Examination of Witnesses (Questions 574
- 579)
WEDNESDAY 6 MARCH 2002
MR NICK
BARRETT, MS
JACQUETTA FEWSTER,
MR GRAHAM
WYNNE AND
MS VICKI
SWALES
Chairman
574. Good morning. From the Ramblers' Association,
we have Mr Barrett, who is Chief Executive, and Jacquetta Fewster,
who is Head of Footpaths Campaigns. From the RSPB, we have Mr
Wynne, who is the Chief Executive, and Vicki Swales, who is the
Head of Agriculture Policy. Paddy Tipping has notified the Committee
that he is a Vice President of the Ramblers' Association. He wants
that declaration of interest on the record. We are looking basically
at how agriculture will earn a living in a world which is much
less secure, both in terms of more exposure to the marketplace
and on the concomitant removal of some of the support with which
it has become traditionally associated. I would be grateful if,
in answering the questions, you could, as far as possible, direct
your answers to that constructive view of what the role of agriculture
is. Could I start by asking you this. A lot of the environmental
schemes we have seen up to now are based on income foregone, so
are not in a sense intended to be earners as such with compensatory
schemes. Sometimes one gets the impression that some people imagine
that the whole of farming can put food production as a sort of
optional extra, that an entire livelihood is going to be earned
off the exploitation concept, whether environmental assets or
recreational assets. Would you like to tell us: do you think it
possible that environment and recreation can become a substantive
form of income for farmers, and how that would happen? That is
a helpful way into the subject. Where are its limits?
(Mr Wynne) That is an excellent question.
Can the environment pay totally for the farming economy? No. Certainly
the perception of the RSPB would be that reward for good management
of the environment is a legitimate source of income for all farmers
farming anywhere throughout the UK. The extent of that public
support for managing the environment will almost certainly vary
from one part of the UK to another. Some parts are intrinsically
more attractive; they are more attractive in terms of tourism
for people visiting, they are more valuable for biodiveristy,
they have a higher energy value. It seems to us that there is
quite a close correlation between those parts of the country and
in fact those parts of the country which tend to be less productive
in terms of soil type and climate affecting agriculture. In those
parts of the county, it seems to us entirely plausible that a
substantial part of their income could be earned from managing
the environment and providing amenity and in other parts it will
be subsidiary to food or fibre production as the main economic
activity. There seems absolutely no reason why an Essex farmer,
providing the countryside is close to London and utilised by hundreds
of thousands of people and having requirements on the management
of the environment and the environmental needs attached to it,
should not also receive some part of his income from doing those
tasks.
(Mr Barrett) I add that I think one of the things
that we as a nation have learnt from the foot and mouth epidemic
is that an open, welcoming, attractive and well-looked after countryside
is really a key element to a thriving rural economy in the sense
that people come into the countryside because it looks nice, is
well managed and the environment is nurtured, as it were. That
provides scope for a diverse and service-oriented rural economy.
Obviously a countryside that is not devoted to the over-production
of food but one which is also paid to manage access, manage landscape
and manage wildlife would be a more viable economic countryside.
575. We had Don Curry in front of us a little
while ago. His recommendation is for a sort of universally available
bottom-of-the-range scheme. He calls the scheme broad and shallow.
Mr Wynne, I was wondering whether or not when he said that of
course there are different parts of the country which lend themselves
more easily to access and are more obviously cashable in a sense
for farmers, if you envisage some sort of flat, common, universal
scheme or would you prefer trying to get, as it were, the best
bang for the buck through actually trying to focus the schemes
on those parts of the country where the ability to identify cost
and reward was more evident and in that sense inviting farmers
to bid in for schemes perhaps to be able to set some part of price
list? I want to explore that line of argument with you.
(Mr Wynne) The answer is very straightforward: we
think you need both. If I could just refer to the end of your
question, I think you can as readily sort out cost and reward
in the intensively farmed parts of the country as in some of the
less intensive. I agree with the underlying thrust of the question
that if there were a broad and shallow scheme available for all
farmers across the entire country, then there would need to be
additional, higher levels of payment for higher levels of environmental
management and higher levels of amenity provision, if I can put
it that way. I think I would agree that a competitive element
in how and where those are delivered would be a good thing to
ensure efficiency.
(Mr Barrett) The question is about agri-environment
schemes.
576. That is, in your recreational programme.
(Mr Barrett) With the recreational slant on it, we
have thought about this. We can see the sense of the broad and
shallow approach. We can also see the sense of more elite tiers,
maybe in upland areas, for example, where more money is available
for enhanced schemes. We can also see the case for the better
promotion of environmental schemes, special advisers for farmers,
and a huge simplification in the nature of the schemes that are
on offer. Our own experience is that they are fragmented at best
and currently do not offer tremendous value for money, certainly
from a public amenity point of view.
