THE ENVIRONMENT
Enemies within
BARBARA MAUDE
So now it's 1970: European Conservation Year. How much, I wonder, will be con- served as a result? Of course, a great deal is happening. There has been a banquet, at which the Duke of Edinburgh made a speech; and there are going to be confer- ences, both large and small. And, looking at my 'Calendar of Events' I notice such things as a symposium of 'Living with deer' at the Middlesex, Hospital; a guided walk (with leaders) along the Bridgwater Canal, and a conference of the Association of Public Health Inspectors, besides lots and lots of 'open days' at nature reserves. But the real question is, what will all this lead to?
Real conservation is a continuing process; it doesn't proceed by 'events'. It is achieved by negotiation, by consultation, by the skilled advice and work of consultants re- tained by societies; by evidence at public inquiries and before Committees of the House. All this has been going on for a
long time; and as a result of all this practi- cal experience it has become possible to work out new legislation, and amendments to existing legislation, which would mater- ially assist the conservation of the land- scape. There has been legislation, of late years, with these aims; but it becomes in- creasingly doubtful whether it is succeed- ing; and this is why working conservation- ists have certain reservations about ECY. In a sense they have been there before.
The Civic Amenities Act lacks both teeth and definition; it is as good as—and no better than—the planning authority ad- ministering it. The Town and Country Act of 1968 is so vaguely drafted in places that it is doubtful whether some of the pro- visions designed to protect valuable build- ings could in fact . be enforced. And then there is the Countryside Act, hailed on all sides as a 'charter for the countryside'. Many people now feel it is more like a charter to 'blow open' the countryside. Take the idea of 'country parks'. Some parts of England are beastly to live in and hard to get away from. For people so placed, the country park is a brainwave.
In the Wirral they are making one out of the old railway—excellent; it's derelict land, close to the conurbation, and will be quite unobtrusive. But planning authorities, like other people, are prone to keeping up with the Joneses—especially when they get 75 per cent of the cost back from the Treasury. So now proposals for country parks are coming up in all sorts of places— like Wittenhamclumps, in Berkshire, or what will be left of Empingham in Rutland after they have flooded 3,000 acres for the reservoir. Noiv a country park means 'im-
proved' roads; car parks; 'toilets'; -and the usual rash of signs to match. Is this really what is wanted?
The country is not inaccessible; it lies at everyone's car door. It is threaded with public paths, which are all mapped, and anyone who really wants to get out into the country can do so. Once he leaves the road he will find—even in the south—a completely empty landscape. The urban population is not suffering for lack of countryside; they don't want countryside, they want somewhere in the fresh air with a view—which is different. Few people really concerned for the countryside would feel that this alone justifies 'blowing open' hitherto unexploited, lonely pieces of land, and thereby destroying the very qualities which made them valuable.
Then there are the national parks, and the 'Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty'. These are supposed to be protected under the Acts. In fact they are being breached all the time for anything from reservoirs to motorways to cement "works to power sta- tions; and the Countryside Commission seems powerless to stop these intrusions— even when, as in the case of Meldon on Dartmoor, the medical evidence suggests that the water thus provided may actually poison the people who drink it. Did I hear someone mention pollution?
There are ways in which a little money spent on the countryside would help to make it more interesting for the people without alienating the farmers or destroying the landscape. A minuscule grant would pro- vide for the signposting of all the paths. in the country with simple unobtrusive oak posts, and a little more would pay for the repair of all the stiles. A simple provision in the Act to finance the planting of road- side hedges and hedgerow trees would do something to compensate for the general loss of cover which is resulting from present farming policy. And one short simple Bill could prevent all tourist vehicles from entering the wild places at all—the sensible way to keep them truly wild. These are some of the opportunities which have been missed; and this is why people working in the landscape will be watching, with slightly sceptical interest, to see whether anything actually comes out of European Conserva- tion year.
Of course, there is some solid work being done. The Council for the Preservation of Rural England is investigating the major threats to the environment in depth, and will be coming up with specific recom- mendations. Presumably other similar pro- jects may be going on. But my guess as to what will actually happen is that tons of paper will circulate, the words 'environment' and 'pollution' will be freely bandied about, and there will be a great many calls for (unspecified) action. And, at the end of it all, a little more of old England will have been sacrificed to the organisers and the do-gooders. There will be more nature re- serves—and signs saying where they are; and more yellow lines on more roads—and signs saying where they are.
But the real troubles in the environment —the real causes (and they are many) of pollution; the real reasons for the extinc- tion of more and more species; the real reason why the Whitby moors have to be torn open for potash and the Thames Valley for gravel; why York Minster nearly col- lapsed and Venice is sinking into the sea: will anyone dare to use European Conserva- tion Year to crack these necessary nuts? I wonder,
Previous page
