open i

With farm poverty and the absence of government interest in meaningful rural environmental investment, a new order of landed gentry may be needed to conserve the countryside. (1,050 words)

The publication of the Report of the Policy Commission on the Future of Farming and Food in January did not provide much comfort for British agriculture. The very muted response to it almost certainly reflects the demoralized state of the industry. Farmers' probably collectively realize that its emphasis on the environment rather than their well being accurately reflects political reality.

Society has visions for the countryside and has expectations for farmers to deliver it without cost. It matters not that the concept of free admission theme park approach to the countryside is flawed.

The relatively recent interest of society in the environment is a natural and positive result of affluence. One only has to compare developing and developed economies, high and low income neighbourhoods and the urban landscape in the nineteenth and twenty-first centuries to come to this conclusion.

If one is striving to feed, clothe and protect oneself and family, concern about the environment is very distant. Surely such middle order priorities as social justice, health and education follow soon after the essentials have been taken care of. And beyond these societies can turn their attentions to recreation, the environment and such.

The same holds for individuals. The legendry environmental interest of the affluent landed gentry in the eighteenth century are evident today in the landscapes they created, currently being recycled as theme parks, golf courses and convention centres. Comparison between the countryside in the 1930's and the 1970's also provides an equally vivid illustration of farming priorities; in the former survival and the latter enhancement of the countryside.

For farmers the first environmental priority is the conservation of productivity. Aesthetic considerations follow as farmers live their lives on their farms and pride in ownership becomes an important motivator.

With this motivation, the means to invest and a positive vision of the future, appreciating benefits are anything but instant, farmers have shaped and preserved Britain's countryside for centuries and in some cases millenniums. In contrast much of Britain's urban landscape has been laid waste in a matter of decades.

The challenge for farmers, however, is that the countryside visions of urban folk are different from those of farmers and indeed these urban visions themselves are very diverse. Some are interested in rare and interesting wildlife, some in romantic vistas, some in traditional crafts and foods, some in the pristine or tranquillity, and others simply in somewhere to exercise their dog.

A farmer's business is to produce wholesome food and to conserve the resources needed to do this. There is no basis for society to expect farmers to go beyond this and provide anything from wild life sanctuaries to dog runs. They may, of course, choose to do so, if they represent a viable diversification opportunity or they have the resources to indulge in non productive activity.

The Catch 22 for farmers is that the kind of countryside that most urban people want is one that looks prosperous. But if it looks prosperous they question the need for government support.

The challenge that the British government now faces is its political imperative to reduce the cost of supporting agriculture, while at the same time sustaining, for its urban electorate, the countryside environment which is in essence the product of prosperity. Paradoxically it is the resentment of this apparent prosperity in the past, seen to be created at government expense, that is the political motivation.

A further challenge for the government is that it is attempting to do this at a time of undeniable farming poverty, a time when the cash flow for private environmental maintenance has dried up and, as importantly, the visions for the future have been eroded. The chosen strategy is to divert funds which would otherwise be spent rewarding economic activity to paying for politically determined environmental objectives.

As farmers are to be compensated under these programmes, specific requirements will need to be carefully defined. Whether these requirements can be established with sensitivity for a wide variety of environmental needs is open to question. At best they will be defined in terms of the status quo, at worst by urban and probably romantic perceptions. And the cost of administering such programmes will be a significant burden.

Any flexibility in terms of compromise between productivity and conservation is likely to be lost. The danger is that farming will tend to be frozen in time, exactly when farmers are being urged to be more competitive and innovative.

Sustaining the environment will implicitly be segregated from farming in the minds of farmers. Longer term conservational considerations will be lost as farmers adjust their practices to meet the immediate requirements of government programmes.

Another challenge arises from the changing structure of agriculture. In recent years the ownership of land has increasingly been split from operational aspects. Farming is a capital intensive activity. By separating real estate ownership from operation, as is common elsewhere in the economy, it is possible for people to enter the industry with relatively little capital.

In terms of the environment, however, this creates a challenge as operational concerns in conservation are lost with reduced security. And as government environmental programmes target owners, operators are only indirectly implicated.

In essence paying farmers to conserve the environment prostitutes the issue. It is like paying people to pick up litter. It provides very immediate results but has little lasting effect unless perpetuated, in which case the incentive to bin the litter is destroyed.

The best hope for the environmental future of the countryside under the government's current vision, probably arises from subtle changes in land ownership. Fully a quarter of all land sales are reported to be amenity buyers, people buying for other than agriculture purposes. This phenomenon is the product of relative affluence of the rest of the economy.

These new owners, refugees from the urban environment, probably have the resources and the desire to preserve the countryside. This new order of landed gentry may yet be able to achieve lasting environmental benefits in the manner of their nineteenth century predecessors. They may provide the investment that the government seems reluctant to make.

March 19, 2002