The Accidental Smallholder Forum
Community => Coffee Lounge => Topic started by: Rosemary on July 01, 2018, 08:17:41 am
-
Some of you may know that I am a trustee of an organisation called Smallholding Scotland https://smallholding.scot
The Scottish government is currently consulting on what agricultural and rural supprt will look like post Brexit https://consult.gov.scot/agriculture-and-rural-communities/economy-post-brexit-transition/
Smallholding Scotland has been invited to meet with officials to discuss what sort of support Scottish smallholders want.
We're very concerned that it is proposed to close the Small Farm Grant Scheme, which is the only scheme targetted at small farmers and smallholders. It was a new scheme in thsi iteration of CAP; it's for holidngs 3ha to 30ha to support agricultural investment (buildings, fencing, land improvements). It's a mirror of the Crofting Agricultural Grant Scheme BUT it has an income bar of £30k for an individual and £40k for a couple - to ensure the money went to "the right people". The uptake has been pathetic - about 8% of the £1m a year budget spent.
Now with our EU exit, there will be far more focus on "value for taxpayers money", so schemes will have to demonstrate a contribution to "common good", so do smallholders contribute to "the common good" and if so, how?
Should we be seeking a reduction in the minimum acreage from 3ha to say 1ha?
Thoughts very welcome. It's likely that we'll be meeting w/c 9th July. The consultation closes 14th August.
-
<< Should we be seeking a reduction in the minimum acreage from 3ha to say 1ha? >>
Given the shocking take up there's clearly something that needs to be modified about the scheme.
How much and what type of research went into deciding on that size?
Who did the original research (assuming there was some)?
To me, 30 h is a small farm, and as we know from TAS many smallholdings are under 3 h (including us, by about 0.1 h ::) )
So the first point to look at is why the small farm grant scheme has been such a flop:
We need to look at how relevant the grants are to real smallholders. I can only imagine how much paperwork such an application involves, and how many hardworking smallholders can afford the time, or have the knowledge, to make a grant application worth the effort? How many people actually know about the scheme, or how to find out about it?
We should be looking at how many other restrictions on how any work is done are in place. For example, fencing grants are available, but you have to use an approved contractor - there is no provision for doing the work yourself. As that grant is for only a proportion of the work and materials, this can involve the smallholder in a greater cost than just doing the work themselves. That was our conclusion when we looked into the scheme - hence our first fencing way back when being a bit wonky... We didn't consider applying for this small farms grant (quite apart from our missing 0.1h to make us eligible) when we set about building our big barn. We just saved up and got on with it, eventually producing a building we are happy with, made of materials we want, not just another sectional tin shed.
Whilst we were still eligible for a subsidy, we applied to have our hedgerows included. We had to provide maps - very detailed and of course accurate maps, which needed quite a bit of effort to produce. Eventually after some to'ing and fro'ing, we received our award, £13.20 to cover 800m of hedgerow and associated fencing. Later we were informed the amount was to be adjusted, and after a suitable pause, our new amount was communicated - it had reduced to £13.12. Once the 3.0ha limit came in, we stopped applying and sold off our entitlements, as much because we were shocked at how much time some clerk in an obscure corner of an office building had had to put in to come up with that grand sum, as because of the waste of our time (see Womble's thread on how we value our time). That might help explain why this Small Farm Grant Scheme has had such a small impact.
That's my first point out of the way - taking a look at what is wrong with the original scheme, before we start to think how to improve it. I'm sure I'll be back :D
I will say that I am alarmed at how little time there is for you to come up with your input of what smallholders want. This really needs some facts and figures, not just opinions.
-
Having had a quick look at some possible reasons why the Small Farm Grant scheme has not been a success, the next step is to look at what smallholders actually need and want by way of support.
