|
Back to Social/Economic/Political
Homepage
14 May 2003
The Arrogance of Academics pontificating about
Rural Affairs
Are they letting us down?
ECRR Conference: Scotland’s Landscape - a
Fixed Asset?
Battleby, Perthshire, 8th May 2003
James Irvine
FRSE. DSc. FInstBiol. FInstDirectors. FRCPath.
FRCPEd.
Teviot Agriculture, Cultybraggan Farm, Perthshire
Teviot Scientific Consultancy, Edinburgh
(Filed 14 May 2003)
©Teviot Scientific Consultancy
Although the literature said “this forum
brings together a broad range of individuals and organisations who
share an interest in and concern for the rural landscape of Scotland,
both managed and natural” (1), this was not
reflected in the 90 or so persons attending - nor in the choice
of speakers.
The vast majority came from academic departments
of the Scottish Universities, Scottish Agricultural College, Macaulay
Institute, Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, Scottish Natural Heritage
(SNH), RSPB and SEERAD. It was claimed by the organisers that those
actually concerned with the practical business of land management
were represented by the John Muir Trust and the MacRobert Trust.
However, they are scarcely representative of how land in Scotland
is managed or financed.
Only one person other than myself was directly
involved in running a farming business. Interestingly she was the
wife of a farmer and she was using her university training to give
ecological advice to others - a form of farm opportunistic diversification
that was certainly following the drift - but she was in the audience,
not on the platform.
None of the speakers were involved in hands on
farming, forestry or tourism. This was a platform for academics
to put cross a range of one-sided and myopic views as to how land
in Scotland should be managed, without taking cognisance of those
who actually work the land and were directly financially responsible
for its management. The peasants were to be told what to do and
how things should be run - a choice example of trying to wield influence
without responsibility.
If it were simply a matter of a group of academics
wanting to have a get-together there would be no problem, but most
of the speakers were affiliated to organisations that were funded
(and presumably listened to) by government to provide advice. Indeed
the conference was sponsored by SEERAD and SNH, and was held in
SNH premises at Battleby, near Perth.
Sadly this is what one has come to expect from
such conferences, be they organised by SNH (2),
SCANET (3), or on this occasion by ECRR (Edinburgh
Centre for Rural Research).
Being a mere farmer I must have been one of the
very few who would not have the registration fee paid for or refunded
by central or local government. Muggins went along to hear what
they were plotting.
The programme is reproduced here (1)
and the summaries of the talks here (4).
So how did they spend their day?
Scotland’s landscape - an important part of
its natural heritage
Professor Michael Usher
University of Stirling
The conference got off to a slow start with an
elementary geography lesson from Professor Michael Usher (who used
to be chief scientist at SNH until 2001) that a competent class
of school kids would have thought redundant - about the ice-age,
forestation and all that. Nicely illustrated and interspersed with
a smattering of Latin names to impress, but it did not need half
an hour to make the point that the landscape is important to Scotland,
that it has changed with time and, given more time, will no doubt
change further. That could have been taken as read.
Historical perspectives
Dr Charles Warren
St Andrews University
Although the point had been laboured enough by
the first speaker, we got more of the same under the heading ‘historical
perspectives’. What is quite remarkable about academics in
certain disciplines (but certainly not all) is how they can spin
out a message that could be said in five minutes into two sessions
of half an hour each. However, he could not resist getting a dig
at “absentee” landlords by referring to the oft quoted
(but possibly worryingly biased) paper by Higgins, Wightman and
McMillan. This paper is frequently called the “Joint University
Study” (5), and will be reviewed on Land-Care
shortly.
Throughout Dr Warren’s talk, and indeed the
whole conference, there was an uncanny absence of much reference
to economic factors - as though these academics lived in a vacuum,
or at least well insulated from the realities of land management.
Even their pace of work reflected this. Compared to a farm their
lackadaisical approach, as witnessed in this conference, was absurd.
Is this the work ethic they instill into their students, a whole
bunch of whom arrived more than twenty minutes late?
Interestingly, the first two speakers and others
that followed extolled the beauty of the Scottish scenery and how
much this was appreciated by Scotland’s own citizens and by
those who visited Scotland, and was the main selling point for the
Scottish Tourist industry. Who did this group of esoteric academics
think had been the custodians of that. SNH and the Nature Conservancy
before it are the new boys on the scene. I heard no acknowledgment
to that fact - indeed quite the reverse with farmers, landowners
and others supposedly being responsible for doing so much damage.
I pointed out from the floor that public bodies
such as the Forestry Commission did not always get things right
in the past, using the planting of large rectangular blocks of monoculture
trees as an example. Professor Usher retorted that was because of
economic pressures. Are there are no such economic pressures on
farmers now? He dismissed me as an immunologist who had argued with
him in the past. Yes I had - over organising an SNH meeting on Access
omitting all farmers with hands on experience and presenting a programme
(2) and subsequent publication (6)
paid for by the taxpayer with an unacceptable degree of bias. Much
the same as now, in fact.
The arrogance of these academics is that they
obviously think that they know best, but are not much interested
in seeking the views of others outside their cosy coteries.
Drivers of change - the human dimension
Dr Dick Birnie
Macaulay Land Use Research Institute, Aberdeen
(MLURI)
Then we were treated to the views of Dr Dick Birnie
from the Macaulay Land Use Research Institute in Aberdeen. The biographical
note in the conference handout (4) says “He
manages the Human Dimensions Science Group at the Macaulay Institute.
He is a geographer with a special interest in rural land use and
rural development issues”. But does he know much about farming?
His talk was one of the main reasons for my attending
this conference, as I have been concerned at the advice to SEERAD,
SNH and others which appears to have been coming out of this Institute
in recent years. It is understood that for the year ending 31st
March 2002 the MLURI received 68% of its funding from central government.
So presumably the government got some feed-back that presumably
it has used (and is using) in their policy making.
On the MLURI website (www.mluri.sari.ac.uk)
it announces itself as “The premier land use research institute
in the UK”. Certainly it is the only one in Scotland, but from
the style of its self-description it could be that the MLURI has
also be advising Mrs Beckett and her side-kick Elliot Morley at
DEFRA, backed by global market enthusiast Lord Haskins of Northern
Foods fame (7).
