Heritage- can we afford to conserve it today?

There has been little to do at home in the last 10 days except watch the rain come down in sheets. Today the wind has joined the rain and it has been trees coming down if not in sheets then certainly by the score. It is time to change tack slightly on the blog therefore and talk about heritage.

Last week I paid  a visit to Bowhill- a 16th Century merchants house extensively and painstakingly restored by English Heritage between 1980-97. Done when there was more money around, it would be difficult to justify today without a viable end use. It does have one fortunately as offices but whether it is viable of course is a different question in the light of the capital costs. The rooms are not easy to occupy and some (the great hall) are underutilised. One could not comprehend a private owner contemplating such a project, impressive though it is.
My next visit was to a grade II farmhouse badly damaged by fire where the interesting question arises- how much of what is significant can be saved and, is it sufficient to justify the necessary expenditure? Once again I detected a worry from the owners about what will happen next. The answers are never clear cut and often down to individual interpretation from those who enforce the rules. I think that it is this which causes difficulty- the lack of certainty. Normally in running a business or in property ownership the rules are more obvious.
I then found myself at the Eden Project in Cornwall. I have nothing but admiration for this project- its scale and imagination; its economic influence in a part of the County that needed help; its design and innovation; its sheer vision. I also , on a personal note, love the rainforest. Once again however I wonder about the economics. Public funds have been crucial in its success.
Finally I ended last week in Plymouth. This is a City that has got to grips with many of its deep seated problems but still has economic challenges particularly as the main employer- the Naval dockyard- downsizes.It also has lots of historic assets that are costly to look after. A particular challenge is the city centre where the grid pattern plan by Abercrombie was part of the post-war revitalisation of the City and is a classic of its kind. It is creaking at the edges however and , once again, we are into discussions of significance and economic viability.
So there is a theme here, in case you missed it! We have entered a new era of slow, if any, economic growth and an emphasis on local solutions. We have Government coffers that are empty and likely to be so for some time yet. Local solutions for properties require economic viability however and our challenge will be to keep the best of what we have; not to obstruct locally funded solutions but not to be held to ransom either in the face of poor design.

It isn't easy to be a wildlife friendly farmer- guest blog

Experiencing wildlife is one of the privileges of living in the countryside. Hearing it, seeing it and trying to understand it continues to delight and challenge me. Will the blue tits successfully use the house martins’ nest? Is it rabbit, squirrel or deer that has been removing the bark from that tree? You become only too aware that the interaction between species is an ever changing and delicate one. I suppose that is what ecosystems are.

We are very lucky. Our family have lived in the same part of Devon for many centuries. This gives me a feeling of responsibility for our land, for our buildings and for the community in which we live. The interaction between these different components gives us an ecosystem of our own.

For many years our family/land ecosystem has evolved slowly. We have navigated our way through diseases (Black Death); wars (including the Civil War) and economic turmoil (The Great Depression). As our family ecosystem has evolved so we have influenced wildlife and landscape in this little part of the country. Land use change may have resulted from personal interest (planting trees, particularly specimen trees) but more often from the economics of farming. We grew oats to feed working horses until the early 20^th century; flat pole cabbages, swedes and turnips either for human consumption or for livestock. Animals also grazed the grass that was fed by irrigation channels (‘catch meadows’) dug into the slopes.

The evolution of the wildlife ecosystems and our own was slow and they were interrelated. Some of our food and medicines came from the wild. Our community was a rural and farming one.

We have evidence of what life was like in this part of Devon over the years. I remember it as a boy. There is no doubt that we are seeing changes. The most obvious ones that I notice are rabbits back in some years to pre myxomatosis levels but no hares; a hugely increased population of badgers but very few hedgehogs; a hugely increased population of wood pigeons and corvids but fewer songbirds and less diversity. There are less insects and bees. There are fewer wildflowers, orchids, hedgerow plants and no poppies in the fields. There are more roe deer and a huge number of grey squirrels. There are no grey partridge. I am sad to see these changes as I know are very many other farmers and landowners. So the natural ecosystems are changing but so too has our ecosystem.