577. The final question from me is: clearly
the CAP is moving in a direction in which there is going to be
more national discretion in the detailed application of certain
general rules and that appears to be the sort of thrust of the
whole of your development programme about modulation really taking
us down in that direction. How wide an echo do the sorts of ideas
you are putting forward find on the Continent? Who are your interlocutors,
your sister organisations, on the Continent? In France do people
use the countryside for anything other than the slaughter of large
quantities of migratory birds? To what extent are we applying
a particular cultural mind set in the UK, as it were, which may
not be transposable and how will those mind sets change and the
attitudes change across the rest of the continent?
(Ms Swales) I think we need to look back to the agri-environment
regulation from where the environment schemes came. This is something
which is applied across Europe within European rules, but you
are quite right of course that here is a great degree of subsidiarity
in terms of how individual Member States decide what schemes they
are going to have. I think the approaches that have been taken
in the UK echo clearly the approaches taken in other European
countries, and we know that from our work with our Bird Life International
partners. In fact a few years ago we did a major review of agri-environment
schemes across Europe. It is true there is a very varied approach
but it is clear that many countries have schemes which pay for
what might be considered broad and shallow measures. Finland particularly
went down that route. But there is also a recognition that there
need to be more specific schemes targeted to biodiveristy, to
special areas, to landscape, et cetera. We have quite a good system
with common rules established at a European level but with a considerable
degree of flexibility to devise programmes which are appropriate
to different Member States and the different habitats and features
found in those countries.
(Mr Wynne) Might I add one point? I absolutely agree
with that. If I can put it like this, I think there is a real
danger of almost UK arrogance in terms of perceiving that the
rest of Europe and the European public is not interested in the
quality of its environment. There is ample evidence right across
Europe, certainly including the Latin countries, where we are
obviously rapidly rubbishing their environmental performance.
Some of the land management initiatives that have been taken by
the Spanish Government at the moment are of the highest order.
It is the case that certainly in southern European countries and
in France the power of the agricultural lobby that is currently
in receipt of public payments is even stronger than it is in this
country, and therefore the resistance to change is there, but
we would observe from working closely, as I say, with colleagues
throughout Europe, and certainly in Germany, that that is beginning
to break down quite rapidly.
Mr Drew
578. Do you worry at all about the new emphasis
on environmental payments inasmuch as you have been committed
to this for decades and are now being seriously listened to and
that seems to be the answer? Is there not a problem that more
does not necessarily mean better?
(Mr Wynne) Forgive me, but I did not understand.
579. What I am saying is that we are trying
to find ways of supporting British agriculture. Environmental
payments in some of the ways in which we can gear in as an alternative
to production subsidies but the people to whom we will be paying
this money have not necessary come naturally to environmental
conservation management. As we move headlong in that direction,
you could end up with a diluted series of environmental measures,
which presumably is not what you want to see?
(Mr Wynne) That is a very interesting question. There
seem to be two parts to it. One: is there a culture from existing
farmers and land managements to deliver on the environment to
the extent that we would like? I would have to say that is very
mixed. Again, I think it would be a very arrogant environmentalist,
however, who would say that there are not hundreds of thousands
of farmers out there who would like to do more for the environment
but do not see a ready and easy way of doing so. I think if you
change the system of public rewards, as I say, we would know thousands
of farmers who would respond very positively indeed. Do I see
a problem of dilution of delivery? No, I do not think I see that.
At the moment I see under-delivery for the environment to such
an extent that I think there is a very serious need for more public
assistance. Part of that is financial and part of it is advice
and help to deliver for the environment.
(Ms Swales) May I add that the important issue we
need to think about in terms of agri-environment schemes and environmental
payments is doing proper monitoring and evaluation of those schemes.
We have a system currently in IACS where direct payments are given
to farmers with relatively little scrutiny1 per cent, 5
per cent, depending on how that money is paid. Clearly we need
to put checks and balances in place with agri-environment payments;
we need to have proper monitoring programmes in place. When that
is carried through, it does demonstrate that there is an appetite
for farmers for these schemes and that we can actually deliver
something very positive for the environment from them.
(Mr Barrett) I was going to add purely anecdotally
that through our membership and coming into contact with the farmers
who have shown an interest in these schemes, they are put off
by the complexity and paperwork that is involved. There is an
argument, as I said before, for a simplification of the schemes
and promotion of advice, as Graham has just mentioned.
|