|
Back to SOCIAL/ECONOMIC/POLITICAL
Homepage
Scotland's Land:
RSE Conference 30th September 2004
Reviewed
Dr James Irvine
FRSE, DSc, FinstBiol, FRCPath, FRCPEd
Teviot Scientific, Cultybraggan Farm, Comrie, Perthshire
Filed 04 Oct 04
©www.land-care.org.uk
The Royal Society of Edinburgh (RSE) held a full
day conference within its own buildings located at 22-26 George
Street, Edinburgh on Thursday 30th September. The title of the conference
was "Scotland's Land".
The topic the RSE chose for its most recent conference
should surely have involved contributions not only from academics
(whose interests need to include such subjects as animal husbandry,
crop management, forestry, geography, conservation and the environment),
but also contributions from the business community who manage and
own most of the relevant enterprises. Contributions from private
professional advisors would also be relevant. And of course economists
would need to have their say - at least from those who are acquainted
with the workings of land management.
In addition to all these requirements, the conference
would need to be non-political - the RSE being a non-political organisation.
The planning of such a conference would indeed
be a test as to whether or not the RSE could function well in its
role as "the Scottish Academy representing all disciplines
and forms of useful knowledge" - from academic to business.
That is an important but difficult task.
This particular conference also puts the RSE to
the test as to whether it is a body capable of reacting quickly
enough to contribute effectively in its role as a knowledge base
in situations - such as the topic of this conference - where strategies
involving fundamental changes that will affect Scotland are being
discussed. Or does the RSE view itself as reflecting at leisure
on changes that have already been decided? Is the RSE there simply
to go with the flow of what is deemed to be public opinion, but
which in large part seems to be shaped by the marketing skills of
wealthy special interest lobby groups? Is it possible that the RSE
may on occasion be used unscrupulously by such lobby groups to obtain
a prestigious platform to promote their cause without proper debate?
The present conference on Scotland's Land was
postponed from last year on account of the tragic death of one of
the speakers - the then chief executive of the National Farmers
Union of Scotland (NFUS). The fact that it took a year to reorganise
the conference on a subject of such major importance to Scotland
- and at a time when input from a good knowledge base was crucial
- must raise doubts about the ability of the RSE to function with
sufficient promptness to meet modern needs.
Conference programme
The full programme may be viewed on the RSE website
(1). The main sponsors were stated to be
Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH), Historic Scotland and Macdonald
Hotels. While it would be improper to suggest that by sponsoring
the conference these bodies would exert any direct influence on
the structure of the programme, it ought to be noted nevertheless
that the main sponsorship did come from bodies that are concerned
with conservation, biodiversity and tourism - and an awful lot of
the programme was devoted to just that.
Before completing the registration form to attend
the conference - and parting with the discounted conference fee
for fellows of the RSE at £65 (equivalent to about a tonne
of farm grown barley being sold to a grain merchant) - the question
needed to be answered as to whether or not it was worth it, not
only in terms of the cost but also of the time away from the farm.
For most farmers the answer would be in the negative due to the
poor profitability of most farms and severe lack of skilled staff,
plus the impression that as far as livestock farms are concerned
there was no convincing representation of their interests on the
programme.
Scotland has to date been internationally renowned
for its livestock husbandry, but apparently this - along with the
fate of Scotland's fishing industry - is to be sacrificed on the
altars of conservation, biodiversity and inclusiveness, coupled
with political ineptness. Would livestock farmers really want to
spend the time and money to hear more of the same? Besides, the
Scottish Agricultural College (SAC) had arranged an open study day
at their farm just outside Edinburgh on how to handle beef enterprises
as economically as possible. This clash of events was all the more
inexcusable bearing in mind that a member of the organising committee
for the RSE conference was a former principal and chief executive
of SAC. Are farmers to be regarded as simple peasants to be told
by the urban academic elite or urbanised environmental hobbyists
what they should do?
The rest of the seven strong organising committee
were either geographers or had no obvious connection with matters
relating to land use. But then modern geographers like to be jacks
of all trades - including "social geography". Anything
to get more student bums on seats whatever the quality - again to
meet government's funding policy for universities and colleges and
to keep their departments financially viable. Perhaps what is best
for Scotland's land then becomes a secondary consideration.
Likewise there was also the doubt that the contribution
from Scotland's (indeed the UK's) major research institute devoted
to land use may be more concerned with complying with government
policy - as government is their main source of income - than with
a more objective assessment of how Scotland's land could or should
be used.
The programme began with an overview and finished
with a summing up from speakers from the Macaulay Land Use Research
Institute (MLURI). It is understood that the MLURI gets some 68%
of its funding from central government. The research policy of the
Scottish Executive Environment and Rural Affairs Department (SEERAD)
is to fund projects that are in keeping with its policies (2).
This includes for starters diverting 25% of monies previously spent
on agriculture to "projects aimed at improving human health".