Maybe MLURI have also been feeding their ideas
into Brussels. Maybe they have been proactive in advocating these
ideas, and not just reactive. Indeed, they might have been at least
partially responsible for what is currently coming out of Brussels
with Scotland heading to get a bad deal. It is unlikely that we
will be told.
Or is it that the source of their funding is
influential in terms of the advice that MLURI dispense? Perhaps
that advice is not as independent as it should be.
I will do my best to put politics aside for the
moment and to “peer-review” what the MLURI said at this
very public meeting. I feel entitled to do that in view of my scientific
background and now extensive experience in managing, and being financially
responsible for, a farm on a type of land that is commonplace in
Scotland (8).
The substance of Dr Birnie’s talk is well
summarised by Fordyce Maxwell and James Reynolds reporting the conference
(9). His report includes the following comments
by Dr Birnie.
“A failure to integrate policies, especially for farming
and forestry, had produced a disintegrated Scottish landscape
in the past 50 years”.
“Scotland’s spectacular landscape will suffer the same
fate as its high streets, with every area looking the same because
of ‘McDonaldisation’ of the countryside”.
“A national action and co-ordinated policy were essential
because there was increasing confusion about what the countryside
was for”.
“The big social change came in the Nineties, when the countryside
began to move from being a place of production to one of consumption.
Consumers are replacing producers as the dominant social group”.
“Two centuries ago, two-thirds of Scotland’s population
lived in rural areas. By 1971, less than one in four did. But
the decline has been reversed since by commuters who want to earn
in towns and cities and live in an unchanged countryside - where
they have strong views about farming, windfarms and other countryside
activities”.
“Then we have the basket-case areas, outside metropolitan
travel range of work, with poor access to services, and a high
dependence on agriculture- Banff and Buchan, Caithness, Shetland,
the Western Isles and Galloway. There is a massive question about
what we do for these areas”.
“The challenges include decisions on renewable energy, such
as the siting of windfarms, reform of the Euorpean Union farm
policy and of the so-called McDonaldisation of the landscape”.
Fordyce Maxwell & James Reynolds , The Scotsman,
9th May 2003
Dr Birnie claimed that the lack of a coherent
national strategy means that rural Scotland is in danger of losing
is unique features and dividing into three areas:
- East-coast lowland Scotland with capital investment
farming and an agricultural landscape.
- Areas of amenity with the focus is on environmental
support and the “public good” landscapes, like much
of the Highlands
- The ‘basket-case’ areas, outside
metropolitan travel for work, with poor access to services, and
a high dependence on agriculture - Banff and Buchan, Caithness,
Shetland, the Western Isles and Galloway
The account by the Scotsman’s journalists
is somewhat clearer than the summary of Dr Birnie’s talk printed
in the official handout (4), which reads as follows:
Summary
“This paper provides a framework for understanding contemporary
drivers of landscape change in Scotland, particularly those affecting
agricultural landscapes. It seeks to explain these changes in
terms of major social changes, particularly in terms of changing
world views (dominant social paradigms). The landscape consequences
of a shift away from a productivist world view towards an environmentalist
one are documented using evidence from various countryside schemes.
The aim is to explore whether Scottish agricultural landscapes
are moving towards or away from “sustainability”, particularly
from a spatial perspective”.
Dr Dick Birnie, ECRR conference literature
How is that for an example of befuddling academic-pundit-speak?
Consumers taking over from producers
Central among the consumers are those who are
repopulating rural areas and importing urban attitudes. These are
the people who want to earn in cities and towns and commute to live
in an unchanged countryside - where they have strong views about
farming (although they have little understanding of it and no input
other than opinion). They are supplemented by those who, having
worked in the cities and towns then retire to the countryside with
their wealth, inflate the cost of housing and dominate the culture
that they have bought into. In so doing they exacerbate the urban/rural
divide and marginalise the farmer. Other consumers view the countryside
as their playground, taking precedence over the business of farming.
Dr Birnie seemed to think this was fine and that
there was no need to be concerned about what happens to the farmers
(except of course in East Coast lowland capital investment farming
areas where farmers would be encouraged). So who is going to look
after the rest of the rural landscape so beloved by the invading
townies?
I cannot recall that he mentioned livestock farming
in Scotland as being a significant enterprise - not even once. Much
of Scotland consists of Less Favoured Land which can and does support
high quality livestock and with great advantage to the environmental
aspects of such land, if expertly managed. Elsewhere within this
conference it was noted that a somewhat over ardent ecologist from
another government funded body misrepresented the inter-relationship
between livestock and the environment, by deliberately choosing
an extreme situation. One should be able to expect a higher standard
of intellectual integrity than shown by this devious device.
Scotland is the leader in Europe for the production
of quality beef by means of it having the highest proportion of
beef (suckler) cows in its national herd (10)
(Figure 1), the appropriate type of land and a
tradition of skilled expertise among its farmers. Indeed Scotland
has an enviable international reputation throughout the world for
its beef. It accounts for over 25% of Scotland’s total agricultural
production (10) (Figure 2).
The UK is only some 65% self-sufficient in beef. It has the highest
food standards of anywhere. So why is Dr Birnie so keen to neglect
it?
Figure 1: Beef production as a
proportion of total agricultural
production in 2001
(Kindly supplied by Quality Meat Scotland (10))
Click here for enlarged
image
Figure 2: Proportion of beef cows
in the National herd
(Kindly supplied by Quality Meat Scotland (10))
Click here for enlarged
image
Livestock farming in Scotland is highly dependent
upon a locally integrated land-management programme inherent in
the typical mixed farm - livestock, cereals and silage - as the
livestock need to get fed in the winter. That is what looks after
much of Scotland’s landscape and produces a superb product.
Yet Dr Birnie appears to dismiss it as an irrelevance
in preference to accommodating the desires of the townies who are
migrating to the countryside as they prefer its amenity to that
of the towns and cities. Land devoid of livestock would be a sorry
place - as noted by many following the massive and misdirected contiguous
cull of the 2001 Foot and Mouth crisis as witnessed in the Borders.
