uk, Click
here to view)
8. Arbuckle, Andrew (2003).
SLF accused of lack of fight over access. Dundee Courier.
(Filed 25 April 2003, www.land-care.org.uk, Click
here to view)
9. Buglass, Dan (2003).
Still deep divisions between landowners and access seekers, Farmers
Guardian.
(Filed 7 May 2003, www.land-care.org.uk, Click
here to view)
10. Irvine, James (2003).
Why no QMS Response to SOAC? Open letter to Jim Walker.
(Filed 16 June 2003, www.land-care.org.uk, Click
here to view)
11. Irvine, James (2003).
Just how bad is the TB problem in UK Cattle?
(Filed 25 February 2003, www.land-care.org.uk, Click
here to view)
12. Editorial (2003). Incidents
of TB in Cattle in Scotland, 1995-2002.
(Filed 26 February 2003, www.land-care.org.uk, Click
here to view)
13. Groom, Robert (2003)
Letter from America by Expatriate Scot: Aberdeen Angus Breeder.
(Filed 9 April 2003, www.land-care.org.uk, Click
here to view)
14. Sundstrom, Brian (2002).
Breedplan - Australian Based International Beef Cattle Genetic Evolution
Programme
(Filed 2002, www.land-care.org.uk, Click
here to view)
15, Irvine, James (2003),
Future Pedigree Breeding of Cattle. QMS meeting Monday 26th May
2003
(Filed 6 June 2003, www.land-care.org.uk,
Click here to view)
16. Editorial (2003).
Have Signet and MLC muscled in on Breedplan?
(Filed 5 May 2003, www.land-care.org.uk, Click
here to view)
17. www.face-online.org.uk
18. www.cobritishfarming.org.uk
19. www.ukagriculture.com
20. www.rhet.rhass.org.uk
21. Connecting Communities
Conference: Scottish Countryside Alliance: Follow Up
(Filed 21 April 2003, www.land-care.org.uk, Click
here to view)
|