In the eyes of the MLURI does this amount to physical exercise and
the psychological benefit of the populace rather than food production?
So why did I go to the conference?
While in my view the programme was heavily biased
towards the uncritical promotion of current government policy, there
was one presentation that could be depended upon to give a well-informed
and independent view - that by Professor John Hillman of the Scottish
Crop Research Unit (SCRI) at Invergowrie, Dundee.
True, one of the more minor slots at the end of
the programme was given to the NFUS to state why Scotland's land
needs a thriving agricultural industry - when clearly it was not
going to get it.
But then I was intrigued by the paper to be given
by SEERAD that was going to hopefully answer the question as to
whether sustainable land use can pay its own way. If "sustainable"
land use cannot pay its own way then how did SEERAD see it should
be sustained - by government funding of environmental projects controlled
by them or their agencies and so overriding the skills that have
to date made Scotland renowned for its agricultural prowess and
for its magnificent scenery? Could it possibly be that SEERAD might
at last have some doubts about their perpetual use of the word "sustainable"
that means anything to anyone according to the context in which
it is used (3)?
Who else went to the conference?
On the day there were some 68 delegates apart
from the speakers and organisers. As anticipated most came from
organisations such as SNH, Forestry Commission, Scottish Agricultural
College, MLURI, Community Councils, Historic Scotland, Scottish
Executive, etc. There were few (perhaps a handful) who were directly
responsible for running commercial businesses - be it farming or
forestry - based on the management of Scotland's land.
Who chaired the sessions?
The morning session was chaired by Sir Peter
Hutchison who was previously chairman of the Forestry Commission
- a government agency quango. Sir Peter was also chairman of the
organising committee for this conference. According to their website
the Forestry Commission serves as the Scottish Executive's forestry
department (4).
The afternoon session was chaired by Professor
Roger Wheater, who was previously chairman of the SNH Access
Forum but who has now moved on to be chairman of the National Trust
for Scotland (NTS). He was previously head warden of a national
park in Africa and curator of Edinburgh Zoo - "a farm on Corstorphine
Hill" as he himself put it.
SNH is listed as one of the main funders of NTS
along with Historic Scotland, the National Lottery Fund, and the
National Heritage Fund as well as European money, including the
European Regional Development Fund and the European Agricultural
Guidance and Guarantee Fund. In addition NTS has subscriptions,
donations and legacies from its large membership, and income from
its sizeable commercial activities. The NTS proclaims itself as
being an independent registered charity, but it does appear to be
not insignificantly dependent on monies ultimately controlled by
the Scottish Executive, Westminster and European politicians (5).
SNH has some 700 employees and NTS some 500, making
a total of some 1,200 between them.
There does appear to be some circulation of senior
figures between these two and possibly other such organisations.
Thus Roger Crofts who was previously chief executive of SNH was
recently appointed to be a non-executive director of NTS as well
as being appointed as a non-executive director of the Scottish Agricultural
College (SAC) in 2002 (6). Before going
to SNH he spent 17 years with the Scottish Office (now the Scottish
Executive) advising them on rural policy.
The papers presented at the conference
Professor Margaret Gill, Chief Executive of MLURI:
Lessons from the past and opportunities for the future.
The MLURI has been at the forefront of decrying
agricultural production in favour of environmental and social policies
(7) - and yes - the MLURI was at it again.
The following quote from the abstract of her
paper illustrates my point:
"...the exciting opportunities we have in Scotland of developing
innovative approaches to integrated land management, through the
nature of our land, recent developments in technology and psychology,
including an increasing commitment to the benefits of working
in partnership and the ability to deliver based on our cultural
heritage"
Just what does all that mean? It hardly suggests
building on what has been highly successful - but rather throwing
it all away on the basis of some unrealistic ideology. Great for
the MLURI, but very damaging for those of us whose business it is
to try and regain past prestige in the production of food in a highly
competitive world after it had been battered by the disasters of
BSE and FMD which were not of their own making.
She did however emphasise some basic facts: that
79% of Scotland's land is involved in some form of agriculture and
a further 17% in forestry, and that 88% of that land is privately
owned. Not a single speaker from the private sector who was seriously
involved in quality agriculture or forestry had any space in the
programme. Are all of us who own and manage land just too dumb that
we have to be "telt" by those who presume to know better?
The fact is that the MLURI has little practical experience or knowledge
of farming, and can be accused of being out of touch regarding much
of the subject about which they preach (8).
Mr Andrew Moxey, Head, Analytical Services Division, SEERAD:
Can sustainable land use pay its way?
