Khaki conservation: an examination of military environmentalist discourses in the British Army

Journal of Rural Studies 17 (2001) 201}217

Khaki conservation: an examination of military environmentalist discourses in the British Army Rachel Woodward* Centre for Rural Economy, Department of Agricultural Economics and Food Marketing, University of Newcastle upon Tyne, Newcastle upon Tyne NE1 7RU, UK

Abstract The paper examines discourses of military environmentalism. It opens with an assessment of the signi"cance of military environmentalist discourses and outlines reasons for their study. In three successive sections, the paper then looks in detail at the form and function of three of these discourses. The paper draws on a range of primary and secondary sources including Ministry of Defence and Army publicity information, policy documentation, parliamentary debates and data from the Otterburn Public Inquiry. It examines the construction of military training as environmentally compatible through a discourse of &crater-as-habitat'. It goes on to look the paternalism within discourses of military land management. It then examines a discourse of administrative rationalism in conservation, which is foundational in that it de"nes what environmental protection and conservation are about. The paper concludes with a comment on the wider signi"cance of military environmental discourses.  2001 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction This paper is about discourses of military environmentalism. It has three broad aims. The "rst is to examine how the British Ministry of Defence (MoD) and Army, as a signi"cant owner and user of land, portray the environmental impact of their activities upon that land. The second aim is to examine some of the consequences of the discourses through which military land use is portrayed. The third aim to suggest some possible explanations for the choice and use of such discourses. The paper starts by situating this analysis of the politics of military environmentalist discourse within cultural geography and rural studies literatures, and I outline the theoretical reasons for this. In the remainder of the introductory section, I discuss the methodological approach

* Tel: #44-191-222-8354. E-mail address: [email protected] (R. Woodward).  In an earlier paper in this journal (Woodward, 1999), I explored the politics of military land use, with reference to the discursive construction of landscape and military activities thereon. This paper has been written as a companion to the earlier work. Some information on the theoretical framework and analytic approach adopted in both pieces is included here, perhaps in repetition, on order to allow both pieces to be read as free-standing articles.

taken and the reasons for examining the topic. I then go on in successive sections to outline the form, function and possible explanations for three discourses of military environmentalism identi"able within the documentation examined. These are, "rst, a discourse of &crater-as-habitat' which naturalises the military presence in the countryside; second, a discourse of paternalism in land management which prioritises the Army as the most e!ective custodian of speci"c landscape types in Britain; and third, a discourse of administrative rationalism in conservation which de"nes environmental protection as the outcome of a particular mode of active human stewardship. In the concluding section, I examine the signi"cance of military environmental discourses for both academic research on the social construction of place and space, and for wider discourses of national defence and security.

2. The signi5cance of military environmentalist discourses In this section, I explain why an examination of military environmentalist discourses constitutes an interesting and signi"cant topic for critical inquiry. Its interest and signi"cance lie "rst within arguments about the importance of recognising the forms and functions of di!erent social constructions of nature and the

0743-0167/01/$ - see front matter  2001 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved. PII: S 0 7 4 3 - 0 1 6 7 ( 0 0 ) 0 0 0 4 9 - 8

202

R. Woodward / Journal of Rural Studies 17 (2001) 201}217

environment, and second within debates about military land management practices and policies on the defence estate. In the course of explaining the signi"cance of this topic, I also discuss why a theoretical and methodological framework drawing on discourse analysis is appropriate to this inquiry. This analysis of military environmental discourses draws its initial inspiration from two related literatures. The "rst is a cultural geography literature which argues in general terms that space and place can be viewed not as given entities existing outside of social practice and human experience, but as the product of social practice (see for example, Gregory, 1994a; Pile and Thrift, 1992; Soja, 1989). Within this conceptualisation, the objective of critical inquiry becomes the examination of the forms and functions of such constructions of space and place, as the result of conscious social practice. Whilst much of this literature is concerned with the physical and metaphorical construction of built environments (see for example, Kearns and Philo, 1993; Hall and Hubbard, 1998), attention has also been paid to the ways in which nature and the natural environment are constituted through a number of social and cultural practices (Dickens, 1996; Harvey, 1996; Smith, 1990). One key points needs emphasis here. This is that there is no one single social construction of nature existing spatially or temporally, but rather that we can identify any number of ideologies about the meaning, form and function of the natural environment. Speci"c social practices produce, reproduce and transform di!erent values and ideas about nature (Bansal and Howard, 1997; Beder, 1997; Dryzek, 1997; HarreH et al., 1999; Mcnaughten and Urry, 1998). Furthermore, these constructs are neither static nor isolated from one another, but develop as social practice through interaction and in contest with each other. Some will be subordinate and others hegemonic. The analytic task established by this conceptualisation involves the identi"cation and interpretation of the form and function of di!erent constructions of nature. This literature suggests an approach to the study of land uses which prioritises consideration of the meaning of those uses to speci"c social groups. This paper constitutes an investigation of one such &constructed nature', the framework within which the British Army explains environmental conservation, both to itself and to the world beyond the garrison gates. There are two things which this paper is not about. First, it is not explicitly about the ways in which military environmental discourses interact with other &constructed natures' and the con#icts which may or may not ensue from that. Those interactions certainly play a role in shaping the construction of military environmental discourses (and for a discussion of the competition and interaction between military and other discourses, see Woodward, 1998a). However, the purpose here is one of initial exploration, to focus explicitly and solely on the

