With Scotland’s farmers and crofters committed to sustainability and the environment, NFU Scotland has called on the Scottish Government to reconsider its hardening of the green agenda if it wants Scotland to continue to address food security concerns, look after our environment and grow our economy.
Speaking today (Thursday 22 June) at Scotland’s biggest rural event, the Royal Highland Show, taking place at Ingliston near Edinburgh, NFU Scotland said that under the Bute House agreement, the ability of Scottish Government to strike a balanced, agreed approach with industry on food security, enhancing biodiversity and tackling emission reductions has changed. And, specifically on issues like species management, it is losing the support of farmers and crofters.
The announcement on the eve of the show that, unlike England, Scottish Government was to ban the use of the herbicide Asulox to control the invasive spread of bracken in Scotland’s hills and uplands, has prompted an immediate call from the Union for the decision to be urgently reviewed.
President Martin Kennedy said: “As farmers and crofters, we are all engaged in practices designed and delivering in the best interest of the environment. We accept that we can do even more, but Scottish Government, and the role played by the Green Party in particular, must recognise the positive measures already undertaken in the best interests of the environment, based on sound science and generations of experience in sustainably managing the land.
“As things stand, the Bute House agreement is the conduit for a hardening of the green agenda and is giving cause for serious concern not only for rural businesses but for the Scottish economy as a whole.”
On the Asulox decision, Mr. Kennedy said: “We need this decision to be reviewed urgently. In the absence of any other viable alternative, the consequences of the ban, which will consign some of Scotland’s hillside to monocultures of tick-laden nature-depleted bracken has ramifications for farmers, crofters, rural communities, human health, and biodiversity.”
Commenting specifically on species management, Mr. Kennedy said: “Working with NatureScot for decades on management of the likes of beavers, White-tailed eagles and geese has seen progress. However, under the Bute House agreement, that pendulum has now swung in the wrong direction which not only threatens the viability of some rural businesses but, in some cases, has also put at risk some of the things we are trying to protect.
“The translocation policy for beavers, introduced under the Bute House Agreement, will see beaver numbers reach 10,000 by the end of the decade. Under the previous SNP Government, the Union had accepted natural expansion, but translocation now significantly increases the likelihood of farmers suffering severe agricultural damage at the hands of rapid species expansion. White-tailed eagle numbers continue to grow annually, as do the number of farmers and crofters losing sheep to the species.
“Without a dedicated funding stream backed by effective management or licencing, the impacts of some species that are growing rapidly in number are now considerable both financially and environmentally. A growing number of farmers and crofters are suffering from the damage that some of these species are doing, yet there is a limited budget available for meaningful mitigation to control this damage.
“We cannot continue to pass the costs of what is deemed to be ‘in the public interest’ on to farming businesses. Through our ongoing collaborative work with NatureScot, it has, to its credit, recognised that serious agricultural damage does occur but its budget to fund mitigation is woefully inadequate. There are those within our membership who have seen agritourism opportunities arise from reintroductions but there are many more farmers and crofters who are bearing the impacts and dealing with the consequences, both financially and mentally. It is neither fair nor equitable that small rural businesses should be the main funder of environmental aspirations that they have little or no say in.
“There are only two ways to address this; Firstly, to increase funding considerably, going outside the agricultural budget to create a standalone species management budget that is fit for purpose.
“Secondly, a more feasible and affordable option would be to implement a more pragmatic license application scheme for the removal of these species where their impacts on both business and other wildlife is clear. Will either of those solutions happen while the Bute House Agreement is in place? I doubt it very much.”
Ends
Contact Bob Carrruth on 07788 927675