Farming and the countryside

by Edward Milner (views my own)

During a career making documentary films about environmental topics, I have frequently interviewed farmers and foresters. They have always struck me as having a proprietorial view of the countryside based on a clear belief that they were not only technical experts but also the true ‘custodians of the natural world’ – their mission apparently to defend it from changes to their current practices. This included fending off the malign influence of ignorant ‘townies’ (including presumptuous filmmakers) – a generic term for politicians, scientists, wildlife experts, and tourists, all of whom they assumed to be not only out of touch with the true essence of the countryside but also possibly harbouring malevolent feelings towards it – and them. To some extent the feeling has been mutual; after all, the term ‘country yokel’ suggests not just contempt but even pity. To what extent this mutual suspicion applies throughout Europe I’m not sure, but I think I have detected something similar in other countries from Portugal to Sweden. On occasion, I have had to admit that these self-styled custodians aren’t entirely wrong; in the UK some of the policies handed down by both the Ministry of Agriculture (or Defra, as it is now), and the European Commission in Brussels, have been, to say the least, misguided and often contradictory, driven by the sole purpose of increasing food production at any cost. As a number of reports have shown, biodiversity has suffered, with conservation organisations pitted against the commercial interests of farmers, water companies and the whole agri-business conglomeration.  

Since the Second World War, British politicians have encouraged the corporate world to move into the countryside in a big way. Over time, this seems to have completely compromised much of the rural community; UK fertiliser and pesticide use is now among the highest in Europe. Studies show that not only are the profit-driven water companies releasing raw sewage into rivers on a regular basis, but agricultural run-off and direct pollution from business-oriented intensive cultivation and livestock-rearing activities has defiled our waterways for decades. Hedges have been ripped out on an industrial scale, leaving some landscapes alarmingly featureless while once-common farmland birds have shown dramatic declines (the worst in Western Europe), as have many insect populations. So much for caring about nature. In some cases it’s far too profitable not to, in others, it’s the only way to survive as a viable farm unit under prevailing economic pressures, and when small farms can no longer survive they are gobbled up by industrial-scale farming enterprises.

Pesticide spraying in Hereford

Climate change has compounded an already bad situation arising from other threats such as water shortages and the loss of topsoil. As ‘custodians of the countryside’ one might expect that farmers would be in the vanguard in trying to halt and reverse all these negative developments, if only to promote the long-term prospects of their own way of life. Yet farming organisations have a long history of obstructing the regulation of damaging activities such as restricting artificial chemical use. This is not a new phenomenon – it’s more than fifty years since Rachel Carson raised the alarm about the impact of industrial chemicals such as DDT in the wider environment more than half a century ago (Silent Spring, 1962). Her message was fought by the chemical industry tooth and nail at the time and, alas, one could be left with the feeling that little has changed since. A recent letter published in The Scotsman referred to Carson’s ‘dystopian view of modern agriculture’, as if the fault was her viewpoint, when her conclusions were drawn from sound scientific research, and the loss of birdlife well documented.

Sewage works outfall River Bollin. Image by Peter Turner CC BY-SA 2.0 <https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0> Wikipedia Commons

In this context, a recent news item from the Netherlands, one of Europe’s leading agriculture-based economies, is more than a little puzzling. Far from being concerned about the effects of nitrogen pollution and so backing policies to reduce it, the Farmer-Citizen Movement (BBB), a new right-wing political party, is objecting to the Government’s whole climate and biodiversity strategy, which they apparently portray as politicians (‘townies’) trampling on individuals’ rights – their rights, as has been pointed out, to continue being wholesale polluters. This in the face of generous offers from the EU to close down highly polluting livestock farms. The problem in the Netherlands is not a new one. Forty years ago, reports of excess pesticide use and increased pollution due to livestock farming did result in policy proposals to curtail them, to reduce livestock numbers and restore more environmentally friendly methods. These proposals were all voted down. Farmers and agribusiness corporations were making too much money and everything was expanding and intensifying – so slowing down was not an option. The true costs involved have never been paid.

Is it naïve to expect that farmers (of all people) should be aware of, and be concerned about, changes to the countryside caused by industrialised agriculture? Haven’t they noticed the appalling state of our rivers due to sewage and agricultural pollution? Or the losses of biodiversity from familiar farmland birds to common insects including natural pollinators? You might expect that they would be in the vanguard campaigning most strongly for the protection of nature – due to their close association with the natural world and role as ‘countryside guardians’? Yet some farmers are apparently dead set against initiatives aimed at improving biodiversity by, for example, limiting nitrogen emissions. Throughout Europe the farming industry (and I use the term ‘industry’ quite deliberately because it is industrial-scale farming that is the major issue) spends millions lobbying Governments against such measures, and fights to block any proposals that would change current methods, even when offered subsidies to do so. Who actually cares about the losses of biodiversity? When a chicken farm leaks nitrogenous wastes into the local river, there is a real cost to the environment and thus to the whole community. But, as with the manufacturers of other toxic and polluting products such as long-lasting chemicals and single-use plastics, agribusiness is effectively subsidised by never having to pay for the damage it causes. The Polluter Pays principle is generally accepted as the only equitable way to assess true costs, yet in the countryside it rarely, if ever, applied – the recent case of a jail term for a farmer canalising the protected River Lugg (BBC News, 20th April 2023) continuing to be very much the exception rather than the rule. How many illegal outflows of foul waste from chicken farms are prosecuted? Virtually none.

Altnabreac Flow Country poster

I have found other self-styled custodians of the countryside to be pretty suspect too. When making a film about the misguided afforestation of the Flow Country in northern Scotland (On the Great Peatlands, 1987, ACACIA Productions), I interviewed a local representative of the UK Government’s Forestry Commission, proud of his professional responsibilities as a forester, who tried to persuade me that draining vast peatlands and planting them with fast-growing Sitka spruce trees was ‘good for biodiversity’. He quoted a study that showed the arrival of several species of common garden birds now to be found in and around these new plantations. The loss of rare species that depended on the pre-existing peatland concerned him less. And so one or two rare species had been replaced by several common ones. Elsewhere, Sitka spruce had even been planted among ancient Scots pines in some remnants of the Caledonian Forest. Both schemes were backed by major commercial interests and generous Government tax incentives. Following an outcry, this form of planting had recently been recognised as a mistake. So, suddenly changing tack, the Forestry Commission man I interviewed became bullish about the process of removing these aliens and wanted credit for efforts in restoring native forest! Overall, the damage done to peatlands and ancient forest during this time was unconscionable, yet the fiction that foresters remained diligent environmental custodians was apparently unshaken.  What these stories have in common is the fiction that single-minded commercial priorities are compatible with responsible stewardship. So long as the true costs are ignored the whole approach is clearly unsustainable. A more sophisticated approach is required, but the motivation for this seems unlikely to come from these self-styled custodians. The fanatics of the Dutch BBB party are on the wrong side of history; they should have been campaigning years ago – against the mistaken policies that resulted in such environmental damage. Sadly, the whole chemical-based system of industrial farming has become too profitable and, like drug addiction, the possibility of change gradually becomes more and more difficult. There are individual farmers and foresters with a longer-term vision, but for the farming industry as a whole to claim that the health of the rural environment is safe in its hands, is at best naïve and at worst cynically manipulative.

Yellowhammer from the Crossley ID Guide of Britain and Ireland. A vision of agricultural landscapes.

Planetary Health Weekly: Biodiversity Blog 14 – by Edward Milner (views my own)

N.B. First published in Planetary Health Weekly, a free weekly blog about the health of the planet.