|
Back to SOCIAL/ECONOMIC/POLITICAL
Homepage
SEERAD’s CAP Reform Roadshow:
Perth 13th November
James Irvine
FRSE DSc FInstBiol FRCPE FRCPath FInstDirectors
Teviot Scientific, Cultybraggan Farm, Comrie,
Perthshire, Scotland
Reproduced with permission
from LandCare Scotland
(Filed 17 Nov 03)
© LandCare Scotland
The Scottish Executive Environment and Rural Affairs
Department (SEERAD) held a meeting in Perth on the evening of Thursday
13th November to explain and to discuss the Common Agricultural
Policy (CAP) Reform Consultation Document (1) and
its implications for Scotland.
With so much attention in the CAP Reform being
paid to environmental issues, it was a pity that SEERAD could not
have taken measures to prevent acute noise pollution within their
own activities by organising a properly functioning microphone and
loudspeaker system. That apart the meeting provided a good platform
for SEERAD to spell out the rules - such as they are presently known
- to a confused and concerned audience predominantly of farmers
and others whose livelihoods depend on the management of agricultural
land.
It will be noticed that what was previously referred
to as the Midterm CAP Review is now the CAP Reform incorporating
major and permanent changes: i.e. big changes instead of interim
ones.
There was a presentation by Andy Robb, a member
of SEERAD’s senior staff, of the options open to Scotland within
CAP Reform. The numerous questions that followed were fielded by
him and Jenny Hamilton, who chairs the SEERAD committee on CAP Reform.
The CAP Reform was heralded as the most important change in Scottish
agriculture for many decades. What was decided would stay with us
for keeps and offered great opportunity, it was said.
There are certain immovable aspects of the CAP
Reform as determined by Brussels, while other aspects came within
a range of broadly defined options that different Member States
(and Regions within these Member States) could choose from that
might suit their individual requirements.
The meeting was not told who represented the interests
of the UK - and Scotland in particular - at the negotiations that
lead to the consultation document, but the principal negotiator
was probably Margaret Beckett representing the UK as a whole but
hardly the interests of Scotland. What Scottish representation there
was would presumably have had to follow the views of the Scottish
Executive which takes the form of Labour/Liberal coalition with
its members based mainly in Scotland’s central belt and who
have little knowledge or experience of farming. They have a very
small majority and as far as agriculture is concerned need the support
of the small minority and largely irrational Green and Scottish
Socialist Parties to get their way (2).
Why Scotland’s interests in CAP Reform are different from
England’s
In the eyes of the European Commission, Scotland
is a recognised Region within the UK and the UK as a whole is a
Member State. Consequently within clearly defined limits Scotland
has a degree of choice with regard to certain options that are available
to it. This is important as Scottish agriculture is in many aspects
radically different from that of England.
Some 85% of land in Scotland is categorised as
less favoured. The sheep industry is of major importance to its
rural economy
The flagship of Scottish agriculture is its quality
beef industry with its international reputation. There are now clear
signs of the recovery of the lucrative export market for Scotland’s
quality beef, having taken a hammering from Government’s neglect
of animal health issues and the consequences to human health.
Landmanagement has become an ecologist’s
charter, a new from of plaything for academic geographers and a
klondike for poorly informed rural economists.
The landscape in Scotland is with few exceptions
of a high order. It has been thus long before the environmental
lobby with its strong political influence started its hype about
“sustainability” (3, 4), and thereby
falsely commandeering the high ground as the guardians of the environment
for themselves.
This has lead to a bonanza for academics in ecology,
and for their departments be they based in Universities, Institutes
or Colleges; or based in Government Agencies such as Scottish Natural
Heritage (SNH) or Scottish Environmental Protection Agency (SEPA)
or in non-government organisations such as the RSPB, the Soil Association
and numerous others. Central and local government offices have ecologists
sometimes in the guise of countryside rangers.
Environmental management courses leading to honours
degrees have been rapidly developed by opportunistic Universities
looking for bums on seats and the funding that goes with them, but
sadly such courses are in the Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences
and contain little or no content in the science or practicalities
of the type of land management that involves farming and therefore
the greater part of Scotland (5).
Geography departments in Universities have become
departments in Social Geography so that they can be virtually all
things to all men, but again sadly lack a sufficiently broad knowledge
of the very practical subject of land management. Well known and
respected university departments of agriculture have closed and
government funding for the Scottish Agricultural College has been
reduced by some 25% in terms of its work related to agriculture
with instructions to redirect more of its activities to promoting
human health. The Hannah Research Institute renowned for its work
on dairy cows has been instructed to shut down such activities and
concentrate on matters to do with breast cancer in women. The State
Veterinary Service has been depleted and the scale of research in
veterinary medicine in the UK is now lamentable.