In fact Mr Moxey made no attempt to tackle the
designated subject of his paper. The vagueness of what he said is
demonstrated in the abstract that was provided:
"Scotland has a stock of land that generates a flow of goods
and services. It is the demand for these goods and services that
drives the demand for land. However, the demand is changing, with
an increasing emphasis on less tangible benefits. This leads to
policy debates about how best to encourage and reward the supply
of desired goods and services, which in turn lead to questions
about ownership, management and property rights. The interaction
of these supply and demand factors across the varied geography
of Scotland poses challenges to government, to agencies, and to
land-based industries and to wider society"
Again, as with the previous speaker, just what
does all that mean? I would suggest that it means that SEERAD is
already heavily embarked on a policy that it has little idea of
whether it is viable or not - rather like setting off for a romantic
sea voyage without a clearly defined course or any aids to navigation,
let alone a global positioning system.
But who is it that is supposedly demanding such
radical change in how Scotland's land is run? Whose slogan is it
that proclaims "down with food production and up with environmental
and other social benefits"?
The conservationists, the "organic"
movement, and the RSPB, SNH and NTS are all trying to make major
business for themselves out of decrying the current ways Scotland's
land is used. But do these organisations with their well funded
publicity machines really reflect the views of the electorate? Probably
not.
Recently SEERAD commissioned a study to be done
by SAC and Biostatistics staff at a cost of £90,000 to ascertain
how the public viewed their policies regarding farming (9).
Contrary to what SEERAD claimed (10), the
report indicated that the top priority was the production of local
food. There was no antagonism towards farmers concerning subsidies
paid to them in the past, currently or in the future, but rather
an insistence that the farmers needed to be supported. Access to
the countryside and environmental issues in general were low in
the public's agenda. In particular the report concluded that the
public was well pleased with the traditional appearance of the Scottish
countryside and wished it to be kept that way. Sadly the Scottish
Executive - in keeping with its Westminster superior - is all too
prone to spin a different interpretation (11).
A second piece of striking evidence - although
not pretending to be scientific - came from the opinion poll carried
out by the television programme Newsnight Scotland prior to the
last general election for the Scottish Parliament. Participants
were given 21 choices in terms of what they would like the incoming
government to achieve. Top of the preference list at that time was
more pay for nurses; second on the list was more policemen on the
beat; while third was more support for Scottish agriculture and
fishing (12).
It could well be that all this supposed swing
in public opinion towards environmental issues - as opposed to the
local production of high quality food - is spurious, being based
on promotional hype from vociferous lobby groups who happen to have
got the ear of the Scottish Executive and, of course, Brussels.
Mr Moxey did not mention that the EU was trying
to radically reduce the amount of Scotland's land that is classified
as "less favoured" or "disadvantaged" and thereby
greatly reducing future subsidies paid to Scottish agriculture.
Nor did he let on that France has still not got round to deciding
what it was going to do regarding farm subsidies - with the effect
that French farmers will continue to get full production subsidy
at least until 2006. As with fishing so now with farming - our EU
neighbours flourish while Scotland's interests are allowed to decline
through poor representation at the EU negotiating table.
Neither did Mr Moxey refer to the opinion of Mr
Brian Pack, the chief executive of Aberdeen Northern Marts (ANM
Group Ltd) as to the "sustainability" of almost total
decoupling with regard to the Scottish beef industry. In his keynote
speech at the Farming and Estate Management Conference on September
15 at Dunkeld, Perthshire Brian Pack expressed his view that production
subsidies for the beef industry may need to be re-introduced in
the long-term (13).
"I think that in five years Europe will rediscover
its need to produce food and
there will be a reaffirmation that agriculture is not an optional
extra."
Brian Pack
ANM Group Ltd is one of the largest farmer-owned
companies in the UK. It is progressive in outlook. Its Thainstone
Mart at Inverurie is probably the most modern in Europe. Brian Pack,
is an excellent speaker and a well informed authority on matters
concerning livestock in Scotland, as well as being familiar with
the global market. Why he was not persuaded to take an active part
in the RSE conference beats me - but was he even invited?
The recent announcement by the current SEERAD
minister, Ross Finnie (an accountant in the west central belt of
Scotland by profession) that there is to be a beef envelope that
will inject a small degree of production funding was not mentioned
in Andrew Moxey's paper. Was it that SEERAD was beginning to recognise
at last the damage that was going to be inflicted on Scotland's
beef industry by moving from production to "other consumer
services"? Mr Moxey could surely have presented an analytical
account of different scenarios without commenting on any political
choices that may follow from such information. I thought that was
his job.
Lord John Sewel, House of Lords:
Recent government legislation
Just what a previous labour government minister
for the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries (DAF) - since renamed
SEERAD without mention of either agriculture or fisheries - was
doing being on the progamme as a speaker was difficult to understand.
The content of the conference was supposed to be non-political.
This problem became all too obvious when Kirsty
Macleod of People Too asked him what he thought of the current
situation that had developed since his time as farming minister.
In particular she commented that
"as yet a bonfire of the massive non-elected quangos that
had sprung up in relation to the environment had not yet been
lit".
