WITH the major retail multiples jockeying for market share, farmers
have been given a stark reminder, if any was needed, that they face an
increased concentration of buying power for their products.
Obviously, one way of countering that threat is to set about creating
fewer, stronger sellers through a collective approach to marketing.
Another is for producers to make sure that they supply, regularly and
consistently, precisely what food buyers look for nowadays in terms of
quality and other assurance guarantees.
Fortunately, Scotland has managed to keep one step ahead of its
competitors thanks to the pioneering farm assurance schemes and current
moves to establish a single quality market for Scottish food and drink
products.
But much still has to be done to persuade even more farmers,
processors, and retailers to back these initiatives wholeheartedly -- in
their own interests, if nothing else.
The need for concerted action becomes even more imperative if farmers
pause to consider the rapid changes taking place in the whole structure
of the food market -- from the break-up of the long-established
marketing boards for milk and potatoes to the loss of the only
independent Scottish supermarket group, about which much has already
been said and written.
Incidentally, the column inches and editorial comment devoted to the
Wm Low takeover in the past week or two (particularly the possible
threat to Scottish suppliers), says much for the efforts the industry
has been making to heighten its already solid reputation for quality --
and the impact this has had on the public.
But sentiment, and high marks for effort, on their own count for
nothing in the retail jungle out there.
Mr Andrew Howie, chairman-designate of Scottish Milk (the successor to
the Scottish Milk Marketing Board), has said that farmers' loyalty is no
thicker than a 10 pence piece. No doubt much the same is true of
hard-nosed supermarket buyers and today's discerning consumer.
So primary producers would do well to listen to the advice of their
leaders.
Mr John Ross, president of the Scottish National Farmers' Union, urges
a positive approach to the changes in the retail sector, which he
believes could open up wider outlets for Scottish produce. However, he
acknowledges that producers must strengthen their own clout in the
market place, so far as that is possible in a fragmented industry like
agriculture.
A similar message comes from Mr Edward Rainy Brown, chief executive of
Scotland's farm and rural co-operative organisation, SAOS.
He emphasises that the ''Scottish Quality'' opportunity is a real one
and that there is no need to be despondent about the future -- provided
farmers succeed in consolidating and expanding their marketing base by
further co-operation and structural adjustment to their businesses.
Equally important, I would have thought, is for producers to realise
that if the collective approach is to succeed, then a good starting
point would be to give their total loyalty to the many already sound
co-ops and marketing groups already operating on the ground.
It is easy to support the local co-operative when the going gets
tough, much harder to stick with its disciplines in a ''fair weather''
market.
The history of group marketing in agriculture is littered with
examples of farmers turning their backs on their co-ops when they see
the opportunity to make a quick killing elsewhere.
Full marks to the farmers and business community in the West Highlands
for the way they persevered, sometimes against fierce opposition, in
raising the new #1m Oban mart from the ashes of the old. But the hard
part begins now. The loyalty of local livestock producers to this
co-operative venture will be tested. Rival operators will not sit back
content to offer only token competition.
The dedication and determination that has secured the new Oban
Livestock Centre (to give it its posh name) should serve as an example
to all those dairy farmers and potato growers still swithering about
where their loyalty lies in the uncertain future facing these two key
sectors of Scottish agriculture.
Both the milk boards, and the Potato Marketing Board, are victims of
doctrinaire Government policies, as well as other industry interests
which can see advantages in weakening the producers' bargaining
position. However, it also has to be said that some farmers have been
only too eager to do down their own organisations.
For those who have yet to commit themselves, decision time has
arrived. De-regulation of the milk market is now less than three months
away, and we are told that so far 1851 producers have signed up to
supply their own co-op, Scottish Milk. But that still leaves up to 400,
some of whom have contracted with private dairies while others have
still to make up their minds.
Sales of milk on behalf of the co-op's members got off to a good start
last week, and in Mr Howie's words producers must realise ''they may
never have another opportunity to join and run their own strong
organisation'' able to negotiate on their behalf from a position of
collective strength.
In the case of the potato marketing scheme and the PMB, their
opponents have mounted a vigorous campaign to have the whole shooting
match wound up immediately -- rather than continuing with the three-year
orderly transition to a free market, proposed by the Government and
backed by most industry leaders.
The issue will now be decided by a poll of registered growers, with
Friday of this week the last day for returning voting papers. Is it too
much to hope that -- whatever decision is taken in the ballot -- it will
be based on what is in the best interests of a major segment of the
British food industry, rather than narrow sectoral self-interest?
Surely the lesson should be clear by now that a weak and fragmented
market for any food commodity plays into the hands of our competitors.
Which is why they've long envied the UK marketing structure and vowed to
weaken it at any and every opportunity.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article