Back
to SOCIAL/ECONOMIC/POLITICAL Homepage
Livestock enterprises in Scotland's uplands are
facing ever deepening problems:
and so is the land on which they are based
James Irvine
Teviot Scientific, Cultybraggan Farm, Comrie,
Perthshire
Filed 31 Oct 07
©www.land-care.org.uk
The outbreak of Foot and Mouth Disease (FMD) in
the UK in 2001 had a devastating effect on the nation, not just
on its livestock farmers. Fundamental errors in the management of
the disease were made, with the failure to stop movements of livestock
within the UK for some three days being foremost among them. There
was no excuse for such a blunder as the Northumberland Report (1968)
on the previous UK outbreak in 1967 had made it clear that livestock
movements had to be stopped without delay in the event of a recurrence.
But the authorities left the Report gathering dust on their shelves,
and did not even bother to read it when FMD UK2001 started.
The first case in the FMD UK2001 epidemic was
diagnosed in an abattoir on 20th February of that year. It lead
to some 10 million livestock (including calves) being slaughtered,
and disposed of by means of massive pyres that shocked the world.
The UK livestock industry struggled to get on to its feet again.
To a substantial extent it succeeded, but remained highly vulnerable
should another disease outbreak occur.
You would have thought that the authorities would
have been very much on their guard to prevent any such recurrence.
But clearly this was not so.
So much was it not so, that the Department of
the Environment Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) failed to take appropriate
action when a formal report in 2005 on their own laboratory facilities
at Pirbright pointed to a lack of adequate maintenance in terms
of biosecurity: the biosecurity directly involved in the handling
of FMD virus and other virulent viruses that can infect livestock.
DEFRA did not provide the funds for matters to be put right. And
so the situation was allowed to continue, whereby a World Reference
Laboratory for the diagnosis of livestock viral disease and a major
independent vaccine manufacturer, Merial, who share the site, continued
to handle FMD and other viruses. Merial had the approval of DEFRA
to do so, and DEFRA was the controlling body. DEFRA, or its predecessor
by another name, was responsible for the flawed design of the means
to dispose of viruses, and for the maintenance of that flawed system.
Why were funds from DEFRA not forthcoming to correct
the maintenance defects at Pirbright?
DEFRA had got itself into a major financial mess.
The Minister responsible, Margaret Beckett, had made what is generally
regarded as a pig's breakfast of the Common Agricultural Reform
(CAP) as it affected England. Worse than that, the Rural Payments
Agency (RPA) had so failed to distribute the funds that the EC had
allotted to the farmers in England that DEFRA incurred massive fines
(circa £63million) from the EC. Worse than even that, Tony
Blair, the then Prime Minister, had essentially given away the UK's
entitlement from the EC regarding Rural Development, so that the
UK only got a pittance compared to what to what other EU Member
States were awarded. But Blair still wanted to pursue his Rural
Development agenda. The money had to come from somewhere. It was
taken via cutting animal health and welfare research (including
Pirbright funding) and eroding the funds available to support livestock
farming. Gordon Brown was Treasurer at the time and must share the
blame.
The scene was set for another disaster. It would
just be a matter of time.
FMD UK2007
On 3rd August 2007, FMD was detected on a farm
just a few miles from Pirbright. Blair had eventually decided it
was convenient for himself to stand down as Prime Minister, so that
he could move on to pastures new, and before the his cookies all
crumbled. Gordon Brown had taken over. Margaret Beckett had incongruously
been promoted to Foreign Secretary by Blair for her devotion to
his cause, but was summarily dropped when Brown took over the hot
seat. The very urban, vegetarian Hilary Benn - with no knowledge
of rural affairs that I am aware of - became the Minister for DEFRA.
Staring facts in the face, Hilary Benn came on
national TV saying that "it had not been proven that the outbreak
came from the Pirbright laboratory complex. He continued with this
line even after it was established that the strain of the virus
involved was the very unusual one that had been recently worked
on at the Pirbright complex. Then he tried to blame it on Merial,
rather than on his own department who were responsible for the biosecurity
of viruses escaping from the complex: the design of the drainage
system as well as its proper maintenance such as to comply with
strict biosecurity standards.
The recommendation, by the Royal Society of Edinburgh
Inquiry into FMD in Scotland 2001, that access to the countryside
should be closed immediately an outbreak of FMD was identified,
was not accepted by the government authorities. The result was that
public access to the Restricted Zone in the 3km radius of the outbreak
in 2007 was not imposed until some three days later - and only after
justifiable and vociferous protest from the farmers in the area.
Again, biosecurity on the part of the authorities was clearly inadequate,
with the unreasonable pressure political pressure from the ramblers
and the tourist industry taking precedence over common sense.
