[Fwd: [diggers350] More Environment less Agri: by Mick Green]
- -------- Original Message --------
Subject: [diggers350] More Environment less Agri: by Mick Green
Date: Tue, 25 May 2004 15:02:41 +0100
More Environment – less Agri: by Mick Green
Published in the latest addition of Ecos [Vol. 25,(2)]
Ecos is the journal of the British Association of Nature Conservation
(references are numbered and listed below article).
Agri-environment schemes are getting promoted as the answer to all our
rural ills, yet they are no more than a subsidy by another name, skewing
land prices and poor value for money in terms of wildlife ‘production’.
We need a new approach to land ownership and the responsibilities that
A walk in the country:
I went for a walk this morning. Down the lane past the nearest farm –
they’re in the organic aid scheme and the Tir Gofal Agri-environment
scheme. They appear to have used the money to buy an even bigger tractor
which must have come in useful when they tore out the hedges. Then
across the main road and up the track. There’s a new stile in the hedge
with a label telling me its paid for out of public money and I’m
graciously allowed access across that field as part of the ‘Tir Gofal’
agri-environment scheme. Trouble is, it doesn’t tell me where the path
goes, but it does warn me it may be closed at times. I follow the old
public footpath on up the hill, climb the gate across the path that’s
been wired closed. Another hedgerow (or what was a hedgerow until it was
flailed so close, and grazed so hard from both sides it became a row of
shrubs) lies in a smoking pile in the field alongside a new wire fence.
Down the lane full of thorns and cuttings from the newly flailed hedge –
ckberries ripened early this year, so the hedges have to be massacred
early as well. Another day in our countryside, looked after by its
custodians. Trouble is, all this ‘looking after’ of the countryside
costs money. But never mind. I get back and there’s the new ECOS on the
mat with suggestions for another scheme to give the custodians more
money in agri-environment payments. (1)
No! Enough! Why should we pay subsidies under the guise of helping the
environment to an industry that has proved incapable of basic
environmental stewardship of the land it controls? The term
‘agri-environment’ says it all – these are agricultural subsidies with a
bit of an environmental gloss to try and make them acceptable. The
proposal for an ‘entry level’ scheme only compounds the problem. Hodge
and Renwick propose that the entry level scheme should involve payments
for ‘basic land stewardship’. Why should public money pay for this? If
the agricultural industry are the custodians of the land they claim to
be should we not assume that their custody extends to a good level of
basic stewardship? Many of the basic requirements of current schemes
involve nothing more than complying with the law and of basic principles
of good practice. Why should we pay for these – I do not get paid for
obeying the speed limit and following the highway code yet it is
expected of me when I exe!
rcise my right to drive (and I am prosecuted if I do not). Landowners
constantly harp on about their ‘rights’ being threatened by those, like
me, separated from the land after centuries of exclusion (2) who dare to
comment on how our money is spent, and yet we hear nothing of the
responsibilities that go with those rights. The early ESA payments,
where farmers only entered the lowest tier, showed little impact on
wildlife (3) and the RSPB have shown that the higher ESA tiers are more
cost effective(4), and yet we still talk about an even lower tier of
payment. In Wales the Tir Gofal scheme is being fast tracked before
there is proof that the prescriptions work and without enough staff time
available to properly assess the needs of the individual holding or
monitor the results. There is little evidence that agri-environment
schemes are effective in delivering more wildlife – despite the millions
spent on them there is little monitoring, and where there is some
ammes are poorly designed and generally ‘inadequate to assess reliably
the effectiveness of the schemes’(5). Political pressure is to get money
to landowners and not to improve the ecological health of the countryside.
Agri-environment has proved an expensive toffee hammer to try and crack
the nut of modern farming and the CAP. It has failed to even start a
change in the overall direction of farming. While intensification
payments were taken eagerly, pastures ploughed, hedges removed and stock
numbers increased, agri –environment payments are taken more grudgingly,
prescriptions are argued over and compliance is poor. A few years ago I
visited a farm in a Welsh agri-environment scheme. Hedges were ‘managed
for wildlife’ which in reality meant they had been double fenced to
protect vegetation in the base of the hedge – the tops were still
flailed. A permissive footpath up to a ‘viewpoint’ had been allowed. And
that was it. The benefit to the environment was little, and yet the
landowner – John Lloyd Jones, then Chair of NFU Wales – thought it was a
great improvement. But the attitude of the farmer – that wildlife is
vermin – had not changed. John was happy to encourage wildlife in his
, but if it dared venture into his closely grazed fields he told me he
would ‘zap it’. While production subsidies were successful in persuading
landowners to extract the maximum from their land, agri-environment
payments have failed to change attitudes to wildlife and to encourage
farming with Nature rather than against it. (By the way – John Lloyd
Jones is now Chair of the Countryside Council for Wales which spends a
lot of its time giving money to landowners)
Agri-environment payments as agricultural subsidies, especially broad
based area payments such as those suggested by Hodge and Renwick, also
add to the false high value of land, continuing the exclusion of those
who would like to sustainably manage land for food production, nature
conservation or whatever. The current proposals in England for
production subsidies to move to a single farm payment based on the area
of the farm will compound this problem – the more land you have the more
money you get and never mind the wildlife. The Welsh approach of
payments based on historic rates (how much land you had and how much
stock) will also make it difficult for new entrants and bias payments to
the more intensive holdings.