Having got rid of the farmers, who is going to
look after the rural idyll? Is it the idea that we have lots of
little, hugely expensive and exclusive Surbitons surrounded by carefully
tended but sterile parks (big ones), with the park keepers (ex farmers)
living in specially built “affordable housing” of inferior
quality? Or would the Macaulay and SNH sort it all out? Somehow
I do not think so.
Landscape that is “disintegrated” versus centrally managed
Was Dr Birnie inferring that the “disintegrated”
Scottish landscape produced over the past 50 years by farming and
forestry was a bad thing or a good thing? It was not clear to me.
He praised the landscape for being spectacular,
but later on recommended coordinated integration - again presumably
determined by a combination of Macaulay and SNH. The “disintegrated”
landscape that he refers to has been managed by a diversity of people
with a diversity of ideas - now Birnie wants organised integration
controlled from the centre. I doubt if the rest of us do - not even
the invading townies.
Dr Birnie seemed to conveniently forget the TV
poll that was held before the recent Scottish Parliament election.
The public put their concerns as to what was happening to Scottish
farming and fishing in third place in a list of 21 possible priorities
- being next after more bobbies on the beat and more pay for nurses
(11). I doubt if they had Dr Birnie’s fate
for the farmers in mind, or his ideas as to how the landscape should
be managed.
Be that as it may, would such a centre (eg SNH)
be any good at land management? Current evidence would suggest otherwise
(12-17).
As already mentioned, this and other conferences
have shown that SNH and other advisory bodies clearly have an unwillingness
to communicate with those who farm. With that stance they frankly
rule themselves out as a competent body to direct and control how
the rural landscape should be managed.
Dr Birnie’s thesis that, if people were
left to themselves, Scotland’s landscape would be McDonaldised
into a uniform monotony is as fatuous as it is self-seeking. In
effect what he is saying is - that since in his view Scottish farming
is finished except in the fertile planes - the landscape has to
managed from the centre on behalf of the urban elite as they do
not know how to do it.
Marginalisation of farming
What so concerned me about this conference was
that the speakers all seemed to be wanting to actively push farming
out - to marginalise it. They were not concerned about how to support
it, but how to capture the control of the “rural landscape”
for themselves. Yet again it was clear that those that constituted
this unbalanced ‘Rural Forum’ did not care much for the
“absentee” landlords that own much of the land, but who
provide much of the money for its maintenance and who employ skilled
local people for that purpose (5, 18).
Again the Higgins et al report on the subject (5)
was referred to by no less than three of the speakers, all inferring
that such “foreign” capitalist ownership was a bad thing.
As previously mentioned this report appears to carry a bias that
may well undermine its credentials.
But this remarkable gathering of academics did
not care much either for non-native species of plants or animals
- like beech trees, for example. One could not help wondering if
we were in fact living in a country where government policy about
racism and protecting the interests of minority groups is supposed
to be clear.
"Sustainability"
It is appropriate that the world “sustainability”
was put in inverted commas in the Maxwell/Reynolds report of Dr
Birnie’s remarks (9). As Professor John Hillman
and his colleagues (19) at the Scottish Crops
Research Institute, Invergowrie, Dundee have recently emphasised
in the 2001/2002 annual report of that distinguished organisation,
the word sustainability can mean anything according to what the
user wants it to mean - and often many things within the same speech
or article. They stress the meaningless foundation upon which the
Brundtland Commission “Our common future” (20)
is based, and which has been driving EC policy ever since. To quote
The ‘Brundtland’ Commission defined sustainable development
as, “meeting the needs of the present without compromising
the ability of future generations to meet their own needs”.
This had been a definition of sustainable anything that has been
most readily accepted by politicians and policy makers. We
judge this quotation to be worthless, pious rubbish because
it says nothing but allows those who use it to appear to be politically
correct. Instead we propose the much simpler idea that to be sustainable,
anything - agriculture, production etc - should be capable of
being continued for a long time and should not make irreversible
changes”.
McKerron, Hillman & Duncan
Annual Report 2001/2 SCRI
It is odd that the Scottish Crops Research Institute
(SCRI) was not represented at the Conference - were they even invited?
Perhaps they may have taken a different view from the sort of policy-driving
that this particular Rural Forum wanted to achieve.
Was this conference an academic activity of standing or a political
lobby?
In the context of my attempt at a peer-review
of the conference proceedings, it appeared to me that the conference
was degenerating into a political lobby - not an appropriate activity
for an organisation calling itself “Edinburgh Centre for Rural
Research” and listing among its membership many of Scotland’s
academic institutions. Some standards of objectivity would be more
in place.
Certainly the mid-term review of the EC Common
Agricultural Policy (CAP) is underway, but Dr Birnie would appear
to be away ahead of that - advocating ways whereby this instrument
can be used to distort agriculture in Scotland in a manner that
has yet has to be agreed within the CAP review. Each member state
of the EC will have a range of options that it can apply locally,
and that will include some considerable freedom as to how the CAP
money is used within a member state. Serious and important debate
is currently ongoing over the midterm CAP review. Dr Birnie would
appear not to be helping Scotland to get a decent deal - quite the
contrary.
What Dr Birnie seemed to be doing was ensuring
that agriculture in Scotland was marginalised and that the control
of the landscape would be primarily “environmental’ and
in need of central integrated management. Who but the Macaulay,
SNH and others of similar ilke would be doing that along with SEERAD?
The Scottish Parliament for the next four years
is set to continue to be a Labour- Liberal Democrat coalition (21)
- the same coalition that has been so disastrous for Scottish agriculture
and fishing over the past four years, while other countries within
the EC flourished in comparison (22).
While Scottish agriculture and fishing has much
to fear from the EC, it would appear that it also has much to fear
from those who are supposed to be helping them within their own
patch - et tu Brutus.
I recall the comments of a colleague farmer from
the Highlands after listening to a dissertation from the Macaulay
Land Use Research Institute in 2001 - “tosh!”. I would
add to that and call it “seriously dangerous tosh”.
