Examination of Witnesses (Questions 260
- 279)
TUESDAY 6 JUNE 2000
SIR EDWARD
GREENWELL, DR
ALAN WOODS,
MR RICHARD
WATSON-JONES
AND MR
ANDREW CLARK
260. I was talking more specifically about what
you are doing to assist your members.
(Dr Woods) We are assisting our members by making
the schemes more widely available to them, by promoting them and
making sure they are relevant to biodiversity. We have promoted
quite actively the Farm Biodiversity Action Plans that have been
prepared, a service provided by the Farming and Wildlife Advisory
Group. We do that through our magazine, which goes out to all
our members, and of course, we provide an immense amount of individual
advice to members on how they can get involved in agri-environment
schemes, how they can work with English Nature and the Countryside
Council for Wales on SSSIs and other sites, and indeed how they
can promote biodiversity in the wider countryside.
261. Is there anything further that the NFU
would like to draw to our attention in terms of assistance?
(Mr Watson-Jones) We have launched a new campaign
of work on the back of our document "Farming For Britain—Our
Contract With Society". On May 26th we called a number of
organisations together to discuss our "Waterwise" campaign.
It highlights to all sectors of the industry, not just farmers,
but the Environment Agency, the RSPB, and other environmental
groups, the importance of water to farming, but also to the environment.
What we want to do is to try and encourage the uptake of water
auditing on-farm to ensure the responsible use by farmers of that
important resource. We also recognise that it is an important
resource for farming as well as being an important resource for
the environment too. We have just started that initiative and
we hope that at the end of the summer period we will be able to
find ways of getting more uptake of water auditing on farms by
farmers, which recognise water as an important resource, both
to them and to the environment.
Mrs Dunwoody
262. Do you give them a template? It is no use
saying, "Do this." Do you give them a template and say,
"That is how you do it"?
(Mr Watson-Jones) There is a lot of work going on
with water auditing and water usage by a number of different organisations,
and what we are trying to do is act as the catalyst, the facilitator,
if you like, to draw those organisations together, to try and
find out what work is being done with respect to auditing and
monitoring, so that we can get one way in which to approach that
for farmers, to the benefit of the environment. We have just started
to draw that together. What we need at the end is something that
is deliverable and efficient, which encourages farmers and farming
to actually uptake that resource.
263. Catalysts start a process; they do not
usually finish it.
(Mr Watson-Jones) We intend to finish it. That is
part of our commitment, our contract with society. That is a statement
of something we will deliver, and it is down in writing, and it
is something we intend to follow through.
Mr Brake
264. Presumably it is voluntary.
(Mr Watson-Jones) Yes, it is voluntary, but there
is a requirement on all of us to have a responsible outlook to
what we do with water and how we as farmers utilise that resource.
That is what we intend to do.
Mr Olner
265. I am aware that you are both representing
national organisations. Do farmers not look at these things as
added regulation and an added burden to what they have to do?
(Mr Watson-Jones) In some respects, their initial
knee-jerk reaction is yes, they are concerned about added regulation,
particularly in the difficult climate in which we are finding
ourselves in agriculture. What we want to do is to try and turn
it to the positive for farmers, to say, "Look, you have a
resource here which you can use more economically", and if
we work together with other organisations, we can have one set
of protocols and one set of standards which we can all accommodate
and have a part in influencing, because if we carry on as we are,
we are in danger of not utilising the resource efficiently, and
we are in danger of looking for reduction of use of that resource
unless we pull together and find ways in which to approach that.
This is the first step in drawing together the environmental aspects
and the requirements for farming, so that we can find one common
cause.
Mr Gray
266. Can I just be devil's advocate for a second?
You both portray yourselves as champions of biodiversity and environment.
The Country Landowners Association mentions in passing the subject
of field sports. Surely this is just arguing the case for field
sports. You are saying that helps biodiversity. What in your view
would happen to biodiversity in the countryside if either hunting
or shooting were abolished?
(Sir Edward Greenwell) On hunting, my personal view
is that the effect would not be all that great on biodiversity.
In certain parts of the country there is obviously a considerable
degree of "leaving things wild" because hunting exists
in the area and people are committed to it. Shooting is rather
more widespread up and down the country, and I suspect that the
implications there would be quite considerable on biodiversity.