Note how the word farming or agriculture is massaged
out of the equation. Just as DEFRA and SEERAD have dropped agriculture
from their titles so it seems that farmers have become landmanagers.
To be managed by ecologists and geographers. And then of course
there are the rural economists making predictions about matters
that they all too often poorly understand. Little matter to them
if their predictions are wrong and wrong again - they can always
make another, and another.
Brussels, together with the UK’s interpretation
and enthusiastic application of Brussels rules and regulations,
has brought UK agriculture to its knees, while bye and large agriculture
is prospering relatively well in other EU member states. The UK
has placed rural environmental issues before farming, making the
fundamental mistake that it thinks it can handle environmental issues
without a prosperous farming industry. Here it is necessary to distinguish
the hype of DEFRA rhetoric from the reality of what they propose.
Sadly Scotland is getting served up with more of the same in the
form of “ A Forward Strategy for Scottish Agriculture”
(6).
SEERAD seeks views from landmanagers but essential information
is missing
SEERAD is seeking the views of landmanagers as
to which of the options on offer they wish to go for (1).
Unfortunately there are major components of these options where
information essential for making rational choices are missing. The
situation is made worse by the fact that most of Scottish agriculture
is in a dire financial state with an elderly and diminishing workforce
and little sign of the younger generation taking much interest.
So there is a great temptation for Scottish farmers
to go for the best short-term option that will improve cashflow,
or allow retirement from active farming while maintaining an income
based on previous activity. While this is very understandable, it
is not the best way of maintaining farming in the long term in Scotland.
Cross Compliance
Among the essential pieces of missing information
is what is meant by cross compliance.
The vague definition that the land has to be maintained
to good agricultural and environmental standards with further emphasis
on animal welfare is not enough. That could carry a multitude of
excessive rules and regulations thought up by the environmental
lobby and the enthusiastic application of the Land Reform (Scotland)
Act complete with its Scottish Outdoor Access Code (7).
There is a worrying phrase included in the EU document which refers
to “the prevention of encroachment of unwanted vegetation”.
Could this mean such things as bracken - a notoriously difficult
and expensive unwanted vegetation to get rid off which could cost
farmers dear. Or do they refer here to nettles, thistles and gorse?
It sounds like a licence for jobs and money for
such organisations as SNH who have lamentable experience in land
management with their limited remit focused on the promotion of
conservation and biodiversity, resulting in an absurdly academic
and myopic outlook. There are real fears that DEFRA and SEERAD way
well gold plate the compliance regulations compared to the rest
of the EU, putting the UK at a further disadvantage in terms of
its farming industry.
Herein also lies the myth that the paper work
associated with total decoupling would be much simpler and thereby
reduced. What is more likely to happen is a further raft of paper
work and its associated bureaucracy generated by opportunistic pressures
from the Scottish Executive’s own agency SNH and the various
non-government organisations involved with specific aspects of the
environment (such as the RSPB) but who also sadly lack a sufficiently
wide view of land management, but who appear to have an undue influence
on the Scottish Executive.
In considering what cross compliance means it
would be as well to reflect on the compliance that is referred to
in the Nature Conservation (Scotland) Bill whereby landmanagers
within Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) are obliged to
follow SNH instructions under severe penalty (8).
Situations could well arise when the interests of biodivesrity and
conservation conflict with sound principles of good farming. The
only resource is the land court who can merely interpret the law
be it bad or good.
Reduced production with preference for environmental issues
It is also necessary to bear in mind that DEFRA
and SEERAD seem hell-bent on reducing production in favour of what
they choose to call the “consumer”. Are they not living
in the past when there were food mountains which have now for the
most part disappeared? Is it not disingenuous to claim that total
decoupling will liberate proper marketing when in fact it is likely
to be clobbered by excessive compliance regulations and “couldn’t
care less” and “sink or swim” attitudes towards the
fragility of the quality beef industry in Scotland?
This is exemplified by the inept response by Scottish
Enterprise to the Draft Scottish Outdoor Access Code consultation
(7) when their only comment was that they thought
it would be good for the tourist industry (9),
failing to recognise that farming is an industry that also has needs
and that the tourist industry is highly dependent on farming being
profitable.