military in order to draw out for discussion the distinctive elements of military environmentalist discourses. After all, this is hardly an over-researched topic; whilst there are some existing and conventional accounts of military conservation policy in the academic literature (Savege, 1997; Doxford and Hill, 1998), there is little that subjects the broader construction of nature within the Army to critical gaze * and, as I argue below, there are good reasons why this critical gaze is necessary. Second, this paper is not an explicit comparison between military constructions of environmentalism and those deployed by other powerful groups in the countryside, such as farmers, forestry interests, business, landowners, the access lobby, etc. There are interesting points to be drawn from such comparisons * and where pertinent, I draw these out. (See also, for example, Lowe and Ward (forthcoming) on the relationships between the MoD and other landowners in rural Northumberland.) Again, however, the intention here is to provide an explicit and focused assessment of the Army itself, prior to any broader assessments of the relationships between military environmental discourses and other &constructed natures'. The second (and related) literature inspiring this investigation into military environmental discourses is a growing corpus of writings within rural studies which has explored how a reconceptualisation of rurality might better inform debates about social, economic and political life in the countryside (Murdoch and Pratt, 1993, 1994; Philo, 1993; Pratt, 1996). In brief, this literature argues for the rural as socially constructed, with multiple interpretations of rurality informing the arguments of a variety of parties to debates on the most &appropriate' use of rural space. The task for rural studies thus becomes the mapping and unpacking of di!erent ruralities for their meanings and implications. This literature, sparked by a debate on the utility of post-structuralist social theory to rural studies, has gone on to inspire research into such issues as understandings of rurality in the daily lives of rural residents, the role of constructions of rurality in debates on rural deprivation, the political consequences of di!erent constructions of rurality deployed in arguments about "eldsports and the gendering of constructions of rurality (see Halfacree, 1995; Woodward, 1996; Cox et al., 1994; Jones, 1999; Cloke and Little, 1997; Milbourne, 1997). This literature suggests an alternative approach to the study of military lands and their uses, beyond the conventional assessments of quantity, use and management (see Savege et al., 1995; Doxford and Hill, 1998), which might start to tease out the politics of those land uses. A common theme in both the cultural geography and rural studies literatures is the emphasis on social constructions as discursive formations (Pratt, 1996; Macnaughten and Urry, 1998). It is a truism that the concept of discourse is used in an often bewildering variety of

R. Woodward / Journal of Rural Studies 17 (2001) 201}217

ways, across the social sciences. Although readers of this journal will probably be well versed in the uses and purposes of discourse and discourse analysis, a brief discussion of the way this concept is deployed here will clarify the analytic approach adopted (see also van Dijk, 1997; Fairclough, 1997; Mills, 1997). The conceptualisation of discourse deployed here follows Mills' de"nition of discourses as &groups of utterances which seem to be regulated in some way and which seem to have a coherence and a force to them in common' (Mills, 1997, p.7). The central idea is that discourses act as linguistic frameworks in which things are made meaningful. Those frameworks are constructed linguistically, through &groups of utterances' and thus an analysis of discourse entails the analysis of language for its meaning. It focuses on how language is used, the function of particular rhetorical strategies within a discourse and the interpretation made within a discourse of particular vocabularies. A discourse analytic approach problematises the idea that meaning in language is automatically transparent or straightforward. It argues instead that a purpose of this approach is to deconstruct the seemingly commonplace and commonsensical in order to unpack the naturalising function of discourses (Gregory, 1994; Mills, 1997). So, for example, an analysis of military environmentalist discourses rests upon an unpacking of apparently innocuous or neutral-sounding statements about military activities on the defence estate, with a view to understanding their wider meaning or intent. A second key point about the conceptualisation of discourse used here is that processes around the construction of meaning are part and parcel of processes of social reproduction. The purpose of discourse analysis is not just the interpretation of how material realities are discussed and interpreted, but how this is also a social practice. In other words, discourses have a social context in which they operate. The analytic task is therefore also a consideration of this social context, a questioning of the political and social accomplishments of di!erent discursive strategies, and an assessment of how such strategies can legitimate or challenge power relations. In short, an analysis of discourse entails consideration of the political functions of discursive formations (Fairclough, 1995; Pratt, 1996).

