open i

The British government needs to recognize that economic depredation is as important for sustaining the environment in countryside as it is in urban areas.(1,030 Words)

The last news release slipped out just before the Christmas break by the DEFRA, the successor to the old British agriculture ministry, promised to tackle "the blight of litter, graffiti and abandoned vehicles" in deprived communities.

This seemed out of character for DEFRA as these have to date been mainly urban rather than rural challenges. The news release, probably in the interest of political correctness, failed to identify that the programme was aimed at urban communities, although this was made clear in supporting documentation.

It highlighted, however, the reality that environmental degradation is far more serious in urban areas than in the countryside even if politically the environment is considered a rural issue. This was very evident when it was included in the new Department of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs(DEFRA) formed last June.

It was further evident in the first drafting of the ministries aims and objectives which reflected the drafters' inclination to overlook their own middens. In truth this was corrected to some degree following a process of public consultation.

The question remains, however, as to why the countryside should be the butt of environmental concerns. In an historic perspective farming has been using the countryside for hundreds, and some instances thousands, of years without degradation of its productivity. In contrast large areas of urban development continue to be blighted in a matter of decades.

Significantly both the pre Christmas news release and DEFRA's aims and objectives link economic depredation with environmental conditions. When financial situations are tight, those clean up maintenance activities tend to go by the board. And further familiarity with less than pristine environment tends to result in acceptance of it.

Environmental pressures are undeniably greater and the consequences more evident in urban areas than in the countryside, but those faced with it soon learn to accept it, particularly when it is a steady and continuous process. Rural folk are probably no different in this.

Another matter rural and urban dwellers have in common is that, as they infrequently visit each others backyards, they are disturbed by what they find when they do. Just as central London is not as grand as depicted in travel brochures, the countryside is not as set in time as depicted in printed and media drama.

And it is probably no more constructive to suggest that skylark populations should be increased in rural areas than traffic congestion should be reduced in city centres. Both are the consequence of economic developments which have resulted in significant gains in individual welfare, the sacrifice of which would not be acceptable. What is needed is a better understanding of environmental influences.

For farmers who own and use most of the countryside and whose activity society views as critical, this is particularly important.

For a start it needs to be understood that self interest has been a prime motivator for farmers in their past success in sustaining their environment. Any abuse of farm land today has implication for productivity tomorrow. And with advances in scientific knowledge there is improved understanding of what threatens productivity. Indeed sustainability has for many years been something that has always been the corner stone of agronomic practice, even if this particular label has only relatively recently been coined.

Their new challenge, however, is that they are not doing this job just for themselves, but also for a largely urban population. And there is a variety of opinion on what to expect.

Environment to other than farmers may mean the preservation of bio diversity, of specific interesting or rare species, of romantic visual aspects, of traditional cultural practices and food products, and even of the pristine. Some of these objectives may conflict with each other and, more importantly with farmers' interest in the long term productivity of their land resource.

Most of these environmental slants are actively promoted by lobby interests and the continued buzz that this creates is mixed with the hum of consumer concerns about food safety and health, animal welfare and anti-capital visions of global commerce. This is music to the ears of a government that recognizes there are more votes in them than in farming. But it is aggravating distraction for agriculture attempting to make sense of societies expectations.

In reality the government's agriculturally related environmental programmes are driven more by what the European Union expects and funds than the diverse and sometimes conflicting requests of more local environmental lobbies.

If this was not enough, it is often not really clear at least to government what, or rather who, are farmers and, therefore, wearers of the mantle of custodians of the environment.

A recent headline "Minister admits ignoring tenant farms," referring to comments by Margaret Beckett, minister of the new department of agriculture and other related matters including the environment, was even more revealing than most people including Ms Beckett might suppose. While Ms. Beckett has generally received credit for appreciating that not all farmers owned the land they farmed, it is apparent that she has some way to go to understand the increasing diversity and complexity of agriculture land tenure.

With profit margins under extreme pressure tenure arrangements are increasingly driven by short term survival objectives. As farmers' natural tendency to conserve relates to long term productivity which is only evident when there is security of tenure to provide for the payback or conversely to penalize, so the natural incentive to conserve is being eroded.

The natural incentive is, of course, being replaced by a variety of politically motivated environmental regulations and programmes which generally provide immediate monetary incentives and penalties. This prostitution is deemed to failure as panders to short term and narrow lobby interests.

The most effective environmental programme is one that provides farmers with confidence in the future. If they have a positive vision for their farming activity, they will surely conserve for it. While they continue to be treated with distain by government, they will neither have the resources for essential continuing environmental maintenance nor the inclination to undertake it.

January 7, 2002