With what authority does Dr Birnie speak?
As previously stated, Dr Birnie manages the Human
Dimensions Science Group at the Macaulay Institute. He is a geographer
with a special interest in rural land use and rural development
issues. The question remains - does he know much about farming?
One gets tired of hearing all too often that the
farming qualifications of such pundits are “I come from a farming
background and I talk to farmers in the pub”. It is doubtful
if comparable qualifications would carry much weight in any other
line of enterprise - engineering, law, medicine, accountancy, surveying
etc. Farming and fishing are highly skilled professions and should
be recognised as such.
In conversation with Dr Birnie after his presentation,
the first problem to get over was to establish that to have a different
view from his own should not be interpreted as a personal insult.
He then described the situation as he saw it in
the particular Scottish glen with which he was familiar. There used
to be many farmers he said, but they have become fewer and fewer
until now there is just one. He is supported by a contractor with
big machinery who works very hard. However, Dr Birnie seemed to
have difficulty in accepting that the next logical step in this
progression would be no farmer and therefore no contractor. Presumably
he reckoned that the farmer and the contractor would be land managers
acting under the control of SNH as advised by the Macaulay and enforced
by the Scottish Parliament.
After all, the stage is set. Farmers and landowners
are already referred to as land managers. The A for agriculture
has left the name of the government department responsible for farming,
while E has come in for Environment. R has also come in to represent
rural: i.e. to look after the interests of the urban elite who find
the countryside conducive as a dormitory life-style, while contributing
little or nothing (or indeed significant problems) towards its maintenance.
But maybe the farmer may not want to be a landmanager
in this context - a sort of public servant peasant or keeper of
big parks. He might just want to cut his hours to 35 per week (instead
of 60 plus (23)) and demand his holidays. But
he is likely to be getting-on in age (the average for farmers is
58 yrs (24)), and may as well not bother.
Then who looks after the glen that Dr Birnie enjoys
during his time off, while he works in Aberdeen?
I had to give way to the representative from the
RSPB, so I never got an answer.
Appreciation, Recreation and Tourism
Dr Bob Aitken
Scottish Countryside Activities Council (SCAC)
The official conference handout described Dr
Aitken as a human geographer by training, but did not explain what
a human geographer was. The website of the organisation he was representing
(www.cndoscotland.com/scacact.htm)
states that
“the SCAC played an important role in the drawing up of
the Access Concordat. More recently, the Access Forum has submitted
advice to the Scottish Executive in relation to the proposed drafting
of the Access Bill itself part of the Land Reform Bill of the
Scottish Executive.”
"SCAC's strength as a purely voluntary body derives from
the breadth and diversity of its membership. New members are always
very welcome. (Full) Members comprise Scottish organisations concerned
with leisure and recreation in the countryside, for example walking,
riding, cycling, mountaineering, caravaning, hosteling, skiing,
watersports.. Membership is also open to organisations furth of
Scotland, provided their field of recreation includes Scotland."
The SCAC was in fact represented on the Access
Forum along with 4 other bodies representing Access takers (5 altogether).
There were 5 organisations on the Access Forum representing access
providers (described as landmanagement bodies) and 5 public bodies
including sportscotland, VisitScotland, COSLA, SNH - the Forestry
Commission making up the fifth (25).
There was a substantial majority on the Access
Forum whose obvious interest was to gain as much access to the countryside
as possible, The outcome of the Access Forum’s deliberations
in the form of a concordat was described as a consenus view. No
surprise what that was - Access for all anywhere day and night with
very few restrictions (25). Previous consultation
was a charade, and so is the current one likely to be - but we must
go through the motions. Yet it is the farmers who are severely bogged
down by Brussels, DEFRA and SEERAD bureaucracy. Farmers have a severe
shortage of resources to pay staff, if they can find them. SNH has
over 700 staff, while SAC has some 900 and the Scottish Executive
seems to have more than plenty to deal with the mountains of paper
work that are generated. Farmers are threatened with fines and other
forms of prosecution if they do not fully comply.
Consultation took place in 1999 when a document
entitled “Access to the Countryside for Open Air Recreation
- SNH advice to Government” was published by the then Scottish
Executive (26). When compared with the latest
Scottish Outdoor Access Code (26), it would appear
that very few of the concerns originally registered by the land
managers (providers of access) were listened too (27,
28).
At the end of the day all that was necessary to
achieve was a consensus. The access takers could write a blank cheque
for their wishes - they and the government bodies that were politically
committed to “access for all almost everywhere” were going
to win the day whatever anyone said or whosoever’s land management
enterprise was adversely affected or ruined. The views of the minority
(who were to provide most of the access) and who would suffer the
financial consequences were largely ignored The access takers had
it all for free and were only asked to act responsibly with no enforcement.
That is what passes as democracy in the new Scottish Parliament
and its agencies.
To return to the ERCC conference, here was another
speaker (in the form of Dr Bob Aitken) who did not care much for
“absentee” landlords, but whose land has bye and large
been extensively available and widely used for public recreation.
He was another one who seemed to think that Scotland’s economy
was based on trading in beans or some such commodity. What was so
striking about this conference was the fact that these academics
paid blissfully little attention to the economy of anything. Not
a mention that Scotland’s economy at present is dire, compared
to other parts of the UK and the EU (29). If you
want to indulge in ideological schemes, you had better have the
money to fund them. Scotland hasn’t.
According to Dr Bob Aitken the pendulum had swung
away from farming and forestry to leisure and recreation. But I
would ask - who was swinging this pendulum, and for why?
Most farmers, he said, still refused to accept
that. They saw productive farming, even heavily subsidised, as a
process of doing good and maintaining landscape. As quoted by Fordyce
Maxwell and James Reynolds (9) he went on to say
that
“...there are better ways of maintaining the landscape than
subsidising farmers to do it. Over a lot of Scotland, if farming
stopped, it would matter a lot less than we imagine”
Dr Bob Aitken, SCAC
With an incredible facility to adapt his statements
to his own needs rather than reality, he went on to say that recreation
and tourism have relatively little impact on landscape - presumably
adapting the meaning of landscape to the very gross, although earlier
speakers discouraged such a practice.