I seem to recall that, in the early days, when
fingers were being formally pointed at his own department, Hilary
Benn assured the staff of DEFRA that no one would lose their jobs
over the matter. Is it not ever the case in the public sector?
But, as a consequence of this sequence of continuing
blunders by DEFRA, many livestock farmers in the uplands of Scotland,
England and Wales will lose their livelihoods - if they have not
already done so.
Why is FMD UK2007 so devastating for Scottish Hill
farmers?
Sheep farming in the Uplands
Adopting a slaughter policy, and according to
the EC rules, the leak of FMD virus, pinpointed to Defra's own laboratory
complex at Pirbright, was duly considered to have been contained
within the Surveillance Zone for the requisite length of time. Indeed,
the export market for beef and lamb from the UK (apart from the
"at risk" zones) was opened on 12th October. So why should
this result is such a potentially lethal blow to hill farmers in
Scotland, England and Wales?
FMD UK2001 started on 20th February. FMD UK2007
started on 3rd August. Right from the start the main harvest season
for livestock farmers was threatened. That threat soon became reality
as new cases kept cropping up in the area close to Pirbright. The
level of damage to the industry across the land changed from severe
to disastrous when, just after movement restrictions were lifted,
they were imposed again following the detection of yet another case
in the vicinity of Pirbright. Cultybraggan Farm managed to sell
some of its prime lambs through Caledonian Mart on 11th September
although past their prime, but the ones scheduled for sale on 14th
September were stopped by the re-imposition of virtually all livestock
movements: even across very short stretches of road (a few metres)
that could be so easily disinfected. That totally disrupted proper
livestock management even within the same farm unit, as many of
the beasts could not cross roads to get to different fields or back
to the steading.
The main harvest season for livestock farmers,
be they into cattle or sheep, was totally disrupted. And that also
applied for the industries that support them: the hauliers and the
auctioneers.
Farming, especially hill livestock farming, is
highly dependent on the seasons for fundamental biological and geographical
reasons. That dependence is immutable. Uplands farming has evolved
the way it has over generations for very good reasons, based on
good animal husbandry developed from a clear understanding of how
to integrate with the laws of nature, and not to fight against them.
Indeed, that is why Scotland in particular has earned for itself
the reputation for excellent livestock and excellent management
of the environment. But you would hardly think it from the pronouncements
of the urbanised majority, and their powerful but unbalanced lobby
groups, including many government funded academics, who claim to
know better.
Let me spell out a few basics. With movement restrictions
imposed from 3rd August to 12th October (apart from the a few days
break mentioned above) meant that essential aspects of livestock
management simply could not be carried out. Grass stops growing
at a useful rate from early September, if not before. The crop of
prime lambs should be going off to market in August and September.
If they don't, then their condition will deteriorate along with
their market value. Not only that, but they will be eating the grass
needed for the ewes to be in the good condition necessary for a
successful tupping, when they are put to the rams to produce next
year's crop.
The problem of animal welfare has become so acute
that the government authorities have had to come up with an emergency
scheme, whereby a massive welfare cull is funded to get Scottish
lambs to humane slaughter. The money to be paid to Scotland's sheep
farmers who are caught up in this situation is but £15 per
lamb. That is well below production cost. Many upland sheep farmers
may not be able to withstand the financial burden. While the efforts
of the Scottish Minister, Richard Lochhead, are widely appreciated,
the lack of confidence in the Westminster authorities (DEFRA in
particular) to get a grip on the situation adds to the despair.
"The polluter pays", but apparently not
when
the polluter is the Government
The adage oft repeated by Government that "the
polluter pays" does not seem to apply when the polluter is
the Government. Thus, Gordon |Brown, once he had decided he was
not going to have a snap election, refused to provide funds out
of Westminster resources, precipitating an almighty row with the
partially devolved Scottish Executive (which Alex Salmond, Scotland's
First Minister by a single seat, now chooses to call the Scottish
Government).
The sum of £15 per lamb is to be paid out
by the Scottish Executive to Scottish sheep farmers, but this has
to be found from within the Scottish Executive's own resources.
So it will be a matter of curtailing some other aspect of Scottish
expenditure, possibly within the SEERAD budget. But the culprit
was Westminster, not Holyrood.
NFUS is considering mounting a legal challenge
against DEFRA to compensate for the losses not only to sheep farmers
but also to the cattle industry in Scotland.
The logistics of sheep farming in the Scottish Highlands
All this comes on top of the progressive decline
in sheep farming in many areas of the Scottish uplands, especially
in the North West: thanks largely to so-called "environmental"
lobby groups and academics, who have relentlessly pursued their
narrow, single focus agendas, and their hunger for political influence
or improved funding, fuelled by biased propaganda disseminated to
a gullible public.
For good reason, the main breed of sheep in the
North-West of Scotland is (or has been) the Blackface. They have
been proven to be particularly hardy and suitable for that terrain.