In the same breath as production is discouraged
the EC, DEFRA and SEERAD claim that marketing will be opened up
and enable farming to prosper. While it is true that there are inappropriate
restrictions within the current system it is hardly necessary to
throw the baby out with the bath water - better to make relatively
simple adjustments to the existing rules to accommodate the market
rather than distort it. For example, the age requirement of male
cattle when the second beef special premium is payable could be
reduced.
While the EC belatedly concentrates on
limiting food production the rest of the world is seeing things
differently. There will be more mouths in the world to feed. China’s
economy is booming and the Chinese are developing more sophisticated
westernised tastes, but their methods of food production are not
capable at least in the midterm of meeting these demands.
Certain rural economists confidently predicted
the collapse of the Scottish sheep industry in 2003, having failed
to recognise that New Zealand’s trading pattern in sheep was
radically altering with much less New Zealand lamb being available
on the international market. The year 2003 has in fact been relatively
a rather good year for Scottish lamb. Imports of lamb were significantly
reduced and the UK balance of payments must have been thereby improved.
This may not have been possible in the absence of current CAP support.
Change the breeding of the Scottish suckler herd
David Pullar of the Meat and Livestock Commission
(MLC) advocates that the suckler cow in Scotland should be based
on an “easy-care” low cost breed that can spend the winter
outside on the hill and which requires little care form a stockman
(10). But the trouble with the MLC over the years
is that they persist on concentrating their attention on the production
of commodity beef, paying little heed to the eating quality of beef
and even less to its marketing.
As the export markets open up can the MLC seriously
expect these markets to be happy about being presented with different
types of beef from what they liked previously? For example before
BSE and FMD hit the UK there was a lucrative Italian market for
Scottish Aberdeen Angus/Limousin cross heifers. It would be absurd
not to tempt them again with the product they liked before
Increased attention to animal health and welfare but this conflicts
with other policies that undermine these aims
With regard to the caveat that compliance will
involve increased animal welfare and health issues, it is necessary
to be aware that both DEFRA and SEERAD are keen to offload much
of their own responsibilities for these issues onto farmers. Thus,
in terms of preventing further outbreaks of Foot and Mouth Disease
(FMD) the most import thing to do is to prevent contaminated meat
or meat products entering the country (11), rather
than pretending it can be done by increasing biosecurity on farms.
That said, one of the most effective ways of improving
cattle health in relation to a wide range of diseases is to have
closed suckler herds, but there are no incentives to encourage this
type of good animal husbandry. Indeed as far as Land-Care is aware
there are no incentives to double-fence the march boundaries between
livestock farms, which is otherwise likely to be a prohibitively
expensive exercise. There is apparently no integration between the
environmental division of SEERAD and the bit that is still supposed
to be concerned with farming.
Would it not be possible to devise a scheme whereby
there was active encouragement to construct wildlife corridors at
boundaries between farms? Double fencing enclosing appropriate hedging
would serve the added purpose of promoting biosecurity for livestock.
Or would this interfere with an opposing Scottish Executive agenda
to let people, their dogs and horses, bikes and whatever to have
unobstructed access to go from farm to farm as they please on the
grounds that in their view that this does not carry any significant
risk for FMD transmission. However, what such double fencing would
most certainly do is reduce the risk of transmission of a host of
other diseases from one farm to another.
Partial Recoupling
The Scottish Executive is clearly concerned that
quality beef production in Scotland might collapse if full decoupling
was introduced. Partial recoupling is on offer whereby it would
be possible to retain up to 100% Suckler Cow Premium Scheme (SCPS)
and up to 40% of slaughter premium (SPS) among other options. A
distinct advantage here would be that the Beef Special Premium Scheme
(BSPS) would not be part of it, as the delay in making the second
payment at 20 months under the current BSPS is seriously disruptive
to the market.
It was not clear to Land-Care however what effect
that would have on the single farm payment.
The system would be easy enough to operate as
it could be based on the registration of calves that already happens
and is tightly controlled through the British Cattle Movement Service
(BCMS).
What is the life expectancy of farm subsidies - is this the beginning
of the end for subsidies?
Clearly there is plenty scope within what is already
known about CAP Reform for the subsidies to farms to be progressively
reduced year on year, both in terms of reducing the total amount
coming to the UK and the redistribution to other purposes within
that allocation at the choice of the member state or region within
it.
Francis Mordaunt, of farm business consultants
Andersons is quoted as estimating that beef and sheep subsidies
could go totally by 2012 (12). He believed that
cereal production would concentrate on the better land and up to
one million hectares would be left fallow annually, although this
might fluctuate year by year depending on market prices. That is
around 300,000 hectares above the current set-aside level. Reductions
on this scale would have major consequences for the trades allied
to agriculture.