This is a great opportunity to influence the future of smallholding in Scotland so it's worth a bit of effort to think clearly. There is some money available out there, but not in free-flowing amounts, so if it's headed in our direction surely we should know what we want to do with it? Rather than just modifying the existing Small Farm Grant Scheme by extending the hectarage it applies to, lets go back to fundamentals and find out what we really want.
Do we want buildings? Is that the first area we think of when looking for support? Or do we want more support for what we as smallholders actually do? There are endless possible smallholding activities such as growing vegetables, raising crops and livestock, selling produce, camp sites, B&B, working to improve our environment and supporting wildlife in all its forms - any and all of these activities have a valuable output and are worthy of government support.
One thing smallholders do so well is keeping rare breeds of livestock. Larger farmers are likely to prefer modern commercial breeds which can make them a profit, whereas many smallholders are working on a smaller scale, where they are free to pick and choose their livestock, taking into consideration their local land and market conditions, taste of the meat, aesthetics, conservation, future proofing genetic variance and supplying small quantities to specialist customers. All these things are likely to be more labour intensive than similar commercial scale alternatives, so will cost more, both in the doing and in the marketing. Sometimes it seems that the preservation of our rare breeds is being left to the whims and altruism of smallholders, who are already severely disadvantaged.
It's worth reiterating: our rare breeds are a reservoir of genetic variation which needs be preserved so that, as the world climate changes, people's eating preferences change and farming practices necessarily change, there is a pool of genetics to pick from to create new breeds which can thrive in the new conditions and markets of the future. Many of the new commercial breeds fare very well today, but when all changes tomorrow they themselves could well become rare and we will be seeking new breeds which are perhaps more self sufficient, lower input of feed and labour, smaller carcases for changes in human eating habits, multi-purpose and beautiful when the countryside becomes Theme Park Scotland and if folk don't like what they see then it has to go. Thus the importance of preserving rare breeds, not just for smallholders but for the whole population. That sounds like your criteria 'for the common good'.
Britain used to get support for keeping rare breeds from the EU, in common with all other EU countries. However, the last female PM traded that subsidy for a big rebate and thus our subsidy was lost. It would be great to have rare breed support back, but I think you, Rosemary, may be the only person who can get that message to where it will be heard.
I appreciate that not all smallholders keep rare breeds, but I can only speak of what I know and a rare breed subsidy is one point only.
Whatever subsidies we do get, they need to be simple and straightforward to administer (agriculture is still reeling from the farce of EU subsidy payments). Subsidies also need to be simple and straightforward to apply for - that applies to both large farmers and smallholders as no-one has time to waste on inefficient systems.
-
The 3ha minumum applies to all access to the current CAP schemes. The EU minimum was 1ha; Scottish Crofting Federation had lobbied for 1ha and thought they had got 2ha but when the schemes were published it was 3ha (it's 5ha in England and Wales), soa lotof crofters and smallholders are automatically excluded from applying.
The income bar on the SFGS also excluded a lot of people.
No matter how good your plan, if you were less than 3ha or had an income of £30k as an individual or £40k as a couple you couldn't apply.
No other CAP scheme takes into account the personal income of the applicant, includig the Crofting Agricultural Grant Scheme.
Removing the income bar would be a good start.
-
<< Should we be seeking a reduction in the minimum acreage from 3ha to say 1ha? >>
Given the shocking take up there's clearly something that needs to be modified about the scheme.
How much and what type of research went into deciding on that size?
Who did the original research (assuming there was some)?
To me, 30 h is a small farm, and as we know from TAS many smallholdings are under 3 h (including us, by about 0.1 h ::) )
I don't know who came up with the 30ha but remember it's a Small Farm Grant Scheme to cover small farms and smallholdings. It's, in every way, exactly the same as the Crofting Agricultural Grant Scheme other than the 30ha maximum and the income bar.
I don't know how the 3ha minumum was decided either. As I said, the EU minuimum is 1ha, E&W is 5ha.