The summary of his contribution in the conference
literature states
“As a public good, landscape
suffers from a lack of ‘ownership’. We need to
give much higher priority to protecting landscape values”
Dr Bob Aitken, SCAC
Now just what sort of landownership and landscape
values did he have in mind?
Here was a man who simply put on blinkers to
make sure he could not see any problems that his policies might
cause. Clearly he followed the line of Professor Roger Crofts (previously
chief executive of SNH (30)) who, when questioned
at a Press Conference at the Royal Highland Show in 2000 said “it
is the will of the people” - the inference being never mind
about those who manage the land or who are financially responsible
for it, they are in the minority (31). Dr Bob
Aitken seemed to want to put all landowners in the “absentee”
category, owning it for their own pleasure and tax advantages (again
resorting to the much quoted Joint University Higgins report (5).
Indeed it looked increasing like as though this report was created
for a political purpose and not for genuinely impartial and objective
research reasons. If that were the case, some might view it as seriously
compromising the standards of the otherwise respected academic institutions
of Aberdeen and Edinburgh Universities.
So how did Dr Aitken reckon the land that makes
the landscape is going to be looked after? By a committee of academics
that form Centres for Rural Research or some such name advising
SNH, and funded by the state who cannot get the economy right?
The organisers of this Conference appeared to
have no difficulty in getting a speaker to represent the ramblers,
the mountain bikers, the horse riders, campers, caravaners, canoeists,
skiers, rights of way enthusiasts etc. Apparently they could not
find one to represent the access providers. Was this a serious attempt
to discuss the problems, or just a political rally in academic disguise?
Again, it was the same with the SNH conference
held at Strathclyde University in 2000 and manifest in the proceedings
as edited by Professor Michael Usher (6). Promoted
as a forum for wide consultation, but in fact a farce of bias and
given inappropriate inferred academic status by being held in a
University and the proceedings edited by a professor.
Power Generation
Chris Bronsdon
Scottish Energy Environment Foundation
According to its website (www.mecheng.strath.ac.uk/feature-seef.htm):
“The Scottish Energy and Environment Foundation (SEEF)
was established following an agreement between the Scottish Executive,
Scottish Enterprise, Edinburgh and Strathclyde Universities and
the three electricity utilities in Scotland; British Energy, Scottish
Power and Scottish & Southern Energy. The Foundation was formally
launched by Henry MacLeish in April 2000, and started working
on projects from the spring of 2001.
"SEEF was set up because the 1990's were a time of radical
change in the structure of the UK energy sector and related markets.
This coincided with the recognition throughout the world of the
importance of climate change resulting from the aggregate effects
of greenhouse gas emissions, principally from the combustion of
fossil fuels.
"The current mix of technologies that generate electricity
in Scotland is different to the rest of the UK, but the challenges
that are being seen in the electricity markets and for different
technologies in England and Wales will also have to be faced in
Scotland.
"Scotland has the opportunity to demonstrate that new and
renewable forms of electricity generation, in conjunction with
other technologies that make better use of the energy we already
generate can have a significant benefit to reducing emissions
of carbon dioxide from the energy sector.
"SEEF's role is to foster economically sound, globally conscious
and environmentally responsible energy policy and technologies.
Working with existing organisations, the Foundation will endeavour
to bring about an integrated energy policy for Scotland, and against
this, identify appropriate technical solutions and new manufacturing
opportunities.”
However, his presentation lacked clarity except
to warn
“the largest medium term proportion of Scottish renewable
power generation will be offshore wind. This is likely to have
significant landscape impacts above that of centralised generation”.
Facile comments were made that large wind farms
could become tourist attractions. Wind farms are such an inefficient
way of producing energy in that masses of them are required to match
the output of a nuclear or fossil fueled source. Lip service was
paid to the poor reliability of wind power, obviously depending
on the presence of wind. During this year's remarkable Easter, when
there was a persistent atmospheric high over Scotland, there was
precious little wind for some three weeks or more. The ability to
store electricity is limited.
The inconsistencies in the thinking of this group
were remarkable. After spending so much of the day listening to
the importance of Scotland’s landscape as being part of its
natural heritage and all that, this group seemed to be quite happy
to accept massive numbers of intensely ugly windfarms over much
of it. But then the protagonists for windfarms were following another
but different banner concerned with global warming leading to climate
change.
Chris Bronsdon’s presentation failed to give
a clear indication as to how serious the technical problems are
with Scottish offshore windfarms and with harnessing Scotland’s
tidal energy. Again, there was an apparent obsession with global
warming without paying sufficient hede as to the economics and practicalities
(and especially the impracticalities) of providing sources of energy
that do not omit carbon dioxide. Political ideological dogma is
again very much to the fore.
The trouble here is that the UK signed up to the
Kyoto agreement that demands unrealistic standards too quickly.
The Americans were not so daft. They refused to sign up, saying
that they would do their best to achieve these goals when their
economy could afford it. But they were not going to go bust in the
process.
Here again, this influential bunch of academics
(sorry “rural forum”) did not seem much interested in
economics - the fact that the Scottish economy is in a dire state.
Misguided conservation advice is doing much to ruin agriculture
in Scotland, has largely contributed to the loss of the Scottish
fishing industry and is likely to severely compromise Scotland’s
power resources too. Altruistic policies driven by academics without
economic responsibility or any significant experience of it are
highly dangerous.
Scottish Enterprise, which is part of the SEEF,
has been described as a failure and as not working (32,
33). A substantial cutback is due on account of
alleged economic waste (33). It is further alleged
that high powered persons successful in running commercial enterprises
have left, finding Scottish Enterprise to consist of a useless talking
shop without teeth.
Matters related to Energy are not devolved to
the Scottish Parliament from Westminster, although matters concerning
landscape and the like are. If the UK does not ensure the provision
of power in the form of a reliable and secure electricity supply,
it can say good-bye to many of the ideological schemes discussed
at this forum - and a lot else.
