Last Saturday I was glad to see two letters published in the Independent newspaper. Both were replying to an original letter by Guy Smith, a well-known and vocal farmer from Essex.
Mr Smith's letter was basically saying that although some species of birds have declined on farmland (I think he does accept that they have) others have increased significantly - particularly crows, magpies and raptors.
One of the replies was from another farmer, a Mr Harrison from Northumberland. Mr Smith's letter didn't please Mr Harrison at all and he wrote as follows: 'I cringe with embarrassment at the terrifyingly crass response to this vital issue by my "fellow" farmer, Guy Smith...' and his letter ends thus : 'It is sad that some farmers are defensive of their tragic modern role as a downtrodden link in a chain of huge chemical corporations, ruthless "food" manufacturers, and giant retailers.'.
The second letter was from a Mr Palmer from Nottinghamshire who may or may not be a farmer but is clearly a land owner who knows his birds. Mr Palmer suggests that better care of hedgerows should be required of farmers and that this would replace some of the invertebrate life that has all too often been lost from farmland.
Now you must make your own mind up about the rights and wrongs of the issues discussed. In fact, although I have had many a good-humoured difference of opinion with Guy Smith the point he makes in his letter is not completely off the mark even if it isn't completely on target either. But what I did enjoy was seeing a farmer speaking out so strongly and clearly for nature as Mr Harrison did. If the RSPB had written his letter then we would have been called anti-farmer whereas that is not a criticism that can be levelled at 'fellow' farmers.
Guy Smith is an NFU Communication Spokesman, and I see he was talking at the Suffolk NFU Annual meeting last week on 'Better communication for the NFU and farming.'. I wonder how much Guy Smith had to do with the NFU's response to the consultation on the Natural Environment White Paper.
The NFU's line, unless I have misinterpreted it (so do read it yourself), is that the environment is fine and that the big issue now is food production. I don't expect much environmental sense from the NFU and I don't find much compassion or understanding of wildlife issues in this response. I wonder what Mr Palmer and Mr Harrison would think of it. I wonder what Sooty thinks of it? I wonder what other readers of this blog think of it. I wonder what the average NFU member thinks of it. And I wonder what the public - who pays for the Single Farm Payment and agri-environment payments - might think of it.
The NFU line certainly flies against the Defra line of biodiversity being a top priority and 'getting more from less' so I also wonder what Defra Ministers might make of it.
When the NFU starts from the position that there isn't a problem then there is little common ground with conservationists. Little wonder that our best moments with farmers are working with those farmers who realise that there is a problem and are keen to put biodiversity back into our countryside. They are the farmers who are true farming leaders.
A love of the natural world demonstrates that a person is a cultured inhabitant of planet Earth.
A local permissive footpath has just been closed by a farmer. The village it served loved that footpath but now it has private signs on it. How far away are most farmers from the local community? Not one crop is used locally and the single payment and HLS could be paid to the local community and then back to the farmer so that everyone benefits. I am sure the NFU will love that idea!!
I've not had time to read the NFU document yet but, as you imply Mark, Guy Smith's letter is in fact quite reasonable - he was just making a point. Mr Harrison's response is way over the top.
As conservationists, we see wildlife and the countryside from a particular angle. Farmers, shooters, and others who use the countryside see it from different angles. As Guy Smith says, it's complicated. Confrontation is not the way ahead.
HOLD HARD! - ‘WARE WIRE!
The original article / debate was on the application of insecticide.
Guy Smith comments – not on insecticide - but the results from RSPB findings and offers his “opinion” on increases and decreases of bird species (locally).
So?
Mr Harrison disagrees on the ‘values’ Guy Smith puts on various bird species – what’s wrong with that? – right or wrong? – who’s to say? – it’s his opinion.
Mr Palmer of Hobbocks Ornithologocal Group – he of the “50-acre site” - elsewhere invites volunteers to help out on his 50-acre site:-
• The opportunity -Your chance to become involved in bird survey work, nest record group, breeding bird survey. Also a chance for beginners or experienced bird watchers to gain experience of survey techniques.
• The organisation - Bird study, survey, nest recording, conservation work, habitat improvement.
It’s a bird sanctuary looking for Volunteers!
And the (very) last thing we want in the countryside is wire fences on either side of the hedge for Pete’s sake! Perhaps Mr Palmer should consider keeping his wild birds in cages – they’ll be easier to count?
Then - We end up with Mark (a gentleman with a brain) of the RSPB attempting and failing to divide and conquer!
Farm hedges are primarily for keeping stock in and both stock and people out!
And no doubt - farm hedges are fundamental to Bird Populations
Farmer’s (and they know it) are often judged by the quality of their hedges – clean and trimmed (and safe for passing traffic) versus overgrown hedges and tumbledown stone walls.
Guy Smith’s flat Essex (St Osyth) country is very different from that of Mr Harrison’s Northumbria and both are different again from the Nottingham Bird Sanctuary!
If some kind, thoughtful, reliable, sensible and free public “Farm Fence / Hedge Maintenance Volunteer Organisation” exists perhaps it can contacts the RSPB or The Independent!
Concentrate at the back there! Please!
Quote NFU document "We stressed that managing farming’s influence on the environment must be implemented in such a way that food production and the environment go hand in hand".
Sounds good to me. In the circles I move in everyone is saying that in a few years years time we will need 'wall to wall' food production at any cost. So the fact that the NFU are wanting to include care for the environment in their plans is encouraging for the future.
Redkite. The Campaign for the Farmed Environment is just one ways that the NFU is working to improve the wildlife on farms. How is this a "reactionary and negative view to wildlife and the environment."?
I work hard with my local RSPB advisor's to enhance the wildlife on my farm, but the constant kicking the industry gets from Mr Avery does not aid these local advisor's to get onto other farms. FACT.
Guy Smith's argument is the same as made for forestry in the past - and it was as cringeworthy as Mr Harrison finds it for farming - and he has hit the nail firmly on the head.
Everyone is friends these days (unless you're on housing benefit or out of work, or live in the Chilterns on the route of HS2) and we are meant to exist in a sort of rosy glow. No doubt the Government will try and run the Environment White Paper on the same basis, sharing out goodies and pain on a traditional sectoral basis - it is just lucky RSPB can shout loud enough to be heard over the NFU clamour.
But in reality there are sharp issues here and, in particular, it is time we realised we must make more value judgements and not just allow outdated policies - the basis for agriculture has little to do with CAP, it stretches back to the 1947 agriculture act - and technological change to drive what happens.
The key is do you maximise a single product - as agriculture have done and NFU advocates - or do you try and optimise land use to produce a range of goods including biodiversity, as forestry (the Forestry Commission, at least) has been trying to do over the past 20 years ? The question is suddenly much more urgent as issues like flooding & water supply, renewable energy and human health & quality of life rocket up the agenda.