Can people power be enough to save the farming levy boards?​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​ - Brian Henderson

For the ten per cent or so of levy-payers who actually took the trouble to register, there’s two weeks left to vote and influence where the Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board (AHDB) should spend its budget.

The move to give some power back to levy payers follows a couple of bloody noses delivered to the organisation last year when the statutory ”all or nothing” vote was triggered by the potato and horticulture sectors – both of which felt that the organisation wasn’t delivering value for money for the levies which were gathered from producers’ pockets.

Since the operations of the different sector levy-gathering bodies were lumped together back in 2008 into a single non-departmental government body, many producers have felt, rightly or wrongly, that the organisation was becoming a distant, self-serving empire, funded at the expense of growers without taking their views into account.

So the two sectors mentioned above exercised their democratic right and pressed the nuclear button to call for a poll on the board’s continued operation – and levy gathering ability – for potato growers and horticultural businesses.

Many of the good things which the AHDB did for the sector were bandied about - but the poll results from both parts of the industry delivered a fairly resounding message that they wished to dispense with the board’s services.

And although a fairly serious damage limitation campaign was already underway to make the board more accountable under its new management, efforts were redoubled to ensure that a bigger say was delivered to those who bank-rolled the organisation.

Hence the current producer poll which, rather than being a straight yes/no for continued representation, allows levy payers who have registered to vote to have some input into where the budget is spent in each sector by ranking which areas should be prioritised – as well as Strictly Come Dancing –style vote on the appointment of some of the board members.

The arrangements might be far from perfect - but I guess it’s a start. And while it’s easy to criticise big organisaitons, the board does do a lot of good work which the industry needs.

But on the topic criticising big organisations, while the AHDB covers the majority of sectors south of the border, in Scotland the red meat side of things- beef, lamb and pork - is covered by Quality Meat Scotland (QMS).

QMS, however, does more than just operate as a non-departmental government body – it also runs the national farm assurance scheme for the livestock industries. Indeed its immediate predecessor broke the ground for farm assurance schemes when Scotland set up one of the first such schemes in the world to be operated at a national level.

In recent weeks, however, QMS has also been in the cross-hairs of industry dissatisfaction at meetings around the country – and its dual role might make it an even bigger target.

For there is undoubtedly some underlying resentment of its levy gathering powers, especially recently as the Scottish premium – which regularly saw the reputation attached to beef produced in this country earn some of the highest prices in the world – has disappeared.

There has also been criticism of advertising campaigns and social media initiatives, many of which are targeted at specific consumer demographics which are often quite different to the core levy payer - which often means the message is seldom seen or understood by producers.

However, a good deal of the ill-will which has been aimed at the organisation stems from what producers view as QMS’s role in policing a set of constantly growing rules and regulations.

And it’s a tough PR problem to overcome when the only real contact which a considerable number of farmers have with the organisation is when an assessor visits to carry out the annual inspection, an event which always carries with it the stress of being found wanting in some respect - and, as a result, being excluded from the scheme.

How the organisation might shake of the inevitable resentment which can lie with this feeling of being judged is a difficult one to crack.

Maybe it should look to the cereals assurance scheme, though. Rather than being run by a large arm’s length government body which many feel dips into producer’s pockets twice – levy collecting and for membership of the assurance scheme – Scottish Quality Crops is run on a shoestring budget with only one permanent member of staff and relies solely on the voluntary subscription to cover its costs.

Sometimes less is more…