Voice from 'The Wilderness' offers no comfort to hill farming fears

farmers and crofters, I dwelt at some length on the difficulties there

might be in persuading the public -- never mind Government Ministers --

of the strength of hill farming's case.

Well, it hasn't taken long for a highly indignant response to arrive

on my desk, which sadly seems to confirm that view. What's worse, it

implies a conspiracy on the part the media to conceal the full extent of

the protection given to agriculture.

The reader concerned, a Mr R Harris, lives in Dunoon at an address

known as 'The Wilderness' -- an irony unlikely to be lost on those who

fear large tracts of the Scottish countryside will be turned into a

wilderness if hill farming subsidies continue to be eroded.

For example, it would be interesting to know whether this gentleman

has thought about the impact on Argyll (including his own area area of

Cowal) of a general decline in agriculture in these remote and fragile

communities. Or does none of this really matter, as long as deeply

ingrained prejudices about 'feather-bedded' farmers are satisfied?

But let Mr Harris speak for himself -- and I quote extensively from

his letter on the subject: ''How long is the UK press going to continue

to pedal the propaganda produced by UK agriculturists?'' he asks. ''The

article ('Erosion of Hill Farming' October 5) states that the real value

of Hill Livestock Compensatory Allowances has declined in the past eight

years.

''However, it does not state that over the past 12 years HLCAs have

out-performed the Retail Price Index by one-and-a-half times. Compared

to any other industry, agriculture receives an obscene level of support

which, in 1994-95, will total #2730 million. Sheep producers will

receive around #450 million alone.

''These subsidies prop up an unviable industry, and distort land

values to such an extent that other, more viable industries, cannot

compete for the resource.

''Regarding the stated average income of #10,000 for upland farmers, I

would take this with a large pinch of salt. How many people in Scotland,

on the average of #16,500 per annum, would like a net income, after

paying for their house and vehicle, of #10,000?

''If it is argued that the subsidies are a social grant, keeping

employment in the hills, for the same money conservation, recreation,

and forestry, could produce more jobs with greater environmental

benefits.''

Mr Harris is entitled to his opinion and, unfortunately, he probably

represents a considerable strand of public feeling on the whole issue of

farm subsidies, and the future of the countryside.

It is one thing for the NFU to address their concerns to Government

Ministers, MPs, and other decision-makers. But convincing the vast

majority of the general public -- whose only acquaintance with the

countryside is the occasional week-end foray in their cars -- could

prove much more diffcult, and expensive.

Meantime, Mr Harris has me puzzled on a number of points raised in his

letter. Can he tell us about the ''more viable industries'' which he

says are unable to compete for hill land because of distorted land

values brought about by farming subsidies like HLCAs?

Nor should his argument that, for the same money, conservation,

recreation, and forestry, could produce more jobs with greater

environmental benefit, be allowed to go unchallenged. There are many who

see blanket afforestation as a blight on the environment.

And if hill farmers and crofters were driven off the land in a new set

of Highland Clearances, who would be left to conserve the countryside,

or cater for the growing tourism and leisure market, if all we had to

offer visitors was a neglected wilderness?

According to the Scottish NFU who, admittedly, have a vested interest

in this debate, resources going into agriculture have a greater economic

impact than in other sectors. More jobs and wealth are created 'pound

for pound' in the countryside if money is invested in agriculture rather

than other sectors of the rural economy, such as light engineering,

hotels, services, and so on.

For every 100 people directly employed in beef and sheep production, a

further 250 jobs are supported in rural communities. Without farming and

crofting, the NFU points out that rural shops, schools, medical

services, post offices, and other services needed by people living in

the countryside would be under threat.

And, as the union warns in its glossy new campaign booklet, 'The case

for hill farming in Scotland:' ''Society must call a halt to policies

which slowly undermine the future basis for a thriving rural economy.''

Getting that message across to Mr Harris, and his kind, clearly is a

daunting challenge -- and one demanding a great deal of patience and

skill from those who still value, not only the economic benefits of hill

farming and crofting, but also its unique social and cultural heritage.