 Again, and to repeat a point made above, discourses are open to challenge. The analysis of discourse may also entail an examination of the con#icts and interactions between discourses, as part of the wider aim of assessing the political functions of discursive formations. The interaction between military and other discourses is not my intention here, but rather an explicit and focused examination of the discourses of one institution, in order to highlight the speci"cities of that institutional view. A comparative analysis may appear in the future; before that task can be undertaken, it is necessary to "rst isolate for examination the form and function of discourses of military environmentalism.

203

The conceptual framework suggested by these two literatures, and the methodology suggested by discourse analysis, in turn suggest a particular approach to the examination of military land use issues. It suggests that we can look at the way the MoD and Army describe and portray the lands on which they carry out their activities. It suggests that we can unpack those portrayals in order to understand their form, their internal regulation as frameworks through which military land uses are given meaning, and the consequences of those constructions. Looking at discourses of military land uses is interesting and signi"cant because it entails examining how a socially dominant group and signi"cant land owner and user constructs a speci"c portrayal of the spaces and places in which it operates. The discourse analytic approach is also suggested because of practicalities. There is little (if any) reliable, published data produced as a result of rigorous independent research available on the ecology of military lands and the impacts of military activities upon on those lands (but see Hirst, 2000; Dycus, 1996). But what we do have are assertions, arguments, words and portrayals produced in ever-increasing quantities by the Ministry of Defence and Army which collectively present a set of arguments about military activities and their e!ects on the natural and cultural environment of training lands. The sheer volume of available information and literature indicates this as an area for investigation. In terms of sources, this paper draws on policy statements and documentation produced by the MoD, publications produced for both civilian and military readerships by the MoD's Conservation O$ce, internal Army brie"ngs and training materials on environmental policy and practice, published statements by Army and MoD personnel on their respective roles, duties and attitudes towards environmental protection on the defence estate, and published documents and unpublished comments from the same gleaned over the period of a major inquiry into military land use at the Otterburn Training Area in Northumberland. This rich collection of source materials on military uses of the defence estate is ripe for critical inquiry as to its discursive content and function. But why, within this range of discourses through which military land uses are portrayed, have I chosen to focus on those which speak to environmental protection and environmental impacts? There are "ve reasons, which I discuss here at length in order to provide some basic information on the speci"c characteristics of the defence estate, and the key features of the management of that estate. The "rst is that the nature and content of the defence estate itself has prompted the MoD and Army to prioritise environmental considerations in its public statements on the defence estate. The defence estate is the term used to denote the lands owned by the MoD and used by the Army, Royal Air Force, Royal Navy and other defence agencies for

204

R. Woodward / Journal of Rural Studies 17 (2001) 201}217

defence and related purposes. It is huge * reputedly the second largest land holding in single ownership in the United Kingdom. A 1994 House of Commons Defence Committee report on the defence estate estimated that it comprised around 227,000 ha owned and a further 16,000 ha leased by the MoD, around 1% of the total land area of the UK. In addition, rights are held over a further 270,000 ha of land, principally for Army training. The defence estate comprises several thousand sites across Britain of remarkable diversity of type and use, ranging from the huge Army Field Training Centres such as those on Salisbury Plain (39,000 ha) to small "ring ranges covering a few hectares. The majority of the defence estate (66%) is used for training (mostly by the Army), 12% is used for air"elds, research establishments occupy 9% and barracks and depots cover 9% (all "gures from HCDC, 1994). The cultural and natural heritage content and value of the defence estate * if judged by the levels of statutory designation upon it * is immense. The built estate includes over 1000 historic buildings (over 40% of the Government's total), many of which are of architectural and historical value and interest (see FOCUS, 1998; Peers, 1994; Defence Estates Organisation, 1998). The rural estate includes 250 Sites of Special Scienti"c Interest (SSSIs), areas of land designated by English Nature requiring particular management practices to conserve protected ecological or geological environments, and 24 Ramsar sites. There are 48 Special Protection Areas (SPAs), designated under the European Community Directive on the Conservation of Wild Birds. The defence estate also has 64 candidate Special Areas of Conservation (SACs) designated under the European Union's 1992 Habitats and Species Directive (DASA, 2000). Some MoD ranges * parts of Warcop Army Field Training Centre in Cumbria, for example * lie within Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty. Military training is also carried out in National Parks; 3% of National Park land is owned by the MoD, a "gure belying an uneven distribution, with 15% of Dartmoor and 22% of the Northumberland National Parks being used for military training. The MoD is proud of the rich environmental heritage on the defence estate. For example, an HQ Land Command publicity video waxes lyrical about the 60% of Europe's remaining chalk grassland found on the