There have been two main markets for Blackface
lambs.
Continental Europe likes the smaller lamb that
is the Blackface, rather than the bigger variety produced from other
breeds for the home and other markets. In addition to this long-established
export market, Blackface lambs are in demand when selected to be
brought on to become breeding ewes. These may then be crossed with
a Bluefaced Leicester tup, for example, to produce a variety of
ewe called a Scotch Mule. These, in turn, may be crossed with a
Suffolk ram to produce prime lambs of a configuration demanded by
the home market. Thus, here at Cultybraggan Farm in Perthshire,
there has been a flock of some 400 Scotch Mules until recent years.
They are well suited to the terrain of the Southern Scottish Uplands.
Last year the flock was fortunately reduced to 125 breeding ewes,
as even then the economic outlook was not good. At the beginning
of November this year, only 70 remaining ewes will run with the
two Suffolk rams. The risk of Bluetongue (BT) reaching the farm
in 2008, or some other outbreak of disease disrupting management
is too high.
By carefully selecting from where the Scotch Mules
were sourced for the Farm in terms of animal health and welfare
and confirmation, and by doing the same for the Suffolk rams (tups)
bought at Kelso Ram Sales from a breeder I had come to highly respect,
Cultybraggan Farm had a flock of clear traceability and high health
status. Moreover, it was based on a commendable integration of the
expertise of different parts of the industry within Scotland. That
is why Scotland has earned the reputation for such highly quality
livestock. I was doing nothing new: just following what has long
been recognised as good practice, modified in detail by contemporary
requirements and scientific developments.
But with the export market for the small Blackface
lamb closed, as a result of the negligent leak of FMD virus from
DEFRA's own laboratory complex at Pirbright, much the greater part
of the market for these small Blackface lambs bred in the Scottish
Highlands disappeared. They could not be kept on the hills in marketable
condition, waiting for the export market to open and confidence
to be restored. They would either be eating the grass kept for the
breeding ewes, or they had to be given hugely expensive supplementary
feed that the farmer could not afford. An acute animal welfare problem
was precipitated. And so some 250,000 are scheduled in Scotland
to be humanely slaughtered and their carcases incinerated. Another
250,000 are scheduled to go the same way south of the border.
The Scottish Highlands is not the only area to
suffer. In the Scottish Southern Uplands, where Cultybraggan Farm
is located, the income from this year's batch of lambs was apathetic
and unsustainable. Apart from that small batch of prime lambs that
made it to market in the miniscule window of opportunity between
movement restrictions, they produced a poor return: because their
condition, through no fault of the Farm, had "shot" past
the optimum and was inevitably on the decline. As already mentioned,
the Farm reduced its flock from 400 to just 100 before last season
began. This season it will start with only 70.
In the North West of Scotland, as well as in other
upland areas, sheep will almost entirely disappear as a viable industry:
the Highland Clearances in reverse, but for equally perverse reasons.
Suckler herd beef farming in the Uplands
But it is not only sheep farming in the uplands
that is at serious risk. So also is the fate of the suckler beef
herd in these same uplands The suckler herd specialises in producing
good quality calves and is the mainstay of Scotland's iconic beef
industry. The calves, after they have been weaned from their mothers
at 6 months, are best moved on to lower land where food supplies
for them are abundant and much cheaper. Frequently, this would be
on to arable farms that have finished their grain harvest and have
grain, vegetables, straw and housing aplenty for the purpose. This
is not the "condemnable unnecessary movement of livestock about
the country" as so often irrationally claimed by the so-called
green brigade, but thoroughly sensible integration of the resources
that Scotland has to offer.
Thanks to the avarice of supermarkets, and the
fact that, for all their talk, most of the UK's urbanised population
do not appear to care where their meat comes from, so long as it
is perceived to be cheap. The market value of suckler calves has
been for some years well below the cost of production. The suckler
calf producer is at the bottom of the food chain, and only sees
improvement in price after all the other participants higher up
the chain have taken their margins.
The opening of the export market was the only
chance whereby a competitive price might be paid to the livestock
farmer. Now, once again, the export market has to be rebuilt. But
even before that can happen, there remain major obstacles to be
overcome for UK livestock to meet the requirements for movements
abroad on a continuing basis. A stop start scenario is what is likely
to happen. But producing calves from a suckler herd is a long term
enterprise that needs confidence that the market is likely to have
some stability.
The movement restrictions within the UK imposed
by the recurrence of FMD UK2007 caused havoc with livestock management
on farms: especially on upland farms.
Simple matters, such as the inability to be able
to move cattle from one field to another on the same farm across
a few yards of public road (that could be so easily disinfected),
were crippling in their effect. No amount of pleading, that the
Farm was prepared to pay for its vet to come and verify that the
area had been properly disinfected, was to any avail. Even although
the Farm was some 400 miles from the known source of the outbreak.