If those considering investing in Scotland are
uncertain that there will be a secure source of energy, they will
invest elsewhere.
The collection of academics concerned with Scotland’s
landscape would dismiss such concerns by saying - we are in the
post-industrial era. The trouble is they are effectively advocating
that Britain proceeds to a post-productive era. Gordon Brown (the
Westminster chancellor of the exchequer) is keeping quiet about
the UK’s balance of payments - but he is leading the country
into greater and greater debt despite mounting taxes The balance
of payments is in bad shape. If our bunch of academics at this conference
is anything to go by, it will get worse.
Sadly, it would appear that the UK has not benefited
significantly from applying (or perhaps even doing) research on
the commercial application of wind power. I understand that the
Danes having scooped the key patents.
But then what can one expect when one government
funded ecologist I spoke to at the conference thought that the coast
of Denmark was much the same as that of Scotland. If wind farms
can work in Denmark, they will surely work in Scotland this person
claimed. Oh yes?
Interestingly the MOD apparently have a lot to
say about windfarms round the coast. Others point out that in the
windiest parts of Scotland, wind farms could be along way from the
grid and it may not be too easy to connect the two - same as Denmark
is it?
Was it not true that the latest attempt to harness
tidal power ended up with the device being swept away in a storm?
Energy a plenty - but sometimes too much to control it properly.
As I recall, it did not get a mention at this conference.
The reality is that Kyoto agreement or not, a
new power station will have to be built on account of the fact that
the sell-by date of the existing facilities is approaching, and
that there are at present no convincing and realistic alternatives
that will fully replace it within the available time. So much then
for ideological policy concerning the environment.
Water Resources
Professor Peter Maitland
Fish Conservation Centre, Haddington
After extolling the water resources of Scotland
- which most of us would refer to as the burns, rivers lochs, estuaries
and beaches - he went on to join the club of his colleagues to have
a further dig at agriculture, forestry and fishery management, as
well of course engineering and industry. They were all damaging
these resources. But his evidence for this was far from clear. In
fact water quality in Scotland is of a very high standard, although
admittedly there are some areas (quite limited) where improvements
are needed (35).
As I recall one of the biggest offenders recently
was a Local Government Council who allowed sewage to go direct into
a river because of a break in renewed pipework. Was this due to
poorly supervised work? Such a breach of the rules would have landed
any commercial enterprise in serious trouble - but not so if it
is a Council that was responsible. For them it was apparently just
one of these things.
His claim that species of fish were becoming
extinct was not convincing, nor was his ambition for the production
of freshwater pearls and leeches as plausible commercial enterprises.
What he did own up to was the much more serious lapse in his own
organisation for not recognising the dangers of certain non-native
species from taking over through reproducing much too successfully.
This lead to some discussion as to how can this be anticipated and,
once it has happened, how can it be corrected?
With regard to the reduction in cod numbers in
the seas around Scotland, Professor Maitland might have been a touch
more open about the quality of marine science and its lack of ability
or willingness to work with the Scottish Fishing Industry in a sensible
manner with up to date information (36). He made
no mention of the political horse-trading at Brussels over the carve
up of fishing around Scotland, so that the fishermen of other countries
became much better off - such as the Danes and the Spanish (37).
From his particular ivory tower, he saw the fishing
industry having to change, such as getting the British public to
get a taste for artificially-farmed lamprey. EC politics and getting
a fare deal for Scottish fishermen as regards their rights to fish
the seas around our land did not get a mention; nor did the Scottish
fishermen’s genuine efforts to conserve cod stocks but which
were flouted by SEERAD (36). The EC Habitats Directive
and the Water Framework Directive did. These Directives give more
enforcement powers to the authorities. Such enforcement keeps in
with the EC, and the provision by the EC of even more Directives
in the future. All good krist to the mill to keep his centre in
business and funding.
Enhancing Scotland’s Biodiversity
Professor Steve Albon
Centre for Ecology & Hydrology, Banchory
No summary was provided in the conference literature
for this item, only an extensive biographical note. By this time
I have to admit I was considerably befuddled having listened all
day to either very little, to serious tosh or to politics presented
under a mask of assumed academic respectability. As far as my memory
serves me his talk was memorable for being essentially anti-anything
that was not native, and in dealing with minutiae instead of the
bigger picture.
It was he, I believe, who personified the nit-picking,
detail-hunting, academic environmentalist (no doubt much beloved
by the RSPB) when much bigger issues were at stake. Was it he who
described the predicament of this particular bird.
I confess I cannot recall either its common name
- or the Latin name (which of course was rattled off with aplomb).
It was a fairly uniform dirty brownish/black colour and of average
size. Its only saving grace was apparently that there were three
subspecies of this bird.: one with a short bill, one with a medium
sized bill and one with a big pecker.
But these three subspecies all needed different
types of environment in the woods in which they lived. One liked
an open canopy, while one liked it much more closed in, and the
third liked something in between. I cannot for the life of me recall
which bill size went with which type of canopy. No matter, the inference
was (although thankfully not a stated recommendation) that when
designing woods one should have a short pecker wood, a mid pecker
wood and a big pecker wood.
Now that is a practical consideration to be taken
into account with all the other factors that those wanting to plant
woods have to consider. Can we anticipate that something of this
kind will find its way eventually into some sort of directive somewhere,
sometime?
So what is one supposed to do with woods - fence
them and have rare birds flying into the fences? Bright orange warning
strips should be put along the tops of the fences so the birds can
see them, but is that nice for the landscape? The public with the
right to walk and horse ride and cycle everywhere do not like fences
they cannot climb over. Deer do a lot of damage if the woods are
not fenced. Livestock get lost in them if they are not fenced. Which
environmental lobby is going to win the day?
What was characteristic of this conference was
the concentration on conflicting minutiae and excessive concentration
on environment, when what they should have been doing is trying
to get a balance to achieve a form of sustainablity that was practical;
i.e. a balance between environmental issues (ecology) and economic
sustainability. If it cannot be funded it cannot be sustained. That
is the way things are in a capitalist society, such as exists in
Europe, the States, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, and all the other
developed countries. Like it or not.