So the first point to look at is why the small farm grant scheme has been such a flop:
We need to look at how relevant the grants are to real smallholders. I can only imagine how much paperwork such an application involves, and how many hardworking smallholders can afford the time, or have the knowledge, to make a grant application worth the effort? How many people actually know about the scheme, or how to find out about it?
The application isn't all that hard. I'd have applied but our income was too high. However, I'm now applying as my business, which is a limited company, and isn't excluded on teh basis of income.
The grant was very poorly publicised. The Farm Advisory Service could have done more for sure as could Scottish Rural Action. ScotGov didn't seem to care about publicising it. I told them two years ago that the incoem bar and lack of publicity was aproblem and they did diddly squat.
We should be looking at how many other restrictions on how any work is done are in place. For example, fencing grants are available, but you have to use an approved contractor - there is no provision for doing the work yourself. As that grant is for only a proportion of the work and materials, this can involve the smallholder in a greater cost than just doing the work themselves. That was our conclusion when we looked into the scheme - hence our first fencing way back when being a bit wonky... We didn't consider applying for this small farms grant (quite apart from our missing 0.1h to make us eligible) when we set about building our big barn. We just saved up and got on with it, eventually producing a building we are happy with, made of materials we want, not just another sectional tin shed.
There is provision for doing the work yourself an dyou can claim 40% of the estimated cost.
Whilst we were still eligible for a subsidy, we applied to have our hedgerows included. We had to provide maps - very detailed and of course accurate maps, which needed quite a bit of effort to produce. Eventually after some to'ing and fro'ing, we received our award, £13.20 to cover 800m of hedgerow and associated fencing. Later we were informed the amount was to be adjusted, and after a suitable pause, our new amount was communicated - it had reduced to £13.12. Once the 3.0ha limit came in, we stopped applying and sold off our entitlements, as much because we were shocked at how much time some clerk in an obscure corner of an office building had had to put in to come up with that grand sum, as because of the waste of our time (see Womble's thread on how we value our time). That might help explain why this Small Farm Grant Scheme has had such a small impact.
Intersting but not a comment on the current scheme -although the complexity is the same. You really need a big project to make it worthwhile applying - but you can include multiple projects in a single application.
-
I have never really looked at the SFGS scheme as I am a crofter but I understand that the scheme is more or less the same as the CCAGS scheme except for the income bar that has been mentioned (please correct me if I am wrong). Hopefully that means that my experience of the CCAGS scheme applies, at least in part, to the SFGS.
Incidentally the CCAGS scheme used to have an income bar and an ownership bar (only tenants were eligible to apply). I have no idea why they were in place and why they were lifted and why the income bar has been applied to the SFGS.
I have been through the CCAGS system 3 1/2 times (the fourth application is waiting for approval) and I have been through the Rural Priorities (RP) system once (tree planting grant).
1) CCAGS is a simple process. It is deliberately so as the gov has tried to make it easy for crofters to apply themselves. Yes, the first time you go through a form it might not be clear what they want but a 2 min call to the area office or to someone who has done one before and they will point you in the right direction.
The RP application was phenomenally complex and required specialist knowledge - there really is no comparison between them.
Back in the old days (so I am told) you could just put up a fence (or whatever) then call the department and ask for a grant to cover it - this was doubtless abused (I am sure some people built the same fence every year for years on end) and the gov now has to ensure that applications are justified and meet the objectives of the scheme.
Realisitically I don't think it's possible to get a simpler scheme and so there is little point in asking for one. Perhaps the guidance notes that go with the scheme could be improved to make it clearer how to write the answers that they are looking for on the application form.
2) I don't quite get the lack of publicity argument. Its all on the Rural Priorities website. Paperwork is a sad fact of life and (nearly) no-one likes it. Every other farmer has to keep unto date with the rules and regs so why should it be any different for smallholders. I am frequently amazed by the lack of knowledge that smallholders have of the "system". Like it or not keeping sheep is not just about lambing and feeding but it is also about record books, SCOTEID, withdrawal periods and grants.