training area at Salisbury Plain, the major sites for the rare Large Heath Butter#y found on the Army ranges of the Otterburn Training Area and the rare colonies of choughs which nest on the cli!s of the Castlemartin Army Field Training Centre (SSVC, 1995). The pride taken by the MoD and Army in the nature and content of the defence estate is tangible. A second reason for concentrating on military environmentalist discourses is the increased public debate on the impact of military activities on training lands, in turn prompted by the increased visibility of military activities, in turn prompted by changing patterns of military land use. This public debate is elite rather than popular in nature * it is not lodged in the consciousness of the majority like, for example, debates on the rights and wrongs of intensive agriculture. It is signi"cant, however, for the questions it has prompted about the rights and wrongs of military land uses, and for the responses it has drawn from the MoD and Army (see Owens, 1990; Council for National Parks, 1993). Changing patterns of military land use in Britain have prompted these elite debates to which I refer. In 1990, the British government initiated the Options for Change programme, tasked with the restructuring of the Armed Forces in the wake of the geopolitical changes of 1989 * the end of the so-called Cold War, the reuni"cation of Germany, the collapse of the Soviet Union, and the shifts towards democracy in many eastern European states (MoD, 1991). The Options for Change programme entailed many signi"cant changes in the structure of the British Armed Forces, not least a 30% reduction in the number of service personnel. It also entailed the drawdown of troops stationed in Germany, including artillery regiments, and the loss of major training areas in Germany. The use of training lands closer to home by heavy artillery immediately put military training under greater public scrutiny, raising the pro"le of environmental impacts of military training. One example is the development of the AH60 Apache attack helicopter, which apparently represents &a quantum leap in battle"eld technology' and about which environmental pressure groups have raised concerns about noise impacts (Doxford and Hill, 1998). Another example is the Army's use of mobile artillery systems such as the Multiple Launch Rocket System (MLRS) and the Artillery System 90 (AS90), replacing the FH90 light gun.

 Any examination of the armed forces entails a tension between representing the views of the Ministry of Defence and the three armed forces as either separate organisations, or as a uni"ed coherent body, or as a monolithic entity. This paper deals primarily with the MoD as the administrative centre for the armed forces, and with the Army as the armed force which dominates military activities on the defence estate. I have made no attempt here to complicate this analysis by teasing out the subtle di!erences in discursive practices between the MoD and Army. I have no doubt that they exist, but I present here the message the MoD and Army as that of a reasonably coherent and uni"ed body.

 I am not suggesting that changing patterns of military land use are solely a consequence of recent policy changes; military land needs have always been fairly #uid, following land supply and training requirements. I do not deal here with land use changes over longer time periods, but it should be remembered that current patterns re#ect a large number of previous decisions made under di!erent political conditions, with di!erent objectives. Although there has been little systematic research on defence lands changes over a lengthy time period, see Blake (1989) for an exhaustive examination of changes in air"elds, and Childs (1998) for a wider international assessment.