The impression was given that economic sustainability
did not come within Professor Albon’s range of thinking.
Landscape Policy Framework
Simon Brooks
Landscape Policy Framework, Scottish Natural Heritage
In contrast to the above, the summary notes in
the conference’s posh satchel (4) contained
no information as to his biography - just that he works for the
National Strategy section of SNH, with responsibility for landscape
issues, and is based in Inverness.
In other words, he is the one within SNH who is
responsible for putting a strategy together within SNH - to amalgamate
all that was talked about at this conference and elsewhere. Yet
he was one of the few about whom we were not provided with a note
as to the speaker’s background and qualifications.
His presentation needed to be listened to carefully.
Amidst a maze of apparent inconsequential woffle there was the clear
implication (referred to earlier in the meeting) of the need for
overall integration of the management of the landscape throughout
Scotland. Remember this is a devolved issue. That means massive
power for SNH to tell everyone else what to do. And we can see it
coming (38, 39).
Listening to the day’s proceedings, that
is indeed a frightening thought.
General Discussion
During the general discussion someone asked what
the average age of farmers was. No one on the panel seemed to know.
When I informed them that is was 58 - 59 years (24),
the somewhat naive question was asked - in view of what had been
said throughout the day - as to how young people could be attracted
into farming.
Why should any intelligent young person contemplate
going into farming when their teachers are busy marginalising it,
and when the politicians (whether they be in Brussels, London or
Edinburgh) cannot agree a logical forward strategy that might be
conducive to carving out a career. Add to that the particular brand
of crazy Scottish thinking whereby the senior figures in farming
academia advocate that productivity is out and the urban consumer
is king - not only of what might still be produced, but of the land
as well. The young may well not choose to become peasant park-keepers,
and they are not all daft on ornithology. They will want to make
a reasonable and satisfying living.
Summary of Sessions
Dr Ian Bainbridge
Ecology adviser to the Scottish Executive
There were no biographical notes provided for
rapporteurs, but Who’s Who in Ornithology (40)
obliged.
Dr Bainbridge was born in Derby. He graduated
BSc in biological sciences in 1975 at Wolverhampton Polytechnic
and gained his PhD on waders on the Ribble at Liverpool Polytechnic
in 1975. He has worked for the RSPB in various capacities since
1984, becoming head of Scottish Research, RSPB in 1996, and continuing
in that position until taking up his present appointment with the
Scottish Executive.
His summing up of the part of the Conference
dealing with Nature and Policy again raised concerns that the Scottish
Executive may well be listening to this collection of academics
arrogantly ponificating in a most biased manner about rural affairs.
My view of the Conference
For me this was a deeply disturbing conference.
As with a previous SNH conference (2)
concerned with the rights and responsibilities of access to the
countryside (and so highly relevant to the current draft Scottish
Outdoor Access Code (25)) the agricultural community
was severely marginalised. The same with this ECRR conference: no
speakers from any of the many articulate farmers that Scotland has,
and only 2.2% of the delegates were involved in running a farming
business. The organisers of both these conferences have gone to
considerable pains to ensure that the farming community would not
have a say. Presumably in their minds we are not sufficiently intelligent
enough and do not know what is good for us.
Not only was the balance of this ECRR conference
in terms of delegates absurd, but the balance of the content could
only be described as grotesque. The ecology of the environment was
everything, often going into the minutiae of detail. Political marginalisation
of farmers in the future of landscape management was key together
with a highly vocal, but also highly suspicious, cry that it all
needed to be controlled from the centre (presumably run by a sort
of Macaulay/SNH/SEERAD consortium).
There was also the worry that it might well have
been that this sort of consortium could have been involved in the
formulation of some of the policies that are coming from Brussels,
and which could be so damaging to Scottish farming - especially
its livestock sector. We may never know.
Undoubtedly, these policies have had a major impact
on the thinking of the Scottish Parliament as witnessed by the marginalisation
of farmers and landowners in the Land Reform (Scotland) Act (41).
These same policies are clearly influencing the second draft of
the Scottish Outdoor Access Code, that so severely compromises how
farmers can conduct their businesses, especially around urban settlements.
Like this conference, it puts the rural aspirations of the urban
elite before the needs of the farming peasants.
It was interesting to note that there were no
NFUS representative present (were they asked?). The Scottish Landowners
Federation (SLF) was represented by its rural policy adviser, but
he did not say anything; and the RSPB representative did not need
to.
© Teviot Scientific Consultancy
www.land-care.org.uk
References
1. Conference Programme: Scotland’s
Landscape - a Fixed Asset? Battleby, Perthshire, 8th May 2003. (Download
PDF: http://www.ecrr.org.uk/forum_prog.pdf)
2. Irvine, James (2001). SNH
Conference September 2000: Enjoyment and Understanding of the Natural
Heritage: Finding the New Balance between Rights and Responsibilities.
A review of the Proceedings. LandCare Scotland, Vol. 1. pp. 25-32.
(Reproduced with minor updates 22
January 2003, www.land-care.org.uk, click
here to view).
3. SCANET conference to be reviewed
shortly on Land-Care
4. Scotland’s Landscape -
a Fixed Asset? Battleby, Perthshire, 8th May 2003: Summary of conference
presentations. (Download PDF: http://www.ecrr.org.uk/forum_summ.pdf).
5. Higgins, P., Wightman, A. and
McMillan, D. (2002). Sporting estates and recreational land use
in the highlands and islands. ESRC report.
http://www.education.ed.ac.uk/outdoored/research/abstract_higgins.pdf
6. Usher, Michael B. (2001). Enjoyment
and understanding of the natural heritage: The natural heritage
of Scotland. Scottish Natural Heritage 10. ISBN: 0114972907.
7. Northern Foods plc and Lord
Haskins. Is Lord Haskins a suitable person to be the senior advisor
to Government on agriculture?
(Filed 23 January 2003, www.land-care.org.uk,
click
here to view).