The noble lord declined to comment, saying that
he had decided not to interfere in any way with the current political
scene. One did indeed wonder why in that case was he asked to the
conference? And given that he was asked, why did he agree to come
as a speaker? What he spoke about was the history of recent government
legislation, while taking care to omit reference to its implications.
His account of his time as Minister for Agriculture
and Fisheries was revealing. As a person whose main interest was
political sociology he clearly set himself the brief of steering
Scottish farming away from production towards "more general
social issues affecting rural communities". He also appears
to have spent much of his time contributing to getting a devolved
Scottish Parliament established. It seemed from his own account
that he did little good for Scottish farming or fishing, apparently
having little interest and even less knowledge in either of these
matters.
Again, when asked about specific problems that
the Land Reform Act and the Scottish Outdoor Access Code had created
especially for farms next urban settlements, he answered off subject
as though he was the only person in the room who had not heard the
question. Instead he insisted that in his view there would not be
any great flood of people from urban communities into the countryside
as a result of the land Reform Act - then why did the Scottish Parliament
bother with it all?
The abstract of his contribution stated that he
had devoted a large part of his career to research and lecturing
at Aberdeen University presumably on political sociology. In his
presentation he gave the impression that as Minister for Agriculture
and Fisheries he indulged himself in promoting a social experiment
at the expense of Scotland's agricultural industry.
Professor Michael Usher, University of Stirling.
Nature conservation in Scotland: along the path from 1949 to 2004
Professor Usher, who was until quite recently
chief scientist at Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH), outlined the
development of what is today a massive quango with the unifocal
outlook of conservation. The Oxford Compact English Dictionary defines
a quango as "a semi-public body with financial support from
and senior appointments made by government".
With its massive staff in numerous centres - SNH
wields great influence on how Scotland's land is run. But here again
the staff of SNH is lacking in competent agricultural knowledge.
In the minds of many SNH has advised its master - the Scottish Executive
- in an unbalanced manner. With its huge level of government funding,
SNH has lead vigorous publicity campaigns to promote its own interests.
In so doing it stands accused of distorting the public's perception
of the Scottish countryside. In particular SNH stands accused of
being so focussed on individual projects that it is responsible
in some areas for creating an imbalance in the natural habitat of
species that SNH does not find so attractive. SNH also stands accused
of overriding local knowledge, expertise and enterprise on the grounds
that it knows best (14).
Although not discussed at the conference, SNH
is part funding numerous access officers for organisations and local
government councils. But those that are being appointed have little
or no knowledge of farming. Successful applicants may well have
degrees in environmental management from the faculties of arts/social
sciences in universities such as Stirling or Dundee. Such courses
have no agricultural or forestry input in terms of basic science
(15).
Land-Care has previously taken issue with Professor
Usher with regard to the SNH conference he organised at the University
of Strathclyde in 2000 entitled "Enjoyment and understanding
of the natural heritage: finding the new balance between rights
and responsibilities" (16).
Ian Mitchell's new book "isles of the North"
has just been published (17), as a sequel
to his highly acclaimed earlier one "Isles of the West"
(10). Both books are based on his visits to these areas to
see how land - and particularly conservation - was managed. The
isles of the north included those of Orkney, Shetland and Norway,
while the isles of the west were the Hebrides.
He concluded that Norway manages its rural land
and conservation with much less bureaucracy and expense than does
Scotland. When this was put to the Professor Usher he rattled off
the names of the organisations involved in Norway, but he did not
reveal that the total expenditure is much less and the acceptance
by the community is much higher in Norway than it is in Scotland.
Some of this difference, but not all of it, could be due to Norway
not being part of the EU. Readers may like to compare the simplicity
of Norway's version of the code for public access to the countryside
(18) with the elaborate, poorly drafted
and imbalanced version that SNH has produced for Scotland.
Although not raised at the conference, there is
concern as to SNH's ability to manage livestock properly on their
own land. SNH owns the island of Rum and runs it as a conservation
area for wildlife. People Too has alleged that SNH runs its
herd of Highland cattle on the island as a conservation tool without
proper attention to their welfare. Furthermore, People Too alleged
- and had hard evidence to substantiate the charge - that SNH was
inappropriately claiming suckler cow subsidy form their masters
at SEERAD when in fact the herd did not meet the standards required
as a beef producing enterprise (19, 20).
This further exemplifies how inappropriate it is for an organisation
such as SNH to have so much say on how land in Scotland is managed.
