Andrew Arbuckle: Red rag of rural development programme

THERE are several issues on which reaction can be guaranteed. There are the old faithfuls such as expressing a supportive view on genetically modified organisms, although, I must confess, there does not seem to be the same rage or anger on this than there used to be.

Organic farming used to be a good issue where the "superior than thou" attitude of some of its followers was well worth a poke with a sharp stick. Examples of organic tunnel vision include the use of polythene for their cropping or the use of copper sulphate or some of the pyrethroids to protect crops.

An article on farm rents always brings out an anguished squeal or two as there always seem to be some pretty uncomfortable decisions in this part of Scottish rural life.

But if you want to know the current most popular issue to garner reaction – and it has been in this position for the past couple of years – it has to be the Scottish Rural Development Programme (SRDP).

This is strange because it should bring warmth and happiness throughout the land, right from politicians extolling how much cash they are distributing to the needy through to the recipients who suddenly have the support of a large bundle of taxpayers' money.

I know that the Scottish Government had that leading economic guru, Peter Cook, in to check out the innards of the scheme and a few alterations were made but the SRDP motor still hiccups along.

We have had the foresters complaining that it is a constraint on their ambitions; the scheme is too bureaucratic and it is too time-consuming.

We have had traditional farmers alleging that if you sprinkle the word "organic" on the application form, then that provides a few brownie points and may even get you to the top of the pile.

But most of all, there are complaints from those who have spent money in ensuring they submit a professional application and yet find the door to public cash locked.

At this point, I must be fair and say there are a few organisations that do not complain about SRDP.

These include august bodies such as the Scottish Agricultural College, Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH) and the Forestry Commission (FC). They do not complain because the arrival of the SRDP has provided them with a ready, steady source of income.

These organisations and others benefit either through holding the hands of the applicant throughout the form-filling stage or later from operating as case officers for applications.

I think in official jargon, the money going out of the system in this way is called "leakage" and it might be interesting to find out just how much cash intended for rural priorities ends up paying these agencies.

The latest figures I heard from one Rural Priorities Area Committee (RPAC) was that they had dealt with some 800 applications. Of those, 75 per cent were awarded an "amber light", which apparently means they fit the criteria and means they are allocated a case officer. These case officers come from organisations such as SNH and the FC.

But of those 600 or so applications in this one RPAC area alone, there were only 290 applicants who received the cash.

Put one way, this means a thorough examination of the application has taken place and only the best come through.

Put another way, that is quite a lot of time, effort and money burned up in the application process.

And that is without mentioning raising expectations.