Call for radical innovation down on the farm

After the best part of a decade where productivity from Scottish farms has either levelled off or dropped, a leading economist has called for a radical change to policies that would encourage a culture of innovation and suggested that the trigger for change might be a reduction in public subsidies.

Part of the plateau in yield in the past ten years may have been due to a de-coupling of support along with an increased emphasis on environmental priorities but now with worldwide increased demands for food, the drive towards increased sustainable production could not be ignored

Speaking at a conference in Carnoustie yesterday, Alan Renwick, head of the land economy unit at the Scottish Agricultural College, compared the go-ahead attitude of New Zealanders with the comfort zone of those in this country supported by a subsidy regime that stifled innovation.

“With little or no support, New Zealanders are living on the edge and they are more prepared to look at new research and new methods of doing things,” he said. “They are engaging more with their research stations. The culture there is fundamentally different.”

A key issue for improved performance was professional advice, which was he claimed readily available but for one fact: “Farm advisers in this country spend too much time helping farmers to fill in forms and too little on forward thinking. There are thousands of ideas out there but they are not being tried. Some may not work but some will, but they are not being tried.”

He believed one reason for this caution was the current level of subsidy farmers receive. “Compared with New Zealand we have allowed our farmers to carry on as they have always done,” he said.

If there was to be sustainable agriculture in this country it was necessary to consider life without support. Without being specific he stated the level of CAP support would decline in the future and that would be no bad thing.

“It is the barrier to innovation,” he said. “It is not sustainable. Part of the recompense for the loss of support could be in higher market prices.”

He admitted that this message was easier to sell to an audience consisting mainly of arable farmers than it would have been for livestock producers.