R. Woodward / Journal of Rural Studies 17 (2001) 201}217

These artillery systems are big (45 and 25 t, respectively), operate on a &"re and manoeuvre' or &shoot and scoot' basis which requires a signi"cant land area, and have far greater ranges than a previous generation of artillery, requiring large impact areas for receipt of incoming rounds during live "ring exercises. Again, there have been concerns about the environmental impacts of heavy artillery training, following their deployment in the UK after the closure of training areas in Germany (CPRE, 1994). Those concerns, aired in the public domain, have prompted responses by the MoD and Army, and these in turn invite investigation for what they say about the construction of environmental issues within military discourses. A third reason for examining military environmental discourses, and following on from the above, is that the reorganisation of military training lands has reignited long-running debates about the military uses of protected landscapes. The 1994 Defence Costs Study outlined the restructuring of the eight large Army Field Training Centres in Britain (see MoD, 1995). The Otterburn Training Area (OTA) was earmarked as the most suitable location for live "ring training using the AS90 and MLRS at regimental level. The problem for the MoD was and is that the OTA lies within the Northumberland National Park, an area of land enjoying statutory protection because of its landscape and recreation value. Arguments about military activities in National Parks, particularly live "ring, have a long history, with those engaged in the debate polarised over the issue as to whether military training requirements or National Park principles should take precedence in these protected areas (Sharp, 1977; Owens, 1990; Council for National Parks, 1993). The major inquiry chaired by Ron Edwards into the future of National Parks had recommended discontinuance of live "ring as a long-term objective on the grounds of incompatibility with National Park principles (National Parks Review Panel, 1991). The Countryside Commission, the Government's statutory advisor on National Park issues, had also proved highly critical of both the plans for Northumberland in particular, and of the lack of environmental consideration in MoD planning more generally (Countryside Commission, 1994). The recent events at Otterburn have refuelled a longer-running debate on the rights and wrongs of military training in protected landscapes, a debate which draws heavily on environmental discourses constructed and deployed by military and civilian participants (see Doxford and Savege, 1995; Woodward, 1998a, 1999, 2001). The fourth reason for examining military environmental discourses is that environmental impacts on the defence estate have in recent years attained greater visibility. There has been a progressive increase in the amount of information in the public domain about the potential and actual impacts of military land use on

205

the natural environment, notwithstanding the lack of systematic published research on this. For example, Options for Change also brought in its wake the sale of some defence estate lands no longer required by the Armed Forces which in turn put information into the public domain on the impacts of military land use on the environment. Many redundant military sites were found to be contaminated by previous military uses (such as Bowes Moor in County Durham, contaminated with mustard gas left over from the First World War), or left with the detritus of years of military activity in the form of crumbling buildings and rubbish. This in turn has drawn the MoD into a wider debate about land use, pollution, the need for publicly available information on potential risks or otherwise, and discussions as to whom should be responsible for the clean-up of contaminated sites. A further example would be the debates (still on-going) about the environmental costs of Operation Desert Storm in 1991. High-intensity bombing, the possible use of chemical and biological weapons and the torching of the Kuwaiti oil"elds drew public attention to the destructiveness of military activities in wartime (Barnaby, 1991; Warner, 1991). Whilst not suggesting that peace-time activities and environmental impacts are directly comparable to those during active engagement, I would suggest that the Gulf War made the potential environmental impacts of military activities highly visible through information available in the public domain, and through raising as a worst-case scenario the question of military impacts on the environment (Seager, 1991; Thomas, 1995). In addition, there has been a progressive increase in the amount of information available to the public on the use and management of the defence estate. Good examples include the regular publication of the magazine Sanctuary by the MoD Conservation O$ce, which provides information on conservation work and the activities of the numerous Conservation Groups across the defence estate, and Striking a Balance published by HQ Land Command (1995, 1997, 1998), which provides information on the management of defence lands from the perspective of the Army's command centre. The issue of environmental impact has come packed within discourses which speak to the meaning or signi"cance of those impacts, and which o!er a fruitful area for investigation. The "fth and "nal reason for the increased visibility of environmental impact issues on military lands, and thus the increased visibility of discourses of environmentalism, is the emergence of policy mechanisms providing for environmental protection procedures on the defence estate. A number of policy mechanisms now support the conduct of environmental protection on the defence estate, which in turn have rendered environmental protection visible as an active strategy pursued by the Armed Forces. For example, the report of the Defence Lands Committee in 1973 (the last complete