Difficulties in making logical and fair decisions on present
information
In the absence of basic information as to what
full decoupling actually implies it is unreasonable to ask for opinions
as to whether farmers are for or against it. Also, because farmers
with quality suckler herds are now reduced to a minority of Scottish
farmers, a show of hands at meetings such as that held by SEERAD
is largely meaningless.
The same reservations as described above hold
for the consideration of national envelopes. Out of the range of
national envelopes that are available, only the one relating to
beef seems to have support. Total decoupling in conjunction with
a national beef envelope appears attractive. But this must depend
on how the money within the beef envelope is to be used to ensure
that it benefits quality beef production and marketing, rather than
supporting the production of more commodity beef that can come flooding
in cheaper from elsewhere within Europe or further afield with all
the commensurate risks.
No doubt SEERAD will claim that they consult
with numerous stakeholders. Almost inevitably it will be the big
boys in the finisher lobby who will win the day: just as the same
interest group is trying to block the truthful meaning of the label
“Scotch”, so that it means what it implies - born, bred,
slaughtered, processed and packaged in Scotland.
There are other problems when trying to decide
whether total decoupling with a national envelope for beef is a
good option. To quote from the SEERAD consultation paper (1)
“National envelopes can be created by retaining up to 10%
of the decoupled payments in the arable, beef, sheep, and dairy
sectors and used to make payments for specific types of farming
which are important for the protection and enhancement of the
environment or for improving the quality and marketing of agricultural
products under conditions to be defined by the Commission”
The Commission has not yet defined these conditions.
Beware again the reference to environmental factors that will certainly
be utilised by the organic farming lobby in pursuing their unsubstantiated
claims that organic farming is necessarily good for the environment,
or that it is any better for human health or even that it tastes
better (13).
It could well be that the money in a national
beef envelope would be squandered on unproven but emotive organic
farming schemes and environmental issues, thought up by such bodies
as SNH, RSPB and the Soil Association, while the production and
marketing of Scotch quality beef comes in as a poor third. What
then would be the point of supporting a national beef envelope when
the single decoupled payment is reduced by 10% and the 10% that
is supposed to come to quality beef production gets footered away
on inappropriate and ineffective agri-environment schemes (14)?
It is also to be remembered that according to
the SEERAD consultation document (1) if a national envelope was
applied to only one sector (such as the beef sector) it would be
created by reducing payments to beef producers, but not to producers
in other areas. One can see that within the beef sector where the
minority of farmers are now involved in the suckler herd component
of production of quality beef - and probably cannot agree as to
what quality is - SEERAD’s practice of consulting with stakeholders
and claiming to reach a consensus is likely to result in much ineffective
chaos.
To date there is little evidence that SEERAD
itself - being more involved with "rural affairs" and
the "environment" rather than farming as such - actually
knows how to encourage the survival and effective promotion of the
flagship of Scotland’s agricultural industry. It supports Quality
Meat Scotland but provides minuscule funding. Again SEERAD can claim
it has done something but in reality it is miserably funded making
it impossible to be truly effective in its task.
Units of entitlement should be awarded on the historical basis
rather than on area of land, but the land market is disrupted until
2005 or beyond.
In Scotland to award units of entitlement on
an area basis would cause severe distortion of financial support
with far too many major winners and losers. Awarding entitlement
to units of support on a historical basis according to support received
between 2000 and 2002 is much more rational. However, with the delays
in defining the terms of these entitlements the land market in agricultural
land has been thrown into chaos until 2005.
What appears not to be appreciated by the EC,
DEFRA or SEERAD is that quality food production (especially in beef)
cannot be turned off and on in the short term - it is a long term
investment both financially and in building up a quality suckler
herd. Such administrative chaos is seriously counter-productive
to the aims that they profess they wish to achieve.
Australia and New Zealand got rid of subsidies and are prospering
- so why shouldn’t we?
This is an oft quoted argument for total decoupling
with rapid reduction and then withdrawal of agricultural subsidies.
However, the situation in relation to Australia and New Zealand
is not comparable with that in present day Europe. The average size
of farms in the antipodes is enormous. They have a huge market in
Asia right next door. Also they do not have a massive and highly
inefficient committee of politically divergent interests to contend
with: they can do and did do their own thing.
For the rest of the world farming does require
to be subsidised and those countries who think that they can do
without such subsidies will find themselves at serious economic
disadvantage. They will effectively be saying goodbye to much of
their farming industry and the rural environment that goes with
it.
