ntal Talk
Rob Yorke finds out if the Secretary of
State for the Environment, Food and
Rural Affairs can deliver his ambitions
for the English countryside post-Brexit
Photo used under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported (CC BY 3.0) license. (www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0)
provenance, so that direction of travel
is both in tune with what’s good for the
environment but also where the demand
for food will be.
But, you’re right, it’s also the
case that there are technological
breakthroughs where we can increase
productivity through precision techniques
applied to the soil, meaning inputs
are less, cost to the farmer is less, but
productivity overall is greater.
The most progressive and best farmers can
do more, yes, but in the remote uplands it’s
harder to do that.
There’s a particular fragility to farming in
the uplands and obviously there are very
thoughtful people who’ve argued that
when it comes to the uplands we should
go for a sort of full-scale rewilding. My
view is that there may be parts of the
uplands that are suitable for rewilding.
But it’s also the case that there are
other parts where we need to support
traditional farming and I think it would
be wrong for anyone who’s responsible
for our countryside to allow that type of
farming to be threatened.
I took issue when you said in a previous
interview: “there are no tensions between
productive farming and care for the natural
world” with on e obvious tension being the
use of agro-chemicals.
Yes, that’s a fair point.
If agro-chemicals such as neonics are
banned, as you’ve suggested, what’s the
balance, in the face of increasing crop
disease, between regulation, innovation,
investment in research and development?
We should be guided by the science. The
science initially indicated that perhaps
the EU were going too far on neonics –
now we’ve got better scientific evidence,
we need to go further. So far the science
indicates that glyphosate does not have
the harmful effects that some attribute
to it, and it is a valuable tool in minimal
or no-till cultivation, so I’m behind its
continued use. But in the future we may
find different ways of developing crop
protection, such as through advances in
genetics. A more scientifically effective
and precise approach towards chemicals
should be encouraged within innovation
aiming, ultimately, to enhance soil
health.
...they’re
decisions
about making
our country
a more
attractive
place from
every point of
view
We get very emotional about animal
welfare whereas wildlife conservation is
a completely separate issue. Should the
Government take a stronger role in framing
complex narratives, rather than leaving it to
campaigners, charities, trade unions, NGOs
and media?
Yes, I think so. These issues, quite
understandably, always excite strong
feelings. People are passionate about
animal welfare, people care about our
wildlife, so you’re always going to have
individuals and organisations who will
articulate the case for action. But I do
think Government’s role should be to say
these are assets that we value. We should
take pride, as the Scottish Government
has in fostering the reintroduction of the
golden eagle, in encouraging the return
of the beaver to British shores because
they’re not economic decisions, they’re
decisions about making our country a
more attractive place from every point
of view. The Government exists in order
to make nations better places for their
citizens, for the next generation.
The Hen Harrier Action Plan has recently
involved Natural England issuing a trial
licence for brood management. It’s a
complex subject for many people. Could the
Government help frame this contentious
issue?
Yes. I think that there is a role for
Government but also more broadly the
DEFRA family. We’re very lucky in this
department to have people who have
chosen to work here because the issues
the department deals with are issues
summer 2018 | Outdoor focus 13