That helping farmland wildlife is important......That level of consensus can’t happen too often. The results of a ‘Voluntary Initiative’ survey amongst farmers was recently published. It encouragingly found that 86% of farmers agree that environmental management and wildlife conservation are important parts of their farm management. It seems to have been the season for rural surveys, because another recently publicised survey, this time carried out by the ‘Campaign to protect Rural England’, found that 84% of the general public believe that farmers have a responsibility to look after the landscape and wildlife for future generations. Who says there is little connection between the general public and farming - they seem at least to be on the same wavelength on this topic. If the farmers that manage the countryside and the general public that finances farm support through their taxes agree that looking after the environment is a critical role of modern land managers, you might think it just a short, simple step to making this a reality........and that once struggling farmland wildlife would be well and truly on the road to recovery. Unfortunately, those who ultimately make the decisions on how farm support is spent seem to be less sure. For enough farmers to take the steps that would really make a difference for wildlife, 3 things are essential: first and foremost there needs to be sufficient financial support; secondly, this support needs to be embedded in effective schemes that pay farmers to do the right things; and finally, farmers need clear advice about how to deliver these measures and how much is expected of them. It's safe to say that we are not where we need to be with these yet. Currently, only around 3 to 4% of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) budget is spent on the part of CAP that is about making a real difference for the environment on farmland, namely agri-environmental schemes. We also know that this rather paltry spend is not always as effectively spent as it might be. A report by the European court of auditors into agri-environment schemes found that while there has been progress since the introduction of agri-environment schemes, there were many examples where it was unclear or difficult to measure how payments would benefit stated objectives. For example, the French have spent millions paying their farmers to reduce fertiliser rates on grassland .......to levels above what the farmers would be applying as a matter of course! With the negotiations for the new CAP budget building, let’s hope that some agreement can break out amongst the bureaucrats on the importance of the environment in farming, and we can see more money being spent more effectively on this issue into the future.
Hi Sooty,
It does seem our commitment to the environment does vary with the question being asked! It was encouraging to see the results of the above mentioned survey, but consumer surveys into what are the most important factors in purchasing decisions often have the environment low down the pecking order. For example, I saw a fairly recent industry survey on attitudes to meat purchasing that had price, appearance, ease of cooking, diet/health concerns and origin all above ‘environmental impact’. Maybe people don’t fully understand what is meant by such a term, but I think it does highlight that we often don’t connect the stewardship of landscapes/countryside with the food products we purchase in the shops. There does seem to be increasing interest in ‘food’ and issues around it that may gradually improve understanding toward the real value (or cost) of different foods. The saying ‘we are what we eat’ can be extended to ‘the world is what we eat’.
The small amount of farm support involved in wildlife does put into perspective an often heralded complaint from the agricultural industry that the pendulum has swung too far in favour of the environment, and exemplified by the quote ‘ environmentalist’s cant have it all their own way’ an article I read this morning.
www.fwi.co.uk/.../Trade-offs-required-to-provide-food-security.htm
It is not surprising that farmers and general public agree on wildlife and environment is important, farmers spend more time than any large group of people close to wildlife so are sure to consider it important.General public if asked in the right way would respond favourably as they only spend a pittance on the wildlife on farms contrary to what some analysts twist figures.Fact is a very very small amount of the farm subsidies are involved in wildlife as you pointed out about 3 to 4% which equates to a very small amount from each individual,bet if they had to seriously put there hands in pocket then a different answer forthcoming.