3) The CCAGS scheme is really broad, with a bit of imagination, most of the projects that I would consider could be shoehorned into it somehow - I imagine the SFGS scheme is the same. Even at its lowest level it contributes 40% of the cost of a project (LFA and/or under 40 and it goes up more) which is not insignificant.
You can do any of the work yourself (as long as you can tell them you have enough skill to do a competent job) and they pay you at set rates (e.g. its about £8/hr for your labour, £15/hr for your own tractor or digger).
4) The Gov is currently running a scheme to support women in agriculture (my wife has been along to 3 seminars / on farm training days which have been really good (so I am told)). The soil association occasionally does on farm training days. The SCF runs short courses in various skills. I have no idea how all these are funded but guess it comes out of CAP funding somehow. There really seems to be a lack of something similar for smallholders (and I know Rosemary does a great effort in what she does here). The knowledge base of smallholders* does seem to be pretty poor both in terms of the systems/grants and in agricultural knowledge (at least when you see 3 sheep, 2 horses and a billion thistles and dockens in a field it suggests that someone doesn't know how to get the best out of their ground!)
*complete generalisation which ignores the fact that there will be many who are very professional in all that they do.
So in summary
- fight to keep the SFGS
- the income bar probably isn't fair or helpful
- get some kind of technical support / training aimed at smallholders
-
Small Farm Grant Scheme,never heard of it.
Wot Scarlet Dragon said
Looking at the application form " Your local area office will assess the value of your labour " that would be minimum wage then, the more I read the form the more I am disinclined to apply.
As for part 10 , a goat allocated 1sq meter :roflanim: ! mine have rather more than that, no mention of indoor pigs either .
I think I will pass and avoid the stress of filling it in
-
Small Farm Grant Scheme,never heard of it.
Wot Scarlet Dragon said
Looking at the application form " Your local area office will assess the value of your labour " that would be minimum wage then, the more I read the form the more I am disinclined to apply.
As for part 10 , a goat allocated 1sq meter :roflanim: ! mine have rather more than that, no mention of indoor pigs either .
I think I will pass and avoid the stress of filling it in
If you'd bothered to read oor willie's contribution above, you'd see tat the labour rate is about £8 and hour.
I'm pretty sure the floor areas aren't compulsory either.
Great if you can afford to improve your holding - not applying is your choice. But, in principle, smallholders' contribution to the rural economy shoudl be recognised and supported. That's my view anyway.
-
With such disparate views already expressed, I think it will be difficult for one organisation to present 'the smallholder's view'. I think your contribution Rosemary will bear more weight, being official, nonetheless the Scottish Government is also asking for contributions from all smallholders given directly. I think it would add weight to smallholders; opinions if we all also respond direct online. Having come across the put-down of 'it's not smallholding in Scotland - it's crofting,' I think we as smallholders need to take every opportunity to make our existence and needs known.
I think it is worth taking notice when folk are talking of the difficulty of filling in forms, and the need to keep it simple. Paperwork and official speak which is second nature to some, is anathema to others, and this is a real point from grass roots. The official terminology which slips off the tongues of many, causes others to shut their minds and reject the whole scheme - and these may well be the ones who would most benefit from support. As you are representing a cross section of smallholders, this difficulty needs to be included. I know the jargon springs from the need for absolute clarity, but often plain English would be best, plus perhaps even a translation into Scots, as well as Gaelic. It's all about reaching the intended target audience.
-
Well said Fleecewife!
another thing to consider for Scottish Smallholders - especially the further North you are - is the lack of infrastructure. For example in the past 13 years access to nearby abbatoirs and butchers who will cut your meat has all but disappeared. Feed suppliers have more or less priced the small producer out of the game. Just recently we have been told by Genus that they will no longer support a daily service. So, from being a producer of rare breed sheep and goat meat we are now only selling through the marts and we no longer will replace our stock. In effect we have now become 'hobby farmers' with expensive grass cutters. So, maybe the smallholder would be more inclined to pursue some form of subsidy if there was an assurance of an end use for what we produce.