This last century saw an increase in the rate of change however. The first ‘popular’ tractor arrived in 1917 (the Fordson); the first commercial chainsaws appeared in the 1930s and the first commercially available pesticides and herbicides arrived around 1950. This coupled with a national policy to increase production led to the well documented changes that have led to changes in wildlife.

A vital part of our own ecosystem is money. We have a large overdraft to service, built up in the long period until recently when farming produced few profits. So repaying loans has to be done alongside competing demands in our ecosystem such as maintaining listed buildings at huge cost. Farming in an environmentally friendly way is a challenge. Stewardship schemes help but they are less well funded than they were and they don’t cover everything these days. I have spent a lot of money this last year on laying hedges, clearing scrub etc in areas not covered by the schemes. I will be providing public access next year that I am not compelled to do but will improve visitors enjoyment on an Iron Age hill fort. It will cost me money and bring me in no return at all and I will have to consider additional issues like health and safety as a consequence.

In these circumstances it is not surprising that the modern farmer uses whatever technology is available to him to improve financial performance; plants winter crops not spring crops and generally make his farm more efficient. He doesn’t want to see grain spilled on the ground at harvest even if sparrows do. He doesn’t have the time to measure optimum sward height or to manage small groups of cattle in tiny fields. He already has much more paperwork so he doesn’t welcome more. If he leaves skylark plots it looks as though his seed drill was blocked.

It isn’t that he is necessarily hostile to nature. Indeed he probably regrets the changes as much as anyone. It is just that he needs to make his living and he is wired to maximise production. He sees his role as feeding the population of this country and the world. He wishes he could do both.

An increasing number of farmers are however trying to produce food and environmental benefit together and, at long last, some serious attempts are being made to quantify this environmental benefit and to find ways of reflecting this in returns. The return of profitability to UK agriculture will certainly help but farming is an increasingly complex business and it would help if environmental guidance was clear, unambiguous and easy to implement. My worry is that the responses on the ground on individual farms will be too piecemeal and too small scale to reverse the declines in biodiversity that we have already seen.

One of the difficulties is the fact that the debate is often portrayed as production versus conservation and that this debate is conducted in the media often by sound bite. This blog is no stranger to the need to stimulate interest by courting controversy! There is a danger that the retreat into silos may happen politically too with the newly formed LEPs (local enterprise partnerships) not speaking to the soon to be formed LNPs (local nature partnerships) and leaving it to Government (DEFRA and BIS) to adjudicate. It will be interesting to see if the newly formed Rural and Farming Network reporting to DEFRA can help. I chair the South West Network in a part of the world where farming, environmental and community interests have worked well together and where our group was specifically designed to include representatives from each sector. I will let you know how we get on!

 This blog was posted on Mark Avery's blog at his kind invitation

SW Coastline- can farming survive here?