Indeed SNH is, by its own internal behaviour,
increasing the divide between quangos such as themselves and those
who work and earn their living on the land. The Scottish Exectuive,
following its policy to spread civil service employment more widely
throughout Scotland, opted to relocate the SNH headquarters along
with many of its staff from Edinburgh to Inverness. The sitting
SNP MSP in Inverness, Fergus Ewing - no great friend of SNH - claimed
that the Scottish Executive did this to silence his criticism of
SNH on the grounds that his constituency would acquire a whole lot
of new voters. Be that as it may, the SNH staff refused to consider
moving until they were offered a huge incentive in the form of a
£20,000 tax free resettlement payment, in addition to the
reimbursement of all removal expenses. Even the unions thought this
to be uncommonly generous. Just compare that to the situation of
farmers in rural areas over which SNH wants to have so much jurisdiction
- either directly or indirectly.
Mr Bob Aitken:
Recreation, land use and tourism.
In the biographical note provided, Mr Bob Aitken
is described as
"An Edinburgh-based consultant in recreation and tourism
research and survey, planning and management, with a particular
interest in mountain country. He was Chair of the Scottish Countryside
Activities Council for over 15 years, and has served on the Research
Board of SNH, the Cairngorms Partnership, and the National Access
Forum".
Clearly Mr Aitken's business interest must be
on a roll. No indication was given whether he had a competent knowledge
of either farming or forestry. He must see wonderful opportunities
for his consultancy to prosper irrespective of what damage might
be done to those who to date have managed the land very well and
who in large part have been - and continue to be - financially responsible
for it.
Certainly he appears to be very well connected
with SNH and one wonders how it is that one person can occupy the
chair of such a body as the Scottish Countryside Activities Council
for so long. Being so close to SNH his comments reveal the intentions
of that massive government agency quango.
In the abstract of his talk he claims:
"Current economic and legislative change compels a re-evaluation
of the signficance of recreation and tourism in Scotland's countryside,
and their current and potential role in a restructuring of rural
scene. A bundle of wider contextual issues - the relationship
between public environmental goods and the 'traditional' land
uses, the nature and value of future landscapes, and even the
evolution of rural social structures - needs fuller articulation,
exploitation and debate. Prospects for a successful new syntheses
are perhaps more optimistic than some fear."
According to Aitken, agriculture production in
Scotland was finished and the land was to be used for social purposes.
He thereby implied that the private owners (who own 80% of the 79%
of the total of Scotland's land that is invovled in agriculture)
did not know how to look after it and that they prevented the populace
from taking their recreation on it. As an individual brought up
within the central belt of Scotland - with no involvement with farming
or landownership and with only moderate resources - neither my family
or friends were aware of any such problem. We enjoyed the countryside
immensely.
In the attempt to justify his case Bob Aitken
put up figures showing how many more people were members of some
form of environmental group (presumably he was including RSPB, SNH,
National Trust, Soil Association, save the bats, save the badgers
or what have you) compared to the membership of the National Farmers
Union of Scotland. Somehow he felt justified to conclude that this
was evidence of a consensus that the public wanted change in the
way Scotland's land was managed. To my mind this revealed that possibly
Mr Bob Aitken might just be an expert when it comes to inappropriately
using data so that it appeared to fit his purpose. But I doubt if
many were fooled. The NFUS is a professional organisation while
the others are not. Moreover, many of the 70,000 or so who pay membership
fees to RSPB, for example, may also be concerned about plans to
reduce food production in Scotland. Many people in Scotland are
supportive of farming, and like many farmers are also supportive
of birds.
To make matters worse Mr Aitken went on to accuse
some landowners of not taking part in community consultations as
to how their land should be managed. However, it was pointed out
during the discussion session that some landmanagers/owners/farmers
were disillusioned having spent hours participating in community
debates only to be either totally ignored or told that they represented
but one voice in the community amidst amongst many others. Nevertheless
that solitary voice of the farmer would be carrying most of the
financial burdens as well as the responsibilities for livestock
husbandry, the growing of crops and the implications of quality
assurance regulations in relation to the management of the land
in question. Just what kind of a democracy is that?
Bob Aitken was also reminded of the fact that
landowners/farmers made up the largest proportion of the 1340 responses
that SNH received to their consultation document on the Scottish
Outdoor Access Code. On reading over 500 of these - secluded away
in SNH offices at Battleby (Perth) and Edinburgh - it was impressive
how articulate and well reasoned these responses were. However,
the land managers/owners/farmers may as well have never taken the
bother to write them. SNH itself summarised the responses into a
short report, diluting it with what they claimed they had been told
at workshops. However, I had been to at least one of these workshops
and found that it amounted to SNH giving a lecture as to what was
going to happen, leaving little or no time for the public to say
anything. SNH then used their own report to inform Ministers of
the Scottish Parliament. It bore little relation to what the responses
actually said (21).
The majority of members of the Scottish Parliament
are resident in the central belt and have little knowledge about
land management in the broad sense or about farming in particular.
The contrived consensus politics of today seem to take little cognisance
of the needs of minorities - even minorities that are responsible
for most of the land in Scotland. This is surely a corruption of
what is understood by most honest citizens as democracy.
Professor John Hillman, Scottish Crop Research Unit, Invergowrie.
