open i

The British government appears to recognize perhaps reluctantly that the degradation of the urban environment is linked to deprived economic conditions. The hope is that it will realize this applies in the countryside too.(600 Words)

The government's attempt to manage the press through the timing of its news releases is legendary and has, of course, been subject to its fair share of ink in recent months. Friday afternoons are the most favoured time, soon after the scribes of Fleet Street have migrated to their favoured watering holes.

The timing of what should be interpreted as a rather rare "good news for farmers" DEFRA news release just before the Christmas break was, therefore, unfortunate. The gentlemen of the press had no doubt left to scrummage in Oxford Street.

The news released promised £140 million for "tackling the blight of litter, graffiti and abandoned vehicles, improving local air quality and cutting noise nuisance." None of these, thankfully, is yet a serious countryside problem and, therefore, the release seemed out of place for DEFRA.

The good news is that having understood this link in an urban environment, it is just possible that DEFRA will begin to appreciate its relevance in the countryside.

Self interest has always been a most effective motivator for sustaining the agricultural environment. Farmers have been using the countryside for hundreds, and even thousands, of years without degradation of its productivity. By way of contrast large areas of urban development continue to be blighted in a matter of decades.

Any abuse of farm land has implication for future generations. And with advances in scientific knowledge there is improved understanding of what threatens productivity. Indeed sustainability has for many years been the corner stone of agronomic practice, even if this particular label has only recently been coined by others.

The new challenge for farmers, however, is that they are not doing this job just for themselves, but also for others who have objectives as diverse as 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 not only conflict with each other but more importantly with farmers'' interest in the long term productivity of their land resource.

The success of these third party interests has resulted in the natural incentive for farmers to care being eroded by regulations and programmes which provide immediate penalties and monetary incentives. This prostitution is doomed to failure as it panders to short term and narrow interests.

The most effective environmental programme is surely one that provides us with confidence in the future. If a positive vision for farming in the future can be sustained, we will surely conserve for it and leave the land in good heart. This is understood by DEFRA in an urban setting. The hope is that the penny will drop that the same holds for the countryside.

It will then perhaps be recognized that squeezing farmers in the interest of pandering to environmental lobbies is counter productive.

While we continue to be treated with distain by government, we, like our urban counterparts, will have neither the resources for essential environmental maintenance, nor the inclination to be as caring of the environment as we have in the past.

January 11, 2002