206

R. Woodward / Journal of Rural Studies 17 (2001) 201}217

inquiry into the extent of MoD land holdings) urged the establishment of Conservation O$cers on all major MoD ranges and establishments (Nugent, 1973). These o$cers now work with the support of Conservation Groups, consisting of services personnel, representatives from statutory and non-statutory agencies and volunteer members of the public. A dedicated Defence Estates Conservation Unit based at Aldershot co-ordinates conservation activities and promotes them through its annual Sanctuary magazine and a range of public information brochures. A number of Declarations of Intent establish the MoD's public commitment to environmental protection; a Declaration of Commitment to the National Parks was signed in 1987, a Declaration of Intent with English Nature was signed in 1996, a Declaration of Intent signed with Scottish Natural Heritage in 1993 and a Declaration with the Countryside Council for Wales signed in 1995. In essence these agreements bind the Ministry of Defence to good environmental practice in accordance with the expectations of the statutory bodies concerned, except where operational commitments require otherwise. They also make explicit the MoD and Army' commitments to environmental protection. Most recently, Defence Estates (the government Agency charged with the management of the defence estate) published its Strategy for the Defence Estate (Defence Estates, 2000) and the MoD its Strategic Environmental Appraisal of the Strategic Defence Review (MoD, 2000) which both address recent criticisms of land management practices on the defence estate. A number of land management strategies developed by the MoD from the mid-1990s onward co-ordinate conservation with military land use practices. Some of these schemes are still at their pilot stage. Conservation Management Plans are currently being developed for all areas on the defence estate that have statutory designations, drawn up jointly by representatives from Defence Estates, the MoD, and incorporating the advice of Conservation Groups active on the ranges. In all major UK training areas, Integrated Land Management Plans (ILMPs) are being developed, following a pilot scheme on Salisbury Plain Training Area. These plans co-ordinate various land management activities, mapping training and environmental resources, identifying the main objectives for the training areas (military requirements, conservation, heritage, maintenance of biodiversity), identifying the need for environmental protection, creating mechanisms for the monitoring of military training and developing a management information system. Important in the ILMP process is the Environmental Steering Group (ESG) scheme, also being piloted at Salisbury Plain but to be established for all major training areas, bringing together representatives from MoD, Defence Estates, local authorities and statutory bodies such as English Nature and English Heritage. (Non-governmental organisations such as the Royal Society for the Protection of

Birds and local Wildlife Trusts make their representations via English Nature.) ESGs also make contributions to Biodiversity Action Plans, currently being produced by a variety of agencies to cover various habitats and species in accordance with the UK Government's biodiversity strategy (see DoE, 1994; Savege, 1997; Defence Estate Organisation, 1996). All these policy mechanisms and structures render the management and consideration of environmental issues by the MoD and Army more visible. Again, the discourses in which these policy mechanisms are promoted invite critical appraisal for their discursive nature. In this section, then, I have suggested a conceptual framework for the examination of military land use activities, indicated a methodology suitable to the theoretical questions to be addressed, and outlined a number of reasons for an examination of military environmental discourses. In the next three sections, I identify three military environmental discourses and examine their form, function and consequences. These are a discourse of crater-as-habitat, a discourse of paternalism in land management and a discourse of administrative rationalism in conservation.

3. A discourse of crater-as-habitat Military activities on the defence estate are sometimes presented as something of a paradox. Deirdre Shields writing in The Field provides a good example when she sets an article on the #ora and fauna of Porton Down within the context of a contradiction between the activities of the Army (i.e. preparation for and the conduct of war) and the recognised high environmental quality of the lands on which those activities take place. As she notes, for many this contradiction is self-evident: The most gravely serious chemical and biological work is done at The Chemical and Biological Defence Sector of the Protection and Life Sciences Division of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency. The very name Porton Down still creates a frisson in the civilian mind, to judge by the number of two-headed rabbit jokes I endured before my visit (Shields, 1996, p. 92). Shields then goes on to describe her amazement at the natural wonders of Porton Down, a site untouched by human activities apart from those of the chemical and biological defence researchers located there. Expecting a poisoned wilderness, she is surprised to "nd, in e!ect, a wildlife sanctuary. It is within the framework provided by this paradox that discourses of military environmentalism operate. In this section, I look at one discourse * termed &crater-as-habitat' by way of shorthand (the phrase is Patrick Wright's (Wright, 1996)) * and argue that it operates with explicit reference to a paradox set up