Bureaucracy reigned supreme: imposed, it is understood, by DEFRA
against the more enlightened and pragmatic efforts of the Scottish
authorities.
The cost of keeping a suckler herd under housing
during the winter has already escalated to enormous proportions.
While the return of grain prices to sustainable values has to be
welcomed for the arable farmers, the cost of feed for over-wintering
cattle in the uplands has seriously increased, as have have fuel
costs.
The sums no longer add up. They have not added
up for some years. But instead of their being light at the end of
the tunnel the situation has got much worse.
The "environmental" lobby has driven
the authorities, both in the UK and
in the EC, to promote seriously unbalanced policies
Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) Reform is progressively
driving support for farming throughout the EU towards so-called
"environmental" issues, and away from food production.
The EC is going to try to persuade the French to conform to this
policy, which so far they have effectively resisted. The UK swallowed
EC policy whole, and added some gold-plating for good measure. Indeed,
the UK has been in the vanguard of destroying its uplands farming
industry. As indeed it has been in destroying its fishing industry.
The Scots are desperate to get to the Brussels negotiating table,
but DEFRA insists in taking the lead. Although there must be serious
doubts about the policy of total independence of Scotland from Westminster,
at least Scotland's feisty First Minister, along with his Environment
and Rural Affairs Secretary, are heading for a first class show
down with Westminster as to who should be representing the fishing
industry at Brussels. If, and it is a big if, Hilary Benn (disciple
of Gordon Brown, Prime Minister) will back off quick. We need the
same for the livestock industry. Fishing and livestock in Scotland
are dear to the hearts of many Scots, along with the care of the
environment in which these industries work. The longer the struggle
with Westminster over these issues, the more recruits Alex Salmond
will get for his dangerous drive towards total devolution.
The Scottish Executive Environmental Rural Affairs
Department (SEERAD) held a series of roadshows around Scotland to
explain to farmers what the Scottish Executive has in mind in using
the CAP money it receives from Brussels over the next few years.
I attended the Perth meeting.
It would appear that the Scottish Executive had
not listened much to what the upland livestock farmers had been
repeatedly telling them for more than a year: indeed, for much longer.
More likely their hands are tied by Directives from Brussels, with
massive fines if they do not comply. But UK farmers seem to be much
worse off than those of other Member States, thanks to Tony Blair's
lack of interest in UK farming when negotiating with Brussels and
the appalling incompetence of his Minister in dispensing EC funds
(such as they are) to farmers south of the border.
Ingrid Clayton of SEERAD described a highly complicated
layered system of support which, for most uplands livestock farmers
in Scotland, would be largely irrelevant. It was heavily in favour
of members of the rural community, with little or no interest in
farming, managing to cobble together a plan that would help the
"rural economy" and "rural communities" in a
"sustainable manner". To start up new businesses, to add
value, etc, etc, but anything to help with production costs on farms
was a complete no no. Indeed, farming clearly had a minority voice
amidst competing demands from numerous other interests to get hold
of CAP Reform monies. Subsidies available to farmers through CAP
are set to progressively diminish through "modulation",
while costs escalate. and the bureaucracy gets ever bigger. So who
is going to look after the land?
Working in the Scottish uplands livestock industry
is like working for a large multinational corporate company whose
Board of Directors (mainly located in Brussels but with subdirectors
in Westminster, and managers in Holyrood) are painfully out of touch
with what is happening on the factory floor. Their decision making,
essentially on the basis of one plan fits all, is years out of date
by the time they get round to letting the workers know what the
decisions are. But events in farming can demand equally fast responses.
The whole uplands farming scene has been transformed, yet again,
within the last few months, but the Brussels juggernaut lumbers
on. Who are they to care, being compulsorily supported by taxpayers'
money. And nobody gets the sack unless overly conspicuously corrupt.
True, the Less Favoured Area Support Scheme (LFASS)
is to continue, but the support involved will not be enough to avoid
the collapse of much of the industry. It seems more than likely
that the Land Management Contracts (possibly given another name)
will be as badly designed as their predecessors, with most of the
18 items being ignored by the majority of farmers as being distinctly
unhelpful.
One can imagine much of the CAP Reform money will
go to such bodies as Comrie Development Trust: the body within one
of Scotland's richest large villages that, through Scottish Executive
Community Right to Buy legislation of 2003, managed to purchase
90 acres of land allegedly at about a third of its true valuation,
and got some £200,000 of funding to help them decide what
they might want to do with it (1,
2).