It is conveniently forgotten by those who quote
the Australia/New Zealand example to justify their notion that UK
or indeed European farming can do without subsidies, that a whole
generation of farmers went bankrupt so that the massive debt situation
that had accrued in farming was written off. The new generation
of antipodean farmers started with a clean balance sheet at the
bank. Furthermore that new generation of farmers were very positively
supported by their respective governments. The situation in the
UK is very different. The government is clearly not supportive of
farming and there is little evidence of the next generation being
much interested in UK farming.
“There is no money in it” is the standard
response from most of the younger generation as why they are not
interested in pursuing a career in practical farming, rather than
joining the advisory or rule implication brigade telling others
what they can and cannot do.
It also should be remembered that Australia and
New Zealand have much more favourable weather conditions compared
to Scotland for rearing stock and producing the necessary feed.
Because Australia and New Zealand manage to farm
without subsidies does not mean that Scotland within the UK and
Europe can
Is it wise that the UK should no longer seek to be self sufficient
in food production?
Too many forget when the UK had its food supplies
cut off by German U-boats. The severe shortage of food in Europe
led to the CAP that is now being reformed. But there is a new type
of war going on and likely to escalate - that of terrorism. It would
be particularly easy for terrorists to select soft targets such
as cargo vessels be they in the air, sea or land. Being an island
the UK would be especially vulnerable. Yet reduction in food production
is advocated, but apart from milk the only serious over production
is in organically produced lamb.
This was caused by the distortion of the subsidy
scheme whereby farmers were enticed financially but not through
genuine commitment to organic methods (13). After
all in Scotland it was not very difficult as much of sheep hill
farming was virtually organic anyway. Compliance with a few unhealthy
rules regarding the prohibition of prophylactic medicines and a
sort of homeopathy approach, plus going through a number of bureaucratic
hoops all supported by Government funding eased the way.
It was like how starving Catholics behaved in
Ireland when they could only get food from the Presbyterians if
they converted. So they became Presbyterians until the food situation
improved, when they promptly reverted to be Catholics.
More information will not be available until the Spring of 2004
The CAP Reform takes effect in January 2005.
In typical government style the rules will not be known until the
Spring of 2004 at the earliest - just in time to cause more chaos
as the vital date of 15 May for the IACS forms that determine the
next year’s pattern of farming have to be lodged.
The best course is probably to follow the cynic's view
In the circumstances probably the best option
to go for is the one that gets as much bureaucracy off our backs
as possible, and gives those who know least about farming as little
opportunity as possible to get hold of agricultural monies. Remember
these are agricultural monies. On the present information it is
by no means certain that monies in the national beef envelope would
be spent wisely by the Scottish Executive in terms of actually promoting
the production and marketing of Scottish quality beef.
That said there is the obvious danger that the
Scottish Executive under CAP Reform could apply voluntary modulation
to take additional monies up to a further 10% off payments to farmers
at a single sweep - and perhaps higher amounts in the future, with
the carrot that such funds could be matched pound for pound by the
government. There is little likelihood that such monies would be
ring-fenced for farmers rather than for what is euphemistically
called "rural development".
This is a sorry state of affairs, but is the
conclusion from the track record of DEFRA and SEERAD (and their
agencies in the form of English Nature and Scottish Natural Heritage)
when it comes to agricultural policies, and from what they do as
opposed to what they promise. What this comes down to is a lack
of trust in what the scheme is all about - what is the true agenda?
When there is a lack of trust (and there is plenty
reason for it) then it is appropriate to adopt a somewhat cynical
attitude. Cynical may be, but realistic it certainly is.
The average age of farmers in the Scotland (as
it is throughout the UK) is high. New entrants to farming seem to
be more interested in advising others than doing it themselves.
Family farms may not see the way forward for the younger generation
to take over - there is much more money to be made in the cities
and towns, and in the view of the young much more fun. Why should
they want to be peasants for the benefit of the urban elite?
Many Scottish farmers will sadly have little
confidence in the intentions of the Scottish Executive, especially
if they have digested the content of the Draft Scottish Outdoor
Access Code that illustrates the Executive’s real view of the
role of farming through the words of its own agency, SNH (15,
16, 17). The assets of farmers
are essentially being commandeered as free recreational parks next
urban settlements.
The concern of most will be how to survive and
how to get the cashflow to work over the transition period to whatever
may be eventually decided and put into effect. The temptation must
be high to throw in the towel and to take the money that hopefully
will go with the past record of how the farm was managed between
the years 2000 and 2002 - so called entitlement points that will
be tradable with or without land to go with them.