The future of Scottish agriculture.
What is so refreshing about Professor Hillman's
presentations is that they always express his independent thinking.
More than that he always lays it on the line. His presentation at
this conference was no exception and was in my view by far the most
significant and useful paper of the day. In the spirit of openness
and helpfulness he was also the only one to offer copies of his
powerpoint slides for anyone who wanted them.
Professor John Hillman FRSE
Director of Scottish Crop Research Unit, Invergowrie since 1986
(Photograph by courtesy of SCRI)
He had strong things to say and they rang true.
He warned of the dangers of emerging policies while emphasising
the rich opportunities if only they could be seized before Scotland
(and the UK generally) is left far behind in a competitive world.
Sadly the reality appears to be that his warnings
of the danger and his signalling of the opportunities are falling
on ears that are either deaf or are transmitting the messages to
minds that are failing to understand their impact.
To quote the abstract of his paper:
"Scottish agriculture is undergoing profound change as
a result of
i) new legislative impositions and modified subsidy arrangements
applied unequally throughout the EU that will further distort
the market place;
ii) increased efficiency of agricultural and horticultural production;
iii) a shrinking workforce;
iv) greater levels of competition;
v) the development of supermarkets;
vi) distance from rapidly growing markets;
vii) purchasing preferences;
viii) diminished political influence and lack of positive public
profile; and
ix) reduced access to competitively available intellectual property.
The future of a modern agricultural industry is dependent
on the degree to which it will be permitted to
i) function as a wealth-creating industry;
ii) attract new entrants and inward investments;
iii) develop the necessary scale of operation to have 'market-muscle'
through horizontal and vertical integration;
iv) continue to improve efficiency; and
v) embrace new types of science, engineering and technology.
Given the variability in operating the Common Agricultural Policy
(CAP) throughout the Member States, and the massive declines in
the EU plant breeding and agricultural chemistry industries, profitability
will be difficult to achieve for livestock producers and all but
the most efficient cereal producers unless niche markets are captured.
Rescue for the inefficient will come through a complex of well-meaning
but ill-considered publicly-funded environmental schemes, or through
alternative activities.
New uses and markets for existing crops, new crops and crop products,
new types of automation, and a stunning array of new technologies
are offering major opportunities for the industry and for users
of its products and services elsewhere in the world.
Changes in the research environment of Scotland, leading to a
switch from science-led to policy-led research, could impact adversely
on the flows and uptake of agriculturally relevant intellectual
property and Scotland's role in a global knowledge-based bio-economy,
(which in turn is) based on renewable resources."
Among the statistics he showed was that the decline
in the profitability of UK agriculture was the worst among all the
EU countries, that the UK was only 64% self-sufficient in relation
to all food and only 77% self-sufficient in relation to indigenous
food, and that in the UK for 2003 the domestic food expenditure
was 9.2% of total household spend while the amount spent on alcohol
was 5.7%.
There is the real danger of UK farming missing
out on major opportunities for its revival unless the academic base
leading to financially rewarding intellectual property was revitalised.
Scottish farming needed to be permitted to be profitable by the
provision of a level playing field within the EU, together with
the reduction in over-regulation.
In the light of what Professor Hillman said,
it is highly unlikely that patching things up with land manager
contracts or rural stewardship schemes is going to bring a lasting
remedy. Put another way, Scottish farming has been extremely successful
- world class - and could get even better. So why is it being deliberately
destroyed?
Mrs Priscilla Gordon-Duff, rural resource manager, Drummuir Estate
Learning to work together - the 3 Rs of country life
Mr Ian Fernie, planning consultant and member of SNH's West Area
Board
Planning and the countryside
Ms Jane Hope, chief executive, Cairngorms National Park Authority
National parks and countryside management
It was interesting to note that estate owner Priscilla
Gordon-Duff was finding - after many hours of trying to be part
of the community and her enthusiasm for the Paths-for-all scheme
- that the public authorities would not keep their side of the bargain
in terms of maintenance. They said they did not have the money.
What she did not bring herself to say was that if Scotland had a
thriving agricultural industry it would be able to look after the
countryside as it has done for generations.
Mr Fernie, who is a member of SNH West Areas Board,
presented a somewhat pedantic approach to the bureaucracy of planning
which could dampen the ardour of many an entrepreneur.
Jane Hope's aspiration that everyone should work
together over huge areas of the countryside is all very well if
it can be achieved effectively. But I do not know any successful
businesses that have such numerous bosses, rather few of whom may
have responsibility for earning some of the profits that can then
be spent on such worthy schemes.
Mr Andy Robertson, Chief Executive National Farmers Union Scotland.
Why Scotland's land needs a thriving agricultural industry
The trouble here was that the NFUS did not seem
to be willing to articulate the case as clearly as Professor Hillman.
