Fig.1. Linkages between grazing, vegetation removal and
species diversity.
by
David Weir, Tim Maddison,
Kate Phillips and
Louise Tonge
Foot and mouth disease (FMD) is a viral disease which can infect many mammals including, contrary to widespread belief, man. To most species it is unimportant and, indeed, in humans usually goes unnoticed however, to livestock (especially cattle) it is rather more serious. The disease in most ungulates (hoofed animals) causes foot and mouth blisters (hence its name) and a general wasting which results in the cessation of milk production in dairy cattle and severe loss of weight in beef cattle (Whitlock, 1968). Moreover, FMD is extremely contagious and in effect, it ends productive cattle farming. Britain has fell foul to the disease several times in the past century, with an epidemic in the 1920’s resulting in the slaughter of approximately 300, 000 animals between 1922 and 1925. In 1967 one of the most devastating of all foot-and-mouth epidemics took grip of the country resulting in the slaughter of approximately 350, 000 animals between November and December when the epidemic was at its height (Whitlock, 1968). Nevertheless, British agriculture recovered. Indeed, as testament to the resilience of British farmers, by the end of March 1968, of the total of just over 2,300 farmers whose animals had been slaughtered, more than 1,300 had already re-stocked. However, in 2001 another FMD epidemic struck the British Isles, again resulting in the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of animals and moreover, dealing a major blow to an increasingly vulnerable sector of the economy. Indeed, this latest epidemic has taken its toll on Britains upland farmers, with many spectators suggesting that the resilience shown after the 1967 epidemic is unlikely to be repeated today. The outbreak of foot and mouth disease has generated much debate on the future of upland farming and the English countryside. Already government policy is changing. Indeed, the forward to the upland management handbook, written by Minister for the Environment Michael Meacher and Minister for the Countryside Elliott Morely, makes it clear that, in upland areas of the UK:
"…major changes are underway and land management practices that are more sympathetic to the needs of wildlife are now being promoted and integrated into the policies, programmes and practices of Government departments and the key sectors they influence."
However, more radical change is called for by several NGO’s and perhaps public perceptions of agricultural policies are beginning to change too. Indeed, the Governments conservation advisory body, English Nature is calling for specific areas of the British uplands not to be restocked with sheep after the foot and mouth crisis, but be allowed to revert to wilderness. Moreover, the organisation has called for numbers of sheep to be reduced as part of an overall reform of agricultural policy. In addition, despite the generous portrayal of farmers as hardworking and hard done to by the media throughout the crisis, seeds of doubt are evident and perhaps public perception is finally beginning to change. Indeed, is it not true that, ‘farmers have a weaker case for special protection than other declining industries since they remain much richer than most of the tax payers who subsidise them?’ (Anatole Kaletsky, Times). Furthermore, upland farmers themselves are an aging breed, with their sons and heirs being increasingly less inclined to make the same life choices that their fathers did.
So, it begs the question, what does the future hold for livestock rearing in the British Isles? Furthermore, how has the latest FMD epidemic influenced opinions on agricultural policy and the changing countryside? In answer, this report intends to examine assiduously the possible different futures of upland farming in the UK. A first brief section will consider the short-term impacts that the epidemic has had on rural livelihoods and British wild lands, with a second section addressing the more important longer-term impacts.
The detection of foot and mouth disease (FMD) in the UK has, in the past, invariably resulted in the immediate closure of all cross-country rights of way by the Government. Anyone who ignores this jurisdiction can face fines of around five thousand pounds due to the high risk of the disease being carried to other animals. Although people are still allowed into rural towns and villages, visitor numbers have been known to plummet by up to, for example, forty one per cent in Northumberland during FMD epidemics. Indeed, the countryside itself is, for many regions of the UK, is the primary resource which attracts tourism. Hence, the implementation of restrictions upon people’s movements drastically removes their freedom to gain pleasure from this natural resource and so visitor numbers significantly decrease. The immediacy of the cessation of walkers across the countryside and of course, the removal of livestock inflicts numerous short-term impacts upon the land and rural dwellers. For example, the reduced levels of grazing in some parts of upland England has allowed rare species to flourish, such as the nationally rare Marsh Saxifrage. Indeed, as a result of the reduction of livestock numbers in the British uplands, there have been some positive impacts, although the sensationalist media very rarely acknowledges this. The upshot of this discovery is the establishment of appropriate grazing practices to aid the survival of the Marsh Saxifrage. A second example of positive, short-term effects is taken from the Forest of Dean. Indeed, although the population of two thousand sheep had to be culled when FMD was transmitted to the Forest of Dean, so as to contain its spread, several more positive effects were also identified. Due to the closure of paths to tourists and the removal of such a large number of animals, the forest was no longer being controlled by the grazing of animals or by the actions of humans and hence experienced a period of recovery resulting in a lush spring growth. However, the disease not only results in the removal of animals from land and, as expected, there are many less positive impacts. Indeed, in a bid to limit the chance of the disease spreading, farmers often place their animals in smaller sized areas. This can cause the opposite problem to the situation stated above, as overgrazing will commonly occur. This alteration of grazing patterns took place in Devon where culling and movement restrictions led to the complete loss of the Culm grassland habitat. Although this was a problematic occurrence on its own, it also then led to the notable reduction in the population of the internationally threatened Marsh Fritillary Butterfly. Significant management is now required to re-establish grazing patterns and encourage the return of the species. Another example of a short-term negative impact that occurred as a result of the recent FMD crisis is the damage to the Scottish shooting industry, which is said to have lost around £10 million. Indeed, as a result of the strict access restrictions imposed hunters could not gain entry to the countryside. Their sporting activities were therefore halted and hence the only existing population control of wild deer was suddenly removed. This led to a higher than usual deer population and it is suggested that overgrazing is occurring as a result.