The so-called "environmentalists",
with their strong lobbying influence, have seriously distorted the
balance between what they regard as "conservation" and
extending "biodiversity", on the one hand, with the competent
and practical management of the land that must be linked to the
necessity to produce food, on the other. They also seem to get into
a muddle between what is relevant to global warming and what is
relevant to land management in terms of the localised terrestrial
scene. While seeking the popular vote, the newly devolved Scottish
Parliament (controlled from 1999 to May 2007 by a Labour/Liberal
Democrat Coalition) went over the top with Land Reform, based on
the sizeable chip on the shoulder of this predominantly Central
Belt Executive. They had little understanding of rural matters,
except that they resented landowners whoever they were. I recall
trying to talk sense with the Labour politician currently referred
to as "wee Dougie" (3),
but clearly he had no concept of how farms need to be run if they
are to be able to produce the combination of good environment and
good food, and still be economically viable. The world over, food
production has always had to be subsidised to be successful: like
the trains, education and health.
The Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003
The Land Reform (Scotland) Act came into being
in 2003. Its consequences are adding in a major way to the current
problems of farming in Scotland, ranging from poorly controlled
access to farmland, appalling regulations in terms of farm tenancies
and community right to buy, topped off by a raft of wasteful bureaucracy
whereby government quangos with a single focus mindset determine
what farmers can and cannot do. The problems are particularly acute
in relation to farms close to large villages and towns. It is all
a bit like the subprime market in mortgages that has threatened
to destabalise global banking. The public were being offered goodies
well above what the Scottish Executive could afford. Now that the
comeuppance is arriving, there are big problems for their successors
to resolve. People do not like losing their houses, nor their newly
acquired rights over others.
But perhaps there is some hope for the future.
First Minister Alex reckons that he will reduce the number of quangos
in Scotland by 50 (out of 200) within his first four years in office.
Just how he is going to achieve this while promising no compulsory
job losses remains to be seen. Farmers and fishermen and lots of
commercial businesses have to face compulsory job losses as their
business are made no longer viable through government actions. Is
it not time that the civil service also had to face up to such realities?
They might become a touch more efficient.
Lack of confidence that neither the UK Government
nor the EC have a
coherent plan for controlling virulent livestock diseases
within a workable timescale
Since acquiring Cultybraggan Farm in 1987 I have
witnessed the devastating effects of livestock diseases on farm
management, throughout the land, together with the sad lack of the
appropriate application of science to either prevent these disease
or effectively control them. There has been a massive increase in
bureaucratic control backed by a disproportionate penalty culture.
But where is the science, and where is its effective application?
On top of BSE in cattle and scrapie in sheep (neither
of which, incidentally, have been seen at Cultybraggan), there has
been FMD UK2001, FMD UK2007 and now the imminent threat to Scotland
of Bluetongue (BT), as it predictably spread through continental
Europe and reached southern England on 22nd September 2007 (4).
That is on top of the list of serious diseases that have been with
us for a long time, but which have been poorly controlled: such
as Johnes.
With FMD and BT there seems to be no coherent
vaccination policy. Nor even any real attempt to use modern technology
for rapid diagnosis, which is such an essential ingredient to logical
management. For all the Government's talk about animal health and
welfare (adorned by new legislation), there has been a cut back
in research funding into the management of diseases of livestock.
Even basic maintenance of its own laboratory facilities at Pirbright
was allowed to lapse, resulting in FMD UK2007. As a result of that
incredible lack of biosecurity, the production by Merial, an international
vaccine maker who shares the site with Defra at Pirbright, has been
ordered by DEFRA to stop the production of BTv8 vaccine, so essential
to control the spread of BT throughout the nation's livestock come
the spring of next year. But has DEFRA ordered the vaccine from
anyone else, such as Intervet? Not yet, they haven't.
In a remarkable statement by Fred Landberg (Deputy
Chief Vet, DEFRA) when answering questions directly put to him on
BBC Radio 4 'Farming Today' 31st October 2007, he said
"No supplies of Bluetongue vaccine have
yet been ordered for the UK. We are currently in negotiations
with three of the main vaccine producers. The Bluetongue vaccine
will probably be available in the Spring or Summer of 2008.
"It has not yet been decided whether its
use will be voluntary or compulsory"
So the UK is at the end of an increasingly long
queue for the acquisition of essential stocks of vaccines, other
EU Member States having already got their orders in for millions
of doses.Such vaccines are produced by commercial companies, who,
understandably, will only set about producing the millions of doses
required if they are guaranteed payment for them. The farmers are
poorly informed as what is actually happening. In a recent letter
from the DEFRA's Deputy Chief Veterinary Officer (Fred Landberg)
to the Veterinary Record describing the UK situation regarding BT,
the only mention of vaccination was in the following context:
"The disease (BT) control strategy will
be under constant review taking account of epidemiological information,
veterinary assessment and economic analysis during the next few
months. This includes strategies for an outbreak in 2008 which
could include vaccination"
But his Department has had more than a year to
prepare for what was highly likely to occur, and where it was likely
to occur. Such a pronouncement after the predictable has occurred
is seriously inadequate. Vigilant surveillance with slow laboratory
diagnostic results (because all samples have to go to Pirbright
or Weybridge in the far south of England), and keeping fingers crossed
that there will be a hard winter (when climate change indicates
otherwise) is lamentably inadequate. The only way of controlling
the disease is through vaccination carried out before the disease
reaches Scotland, and not waiting till after the event. But we have
no real idea as to where Scotland is in the queue for the BTv8 vaccine.