R. Woodward / Journal of Rural Studies 17 (2001) 201}217

to juxtapose environmental protection with military activities (usually training). This discourse is used by the Army to promote to a wider public its environmentalist credentials, but before looking at its wider consumption it is instructive to take one step back, examine its production, and see how this discourse frames consideration of environmental issues within the Army. An initial task here, and a conscious strategy formulated by those with responsibility for Army training in particular, is the establishment within the Army of environmental protection as a legitimate concern for Forces personnel. For example, much e!ort is made during basic military training to inculcate some degree of environmental awareness into recruits. This, I would argue, not only has a basic educational function, but also promotes conservation as a legitimate military activity. Environmental education includes such things as general environmental awareness (such as the need for clean air, water and soil), environmental protection procedures (such as correct procedures for digging, crosscountry movement and waste disposal) and at a more advanced level, instruction in environmental policies, legislation and management. Basic Training for new recruits includes watching the video Train Green, which instructs soldiers in methods of environmental responsibility during training (SSVC, 1993; see also Coulson and Wright, 1995; Woodward, 1998b). One of the key messages of the video concerns the need for soldiers to value the utility of the natural environment: It pays to Train Green. The environment is the soldier's friend. It provides you with cover. It provides you with shelter. It provides you with water, with all the means to survive. Look after it, and the environment will look after you. It's just common sense. (SSVC, 1993) The various activities encouraged in the video (good driving skills, careful disposal of waste products, protection of the natural and cultural heritage of the ranges, noise reduction) are set within that context of protecting the utility of the ranges. At the same time, a wider message is being promoted, that environmental protection is a legitimate military activity. The ranges require protection not only because it makes military sense to do so, but also because environmental protection is part and parcel of what being a soldier is all about. This message about conservation as a legitimate function of the Army can be seen in statements produced by central administration within the MoD for wider public consumption. For example, the annual Statements on the Defence Estimates, which set out the MoD's expenditure and planning projections in the context of current security assessments, show it visually, to great e!ect. The 1993 Statement of Defence Estimates illustrates the section on environmental policy with a picture of a sign saying &Out

207

of bounds to military vehicles' nailed to a tree in dappled woodland. It is captioned, &Protecting the environment' (MoD, 1993). In 1994, we see an aerial photograph of the coastal path at Lulworth on the Dorset coast (MoD, 1994). In 1995, a picture of a stone curlew and eggs is captioned to explain that 3000 acres of CBDE Porton Down have been declared a Special Protection Area under a European Directive for Stone Curlews, with 20 pairs nesting there (MoD, 1995). The 1996 Statement has a picture of an owl captioned &Departmental conservation groups have converted old ammunition boxes into ideal nesting sites for Barn Owls and many other species of birds'. (MoD, 1996). These images work to expand the possibilities of defence to include not just the security of the state and polity, but also the protection of the natural environment. Conservation activities undertaken by troops are publicised as part of a strategy to drive home this message. For example, a recent Army press release announced &Exercise Hug a Tree' which involved the deployment of 160 soldiers from a Gurkha regiment in the construction of footpaths and ponds and the building of classrooms at a former military base as part of the process of its conversion into an environmental education site (Army, 1997). Environmental defence is portrayed in such public statements as part and parcel of national defence and a legitimate and appropriate activity for the Army. A central feature of the discourse of crater-as-habitat is the presentation of military activities as compatible with environmental protection. One strategy is the portrayal of the detritus left behind by soldiers * shell craters, structures, equipment boxes and rubbish * as serving a purpose for other life forms: Because much Army land lies untouched by development, the plants #ourish, the invertebrates prosper and the birds and mammals "nd ideal homes. Wildlife show remarkable tolerance of the noise of exercise battle. Pied Wagtails nest with equanimity under tank bridges, Barn Owls watch troop action from homes made out of surplus ammunition boxes, while rare bats roost in the darkness of pillboxes. (HQ Land Command, 1995, p. 15) One outcome of this discourse of crater-as-habitat is that it naturalises the Army presence in the countryside. For example, the detritus of military activity is portrayed as matter serving a function, rather than as litter or pollution; it is matter in place, rather than matter out of place, in Mary Douglas' celebrated phrase (Douglas, 1966). The moral boundaries which categorise the detritus of military activity are drawn, within this discourse, to include such artefacts within categories of what is &acceptable' within rural space. The logic of this strategy is that if the detritus of military activity is used by wildlife, then it can be understood as part of that natural

208

R. Woodward / Journal of Rural Studies 17 (2001) 201}217

Discourses have a naturalizing function, in that they can work to set the limits or de"ne which practices are considered &natural' and which are not. This &naturalising' strategy is not unique to the Army, of course. Analyses of the environmental discourses of other groups or institutions similarly draw on such strategies to legitimise their activities and claims to space, often in the face of opposition. One example would be the use made of &green marketing' strategies to legitimise the corporate activities of the business sector, particularly through the promotion of industrial infrastructure and food products (see Bansal and Howard, 1997; Beder, 1997). Another would be the discourses deployed within British agriculture to construct farm wastes as a &natural' output of agricultural activity bearing few risks for the natural environment, rather than as an environmental pollutant (Lowe et al., 1997). What is unique about the Army is not the fact of this &naturalising' strategy, but rather the basic material entities or evidence used to construct this strategy. In this example, the discourse of crater-as-habitat naturalises the detritus of military activities by portraying it as part of the natural environment. Wright is also told of the compatibility of environmental protection with military training requirements. The Conservation O$cer relates how: Fig. 1. Barn owl nesting in an ammunition box.  Crown Copyright, MoD.

