From the 1980’s onwards, efforts have been made to limit the losses of semi-natural habitats to agriculture. The Wildlife and Countryside Act of 1981 was an important piece of legislation which placed greater emphasis on the formation of designated areas, such as Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs). These designations allowed the compensation of farmers for actively managing (or at least not destroying) areas of conservation value (Lowe and Ward, 1998).
In 1991 the European Union Commissioner, Ray MacSharry, introduced set-aside in a bid to reduce over-production and the years since then have seen the British government reflecting EC concerns and new laws and agri-environmental schemes have been introduced to try to reverse the damage that has been done to the countryside by agriculture. Schemes such as the Woodland Grant Scheme and Countryside Stewardship Scheme now reward farmers for taking a responsible attitude towards the environment, whilst laws such as the Hedgerow Regulations help to prevent further ecological damage. Recent reforms of the CAP have also moved payments away from production and towards a land area payment. It is hoped that the de-coupling of financial support from production will discourage intensification and, together with new environmentally-focused grants and payments for organic farming , biomass production and forestry (encouraged due to Britain importing over 15% of its timber), will lead to less agriculture and more habitat diversity. Other schemes such as the Rural Enterprise Scheme will help landowners to diversify and to become less reliant on agriculture, benefiting the rural community as a whole. Farmers are already using fewer chemicals (due in part to assurance schemes demanding less chemical input, but largely due to expense outweighing the advantages) and are moving away from ploughing towards minimum tillage. Again, this is due to costs, since tillage is faster than ploughing, but is important as ploughing leaves soil susceptible to erosion.
Supermarkets have a huge, and increasing, influence over agricultural producers. Superficially, this appears beneficial to the environment as they have introduced assurance schemes in response to public concerns over food safety and animal welfare. However, it is only the large farms that are able to produce the quantities demanded by the supermarkets and it is the largest farms that tend to be the most intensive.
Although the countryside has been shaped by agriculture, since the industrial revolution, it has also seen significant losses to urbanisation. In 1811 the population of Britain was around 12 million (Genealogical Research in England and Wales, 2003). By 1911 it was 41 million and in 2001 was around 57 million (National Statistics, 2003). Obviously, population growth means more demand for housing and an inevitable creep of housing into the countryside surrounding urban areas. There has also been a shift towards out-of-town shopping centres and industrial estates since the 1980s.
The transport system has also impacted heavily on the countryside, over the last fifty years or so in particular. Not only have motorways cut large swathes through the countryside, they have also increased access to previously isolated communities, allowing people to move from towns into villages. This has resulted in many rural residents commuting to work and having little reliance on local facilities and has led to large numbers of closures of rural post offices, banks, etc.
It would seem that the countryside is now at a crossroads. It is widely recognised that it needs protection from damaging agricultural practices and spreading urbanisation, but how is this to be balanced with necessary farming production and housing demands? It is likely that the next twenty years will see a continuing decline in agricultural production overall. However, it is possible that it will be the largest of farms that remain in production, since these are the most economically viable. As the effects of CAP reforms are felt, it may be that these farms become even larger and more intensive in order to retain their profits. It seems certain that many smaller farmers will scale down agricultural operations. The available grants will be more attractive to small farmers and they will be paid to manage the countryside in a more environmentally-friendly fashion. There will be a large increase in the numbers of part-time farmers, as they are encouraged to diversify through grant aid. There will be more farmers offering bed-and-breakfast to the increasing numbers of visitors to the countryside, more farm shops and more farms moving into forestry and energy crops. This may also increase rural employment, to the benefit of local communities. Rural employment is essential to the survival of the countryside, since it needs to be managed. John Gummer, the former Secretary of State for the Environment said, “the most effective way of enhancing the countryside is to ensure that it continues to be a workplace and is not entirely given over to weekenders” (Sissons, 2001). Evidence of this can be seen in the case of the Lower Kingcombe estate in Dorset which remained virtually unchanged for centuries, but by 1987 it was virtually deserted, broken up and sold off, because it was unable to sustain a working population (Newby, 1988).
However, the future of the British countryside is not all rosy. There are large areas of countryside that lie outside of designated conservation areas and these areas could see increases in building, as planning consent is easier to obtain. Areas of green belt land, particularly in the south-east where housing needs are high are also very much at risk. As agriculture is reduced, it is likely that land around towns and cities will become unmanaged wastelands and attract fly-tippers. Demand for grassland is decreasing. Less milk is being consumed, falling from 16 500 million litres in 1983 to 14 000 million litres in 2001, so there is less need for grazing (National Statistics, 2003). Under these circumstances, there is the danger that local authorities may well decide that the land would be better used for development.
Both this, and future governments will always put national business sentiments and housing needs ahead of local conservation issues, and business demands buildings and travel links, so continued development of roads, airport expansions and the like are inevitable. However, with the exception of the large farms which may increase intensification in order to compete in a free market without production support, the environment will benefit in the coming years. With the aid of grants, more hedgerows will be re-established, more field margins introduced and more trees planted. Yes, there will be a loss of the countryside to development but, thanks largely to the CAP reforms and conservation designations, that which remains will be of a higher environmental value than has been seen for decades.
References
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. (2002) The Strategy for Sustainable Farming and Food. London: Defra Publications.
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. (2003) Common Agricultural Policy (CAP): from creation to the present day [www document].
< http://www.defra.gov.uk/farm/capreform/> (accessed 3 January 2004).
Genealogical Research in England and Wales. (2003) Population of Great Britain and Ireland 1570-1931 [www document].
<http://www.gendocs.demon.co.uk/pop.html> (accessed 2 January 2004).
Lowe, P. and Ward, S. (eds.). (1998) British Environmental Policy and Europe. London: Routledge, 216.
National Statistics. (2003) Census 2001 [www document]. <http://www.statistics.gov.uk/census2001/> (accessed 2 January 2004).
National Statistics (2003) Milk Production 2001 [www document]. <http://www.statistics.gov.uk/STATBASE/Expodata/Spreadsheets/D3754.csv>
Newby, H. (1988) The Countryside in Question. London: Hutchinson, 109-110.
Sissons, M. (ed.). (2001) A Countryside for All. London: Vintage, 67.
