Conservation Bill is objectionable

Conservation Bill is objectionable

In supporting the introduction of the proposed Nature Conservation Bill, Dr Jones of Nethybridge (letter 2 May) makes two points, both of which are justifiable in themselves but neither of which is a reason for the effective nationalisation of land, which is what this Bill amounts to.

First, Dr Jones is quite right to say that the sites covered by conservation designations are “important”. Secondly, it is true that absentee landowners, particularly institutional ones like the Eagle Star insurance company, generally have objectives that are essentially financial and therefore at variance with people-centred, or even wildlife-centred, administration of the countryside.

But neither point amounts to a justification for a takeover by the state of private land, much less a takeover by that outdated monolith, SNH (known to an increasing number of its “customers” as See! No Hedgehogs).

There are two basic objections to this Bill. First, the number of delinquent private resident landowners and managers is tiny by comparison with the total number of residents, most of whom are smallish farmers, crofters or amateur sportsmen who manage their ground successfully and sympathetically. All owners are different. That is what gives Scottish land management its diversity, which is exactly what nature requires.

State management through the agency of SNH would impose a uniform, centralising approach which would be as disastrous in its way as Soviet agriculture was in its way. Both are as outdated as institutional absenteeism ought to be. The future lies with the management of natural diversity through human diversity.

The second point is that “good” management is a matter of taste and fashion. One century it is deer; the next it is capercaillie; next it might be the sand lizard, toads or even the endemic western isles hedgehog (Erinaceus europaeus absurdus). Who knows? The only certain fact about centralised administration of anything is that it is homogenised, and therefore dull, static and, in this context, political. Nature needs none of these.

Yours faithfully,

Ian Mitchell
Director
People Too