One of the wonders of our British landscape is our coastline. Leaving aside its impact on our history as an island nation; from Romans to William the Conqueror; from smugglers to launching the D Day armada; it is staggering in its beauty. Walking the stretch from Prawle point to Salcombe, I was struck by several thoughts.
The scenery is dramatic but so also is the birdlife and the plantlife. The song of the skylark is uplifting here but is rarer elsewhere these days. Plants thrive in the muddle and disorder of the climax vegetation of the cliff edge beyond the reach of the fertiliser, pesticides and herbicides; products that are so necessary for profitable farming but which create uniformity and lack of diversity in the landscape.
People walking the path seem universally friendly. Smiles and waves (the human kind!) suggest that the experience is doing them good both mentally and physically. We were also made welcome by two volunteers from the National Coastwatch Institution at Prawle Point. This wonderful organisation, made up entirely of volunteers, plays a vital role for those in trouble at sea.
The other organisation that deserves credit too in this area is the National Trust under whose stewardship much of the land falls. Car parks are provided at both ends of the route and one is reassured that the coastline is in good hands.
People seem happy to follow the path. We certainly were with a party of nine including two dogs. The need for swathes of extra land as 'spreading room' suggested by Natural England as part of the coastal access debate seems unnecessary.
Yet there are some downsides too. The popularity of the route and the numbers of walkers is leading to erosion of the path. This erosion is severe in places.
 Most people use cars to access the path. Car parks are needed. A similar dependence on the car is often used as a reason why planners turn down diversification applications in rural areas.
The much vaunted benefits to farmers and landowners whose property adjoins the path is a bit of a myth too. We walked for some 5 miles and not once did we see an opportunity for them to add value from the visitors crossing their land until we reached Salcombe. The National Trust is a charity and can afford to take a lower return; private owners do not often have that option.
I was particularly interested also to note the agriculture. There is evidence near Prawle Point of ancient field systems with field boundaries marked by flat stone slabs set on edge and, from the C18th until the 1960s vegetable production using the abundant seaweed fertiliser. For modern farming however it is uneconomic with tiny fields, poor access and fences undercut by the retreating coastline. Left to the free market, I doubt that it would continue yet we know the importance of grazing to the maintenance of biodiversity and where it doesn't happen topping, flailing and rolling is needed to control the bracken and gorse and this, of course, costs money.
Surely another example of the wider benefits from agriculture beyond simply food production and the need to find a way to fund it...

Drought-Can we learn from the past?

Throughout the 15th and 16th Centuries my family were constantly in disputes about water. Sheep were an important source of wealth and merchants grew rich on the wool trade in neighbouring towns such as Tiverton and Exeter. Sheep need drinking water though. Not as much as cattle certainly but nevertheless spring fed streams were vital at a time before the widespread availability of iron pipes and metal water troughs. So ownership of the water rights and control of the streams was of crucial importance to those who farmed the animals and wanted to share in this wealth.
Between the 16th and 19th centuries the plentiful availability of labour enabled the construction of 'catch meadows' and their associated irrigation systems which followed the contours of our Devon valleys. Carrying either water or a combination of water and cattle dung from spring sources or collecting points, they helped crops grow with a mixture of irrigation and fertilisation. Even in a year of average rainfall, irrigation will improve grass growth so judicious release of water into these systems paid dividends.
I have seen intricate and clever systems of water transfer in other parts of the world. The paddy fields of China and the Far East and the long and delicate channels flowing down the rocky valley sides in what were then the Trucial States adjoining the Gulf are but two examples. In areas of water shortage mankind has become adept at water transfer. In a country where we have been used to plenty however such as the UK we have not generally put a high enough value on the water to justify the infrastructure cost of transfer. The concepts of pipelines or tankers to transfer water from north and west to south and east in this country fall down when the financial calculations are done.
There are only two things that can be done to alleviate the situation; reducing demand or increasing supply and it is the matching of these two that holds the key. All three-supply,demand and balancing-require investment if you assume, as I do, that climatic patterns are shifting bringing us greater extremes and variations.

Increasing supply must start with the provision of more storage reservoirs to capture such rainfall as there is and to supplement aquifers. Well designed, these can benefit businesses, perhaps communities too and certainly wildlife as can any modern catch meadows or leats that flow from them( the Devon Wildlife Trust have tried to restore some)- but the construction of the reservoirs is often mired in red tape and they are expensive; fiscal incentives would help. Reducing demand in domestic situations is about behaviour change; in business situations it is about research and development into affordable alternatives. In farming, reducing the demand for food will hardly help us to achieve food security in a hungry world so this might mean drought resistant varieties. This re-opens the GM debate. Finally balancing these two requires anticipating rainfall and matching it with temperature and crop and animal requirements. This is about accurate forecasting which, once again, will need funding.
In Devon we once had catch meadows. Now we have the Met Office in Exeter. We need to play a full part in the debate.