It is highly likely that Scotland will not have the vaccine in time,
although with simple logical planning it most likely could have
done. Vaccination of livestock for a range of diseases is a common
practice, under the supervision of the farm vet. If there was evidence
of sensible planning by the authorities Scotland's livestock farmers
would be happy to pay for the vaccine that they use, even although
it may be compulsory. But there has to be a sound strategy defining
in advance the methods of controlling the disease. This should not
be too difficult when there is only one effective method, although
movement restrictions would also be essential.
A cynical, but possibly correct view, as to why
DEFRA has not ordered any BT vaccine to date is that it does not
want the bill to come within this financial year. It might interfere
with their cost cutting targets.
If BT gets into Scotland and its midges, its livestock
industry would be truly finished: both for sheep and for cattle.
Would it not have been worth making much greater efforts to get
a hold of adequate supplies of BTv8 vaccine long before now?
FMD UK2007 presented the ideal
situation for barrier vaccination. The point source was known, the
unusual laboratory-based strain of FMD virus was known, and there
was a perfectly matching vaccine available. What more could one
possibly ask for? Absolutely nothing, if rapid diagnostic tests
using modern science had been available. The extra three months
delay in restoring exports should, in the six years since FMD UK2001,
should have been reduced - or removed altogether - if only the investment
in the technology had been made. In fact little has changed since
FMD UK2001.
The Labour Government persists
at Westminster. Animal Health is a matter reserved to Westminster.
It is Westminster who lead the negotiations with the EC so disastrously.
DEFRA has been lead by ministers who have failed to achieve respect
from the farming community, who are by far the most important body
of people who look after the nation's land. It would appear that
the Westminster agenda is to sacrifice UK farming for some other
perceived political advantage. Worryingly, the successor to Professor
Sir David King (a physical chemist who displayed his lack of understanding
of virology and vaccination during FMD UK2001) is an Environment
specialist in terms of climate change, but unlikely to understand
disease control any better than the person whom he succeeds.
Cattle as methane producers
The UK's cattle are also under
threat as copious producers of methane from their digestive systems.
Methane can be many times more damaging to the ozone layer than
CO2. So some would argue that we should eat less meat and have fewer
cows. UK cows, and possibly Scottish ones in particular, are also
targeted as villains of global warming as much of the feed required
for them during the winter comes from felled rain forest that has
been cultivated to produce soya (6,
7).
But are our Westminster politicians
getting carried away with their ambitions to lead the world by example
as how the problem of global warming should be tackled by others
who can have a much greater impact. The UK contributes 2% to global
warming. By trying to lead the world by example it should not sacrifices
to its economy and way of heritage far beyond what the remaining
98% are doing. Otherwise we will end up with both global warming
and a severely impoverished country in what shows every sign of
continuing as a global, competitive and capitalist market economy.
Play our part, yes. But ruining the country, in the hope that all
the other big players around the world will hopefully follow, is
folly.
The threat of the World Trade talks
But an even greater threat to all of the
above is what unelected EC Commissioner Peter Mandelson is up to,
apparently backed by the leaders of both Labour and the Conservatives
at Westminster. That is to free up trade globally to help the under
developed countries, such as Africa. Fortunately, the US is saying
no, as they do care about their farmers. If Mandelson was to get
his way, cheap imports of beef from outwith the EC would flood into
the UK. Scottish livestock farming, along with that in other parts
of the UK, would be finished. This would not be a temporary blip.
Skilled manpower, so essential for quality livestock management,
is already at an all time low. It would be very difficult to ever
get it back.
What will be the effect on Scotland's upland environment
as livestock farming declines?
With ideology take leave of pragmatism, the government
authorities will find that the extensive new powers that they have
acquired for themselves will seriously backfire. There are clouds
gathering on the economic front. The promises of Alex Salmond, the
new First Minister whose Scottish National Party has a majority
of but one, that a totally devolved Scotland would bag all the revenues
from North Sea oil and be rich, lack conviction. More likely the
reverse would happen.
Even on current performance, the rural stewardship
plans drawn up by the Scottish Executive have had a stop start record
of performance. Again, it is like working for a major plc company
whose board of directors are tardy at making decisions, turn the
finance off and on in an irrational manner when long term commitments
are at stake, and anyway appear to be on the wrong course.