A lot of farmers are involved in shooting just privately, non-commercially,
and they leave things there, be it hedgerows, bits of wetland,
bits of woodland, simply because they like to see the wildlife
that comes from it and the field sports that come from it. That
is why I used the phrase earlier—a little bit of "happy
coincidence" sometimes. That may be particularly so on the
heather uplands, where the field sports purpose, which is to produce
a harvestable quantity of grouse, happens happily to produce a
great deal of other environmental gain at the same time.
(Dr Woods) Can I back that up with some statistics,
Chairman? Something like 20 per cent of UK estuaries are owned
and managed by wildfowling clubs, and 90 per cent of those are
designated as of conservation importance.
Mrs Dunwoody
267. That is not very high, is it?
(Dr Woods) It is a substantial area.
268. Ninety per cent of 20 per cent? We are
not talking about a great area, are we?
(Dr Woods) If I may finish the point, Chairman, a
quarter of upland Britain and 80 per cent of small woods in England,
are managed for game, and angling clubs and river associations
have an incredible role in maintaining rivers for wildlife and
for angling. No-one would say that field sports are responsible
for all wildlife management in the countryside. That would be
nonsense. I am simply trying to make the point that it is a substantial
role, and an important one.
Mr Gray
269. Sticking with the devil's advocate role,
farmers say "We are the champions of biodiversity and we
support the switch to agri-monetary schemes, agri-environmental
payment schemes." Surely all this means is "We think
this is a jolly good way of getting more money than we get through
production subsidy."
(Mr Watson-Jones) Can I refute that. Can I firstly
say that I think farmers recognise that they do have a responsibility
to the environment on their farms and farm businesses. After all,
that is where we work and where we live as well as try and make
a living. Whilst on the one hand there is a drive for a global
marketplace and for competitive farming and agriculture, on the
other hand there is a recognition by farmers of what happens in
the environment and the impact that they can have on environmental
matters. I think it is important that they do keep in balance
and the one does not overtake the other. There is a great deal
farmers can do and are doing to try and enhance the environment
whilst trying to remain competitive in a global marketplace.
270. So there should be more modulation, more
money shifted?
(Mr Watson-Jones) What I would not like to see is
too big a shift too quickly. We are in an absolutely critical
crisis at this moment in time. We have in position a movement
from 2.5 per cent to 4.5 per cent by 2006, and I do not think
we should run before we can walk. Farming and farmers are in a
business which is a long-term business, and not a tap you can
switch on and switch off. I think the important factor is that
we all move at a pace at which we can make change which is going
to be lasting change, and not just be a snapshot.
271. Do you not think that if this switch goes
on, ultimately that will lead to a reduction in the sum total
of money which goes to farming? In other words, giving Chancellors
in Budget after Budget after Budget the opportunity to reduce
the amount of money which goes into farming?
(Mr Clark) No. We think there will be a gradual, phased
transition of payments from straight commodity support, direct
payments, over towards public goods, and the environment is included
within that. However, I think there are two points you have to
make, as my Vice President has already said. It is important that
we go at a pace that farmers can cope with. They have to accommodate
it into their farm management and they have to have the attitude
and the awareness to be able to accommodate that sort of concern.
Secondly, we have to recognise that there is a major challenge
for government authorities, particularly organisations like MAFF,
who actually have to run these agri-environment schemes. It is
a significant commitment, monitoring and administering these schemes.
If we saw a very rapid transition, we are concerned that MAFF
would not be able to cope. What we do not want to do is to go
back to the situation we had a couple of years ago, where farmers
were applying for schemes, they were getting poor service, applications
were being turned down, and farmers were put off applying for
the schemes and participating. What we would like to see is a
phased transition that everybody can cope with.
(Dr Woods) I would put the last point in a slightly
different way. This year in France the French Government is negotiating
50,000 land management contracts with farmers. In the UK MAFF
saying they are going to be hard-pressed to deliver 3,000, albeit
the ones in France are less complicated than ours. It is very
important that we make sure that the resources are there to run
these schemes, to do them properly and to expand them as rapidly
as possible.
Chairman
272. That is slightly conflicting, is it not?
The NFU is saying go slowly; you are saying come up with the money
and go faster.
(Dr Woods) I would be very concerned if our rate of
progress in improving land management for environmental purposes
was constrained simply by the lack of executive officers in the
Ministry to run the schemes. Of course, they are not just executive
officers; they need to be people who understand the countryside,
wildlife management, and landscape management.