Evidently the recent FMD epidemic has caused a wide variety of short-term impacts however, perhaps it is more pertinent to address the possible longer-term connotations of the crisis. Many have argued that removal of sheep from the uplands of Britain as a result of the recent foot and mouth disease epidemic, has presented an opportunity for the land to regenerate itself in terms of biodiversity. In the absence of grazing, and if the vegetation remains unchecked, succession will take place. More and more species of flora will establish, in turn supporting more species of fauna. The land therefore becomes progressively wilder, similar to that prior to human interference, hence the term ‘re-wilding’. In this way, the land is no longer used for food production, but is used for the conservation of wildlife. By means of tourism or recreation etc., it is proposed the land could generate far more funds, and prove more economical than livestock farming on the same land.
Sheep farming on British uplands has become increasingly uneconomical. Morgan Parry, head of the Worldwide Fund for the Future (WFF) in Wales suggested that the cost of keeping sheep is more than or equal to their value at sale, and that removal of this type of agriculture would consequently have an insignificant effect on the rural economy. The effect upon sheep farming because of the recent foot and mouth epidemic has encouraged this thinking and it has become increasingly necessary to find alternative ways to use the land. In consideration of a switch from sheep farming to a re-wilding land use, it seems that gains in both amenity, and conservation value, along with income may be great. Mark Avery (director of conservation for the RSPB) has suggested that this opportunity for the conservation of biodiversity is the "silver lining" in the foot and mouth crisis.
Moreover, re-wilding would be in accordance with the Rio Earth Summit 1992, and many EC Directives, which, in both cases encourage the conservation of biodiversity (Carver, 2001). Despite the many advantages of this type of land use, this idea has been criticised. It must be remembered that although removal of sheep farming may not significantly affect the rural economy, social, cultural and economic implications for farmers are great, as well as the large impact upon the landscape (Riddle, 2001). This proposed landscape alteration by re-wilding is opposed by those in favour of preserving local culture, i.e., hill sheep farming. These groups argue that ‘unsightly’ scrub land (a successive stage towards woodland) will invade the uplands and ‘scare’ away tourists, for example in the Lake District (Evans, 2000). Another disadvantage is that it is not actually known what will happen to the vegetation following removal of sheep. Some fear nature will become ‘out of control’ (Evans, 2000). It is difficult to determine exactly what the ‘wild’ vegetation was like prior to human interference. Therefore, those in favour of conserving an area’s local tradition, may be further dissuaded.
It is however, unlikely that dramatic changes in land use will occur as a result of the cultural significance of the landscapes associated with sheep farming (Evans, 2000). However, many are beginning to recognise the economic viability and biodiversity conservation potential of such a practice. Attitudes are changing and spectators are becoming able, in the words of David Riddle (Assistant Director of estates for the National Trust) to, "be sympathetic towards farmers and their families and still appreciate that nature is creating an oppertunity for change far greater than any reform of the Common Agricultural Policy." Something positive therefore in terms of nature conservation, may emerge from the recent foot and mouth epidemic.
Having considered a future scenario in which upland farming becomes almost totally redundant, this report will move on to consider a second likely scenario in which the effect of Foot and Mouth on upland farming throughout the U.K would be a reduction in the number of farms and farmers declining incomes and other pressures. The question that will be answered is, what effect may this have on the wild lands of the British countryside in the long-term?
