open i

Having recognized the link between the economy and the environment in urban areas, Britain's Department of the Environment Food and Rural Affairs may yet recognize the importance of a thriving farm sector to the countryside.(620 Words)

Britain has been without a minister of agriculture for about six months. It now has a minister of other things and agriculture. Its title, the Department of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA), almost certainly reflects, with the complete omission of agriculture, the higher priority the government places on those other things.

Certainly there has been no improvement for farmers either in terms of administration or any implicit or explicit show of empathy. In particular the perception that money spent on agriculture would be better spent on countryside environment projects persists.

The mainly urban British electorate turning a blind eye to their own middens perceives the environment to be a rural issue. As farmers own and use most of the land beyond towns and cities, they are seen to be responsible for any developments that might be felt to be out of place.

It almost seems that any change and investment is regarded, de facto, to have adverse environmental impact. And hence by keeping farmers on the bread line without means or desire to invest in the future further damage can be prevented.

The reality is, of course, very different. As owners and users of the country side, farmers have a very enviable conservation record. Almost all agricultural land in Britain has been farmed for hundreds, and in some cases for thousands, of years without any loss of its productivity. In contrast large urban areas have been, and continue to be, blighted in a matter of decades.

There is hope, however, that DEFRA may yet get to understand this. In a news release issued rather self consciously just before the Christmas break, it announced a program aimed at "tackling the blight of litter, graffiti and abandoned vehicles," amongst other things.

As these are thankfully urban rather than rural challenges, this seemed strangely out of place for DEFRA. The news release, probably for reasons of political correctness, did not specify this as an urban program but supporting documentation did.

Further the program is aimed at "deprived communities" with improving the environment being linked with such objectives as giving people a decent chance and better quality of life. It recognized that providing people with resources to tackle their environment and as importantly a vision for its future was important.

It has, of course, been just this that has in the past provided farmers with an incentive to sustain the countryside environment and the productivity of their land resource. When there was confidence in, and a clear vision for, the future together with cash flow for environment enhancing maintenance and investment, care was taken to conserve for future generations and to "leave the land in good heart."

Currently DEFRA's environmental programs appear to be aimed at addressing the concerns of a multitude of special interest lobbies whose objectives include 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 and, more importantly with farmers' interest in the long term productivity of their land resource.

Spending money on clearing up litter, cleaning off graffiti and disposing of abandoned cars achieves nothing, if once the money is spent there is not a better vision for the future. DEFRA appears to recognize this for the urban environment. The hope is it will soon recognize that the same principle applies in the countryside and that squeezing agriculture is counter productive in terms of its environmental priority.

January 14, 2002