Mrs Dunwoody
273. So would the CLA accept the rigid system
of agricultural controls that there are with the chambers specifically
geared towards this in the French system?
(Dr Woods) We would actually like to see some form
of agri-environment scheme that could be put on one piece of paper,
where there are a range of commitments entered into which are
pretty simple, but which could be widely and quickly rolled out
over very many farms, with a very limited amount of monitoring
and administration. That would help to improve environmental standards
and practices a lot more rapidly over a larger area.
(Sir Edward Greenwell) One of the weaknesses we would
say at present is that agri-environment schemes do tend to concentrate
on the best environmental habitat. There is obviously a reason
for that, but really we want to spread schemes across all the
more disadvantaged environmental areas where there is just perhaps
more wall-to-wall farming than in the areas where the money tends
to go now. It is quite important that we do not simply concentrate
the money on the areas which are already the most blessed, and
that we try to improve biodiversity elsewhere.
Mr Gray
274. One last quick question on money, if I
may. Surely the best possible way to improve biodiversity in the
UK would be to cut down the amount of fertilizers used, and the
best way to do that is by imposing a fertilizers tax. Is that
not the case?
(Sir Edward Greenwell) One of the main consequences
of that would be to raise the cost of our production, and one
of the great difficulties we are already having is competing internationally.
As the CAP develops in the expected way, we are going to be facing
more and more competition internationally, so simply increasing
the cost of what we produce would be the final nail in the coffin.
Mr Blunt
275. Can I go on to the issue of voluntary initiatives
and conserving and protecting biodiversity. What evidence do you
have of the success of such voluntary initiatives rather than
statutory schemes in encouraging biodiversity?
(Sir Edward Greenwell) The schemes that are best known
at the moment are the ESAs and Countryside Stewardship. You will
be seeing MAFF, I believe, but they have done cost-benefit analyses
on these, and some of the figures, particularly in relation to
the ESA schemes, have been very considerable, and the benefit-cost
ratios have been extremely favourable. The merit of those schemes,
of course, is that they depend on and build on farmers' individual,
voluntary actions rather than requiring them to do things, and
they go with the grain, and therefore you get more for your money
by asking people to do something which they are already inclined
towards rather than simply regulating and requiring things of
them.
(Mr Watson-Jones) We prefer the voluntary approach.
If I could just give an example of my own business, some time
ago we joined the Farm Woodland Premium Scheme and the Woodland
Grant Scheme, and yet my business is primarily involved in agriculture
which is not supportive. It is the potato sector, the horticultural
sector. Yet I have a responsibility and a requirement within my
own business, I believe, to provide biodiversity and to be involved
in environmental matters, and we have demonstrated that. But I
think with the spirit of cooperation and the spirit of encouragement,
we should follow the voluntary approach at a rate of speed and
advancement which farmers are comfortable with and will get involved
with rather than the regulatory approach.
276. You have given us some statistics, Dr Woods,
on the involvement of field sports, which you regard as a voluntary
contribution to biodiversity. The Countryside Alliance have produced
a figure of £6.2 billion as the annual investment in field
sports in the UK. Is that a figure you recognise?
(Dr Woods) I have not got that specific figure in
front of me, but, yes, I think it would come to that.
277. You accept that that is the scale of voluntary
investment in the countryside and by extension biodiversity by
field sports?
(Dr Woods) Yes, I think so.
278. Therefore, when people say that wildlife
sites should be given statutory status, what is your answer to
that?
(Dr Woods) Our answer is that there is no need for
that to be done, and no added value would come to it for conservation
or farming.
279. Why would it not secure better protection
for those sites than they have already?
(Dr Woods) Those sites are being effectively protected
by voluntary initiatives, and if incentives are needed to improve
the management of those sites, those are available generally through
the Countryside Stewardship Scheme, Environmentally Sensitive
Areas, SSSI management agreements or in other ways.
(Sir Edward Greenwell) Over the last 20 years or so
there has been a highly successful effort to bring farmers on
board with the idea that they are delivering public goods in the
form of environment, not just agriculture. To suddenly place everything
under a statutory heading would jeopardise that commitment, and
the hearts and minds that have been won would be lost.
|
