Dan Buglass: Paying the price of farming on the margins

Published on Monday 8 September 2008 20:11

SCOTLAND'S beleaguered farmers and crofters in the hills and on the islands will feel their problems are a little better understood following the publication of a highly detailed and independent report by the prestigious Royal Society of Edinburgh.

Professor Gavin McCrone, who has a huge knowledge of rural affairs, chaired the committee and most certainly hit the appropriate notes in his opening remarks at the press briefing yesterday.

He said: "There are clearly some serious issues concerning the perspective of livestock in the hills and uplands. There have been some big changes in recent years. Sheep numbers have fallen by 25 per cent and cattle by 10 per cent over the last decade while there has been some abandonment of land."

McCrone admitted that he and his colleagues had been disturbed at some of the official figures from the Scottish Government. He drew attention to the fact that, in the year 2006-7, the net farm income was a mere 1,500 on a unit with only sheep in the less favoured areas that comprise 85 per cent of Scotland. But for the receipt of direct subsidies equivalent to more than 1,500 per cent of the net farm income, those farmers would walk away.

Hill farming in Scotland receives around 61 million each year in direct support, but this pales into insignificance with the Republic of Ireland, where payments are close to 180m. The UK government, meanwhile, has made it plain that it wishes all direct support to farmers to be phased out by 20013 when the next major review of the Common Agricultural Policy is due.

The report suggests that this would be a potential disaster. "Scotland's livestock farming in the hills and islands is heavily dependent on public support. Without this, the present decline in livestock numbers will accelerate.

"We reject the UK government's proposals: they would have a very damaging effect on the natural heritage and human communities."

The mid-term review of the CAP, which became effective from 1 January 2005, effectively severed the direct link between support and production. McCrone concedes that it is morally indefensible for farmers to continue receiving support, based on the historical average they were paid in the reference years of 2000-2, always provided they maintain their land in accordance with the rules of good husbandry.

Shrewd operators, many of them close to retirement, opted to sell up substantial holdings and then acquire a smaller area of land and take their subsidy entitlement with them. That was their right, but there is a growing sense of grievance moving towards the opinion that support in the new era should still have a direct connection with productive farming.

The CAP is increasingly putting the emphasis on environmental payments, but Scotland comes way bottom of the UK league on a basic rate of little more than 7 per hectare. Austria, a country not unlike Scotland, sees its farmers cash in to the tune of 121 per hectare.

But the report is not totally uncritical of the farming industry. It makes it clear that the industry must become increasingly market orientated. Professor Karl Linklater, formerly principal of the Scottish Agricultural College, made that point to The Scotsman.

He said: "I was struck by the fact that, in Shetland, several producers had reverted to their native breed. The sheep may be small, but a high-value market is developing in London. This is an aspect that others should consider."

Jim McLaren, the president of NFU Scotland, is in broad agreement with McCrone's findings, but wants to see some action. He said: "The time is right to pull all interested bodies together. A clear signal must be sent to those who eke out a living in remote parts that active livestock farming is wanted and valued."