Their chief executive seemed overly concerned with complying with
the well-intentioned but ill-considered policies of SEERAD, and
trying to ensure that Scottish farming had a good public image.
But then he has only recently transferred to his current position
within the NFUS after a long spell at SEERAD - yet another example
of senior people doing the rounds in small influential circles.
Perhaps he should take a leaf out of Professor
Hillman's book - do some good logical thinking, stick to what you
genuinely believe in, and respect is likely to follow. But to be
fair to Andy Robertson he will be constrained by having to abide
by the views of the Union of which he is an official, while it is
still possible for Professor Hillman to state his own opinion.
As a member of NFUS myself, I find it very difficult
to understand some aspects of the position of the Union in relation
to CAP reform or indeed Land Reform.
It is a mystery to me why the organisers of the
conference did not ask someone who is trying to run a major agribusiness
in Scotland to give this paper - Brian Pack of ANM Ltd, for example.
This was not supposed to be a political meeting but one in which
ideas could stimulate informative discussion and thereby hopefully
open-up new thinking.
Professor Jeff Maxwell, Former Director, Macauley land Use Research
Institute
Summary and closing remarks
Given the situation whereby radical changes in
the future use of Scotland's land are under urgent debate, Jeff
Maxwell's summing up was somewhat lack-lustre. My impression was
that he failed to take on board what Professor Hillman had so clearly
described.
So the conference finished as it had begun - being
swept along by the tide of well-intentioned but ill-considered "green
initiatives" in the name of change. But even if there was a
genuine need for them, can these reprocessed environmental goodies
be paid for by a backpacker? Or does the taxpayer have to pay for
them, as well as for importing food while at the same time subsidising
food production on the farms of our European neighbours?
Conclusions about the conference and general comment
Unfortunately the MLURI is too remote from agriculture
to have played such a dominant role in shaping and participating
in this conference. To repeat, from their own statistics 79% of
Scotland's land is involved in some form of agriculture and 17%
in forestry. Again from their own statistics as to the nature of
most of Scotland's land (apart from it being totally obvious) there
is a limited range of agricultural use to which that land can be
put. But Scotland over many decades has built up an enviable international
reputation for what it has achieved from this land and from the
brain power of those who have applied their minds to acquiring added
value through intellectual property (i.e. research).
But sadly the MLURI in its capacity as a research
institute predominantly funded by government, is now doing much
more harm than good. It may well have helped to create - and now
uncritically follows - government policy on land use that will undermine
past achievements and fail to create new ones. The MLURI is contributing
to the demise of yet another of Scotland's icons - its agriculture.
And quite unnecessarily so.
Professor Hillman is right in highlighting the
problem of the erosion of the UK research base in agriculture not
only in relation to crops and agrochemicals, but also animal husbandry,
disease control and genetics. Neglect in this vital area has contributed
to the many ills that have knocked agriculture in Scotland as in
the rest of the UK - BSE, FMD, and bovine tuberculosis to name but
a few.
Neither Scotland (nor the rest of the UK) has
adequately invested in the genetics of quality beef with the government's
Meat and Livestock Commission concentrating in a most pedestrian
manner on commodity rather than quality. As a consequence much of
the valuable intellectual property of commercial breeding has emigrated
to Australia.
The government authorities mistakenly seem to
think that quality can be achieved by imposing endless rules, but
that is no substitute for good research. Rather, each new excessive
regulation puts another nail into the coffin of the UK farming industry,
thereby affecting how the land is cared for.
What was also strikingly obvious at the conference
was the inappropriate power of non-elected quangos such as SNH and
other unifocus organisations whose knowledge and research base in
agriculture is at best weak, but often seriously misleading. Armed
with powerful publicity departments, such organisations can do immense
harm. Through their publicity machines - and influence at government
level - such organisations contrive to claim a consensus of public
opinion for their cause, which in fact does not exist at the level
they would have us all believe.
But a fundamental problem - again highlighted
by Professor Hillman - is the Scottish Executive's desire to direct
research according to its political policies rather than letting
the scientists pursue projects that they see to be the most rewarding.
As a consequence, one sees organisations such as the MLURI and the
SAC apparently bending over backwards to do the government's bidding
in order to maintain essential funding.
With the endless promotion of environmental issues,
recruitment of students into agriculture at universities - and indeed
the provision of graduate courses in agriculture - is drying up.
Likewise bright young vets prefer to pursue the more lucrative and
socially agreeable pet and equine aspects of their practice, while
the veterinary departments of universities and colleges are being
heavily subsidised by government.
But perhaps the government in Scotland at least
may wake up to the fact that the environmental issues, although
important, are far from being the top political priority with regard
to agriculture in the public's mind. As already referred to in this
article, a research study recently commissioned by the Scottish
Executive to assess the public's opinion regarding agriculture came
up with some clear messages. While the public was content with the
landscape and wanted it to be maintained in the traditional manner,
the top priority was the production of local food. Again in contrast
to what the environment lobby groups would have us believe, the
public were not averse to farmers being supported with subsidies
to produce that food.