I also agree with Fleecewife that the forms are far too onerous.
-
So I'll reply in two parts...
First off, a shameless bump for this thread as I think it deserves more responses. I would love to have access to the SFGS to make improvements around here but the income bar is a killer. how are you meant to afford a smallholding, pay a mortgage on said holding but still earn less that 30K or 40k combined??
And secondly, and a bit controversial to stir thing up :) ... what do the responses so far (or lack of) tell us about a typical scottish smallholder?
- Are our smallholdings merely a hobby or a secondary source of income (hah!) and not really treated as a proper business?
- is the cost of fencing/building repair/machinery & equipment inconsequential based on our other income streams? (...I wish!)
- are we quite content with our lot and don't really see the need to drive our smallholding business forward by improving the quality of our livestock/produce etc
If the answer is yes to the all of the above then I guess there is no need for any additional financial support.
Or, is there a real desire out there to build on what we currently have but feel we are being denied access to funding due to unfair and over restrictive conditions that have been set by the scottish government?
If it is the latter, then by the sounds of things, its only going to get worse. So if you don't speak up now then you can't really complain when the schemes are all gone.
I think thats the bear poked...
Cuddles
-
Living wage here £8.15 (scource Aberdeenshire council )
Floor area maybe suggested but maybe suggested by a "snivel sepant" whos's only been to a petting farm
Both my neighbours were coerced into developing wildlife corridors along the boundary of their land , paperwork, contractors, looks good but " wildlife" cant access the corridor due to the height of the in spec fence. No evidence of wildlife, no payment made , both livid.
Cuddles,
Are our smallholdings merely a hobby or a secondary source of income (hah!) and not really treated as a proper business? Often seen as "good lifers , must already have money and often a nusance to officialdom
- is the cost of fencing/building repair/machinery & equipment inconsequential based on our other income streams? (...I wish!) Cost of fencing , purchasing and maintenance of infrastructure all out of the day jobs income
- are we quite content with our lot and don't really see the need to drive our smallholding business forward by improving the quality of our livestock/produce etc Never content must always continue to improve, livestock, infrastructure and environment
Funding offers always seemed overly complicated and way too restrictive and mainly suited to the larger commercial farmer
Yup this bear well poked
Now off to lie down in a dark room ( unsubsidised of course :) )
-
Fleecewife, can I ask what scheme you applied for your hedging under?
It is just that under the SFGS you would have gotten 40% (+20% if you are in an LFA. + 20% if you are under 40 - so either 40% or 60% or 80%) and that is of total costs - plants, fencing materials and labour (regardless of whether it was your labour or a contractors). A rough fag packet calculation suggests that a 800m double fenced hedge under the SFGS would attack a grant of somewhere between £5-10k.
I don't doubt for a minute that there have been some pointless / badly planned schemes in that past (which I suspect your example came under) - there possibly still are, but if the example of £8.13 for 800m hedging is from a different scheme then lets not use it to beat the SFGS.
If people think a couple of hours finding out about the guidance and filling in the forms for a grant of £5-10k is too onerous then I think I am in the wrong job!
I just think that it is a (potentially) very good scheme based on my experience with its sister scheme.
-
Floor area maybe suggested but maybe suggested by a "snivel sepant" whos's only been to a petting farm
Both my neighbours were coerced into developing wildlife corridors along the boundary of their land , paperwork, contractors, looks good but " wildlife" cant access the corridor due to the height of the in spec fence. No evidence of wildlife, no payment made , both livid.
"Snivel sepant"(sp)? Seriously?
Coerced? Serioulsy?
-
Sorry should be snivel serpent, yes intimated to both that they should apply if they wanted to continue receiving other subsidys
-
Fleecewife, can I ask what scheme you applied for your hedging under?