8. Land-Care (2002). About the
editor. www.land-care.org.uk/main/about
9. Maxwell, Fordyce and Reynolds,
James (2003). Wind of change threatens Scotland. The Scotsman, 9
May 2003.
http://news.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=528322003
10. Walker, Jim (2003). Impact
of mid-term review on beef: decline would be significant. Scottish
Farmer, 10 May 2003, p. 21.
11. The Public Supports Scottish
Farmers and Fishermen more than the Pollsters Imagined.
(Filed 2 April 2003, www.land-care.org.uk,
click
here to view).
12. Is SNH a Good Land Manager?
Duich Moss, Islay.
(Filed 9 May 2003, www.land-care.org.uk,
click
here to view).
13. Mitchell, Ian (2002). Scientific
Objection to the Designation of the Sound of Barra as a possible
Special Area of Conservation. LandCare Scotland, Vol 2, pp. 3-49.
14. Mitchell, Ian (2002). Scientific
Objection to the designation of the Arran Moors as a proposed Site
of Special Scientific Interest and proposed Special Protection Area.
LandCare Scotland, Vol 3, pp. 3-118.
15. Scottish Gamekeepers Association
Petition to Scottish Parliament. The Impact of Predatory Birds.
(Filed 25 March 2003, www.land-care.org.uk,
click
here to view).
16. Editorial (2002). Hedgehogs
on Uist - SNH in More Trouble.
(Filed 27 January 2003, www.land-care.org.uk,
click
here to view).
17. Gamekeepers’ Association
Official Joins Growing Row over Hedgehogs.
(Filed 13 January 2003, www.land-care.org.uk,
click
here to view).
18. Unfair Criticisms of Absentee
Landlords. Letter from Stephen Gibbs, Chair, Association of Deer
Management Group. Scotland on Sunday, 2 March 2003.
(Filed 10 March 2003, www.land-care.org.uk,
click
here to view).
19. MacKerron, D. K. L., Hillman
R. J. and Duncan, M. J. (2003). Sustainability in Agriculture.
http://www.scri.sari.ac.uk/Document/AnnReps/02Indiv/06Sustai.pdf
(120KB PDF file).
20. World Commission on Environment
and Development (1987).
Our common future. Oxford University Press, New York (The "Brundtland"
Commission).
21. Irvine, James (2003). Scottish
Parliament Election Result.
(Filed 5 May 2003, www.land-care.org.uk,
click
here to view).
22. Davidson, John (2003). The
fall and fall of the Scottish fishing industry
(Filed 29 April 2003, www.land-care.org.uk,
click
here to view).
23. MacRae, Donald (2003). The
Lloyds TSB Scottish Agricultural Survey 2003.
24. Countryside Alliance (2002).
British farmers still earn below national minimum wage average.
News Relase, 28 November 2002.
http://www.countryside-alliance.co.uk/news/02/021128british.htm
25. Scottish Outdoor Access Code.
SNH Publishes Consultation Document - 27 March 2003.
(Filed 27 March 2003, www.land-care.org.uk,
click
here to view).
26. Scottish Natural Heritage
(1998). Access to the Countryside for Open-air Recreation.
Scottish Natural Heritage’s Advice to Government. ISDN: 1 85397
019 0.
27. Mylius, Andrew (2001). Access:
The reality for farmers, landowners, foresters and all
rural residents. LandCare Scotland, Vol. 1, pp. 3-18.
(Reproduced, with permission, on Land-Care,
11 November 2002, click
here to view).
28. Mylius, Andrew (2003). Land
Reform and the Access Code: Problems and Unanswered Questions.
(Filed 26 February 2003, www.land-care.org.uk,
click
here to view).
29. Reid, Derek (2003). The challenges
ahead for rural Scotland. Speach given at Scottish Countryside alliance
conference, “Connecting Communitites”, 8 April 2003.
http://www.scottishcountrysidealliance.org/events/pdf/DerekReid.pdf
30. Professor Roger Crofts loses
appeal against dismissal from Chief Executive Post SNH.
(Filed 13 February 2003, www.land-care.org.uk.
click
here to view).
31. Irvine, James (2001). Scottish
Natural Heritage’s policy on access: Is it being mis- sold
in relation to enclosed farmland next to urban communitites. LandCare
Scotland, Vol. 1, pp. 12-23.
(Reproduced, with permission, on Land-Care,
7 January 2003, click
here to view).
32. Jamieson, Bill (2003). Why
Scottish Enterprise isn’t working. The Scotsman, Friday 7 March
2003. (http://www.news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?id=277432003&tid=595).
33. Scott, David (2003). Watchdog
urged to examine Enterprise. Scotsman, 4 March
2003. (http://news.scotsman.com/archive.cfm?id=265422003).
34. Ward, Sharon (2003). Scottish
Enterprise axe falls on Glasgow. Scotsman, 21 March
2003. (http://news.scotsman.com/archive.cfm?id=340612003).
35. Drinking Water Quality Regulator
for Scotland (2002). Report to Ad Hoc Group of Ministers on Health
and Public Water Supply. Initial situation report on public health
issues with respect to water supply across Scotland.
(http://www.scotland.gov.uk/library5/health/ministerdwqr.pdf)
36. Fife Fish Producers Organisation
(2003). The Situation of, and in, our Fishing
Communities. Written Submission To Scottish Parliament Rural Development
Committee 17 February 2003.
Filed 28 April 2003, www.land-care.org.uk, click
here to view).
37. Davidson, John (2003). The
fall and fall of the Scottish fishing industry
(Filed 29 April 2003, www.land-care.org.uk,
click
here to view).
38. Mitchell, Ian (2003). Conservation
Bill is objectionable. The Herald, Letters, 3 May 2003
(Filed 5 May 2003, www.land-care.org.uk,
click
here to view).
39. PEOPLE TOO response to Amendments
to the Conservation Regulations.
(Filed 8 May 2003, www.land-care.org.uk,
click
here to view).
40. Who's who in ornithology.
Edited by John E. Pemberton. Buckingham Press, 1997. ISBN: 0951496581.
41. Land Reform (Scotland) Act
2003.
http://www.scotland-legislation.hmso.gov.uk/legislation/scotland/acts2003/20030002.htm
|