Younger farmers with family responsibilities
are likely to take the view that “if they want to pay me as
a park keeper, fine and good as long as I get the money”. This
of course is not a good omen for the future of quality farming in
Scotland.
Rural Development and Modulation?
Here the true agenda of the CAP Review comes
to the fore - down with farming and up with “rural development”.
Modulation involves the transfer of money from
farm production related to agricultural subsidies (including the
new single farm payment) to rural development measures. But rural
development can mean many things, including (1):
support for small-scale public transport initiatives, voluntary
carer schemes, out of school child care schemes,
to support the renovation of and development of villages and
protect and preserve the rural heritage, through the sensitive
adaptation of buildings to new uses, and enhancement of open spaces
within village environments
to encourage diversification out of farming
to pay for the continued additional support for organic farming
in the absence of clear evidence that it necessarily benefits
the environment, or has any additional nutritional or health value,
or even that it consistently tastes better, but necessary to keep
the Green Party in the Scottish Parliament on side in the face
of the minuscule majority that the Labour/liberal coalition presently
has
etc
There is little evidence of any ring-fencing
of CAP monies under the heading of Rural Development and Modulation
being assigned to farming. Additional voluntary modulation - whereby
of course the Government gets some of its obligations to non -farming
rural communities at half price. Rather such monies may well benefit
the urban elite who choose to use rural towns and villages as a
convenient and pleasant dormitories while they commute to the cities
for work, or use them as their retirement idyll on stopping productive
work in the cities. Thereby the urban/rural divide widens - on the
one hand the urban elite and on the other the country peasants who
keep the play ground nice for the former as one professor of rural
economy who advises government so aptly put it
 There
is also provision for member states (that means countries whose
governments are loosing more and more control to Brussels) to apply
for additional voluntary modulation over and above compulsory EU
modulation rates to pay for more rural development schemes. This
commits the government to match such funding, pound for pound. What
it means is that the Government gets some of its obligations to
non -farming rural communities at half price. Such monies may well
benefit the urban elite who choose to use rural towns and villages
as convenient and pleasant dormitories while they commute to the
cities for work, or use them as their retirement idyll on stopping
productive work in the cities. Thereby the urban/rural divide widens.
On the one hand there are the urban elite and on the other the country
peasants, who keep the playground nice for the former, as one professor
of rural economy who advises government so aptly put it - he being
one of the urban elite and thought it a good thing.
Remember that the Scottish Executive is committed
to improving open access to virtually all of the countryside of
Scotland day and night with few exceptions for a wide range of recreational
activity, but they do not have the funding to achieve any vestige
of control or to provide appropriate facilities (15,
16, 17). They will be looking
for that funding in effect to come off the backs of Scotland’s
farmers.
Remember also that the Scottish Executive with
its poor economic record is looking for funding to improve the facilities
for rural communities without making the distinction between the
haves and the have nots - the urbanised rural community and those
who work on the land.
For sure the Scottish Executive will be looking
to use the CAP Reform to claw money away from farming to try and
meet their electoral promises to the rural communities whether they
are ’haves’ or “have nots”. As a result those
who farm land are unlikely to see much benefit in terms of how they
can manage their land for the production of quality food.
Diversification out of farming
Promoting diversification out of farming is clearly
on the agenda of the CAP review. Yet this is a highly risky thing
to attempt and the SAC should be well aware of that, when they tried
to diversify their business services into non-agricultural businesses.
They lost a lot of money and got their knuckles wrapped for their
efforts by the auditors (18).
Many farmers trying to diversify into tourism
have become unstuck with the over provision of bed and breakfast
facilities and the poor level of promotion of tourism into Scotland,
plus the expense of meeting endless regulations (19).
Anyway what is the point when the Scottish Outdoor
Access Code (15) advocates that others with no
economic or managerial responsibilities for farmland can use that
land and its facilities for free and to the commercial advantage
of his business provided he is involved in encouraging people to
enjoy recreation - such as a riding school?
Diversification out of farming will mean fewer
people left to farm the land with the relevant skills. Where is
the skilled manpower to come from to improve farm product quality
and to implement animal health schemes etc etc. The shortage of
skilled manpower is in the livestock sector is already especially
acute.
Is the maintenance of the green and pleasant
land so sought after by the urban elite going to be put out to contractors?
Introduction of Land Management Contracts
Indeed that appears to be just what is intended.
