|
Back to SOCIAL/ECONOMIC/POLITICAL
Homepage
Land management contracts analysed:
item 6 - buffer areas
James Irvine
Teviot Scientific, Cultybraggan Farm, Comrie,
Perthshire
Filed 06 Mar 05
©www.land-care.org.uk
This article continues the analysis of the 17
options that constitute the recently announced Land Management Contracts
(LMCs) (1).
4. Buffer areas
"Measure: Establish a buffer area in arable fields or in
improved grassland along watercourses, around areas of wetland,
species-rich grassland, woodland or archaeological sites. A buffer
area around prominent, individual in-field and ancient trees on
the landscape can also be established. The payment rate is £200
per hectare per year.
Outcome: The creation of a network of wildlife corridors and
habitats for invertebrates, bird and small mammals. Better protection
of landscape features such as archaeological sites and a reduction
in water pollution"
This sounds fine, but how does it tally with the
Land Reform (Scotland) Act whereby the Scottish Outdoor Access Code
gives access to the public to field margins. In the close vicinity
of urban settlements what is the point of creating such buffer areas
when another directive of the same government department (SEERAD)
is encouraging such areas to be rummaged by dogs as well as their
owners whatever the season.
This item would make better sense if, in the vicinity
of urban settlements where rights of way are established, that such
buffer zones get some protection from the public and their dogs,
horse riders or whatever (2, 3,
4).
Areas of the countryside that already have these
features for many years at the farmer's expense will loose out on
account of their previous care and diligence.
Much of Scotland has excellent wildlife habitats.
Is it really necessary to create more wildlife corridors where sufficient
already exist, simply as a method of giving farmers back some of
the money that should be going to them anyway from Brussels via
the EU Common Agricultural Policy (CAP)?
Is it really such a good idea to try and get substantial
wildlife into Scotland's top quality farmland. To make a significant
and lasting difference would be massively expensive. Scotland has
little enough quality farm land as it is. When I have visited superb
arable farms on some of Scotland's best farm land, efforts at introducing
biodiversity have invariably looked artificial, making the purpose
of the exercise questionable. Some 80% of Scotland's farmland comes
under the "less favoured" category. Such land is likely
to be much more amenable than prime farm land to the enhancement
of biodiversity, should it not already be at a high level.
References
1. Irvine, James (2005). Land
management contracts analysed: items 2 - 5.
See SOCIAL/ECONOMIC/POLITICAL Homepage, filed 05 Mar 05,
www.land-care.org.uk Click
Here to View
2. Mylius, Andrew (2003). Response
to SNH draft outdoor access code consultation.
See SCOTTISH OUTDOOR ACCESS CODE Homepage, filed 06 Oct 03,
www.land-care.org.uk Click
Here to View
3. Irvine, James (2003). Analysis
of the responses to SNH draft Scottish outdoor access code.
See SCOTTISH OUTDOOR ACCESS CODE Homepage, filed 29 Sep 03,
www.land-care.org.uk Click
Here to View
4. Irvine, James (2003). Scottish
Natural Heritage's policy on access. Is it being mis-sold in relation
to enclosed farmland next urban communities?
See SCOTTISH OUTDOOR ACCESS CODE Homepage, filed 07 Jan 03,
www.land-care.org.uk Click
Here to View
Finis
|