All this spells trouble for the season to season
care of Scotland's countryside, especially in the uplands.
The Royal Society of Edinburgh (RSE) has launched
on May 14th 2007 an Inquiry into Scotland's Hill and Island Areas.
Submissions closed on 20th August. But in my view this Inquiry is
unlikely to be much use. It will certainly carry little confidence
from Scotland's farmers (or landmanagers, as the authorities prefer
to call them).
Central to this lack of faith is the fact that
the Secretary of the Inquiry was previously the Chief Executive
of Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH), who saw his job then as delivering
the political agenda of the Scottish Executive, largely discarding
the massive response to consultation form concerned landmanagers
(8, 9,
10). Why should be behave any
differently this time round?
Also, the vice chairman of the Inquiry was previously
the head of the Macaulay Land Use Research Institute (MLURI) at
Aberdeen. He was a main advocate for using Scotland's hill land
for purposes other than agriculture, for encouraging diversity of
enterprise among livestock farmers (so that they would become less
good farmers), etc (11).
The Chairman is an economist who, as far as I
am aware, has little direct experience in land management. Previous
Inquiries that he has chaired have met with dubious success. Thus,
the Inquiry into teachers' pay resulted in better wages for teachers
and better hours of work, but was distinctly unhelpful in improving
education in Scottish schools, or even the recruitment of teachers.
In a Report that he chaired on Creation of Wealth in Scotland he
seriously ignored the importance of small businesses and the unnecessary
difficulties they face.
It would appear from the RSE website, that not
a single individual farmer ("landmanager") responded:
myself included. All the submissions listed came from organisations,
many of which were government funded in one way or another.
The RSE did produce a much acclaimed Report on
their Inquiry into FMD in Scotland in 2001. But they seem to have
lost their touch since (12).
So what is to become of Scotland's uplands?
Predictably, the answer is not difficult to find.
On a global scale, land values in Scotland are relatively cheap,
although massively expensive to home grown, genuine farmers - new
entrants or those who have honed their skills over generations,
alike. As the major estate agencies have been proclaiming for some
time, many estates in Scotland are being bought up by hugely wealthy
foreign buyers from the commodity-rich economies of the Middle East
and the former Soviet Union.
What has happened near Comrie, Perthshire, illustrates
this trend. Just across the River Ruchil from Cultybraggan Farm,
Vladimir Lisin, a Russian steel giant, bought the 16th century Aberuchill
Castle with its 3500 surrounding acres. He likes the shooting. He
can jet across from Russia and hop onto a private helicopter to
get to his country seat nae bother.
In the year up to September, foreigners accounted
for 32% of purchases of country homes in Scotland. And the trend
is set to continue (13).
Paul Lister, the multi-million pound MFI furniture
heir, has been granted a dangerous wild animal licence. His plan
is to turn his 23,000 acre Alladale Estate in Sutherland into an
Africa-style safari park by re-introducing the predators that once
roamed in the Highlands 2000 years ago. The Ramblers Association
is not pleased, as they insist on there rights to roam where they
please in safety. No one apparently has much care for any livestock
farmers that might still be in the area. Can such an enterprise
really be secure over lengthy periods of time?
Already large areas of Scotland's land are now
owned by government quangos, such as Scottish National Heritage
and the National Trust for Scotland. Other large areas have been
bought by single focus groups such as the RSPB, and conservation
bodies such as the John Muir Trust. The introduction of sea eagles
from Norway to the East Coast of Scotland is cause for justifiable
concern among farmers (14). But
birds are more important than mere humans who try to contribute
to producing the nation's food. Anyway, who wants barn door sized
scavengers frequenting urban settlements, as they help tidy up the
mess careless Scots leave behind?
Community ownership, developing from Community
Right to Buy legislation, is consuming large chunks of Big Lottery
Funds, or, as in the case of Comrie Development Trust, apparently
just wanting to own land as a speculative venture without apparently
knowing what they want to do with it. As Comrie is already one of
the wealthiest large villages in Scotland, it hardly seems right
that the Trust that claims to represent its residents should indulge
in such property speculation with the facility to buy it at a grossly
undervalued price set by the District Valuer (a government appointment).
And with big bank loans from the Tudor Trust the interest free for
1 months or more. Such loans, it is understood, were intended to
help the impoverished or the deprived.
Brian Wilson, previously a Labour Minister at
Westminster but who has since left politics as a career, writes
in the West Highland Free Press regarding crofting in the Highlands
(15).
