Ronnie Eunson

THE FOLLOWING is an unapologetically Shetland-centred solution for revitalising our land resource.

The currently unsustainable nature of most forms of European agriculture, without the support of urban taxpayers, has left farmers and crofters reeling under a burden of regulation and, frankly, negative policy.

No one seems willing or able to wipe the drawing board clean of all this negativity in order to safeguard the potential of rural assets for future generations - to this end the description 'sustainable' is corrupted by all who use it.

What would you do about Shetland's agriculture, bearing in mind that you cannot withdraw from the EU rural development policy?

It is fair to say that there will be no new financial support provided by the UK government for agriculture, nationally. Therefore anything you come up with must be cost neutral.

But is cost alone the problem? Should policy not become more positive in its outlook? In my experience folk respond much more to encouragement than highly regulated box ticking exercises.

The proposed Scottish Rural Development Programme provides for a core support from the Single Farm Payment followed by two tiers of ever more rigorous possible options - a bit like a cross between the 'Crystal Maze' and a 'Grattan's Catalogue'.

Its complexity and lack of funds have resulted in it, so far, having not received the blessing of the European Commission.

Along with this new, shiny pantechnicon of bureaucratic effort comes the sadly debauched Less Favoured Areas Support Scheme, which doesn't do "what it says on the tin".

Put together this is what's available in the form of assistance from the public purse for crofters and farmers.

It appears that administration costs alone account for 37 pence in every pound spent on agri-environmental schemes. If this figure is reflected across the board it is little wonder the taxpayer is unwilling to shell out more.

What folk want is safe food, nice scenery, and access to a countryside they can afford. What Shetland needs is a secure level of support, which is designed to achieve an outcome which Shetland needs and wants.

Policies tend to be formulated at national level to yield politically acceptable results. Why can't communities define those outcomes, which also fit national policy? If these outcomes are acceptable to the EU, does it not make more sense to tailor them to fit the circumstances - Shetland needs a warm and serviceable Fair Isle gansey of a policy, and not to be squeezed into an ill-fitting strategy of Barbours, brogues and clipboards.

My suggested Manifesto for Shetland's Agriculture would see an amalgamation of all the various support streams.

Shetland's Single Farm Payments would be ring-fenced to ensure no further erosion of funds to mainland UK.

LFA payments would be attached to the Single Farm Payment and the whole lot rebranded as 'Rural Incentive Support'.

LFA payments would be calculated on a Shetland average based on two times the level paid to mainland Scottish LFA - a truer reflection of 'natural handicap'.

There would be no agri-environmental schemes paying folk not to do things, but this would be replaced by a 'Self-Sufficiency Incentive', which would be paid on each unit's efforts to produce enough crops to feed its own livestock.

This incentive to use the land by cultivation would yield huge environmental gain through biodiversity where it's most at risk, on the inbye.

This Self Sufficiency Incentive Payment would be paid as a top-up to their core support.

A second incentive payment would be offered as the Marketing Incentive Payment, which would yield another top-up to the Rural Incentive Support for those who want to demonstrate direct sales of produce to markets.

The Scottish Executive's administration would amount to payment by direct debit of the Rural Incentive Support, calculated using digital image evidence of cropping and receipted evidence of marketing.

Those who are not bothered about actually working their land would receive a basic Rural Incentive Support. Those who are keener to farm their land and to sell some finished produce would merit another, perhaps 50 per cent, top-up.

This new approach based on 'compensation for natural handicap', 'business competitiveness' and 'environmental enhancement' accords perfectly with the themes laid down by the EU at the Lisbon Conference and therefore would raise no issues in Brussels.

This incentivisation of self-sufficiency of cropping, removing the requirement for large amounts of expensive imports, and of marketing more produce locally would boost agriculture's contribution to the Shetland economy.

Shetland agriculture currently generates around £16 million, but without more positive measures to encourage more business activity, this figure will continue to drop.

Would my suggestion be more likely to become profitable and hence, dare I utter the word, sustainable?


Ronnie Eunson farms organically at Uradale, near Scalloway. He is an area board member of Scottish Natural Heritage and has recently been appointed to the Crofters' Commission. His main interest is in food production and as such, he is a member the Scottish Organic Producers' Association and chairs the Shetland Organic Producers' Group.