It is just that under the SFGS you would have gotten 40% (+20% if you are in an LFA. + 20% if you are under 40 - so either 40% or 60% or 80%) and that is of total costs - plants, fencing materials and labour (regardless of whether it was your labour or a contractors). A rough fag packet calculation suggests that a 800m double fenced hedge under the SFGS would attack a grant of somewhere between £5-10k.
I don't doubt for a minute that there have been some pointless / badly planned schemes in that past (which I suspect your example came under) - there possibly still are, but if the example of £8.13 for 800m hedging is from a different scheme then lets not use it to beat the SFGS.
If people think a couple of hours finding out about the guidance and filling in the forms for a grant of £5-10k is too onerous then I think I am in the wrong job!
I just think that it is a (potentially) very good scheme based on my experience with its sister scheme.
Hi Oor Wullie
It was an historic example from back when we had quotas and entitlements, and as I don't do acronyms I can't remember the precise scheme involved. Mr F, my husband who did all the paperwork (and used to work for the old Dept of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food), had to spend a lot of time providing maps, double checking, more forms and so on and SEERAD (about the only non-medical acronym I can cope with) at the time and on behalf of the European Union, or whichever department administered that scheme, had to waste a lot of assessors' time over such a tiny amount.
My point is that grant schemes are extremely costly to administer, and because the Scottish Government has a small budget to share around a lot of areas, then schemes which give them little return, but cost a lot to administer are likely to be replaced. Given the poor uptake to date on the Small Farm Grants Scheme under review we are going to have to make a big input to have our opinions taken into consideration. If we are stuck at this point squabbling amongst ourselves as to what we want, and what individuals find difficult, then there will be no clear message for the Scottish Government so we will be ignored and this scheme is doomed from the start.
There is an opportunity here to get our views heard, both via Rosemary's organisation and individually directly via the consultation document online, but there is a time restriction so can we just get on with it?
-
What is the definition of a Croft and what is the definition of a Smallholding?
I live in the south of Scotland, not traditionally thought of as a crofting area. However, in our local small town, Biggar, we have, running parallel to the High St, North Croft Road and South Croft Road. In the village of Elsrickle, a few miles away, there is clear evidence in the field boundaries that this was once a crofting village, with long strips running down a south-facing slope. I haven't researched this further so don't ask me how widespread this evidence is for crofting throughout Scotland.
A suggestion for the Scottish Government: How about turning the whole of Scotland into Crofting Counties so the Crofting grant system can apply throughout the country?
-
What is the definition of a Croft and what is the definition of a Smallholding?
A suggestion for the Scottish Government: How about turning the whole of Scotland into Crofting Counties so the Crofting grant system can apply throughout the country?
That is indeed a good thought. In fact, it was quietly suggested during the consultaion on the review of crofting legislation.
A croft is a small agricultural unit that is covered by the Crofting legislation. The 1886 Crofting Acts defined the crofting counties as Caithness, Sutherland, Ross and Cromarty, Inverness-shire, Argyll, the Western Isles, Orkney and Shetland, so basically the NW Highlands and Islands. The area was recently expanded to take in Moray and maybe another few small areas - to align the crofting areas with that of Highlands and Islands Enterprise. The reason for the original area was political - the landowners of NE Scotland and Highland Perthshire didn't want included so they lobbied successfully to have the legislation cover only those areas that had been visited by the commissioners charged with drawing up the legislation. So areas that were clearly crofting areas like Arran, NE Scotland and Highland Perthshire were excluded. Remember the purpose of the crofting legislation was to protect tenants in the wake of the Clearances. Some but not all crofts have inbye land plus a share in commion grazing.