Rather than concentrating on producing quality food to restore Scotland’s
place in the international market (particularly in relation to quality
beef) in order for the farmer to get an income well below that of
his urban orientated colleagues, he is required also to be their
gardener in terms of the landscape that goes beyond their immaculately
kept little lawns.
As referred to above beware of the probably escalating
influence of the Scottish Executive's conservation and biodiversity
agency in the form of SNH. Great concern has already been expressed
about this in relation to the Nature Conservation (Scotland) Bill
(8) and the same thing could well happen with land
management contracts outwith SSSI's.
There are now too many armchair generals in farming.
The UK is unique in the EU whereby its farmers
fare so poorly, largely on account of the Government’s refusal
to use all the opportunities open to it to support them. There are
too many armchair generals who pontificate about farming - possibly
to be seen to be government friendly with the hope that such behaviour
will bring benefits to their person or their academic team in the
form of grants. Not to follow lines of research that the government
has indicated - or even to fail to produce the results it would
like - could be very damaging to the academic through simple starvation
of funding (20). So almost all fall in line, scientific
initiative is stifled and the Government then wonders why.
Financial discipline
This is the new name for “degressivity”.
Financial discipline refers to the EC watching its budget for CAP
payments and stating that it has powers to cut back funding should
the pot of money allocated threaten to run dry.
What was glossed over at the meeting was the fact
that the EU will shortly be greatly expanded. The audience was reassured
somewhat insincerely that these new members would not be able to
get their paper work sorted out sufficiently to be able to make
successful claims through the CAP. However, as these countries would
surely opt for area-based payments it would seem that all they have
to do is register land, which should not be too difficult.
As such countries will be contributing little
if anything to the CAP it seems obvious that reduction in funding
to the established members of the EU will be inevitable. So UK agriculture
will be further sacrificed, this time on the ideal of building an
expanded European Union and all the increased politicking and corruption
that will go with it.
"Scottish Farmers are so resourceful that they are capable
of responding to all adversities"
The oft heard cry that Scottish Farmers are so
notoriously resistant that they are capable of responding to all
adversities is facile.
The dramatic increase in farm production following
the Second World War has a consequence of farmers being very strongly
supported by government in terms of free scientific advice, demonstration
farms, huge subsidies for drainage and cultivation etc. The present
situation could hardly be more different with less and less support
from the Government, a seriously ageing farming population and an
ever increasing bureaucratic control aimed at reducing production
and favouring "the environment".
Conclusion
The CAP Review options, to which farmers are
asked to respond, do not engender confidence simply because there
has been a serious erosion of trust as to what the EC, DEFRA and
SEERAD have as their agendas and how in practice they will opt to
put these agendas into effect. Indeed there is concern that the
UK representation at the negotiating table were prepared to sell
UK agriculture down the river (as with the fishing industry) in
order to promote their pro-European and pro-environmental credentials.
Who is it that wants to become president of the EU?
The environmental lobby, although important,
has got out of control. The environmentalists now want too much
control over areas of land management where their level of expertise
is seriously lacking. The rapidly expanding courses in land management
run by various opportunistic universities contain nothing or next
to nothing about farming although some 75% of Scotland’s land
is farmed in one way or another. Its is just not good enough to
have a degree from the faculty of Arts and Social Sciences to instruct
skilled landmanagers on how they should farm. Nor is a PhD or indeed
a professorship in ecology an adequate qualification to tell skilled
hands-on farm managers what to do, as the perspective of such esoteric
academics is too restricted. By all means train land mangers to
a high level, but that training must be relevant to practical land
management and farming should always be a major part of that.
The CAP Reform is commonly referred to by government
officials certain politicians as the great opportunity for farming.
But this is likely to be just more spin with which most of us have
got so fed up In reality it is unlikely to be any such thing. Basically
this because neither Westminster nor Holyrood have got any great
interest in farming as such and even less understanding of it, being
predominantly urban in their outlook - seeing the countryside as
the playground for their urban voters.
The way forward for farmers would seem to be
to go for the options that give the maximum financial subsidy direct
to farmers with the minimum of additional control from over zealous
environmentalists and ecologists and rural economists, whose practical
experience of farming is likely to be limited to walking the dog/s
without a lead on farmland, thereby disturbing the livestock and
wildlife that the farmer has so carefully nurtured for many years,
and cutting the fences so that the dogs as well as their owners
have freedom to roam.
But this is a difficult choice as all options
carry the risk of significant further and progressive cut backs
as the UK Government and the Scottish Parliament seek to prop up
their environmental and social rural development policies that they
cannot afford and aim to take much of it out of agricultural funding.