The powers that be within the Scottish Executive
and within the Scottish Parliament should be aware that, once it
is realised what is happening, the public are unlikely to welcome
the manipulation of Scotland's internationally renowned research
base for the present government's own short-term political purposes.
The public did not take kindly to the demise of Scottish fishing.
The backlash that is likely to follow the demise of Scottish farming
might be even greater.
©www.land-care.org.uk
References
1. Royal Society of Edinburgh
(2004). Programme. Scotland's Land Conference 30th September 2004.
http://www.royalsoced.org.uk/events/conf2004/land_programme.pdf
2. SEERAD (2004). Strategy for
agricultural, biological and related research
3. MacKerron, D. K. L., Hillman,
R. J. and Duncan, M. J. (2003). Sustainability in agriculture.
For full reference and comment
see ENVIRONMENT Homepage, filed 07 May 03, www.land-care.org.uk
Click
Here to View
4. Forestry Commission website
http://www.forestry.gov.uk
5. National Trust of Scotland
website
http://nts.org.uk
6. Editorial (2003). Scottish
Agricultural College: what is going on?
See SC|ENCE Homepage,filed 2002, www.land-care.org.uk Click
Here to View
7. 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,
Perth
See SOCIAL/ECONOMIC/POLITICAL Homepage, filed 14 May 03,
www.land-care.org.uk Click
Here to View
8. Irvine, James (2004). Is the
MLURI now going to tell us what kind of livestock we should have
on our farms?
See SOCIAL/ECONOMIC/POLITICAL Homepage, filed 12 Sep 04,
www.land-care.org.uk Click
Here to View
9. Moran et al (2004). Beauty,
beast and biodiversity: what does the public want from agriculture?
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/library5/agri/bbbwdp-oo.asp?mode=view
10. Irvine, James (2004). "Public
support for green farming"; more spin from the Scottish Executive..
See SOCIAL/ECONOMIC/POLITICAL Homepage, filed 10 Sep 04,
www.land-care.org.uk Click
Here to View
11. Irvine, James 2004). "New
farm to help kids grow organically"; Scottish Executive sinks
to new depths of spin.
See SOCIAL/ECONOMIC/POLITICAL Homepage, filed 15 Sep 04,
www.land-care.org.uk Click
Here to View
12. Editorial (2003). The public
supports Scottish farmers and fishermen more than the pollsters
imagined.
See FISHING Homepage, filed 02 Apr 03, www.land-care.org.uk
Click
Here to View
13. Andrews, David (2004). SFP
'famine': shortages could force subsidies U-turn says Pack.
Scottish Farmer. Vol 112, No 5839. September 18; p1: 2004.
The press release in its original form from ANM Group Ltd may
be read on
http://www.goanm.co.uk/group/pressreleases/group/pressgroupsept04.htm
For further comment on Brian Pack's speech
See SOCIAL/ECONOMIC/POLITICAL Homepage, filed 20Sep 04, www.land-care.org.uk
Click Here to View
14. Mitchell, Ian (1999 ). Isles
of the West: A Hebridean voyage.
ISBN 0 84158 322 7. Birlinn, Edinburgh. The third edition printed
in 2004
15. Editorial (2003). SLF appoints
access officer with no training or experience in farming/agriculture.
See SCOTTISH OUTDOOR ACCESS CODE Homepage, filed 04 Oct 03,
www.land-care.org.uk Click
Here to View
16. Irvine, James (2001). SNH
conference September 2000. Enjoyment and understanding of the natural
heritage: finding the new balance between rights and responsibilities.
This paper has been reproduced with permission from LandCare
Scotland and updated.
See SCOTTISH OUTDOOR ACCESS CODE Homepage, filed 07 Jan 03,
www.land-care.org.uk Click
Here to View
17. Mitchell, Ian (2004). Isles
of the North. A journey to the realms of the Norse.
ISBN 1 84158 298 0 Birlinn, Edinburgh
18. State of the Environment
Norway. Outdoor recreation: right of access
See LAND REFORM/SOAC Homepage, filed 17 Jan 04, www.land-care.org.uk
Click
Here to View
19. Leader (2004). Questions
to be answered on Scottish Natural Heritage's Highland herd on Rum.
Fresh Air. Vol 3, 2004
20. Editorial (2004). The management
of the SNH suckler herd of Highland cows on Rum.
See SOCIAL/ECONOMIC/POLITICAL Homepage, filed 30 Aug 04,
www.land-care.org.uk Click
Here to View
21. Editorial (2003). Redrafted
SNH SOAC pays little heid to consultation process.
See LAND REFORM/SOAC Homepage, filed 02 Dec 03, www.land-care.org.uk
Click
Here to View
Finis
|