However, as you rightly observe, Fleecewife, the structure of lowland agriculture wasn't always as it is today. The same clearances of the Lowlands took place before those in the Highlands - they were less violent, perhaps (only in Galloway was there violent resistance), and there were towns and planned villages for the country folk to move to and to be employed but people were still forcibly cleared off the land in the name of Improvement. If you are interested, there is a very good and accessible book called "The Lowland Clearances - Scotland's Silent Revolution 1760 - 1830"
However, being a croft has advantages and disadvantages, depending on how you look at it. [member=25668]oor wullie[/member] may wish to contribute here. There are responsibilities to being a crofter, broadly, the land must be kept in good condition and not neglected; it must be used for agriculture, horticulture or woodland or "other productive use"; the crofter must live within 32km of the croft. Over the centuries, crofting legislation has been changed and added to - right to buy lead to owner-occupier crofters for example.
I kind of like the idea of extending the crofting legislation to all of Scotland - OneScotland and all that. Folk in Moray etc that have just been included have the option of registering as a croft but I'm not sure if any have. I don't know why that is. However, until the crofting legislation is sorted out and rendered fit for the 21st century, it probably wouldn't be that attractive.
Oops, have to go feed pigs ;D
-
That's really interesting thanks Rosemary.
One immediate drawback I can see from what you have written might be that smallholders may consider there would be a certain loss of their freedom of choice were they to become crofters. I don't know if that is the case, as smallholders are already hemmed in by legislation to an extent, but it does hint that there might be a downside. But from the point of view of making the rules and grants simpler both to administer and to apply for, using an existing set-up would be good.
As I see it, crofting is all about community, but my experience of smallholding is that the opposite is true - we are often seen as the odd ones out in a system of medium and large farms, not fitting into any group, and a bit patronised, as if we are just playing at farming. Are we just playing at farming? Are crofters more dependent on their croft income, or has the emphasis changed there too? It would be interesting to know what proportion of small farmers categorised as smallholders, actually live on the profits from their business.
-
Indeed that could be true, Fleecewife. Depends what you are using your small landholding for, I guess. If it's any of the purposes of crofting - agriculture, horticulture, woodland or otheruseful purpose, then I don't knwo what restrictions they would be. Crofters are fairly imaginative in what they do. And yes, they are terated very seriously and they take themselves very seriously, in the contribution that they make to their communities.
Are we playing at farming? Any more than the huntin', shootin' fishin' landowners play at farming? I don't know. There are good smallholders and poor ones and the same in "big"farms and crofts, although maybe the criteria for emasuring is different. The crofting counties are afflicted with unmanaged and poorly managed crofts.
I think sometimes we choose to be the odd ones out - that's what defines us, maybe. And yet we are governed by the same rules as any other farmer.
My gut feeling would be that most crofters have, if not off croft income, then diversified income say from tourism. Maybe those that farm a number of crofts and make good use of common grazings make their living from farming alone.
Smallholding Scotland is working with the Royal Society of Statisticians to put together a survey of Scottiah smallholders to improve the information about the sector so that there can be more informed discussion about it and maybe more recognition of its worth to Scotland.
-
One of the reasons crofting has been so well supported in the past is that the legal protections given to crofters are the only reason that may communities still exist today. You could argue that the crofting act halted an ethnic cleansing of large parts of the highlands. The interior of Sutherland used to be just as densely populated as any coastal areas 200 years ago but now there are thousands of square km without a single human inhabitant, the same would have happened to most of the remaining areas of habitation if it wasn't for the crofting act.
So yes, Fleecewife, I think that is quite a perceptive observation, crofting tends to be the foundation of many of these communities as opposed to smallholders who have had to carve out a smallholding in areas where most smallholdings/crofts disappeared more than 100 years ago.
As an aside I think it is probably less difficult to carve out a new holding in the non-crofting areas as land is available (even if hard to afford) whereas in the crofting areas most land that is not already a croft belongs to large estates for whom money is no object and their objective is to accumulate land (without people) not to let new people onto the land.