Payments for environmental works should be treated as grant not
subsides, and given with the rigour of grant schemes. If a conservation
organisation applies for money for environmental work on a piece of land
it is nearly always in the form of a grant. Usually at a maximum of 50%
it is assessed, fine tuned, subject to rigorous compliance monitoring
and often as not paid in arrears when proof of the work having been done
can be given. If I, as an individual try to apply for money there’s
little chance of getting it unless I happen to own a registered
There should be commitment to ongoing management of the work that
receives public money. With current agri schemes at the end of the
agreement, the landowner can then plough up the pasture, grub out the
wood or whatever.
Some of this may not be possible within the CAP, but we should push the
rules as far as is possible to decouple environmental payments from
agricultural subsidy – it should be seen as payment for environmental
goods, not as an agri-based subsidy scheme. While we are stuck with the
CAP agri-environment payments should at least be far better targeted. In
particular I suggest:
• Strict enforcement of current laws on such things as hedgerow
regulations, SSSIs, pollution etc.
• Payments should be dependent on, and not for, basic good stewardship
of the land. Landowners should demonstrate good stewardship before they
receive any payments.
• Payments should be by results.
• Landowners should be required to work together before receiving
payments in some cases, such as restoring wetlands across ownership
• Schemes should be specific to each site and not based on broad
• Payments should include agreements for maintaining work paid for
beyond the end of an agreement.
• Payments to be available to a wider range of occupiers of the land –
not just those registered as ‘agricultural’.
• Much stricter compliance monitoring.
• Proper research and monitoring programmes to assess the effectiveness
of schemes with the ability to change schemes mid term if they are shown
to be not working.
Longer term we need real reform of land ownership in Britain. There are
currently only about 134,000 landowners in England and Wales(6), and,
encouraged by Government policy, the number is getting less. Less and
less people owning more and more land, receiving more and more subsidy
while presiding over the continuing decline of our wildlife. What we
need is wider land ownership and more community control of land. If more
people could reconnect with the land, reconnecting with Nature, we may
find more support for widespread conservation initiatives. At the very
least we need wider access to ‘our’ land - land that has been paid for
many times over by public subsidy. The ‘right to roam’ legislation was a
start but access to land – real access, to pick the blackberries, swim
in the rivers – is vital if we are to help more people understand Nature
and see both the damage we have done and the healing we can do. Land
reform in Scotland is a start, with communities taking control of !
their own patch. We also see the start in Wales with local people buying
a mountain(7), but there is little sign of encouragement from the
Assembly for such initiatives. In the long term purchase of land would
be a lot cheaper than continuing to subsidise uneconomic farming
practices but there seems to be little political will for anything that
could be labelled ‘nationalisation’.
I have no cunning plan as to how to get from here to there, but here are
some suggestions to start:
• Tax on land. Currently land is one of the few assets untaxed. A tax on
land would reduce the incentive to hold large areas and redress the
imbalance caused by subsidies. A tax free allowance, plus tax credits
for environmental works could be used to encourage smaller land
holdings, sustainable enterprises etc.
• A change in the planning rules for sustainable living on the land.(8)
• Land use change subject to full planning control.
• Purchase of land by public bodies for sustainable agriculture to be
let at rates that do not require intensive exploitation of the land to
make a return – something of a return to the county smallholdings to let
people make a start on the land.
• A proper right to roam giving people access to land everywhere.
• Apply the ‘polluter pays’ principle to agriculture, with a tax on
fertiliser and pesticides to reduce use and pay for clean up of water
We need an end to subsidy for land ownership, and a move to where
payments are only made if Nature benefits, and where the results can be
enjoyed by all those who are paying for it.
Mick Green is a freelance Environmental consultant. He can be contacted
via e-mail at: mick@...
1. Hodge I and Renwick A. 2003. Developing agri-environment schemes –
towards a rural development policy. ECOS 24 (2)
2. See history in Shoard M. 1987 This Land is Our Land – the struggle
for Britain’s Countryside. Paladin.
3. Green M and Orme E. 1992. ESAs – Assessment and Recommendations. FoE.
4. Merricks P. 2003. Agri-environment – some thoughts from the marsh.
ECOS 24 (2)
5. Kleijn D and Sutherland W. 2003. How effective are agi-environment
schemes in conserving and promoting biodiversity? Journal of Applied
Ecology. 40. 947-969.
6. Cahill K, 2003. Plots of Money. Guardian 20/8/03
7. Fazey, D. 2003. Seeing over the hill…. A vision for community land
ownership in Wales. ECOS 24(2)
8. Farlie S. 2003. A place in the country? ECOS 24(2). But note that
PPG7 only applies to England. We need similar reform in the rest of the UK.
9. FoE. 1991. Off the Treadmill – A way forward for Farmers and the
Countryside. FoE London.
Diggers350 - an e-mail discussion/information-share list for campaigners
involved with THE LAND IS OURS landrights network (based in the UK ..web
ref. www.thelandisours.org). The list was originally concerned with the
350th anniversary of The Diggers (& still is concerned with their
history). The Diggers appeared at the end of the English Civil war with
a mission to make the earth 'a common treasury for all'. In the spring
of 1999 there were celebrations to remember the Diggers vision and their
contribution. Find out more about the Diggers and see illustrations at:
Yahoo! Groups Links
Plants for a Future: 7000 useful plants
Web: http://www.pfaf.org/ same as http://www.comp.leeds.ac.uk/pfaf/
Post: 1 Lerryn View, Lerryn, Lostwithiel, Cornwall, PL22 0QJ
Tel: 01208 872 963 / 0845 458 4719
PFAF electronic mailing list http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pfaf