"I opposed the Labour Government's ill-advised
introduction of so-called owner occupation and, more recently,
I attracted the fury of some of my erstwhile political colleagues
by making alliances with anyone I could in order to defeat the
'free market' agenda"
So it would seem that the great ideological scheme
of Scotland's previous Labour/Liberal Democrat coalition is going
to end up with new types of landlord which, in the eyes of most,
are likely to be worse that the ones they were so envious of and
so keen to get rid of.
Neither foreign purchasers, nor the so-called
conservation bodies, are likely to be primarily interested in livestock
farming: but only as a tool to help other species, be they for sport
or a romanticised idea of what should be preserved and what should
not.
The problem is highlighted by the battle south
of the border between the badger conservation society (bolstered
by the public image of the animal in Whinney the Pooh) and livestock
farmers, who are desperate to get rid of tuberculosis that has escalated
dramatically since badgers gained preservation status.
Perhaps the foreign business tycoon may tire of
shooting in Scotland. Perhaps the Scottish Executive may find that
it can no longer sustain such an expensive quango as SNH. The National
Trust for Scotland is already in dire financial straits. What then?
Who cares for some 80% of Scotland's land when the playboys go home,
and the country realises that it cannot afford to give the "conservation"
lobby such dominance over the need to produce local food.
Maybe, just maybe, those in political power might
begin to appreciate what they have done so much to destroy: the
tradition for family farms over generations, and the skills that
go with them.
©www.land-care.org.uk
References
1. Irvine, James (2007). Comrie
Development Trust celebrates its buy-out of Cultybraggan Army Camp
but admits it does not know what to do with it.
See SOCIAL/ECONOMIC/POLITICAL Homepage, filed 15 Sep 07,
www.land-care.org.uk Click
Here to View
2. Irvine, James (2007). Comrie
Development Trust had a shaky AGM, but nevertheless voted to buy
Cultybraggan Army Camp through Land Reform legislation.
See SOCIAL/ECONOMIC/POLITICAL Homepage, filed 13 Aug 07,
www.land-care.org.uk Click
Here to View
3. Treneman, Ann (2007). 'Daveheart'
victorious after heated battle with auld enemy.
See SOCIAL/ECONOMIC/POLITICAL Homepage, filed 26 Oct 07,
www.land-care.org.uk Click
Here to View
4. Irvine, James (2007). The first
case ever of Bluetongue in the UK
See AN|MAL HEALTH - GENERAL Homepage, filed 22 Sep 07,
www.land-care.org.uk Click
Here to View
5. Landberg, Fred (2007). Bluetongue
outbreak in the UK
Letter to Veterinary Record, 8th October 2007 Click
Here to View pdf
6. Irvine, James (2007). "Eat
less meat" advocates Professor Northcott in The Times.: "for
the sake of the renewal of a local sustainable economy". Why
so?
See SOCIAL/ECONOMIC/POLITICAL Homepage, filed 30 Sep 07,
www.land-care.org.uk Click
Here to View
7. Northcott, Michael (2007),
"Eat less meat": response to the counter argument.
See SOCIAL/ECONOMIC/POLITICAL Homepage, filed 01 Oct07,
www.land-care.org.uk Click
Here to View
8. Editorial (2000). Re-drafted
SNH Scottish Outdoor Access Code pays little heid to consultation
responses.
See SOAC Homepage, filed 02 Dec 03, www.land-care.org.uk
Click Here to View
9. Irvine, James (2003). Does
SNH conduct itself as an honest broker, or as a political manipulator?
See SCOTTIS|H| OUTDOOR ACCESS CODE, filed 25 Oct 03, www.land-care.org.uk
Click
Here to View
10. Linklater, Magnus (2003).
From the Highlands to the Lowlands, in future it's going to be anybody's
lands.
Reproduced with permission from The Times, 23 January 2003.
See LAND REFORM Homepage, filed 23 Jan 03, www.land-care.org.uk
Click Here to View
11. Irvine, James (2004). Scotland's
land: RSE Conference 30th September 2004. Reviewed
See SOCIAL/ECONOMIC/POLITICAL Homepage, filed 04 Oct 04,
www.land-care.org.uk Click
Here to View
12. Irvine, James (2007). Avian
influenza: an assessment of the threat to Scotland. Royal Society
of Edinburgh publishes a flawed report.
See ANIMAL HEALTH Homepage, filed 26 Sep 07, www.land-care.org.uk
Click
Here to View
13. Gadher, Dipesh and Davies,
Helen (2007). Estates fall to a foreign land rush.
The Sunday Times, 28th October 2007
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/property/article2753535.ece
14. Macleod, Kirsty (2006). The
introduction of sea eagles to the coasts of Scotland.
See ENVIRONMENT Homepage, filed 05 Nov 06, www.land-care.org.uk
Click
Here to View
15. Wilson, Brian (2007).
Comment.
West Highland Free Press: Friday 26 Oct 2007. p14
Finis
|