In terms of grants I think there is probably a connection here too. Crofters are usually quite happy to ask for help (both financially from the gov or practically from others in the community - there is usually a feeling to some degree of "we are in this together"). I have met a number of smallholders who are fiercely individualistic and part of their desire to be smallholders is to be able to their reduce reliance on others (whether that is other people, shops, government etc). I knew a smallholder who refused to register for basic payment or even tell the authorities he had pigs (bought them on the black market and killed them himself at home) because he didn't want the government to have information they could use to spy on him!
Very few crofters earn a full time living from their crofts, (nearly) all will have other jobs, sometimes 3 or 4 other jobs but crofting will be an important part of that mix of incomes.
-
What is the definition of a Croft and what is the definition of a Smallholding?
I live in the south of Scotland, not traditionally thought of as a crofting area. However, in our local small town, Biggar, we have, running parallel to the High St, North Croft Road and South Croft Road. In the village of Elsrickle, a few miles away, there is clear evidence in the field boundaries that this was once a crofting village, with long strips running down a south-facing slope. I haven't researched this further so don't ask me how widespread this evidence is for crofting throughout Scotland.
A suggestion for the Scottish Government: How about turning the whole of Scotland into Crofting Counties so the Crofting grant system can apply throughout the country?
I just wanted to add that I live (near Fleecewife) very close to Tinto and there's evidence for crofts all around it and on existing farms round about. Sorry, am more of a history geek than know anything about farming payments!
-
Oh wow, these are difficult questions to answer!
What support would I like? Well for me it has to be based around:
1) Knowledge (e.g. support for animal husbandry or permaculture courses)
2) Support for the wider supply chain (most critically keeping abbatoirs accessible to small producers)
3) Support in reaching local markets
So whilst I'm happy to apply for the standard rural payments grants, I see that purely as levelling the playing field, and would really rather they weren't needed at all. And yes, whilst I'd love funding for a new fence / barn / whatever, I share the concerns already expressed about then having to do things in a certain way to meet grant conditions. Our smallholding is already an exercise in the tail wagging the dog, without making things any worse!
The income bar question is tricky too. If you have an income bar, that excludes most smallholders, who needed to have other income in order to buy the smallholding in the first place. However, if you remove it, does that then mean that the grants go to people who are relatively rich already, and hence don't really need the support, i.e. it is not an enabler?
-
Oh wow, these are difficult questions to answer!
The income bar question is tricky too. If you have an income bar, that excludes most smallholders, who needed to have other income in order to buy the smallholding in the first place. However, if you remove it, does that then mean that the grants go to people who are relatively rich already, and hence don't really need the support, i.e. it is not an enabler?
But why should there only be an income bar on the one grant scheme for smallholders and small farmers? That's about equity and fairness. Nobody asks Mr 1000acre Farmer how much his wife earns, in assessing his access to grant funding for a pellet burner to heat his polytunnels so he can sell strawberries to Sainsburys three weeks earlier.
And can you assess someone's "richness' from their income?
And if the project is sound and meets the scheme's criteria, why shoudl I be excluded because of my income? Surely it's the project that matters?
-
There was going to be a, sort of, income bar on the very richest farmers in the current CAP scheme (a maximum of something like €0.25million that any one farming business could claim per year) but when the EU was negotiating the policy, that was vetoed by.....the UK gov. Nice to know if you have enough land to be making astronomical claims then someone in government will stand up for you...........
-
Fair enough, Rosemary - if 'big' farmers can get grants without having their income assessed, then so should small ones.
Overall, I'd like to see money go to people who otherwise wouldn't be able to afford to do their projects, or worthy projects supporting local food production which wouldn't be viable without support. So, if there's a limited pot of money, I'd rather it didn't go to people who already have pots of their own money (I'm not saying that's you Rosemary!!).
The trouble is, unless you earn a decent wodge to start with, you can't buy the land to get started, so almost by definition, there are very few smallholders who would be 'poor' enough put in a claim!