--------------------------------------------
    THE BridgeNews FORUM: Viewpoints on farming,
    farm policy and related agricultural issues.
    --------------------------------------------
 
  * Debate Intensifies Over Public Access
    To Britain's Privately Owned Countryside
 
 
    By David Walker, agricultural economist
    Bridge News
    NORWICH, England--The Queen's Speech outlines the British government's 
legislative agenda at the beginning of each session of parliament. This great 
state occasion is, therefore, subject to considerable scrutiny not only by 
those active in politics, but by the population at large.
 
    With British farmers' incomes in real terms as low as at any time since 
the 1930s, they might have been forgiven for having expectations of special 
consideration when Queen Elizabeth presented the Blair government's plans in 
her speech on Nov. 17. They were no doubt disappointed that the reference to 
farming and the countryside was limited to legislative proposals on the 
''right to roam,'' a phrase coined to cover a variety of issues relating to 
public enjoyment of the countryside.
 
    Their disappointment, however, might have been anticipated. The British 
government's options for addressing the farm income issue in a very direct 
manner are now limited by the European Union's Common Agricultural Policy. 
Farm income prospects are more dependent on the way the wind blows in 
Brussels than in Westminister.
 
    In any event, the two farm-related priorities of the current government 
are food safety and the environment. The food issue was subject to a great 
deal of attention in the previous session of parliament. The right-to-roam 
issue, with its environmental overtones, has been subject to wide-ranging 
public review over the last few years and so the time for action has arrived. 
The opinion polls have also confirmed this.
 
    Legislation is promised to improve access to the open countryside, 
mountain, moor, heath, down and registered common land, ''with clear 
responsibilities and restrictions to respect the rights of landowners and 
managers,'' to modernize rights of way, to enhance protection of the 
environment and to prosecute willful damage, according to the Queen's Speech.
 
    It sounds like a motherhood issue. It is, however, a complex one that has 
wide-ranging implications for the British countryside.
 
    A very high proportion of Britain is privately owned, including wild, 
uncultivated or unpopulated areas and, indeed, most of the national parks. 
Common and Forestry Commission land is only about 5 percent of the total area 
in England. Even some of this is not accessible to the public.
 
     Public access to private lands is generally restricted to roads and a 
network of public footpaths. These footpaths often provide the type of access 
required by those using the countryside for recreation.
 
    They were, however, established in the very distant past for local needs 
-- getting to work, market, church and the like on foot. In today's world, 
many footpaths have limited recreational value and are of considerable 
inconvenience to farmers whose fields they cross. Enforcement of laws 
requiring landowners to maintain footpaths is a particular irritant in places 
where they serve no purpose.
 
    The variety of recreational needs also brings a bewildering array of 
challenges. Are landowners liable for mountaineering accidents in remote 
areas? How do you balance the desire of people to observe wildlife and the 
disturbance this causes? How do you suggest to people that they keep their 
dogs on leashes to protect livestock, when their owners' purpose in venturing 
into the countryside is to allow their pets the opportunity to run wild?
 
    In too many cases hard-line positions have gotten in way of compromise 
and progress. Cases in which landowners have denied access to their property, 
but the public perceived it had the right to it, have spawned activists ready 
to fight every issue and concede nothing. Instances of dogs running wild in 
flocks of sheep have created the perception urban dog owners are unable or 
unwilling to act responsibly.
 
    It is probably no coincidence that this issue has emerged within weeks of 
most of the hereditary peers being relieved of their seats in the House of 
Lords, in the first stage of reform of the British Parliament's upper 
chamber. Many of them are owners of large areas of rural land with an 
interest in the status quo. The Lords, when aroused, were capable of spoiling 
the best of government plans. Indeed, this probably explains why public 
access to the countryside in Britain is more restricted than in many other 
nations.
 
    Some increased provision for public access to the countryside is surely 
accepted by most British landowners. And with poor farm income prospects, 
many may view this as an opportunity for added income.
 
    The carrot, however, would be more effective then the stick. Enforcing 
the law in rural areas is particularly tricky when the law is not welcomed.
 
    To put this in perspective, tales of the sighting of rare species and the 
unusual behavior of wildlife are recounted with pride in country pubs. This 
type of quiet enjoyment has and will continue to be more important for the 
preservation of the countryside than any laws.
 
    But if sharing their knowledge of threatened wildlife is perceived by 
farmers to be a potential liability, because it could result in restrictions 
on the use of the land, landowners' attitudes may change. It is just as easy 
to run a tractor wheel over a bird's nest as to avoid it.
 
    DAVID WALKER, an agricultural economist, lives on his family's farm 
outside Norwich, England. He recently served as senior economist in London 
for the Home-Grown Cereals Authority and previously was executive director of 
the Alberta Grain Commission in Canada. His views are not necessarily those 
of Bridge News, whose ventures include the Internet site http://www.bridge.com/.
 
    OPINION ARTICLES and letters to the editor are welcome. Send submissions 
to Sally Heinemann, editorial director, Bridge News, 3 World Financial 
Center, 200 Vesey St., 28th Floor, New York, N.Y. 10281-1009. You may also 
call (212) 372-7510, fax (212) 372-2707 or send e-mail to opinion@bridge.com.
 
    EDITORS: A color photo of the author is available from KRT Photo Service. 
  End
 
    A COMPLETE SUMMARY of recent opinion articles is available on 
BridgeStation. (Story .5400)
 
[SLUG: BRITAIN-COUNTRYSIDE-ACCESS:BN _ op-ed]