Yet again farming in the UK (and Scotland as a
region within it) will be at an increasing disadvantage compared
to other European member States, and of course much of the rest
of the world that will continue to look after their farmers. None
of the options on offer look promising for suckler herds which are
aimed at producing quality beef calves in Scotland. That being so
the option that offers the least paper work should be taken.
The environmentalists and bureaucrats win
again, and Scotland’s Farming flagship industry will be the
worse for it. So much for the hype proclaiming that this is Scotland’s
great opportunity. As far as quality beef production is concerned
it could have been, but it isn’t.
© LandCare Scotland
References
1. Scottish Executive (2003).
CAP Reform: Opportunities for Scotland. Consultation Paper.
A limited number of photocopies of this document were available
at the meeting . The document states that it can be read on the
internet using the following address, but proved to be unavailable.
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/view/views.asp
The correct internet address available through www.google.co.uk
search engine is:
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/consultations/agriculture/refo-00.asp
2. Irvine, James (2003). Scottish
Parliament election result.
See Social/Economic/Political Homepage, filed 5 May 03, www.land-care.org.uk,
Click
Here to View
3. MacKerron, D. K. L., Hillman
R. J. and Duncan, M. J. (2003). Sustainability in Agriculture.
http://www.scri.sari.ac.uk/Document/AnnReps/02Indiv/06Sustai.pdf
(120KB PDF file).
4. Irvine James (2003). Sustainability
in Agriculture.
See ENVIRONMENT Homepage, filed 7 May 03, www.land-care.org.uk,
Click
Here to View
5. Editorial (2003). SLF appoints
new access officer with no training or experience in farming/agriculture.
See SCOTTISH OUTDOOR ACCESS CODE Homepage, filed 4 Oct 03, www.land-care.org.uk,
Click
Here to View
6. Scottish Executive (2002).
A Forward Strategy for Scottish Agriculture
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/library3/agri/fssa.-00.asp
7. Scottish Natural Heritage (2003).
Draft Scottish Outdoor Access Code
www.snh.org.uk
8. Mitchell, Ian (2003). Drastic
change in land management. The Herald, Letters, 25 April 2003 Reproduced
with permission
See LAND REFORM homepage, filed 25 April 03, www.land-care.org.uk,
Click
Here to View
9. Crawford, Robert (2003). Chief
Executive of Scottish Enterprise.
Scottish Enterprise Response to SNH Draft Scottish Outdoor Access
Code.
SNH Access Code Submission No. 00121
10. Editorial (2003). Suckler
Cow Herds and CPA review: Unwise words from the MLC
See SCIENCE Homepage, Filed 29 July 03, www.land-care.org.uk, Click
Here to View
11. Royal Society of Edinburgh
(2002). Foot and Mouth Disease Inquiry.
www.royalsoced.org.uk
12. Arbuckle, Andrew (2003).
End of subsidies seen as great opportunity. The Courier (Dundee),
November 15: p 14.
13. Editorial (2003). The organic
bubble.
See SOCIAL/ECONOMIC/POLITICAL Homepage, filed 27 Aug 03, www.land-care.org.uk,
Click
Here to View
14. Editorial (2003). Report
on the Launch of first LEAF farm in Perthshire.
In preparation
15. Scottish Natural Heritage
(2003). SNH draft Scottish Outdoor Access Code.
www.snh.org.uk
16. Irvine, James (2003). Response
to SNH Draft Scottish Outdoor Access Code
From the perspective of a livestock/arable farm next to an urban
settlement.
See SCOTTISH OUTDOOR ACCESS CODE, Homepage, filed 28 June 03, www.land-care.org.uk,
Click
Here to View
17. Irvine, James (2003). Does
SNH conduct itself as an honest broker, or as a political manipulator?
See SCOTTISH OUTDOOR ACCESS CODE Homepage, filed 25 Oct 03, www.land-care.org.uk,
Click
Here to View
18. Irvine, James (2003). Shake
Up at Scottish Agricultural College: what is the present standing
of Scottish agriculture?
See SOCIAL/ECONOMIC/POLITICAL Homepage, filed 17 March 03, www.land-care.org.uk,
Click
Here to View
19. Irvine, W. J. (2001). New
Enterprise - New Beginnings.
LandCare Scotland, 1: 45-50.
20. Linklater, Magnus (2003).
Government stops funding for BSE critic
See TSE Homepage, filed 25 April 03, www.land-care.org.uk, Click
Here to View
© www.land-care.org.uk
|