Before the recent foot and mouth epidemic, mechanisms under the CAP, such as livestock premia and the Hill Livestock Compensatory Allowances have encouraged the intensification of farming methods. Many upland farms were stocked beyond the natural carrying capacity of the land and practises such as shepherding have declined. This has led to overgrazing and serious problems for wildlife. (English Nature, 1998). The intensive use of chemicals on the land is another characteristic affecting the wilderness. The management of upland vegetation by grazing animals is important as it aims to protect and enhance the diversity of various species through the control and limiting of grazing. (Sibbald, A. 2002). Figure 1. illustrates the extent of change in the species diversity of the vegetation (component of the extent of wilderness) depends upon the balance between vegetation growth and its removal by grazing.
Fig.1. Linkages between grazing, vegetation removal and
species diversity.
It has been illustrated that there is a need for the management of grazing to protect our wilderness and that intensive farming in upland areas does not fulfil this. However, after the foot and mouth crisis, many of the upland farmers have been forced to abandon their farms due to financial pressures leaving fewer upland farms in the same area of land which has given rise to more ‘extensive farming’ practises. (Barclay, A. 2001). The effect of this on the wild land will be discussed.
Fig 2. Intensive to Extensive sheep farming in upland
areas
It has been claimed that extensive farming is a method of reducing and controlling grazing (grazing management) which in turn will assist the development of a sustainable economy as well as wilderness. Indeed, with extensive farming, the number of sheep per unit area is reduced and thus the amount of grazing is reduced and scattered (less intensive).
(English Nature, 1998)
‘There is still the need for extensive livestock farming practises in upland areas so to maintain environmentally sustainable agriculture (and wilderness).’
(IGER, 2000)
‘There is a need to encourage extensive rather than intensive agriculture (in order to preserve wilderness)…’
A technique similar to crofting is likely to ensue in the long-term in upland farming areas. It involves a small area of enclosed land with a more extensive hill pasture and represents a less intensive form of farming that has created and maintained valuable wildlife habitats and landscapes. However, conflicts of interests have existed regarding the maintenance of wilderness/environment and the potential earnings of the crofting farmers. (SNH, 2002). When considering natural regeneration and managed re-wilding, the actions will be bound by the need to consider economic as well as conservation ideals. When the economics of farming are marginal (upland farms, post foot and mouth) then there is a chance to work towards a change in favour of conservation and re-wilding. Low intensity (extensive) farming may be one answer to the problem. (Good, C. 2000). After the foot and mouth epidemic, the possibility or scenario of farmers using more extensive methods is probable. The effect that this has on the wild lands (wilderness) of the area seems to be beneficial with extensive farming encompassing grazing management which in turn can help the regeneration and conservation of wilderness in upland areas.
In conclusion, it seems evident that as a result of the recent FMD epidemic,
Britain’s uplands are embarking upon a period of change and transition.
Indeed, this is not only evident in changing Government policies but moreover,
seeds of change are evident in public opinion and the opinions of notable
pressure groups. This report initially identifies the short-term impacts
that the recent FMD crisis has had on Britain’s wild lands. These include
changes in grazing patterns which have resulted in both overgrazing and
conversely rejuvenation at some sites (e.g. the Forest of Dean) with further
attention being paid to the impact that the epidemic has had on wild animals
in the British countryside. However, the various short-term impacts of
the recent FMD epidemic are eclipsed by the enormity of the two possible
longer-term scenarios identified by this report. The first scenario deals
with the likelihood that an unprofitable trend in livestock agriculture
will continue into the future, resulting in the complete removal of livestock
from grazing areas. As such, it will then be necessary to use the land
productively. By both conserving biodiversity yet maintaining revenue from
tourism and recreation; re-wilding of this land is a real possibility.
Many spectators, however, fear the landscape may be greatly altered, in
particular by invasion of scrubland. Nevertheless, changing public opinion
and increasing political support for re-wilding of previously grazed land,
could mean, that in the future, the present barren, unproductive grazed
lands may return to their former wilderness, rich in species diversity.
The second scenario considers the possibility that upland farming will
not be completely eradicated but that there will be fewer upland farmers
in Britain. It is suggested that as a result, the practice of extensive
farming methods may well dominate. With this will come a new approach to
the conservation and restoration of the wild lands of such areas. Extensive
farming, encompassing a controlled grazing management scheme is an obvious
answer to the destructive more intensive management practices that are
currently in operation and would undoubtedly help to nurture some species
back to prominence. Indeed, the future of marginal upland farming is in
doubt following the recent FMD crisis and change in upland Britain will
undoubtedly follow. Moreover, it seems likely that the benefits to the
environment (wilderness) of this potential decline in farmers is great,
with increased plant and animal biodiversity returning to the wild lands,
giving a greater sense of ‘wilderness’ to upland areas in Britain.
References
Web Sites
www.defra.gov.uk/footandmouth/regions/devon.htm
www.footandmouth.org.uk
www.news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/uk/newsid-1402000/1402360.htm
www.news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/uk/england/newsid-1764000/1764291.htm