environment. MoD publications such as Sanctuary magazine, produced by the MoD Conservation O$ce, and successive versions of Striking a Balance, produced by HQ Land Command, use this juxtaposition of wildlife and military hardware to great e!ect. An example is given in Fig. 1, which shows the photograph of an owl which appeared in both the 1996 Statement on the Defence Estimates and in the MoD Conservation O$ce's Conservation on the Defence Estate (MoD, 1996; Defence Estates Organisation, 1996). This phenomenon is also discussed by Patrick Wright, in his exploration of the historical geography of the Lulworth Army ranges in Dorset, The Village that Died for England. He tells of an encounter and slide show with the MoD's Chief Conservation O$cer precisely on this theme: Colonel Baker declares his theme to be &the interaction of wildlife and the military artefact', and, as the slides clatter by, it becomes clear that he relishes this as a story of paradoxical co-existence. Such is the MoD's version of the pastoral tradition, and, as its leading exponent, Colonel Baker likes nothing better than a picture of an ammunition case that has been turned into a breeding box for owls, or of a moorhen pecking at the "ns of a mortar bomb stuck in the mud of a pool. (Wright, 1996, pp. 358}359)

Fallen trees, if left to lie, provide good cover for ri#emen as well as for beetles and fungi. Soldiers train for surveillance duties in Northern Ireland by guarding the nests of red kites in Mid-Wales and ospreys in the Scottish Highlands. (Wright, 1996, p. 359) Another example of this discourse appeared at the major public inquiry, held in 1997, into development plans proposed by the MoD for the Otterburn Training Area in Northumberland. Here, the live "ring practised by heavy artillery was presented as entirely bene"cial to wildlife. The logic of this statement was that shell craters caused by live "ring help to maintain waterlogged ground conditions which in turn supported a varied insect population, itself crucial for many of the species of ground nesting birds reliant for feeding their young on the insects that inhabited boggy ground (Woodward, 1998a, 1999). In the discourse of crater-as-habitat, conservation and military activities are shown to coincide. A varied landscape, according to this discourse, provides a variety of habitats for both wildlife and soldiers; both have the same requirements. The following quotation from an HQ Land Command (Army) publicity brochure illustrates this well: [2] conservation requirements largely coincide with good military practice. Training areas have a "nite environmental carrying capacity, beyond which they become useless to training. Any disturbance to the physical fabric of the training lands impacts not only

R. Woodward / Journal of Rural Studies 17 (2001) 201}217

on the natural environment but also the e!ectiveness of training. Successful maintenance is therefore crucial to the needs of both environment and training. (MoD, 1995) This discourse, then, establishes environmental protection as a legitimate military activity, and as compatible with the requirements of military training. This compatibility is often presented in terms of a balance struck between two competing interests * see, for example, Striking A Balance, a publication produced in 1995, 1997 and 1998 by HQ Land Command setting out for public consumption recent developments in the management of Army lands, or the language of Sanctuary, the MoD Conservation O$ce's annual magazine detailing conservation activities across the defence estate. The balance metaphor is central to the discourse which portrays military activity as environmentally bene"cial, a discourse which in turn is a key aspect of military environmentalism. To strike a balance is to choose a moderate course or compromise between two competing claims. This metaphor places military activities and conservation in equivalent regard * both are portrayed as central tasks of the MoD * and presents the task of military land management as the pursuit of a compromise between two sets of interests. But the idea of a balance also implies the possibility of balance, that such an equivalence is attainable, that "nding an equal weighting between two interests is feasible. Accordingly, the metaphor of balance understands and presents military training and environmental protection as conceptually equal; like is being balanced with like. It implies that weighing up military activity and conservation is possible on the same set of scales, that the two originate from a uni"ed set of objectives. The possibility that environmental protection and preparation for war might reside in quite fundamentally opposed moral orders is denied, removed from debate through the use of the balance metaphor. A "nal point here is that the equation of military activity and conservation through the balance metaphor opens up a number of possibilities in the production of other discourses of military environmentalism. Equating the natural world with the Army, with both as the object of planning and management strategies to ensure their functioning, has wider rami"cations for the portrayal of both land management and conservation practices. I turn to these next.

 Again, the use of the balance metaphor is not unique to the army; industrial timber production companies similarly use a balance metaphor as a discursive strategy to support clear-cut timber felling practices in British Columbia. What is unique to the Army are the interests used within this metaphor * environmental protection and the defence of the realm.

209

4. A discourse of paternalism in land management The second of the military environmental discourses under consideration here is that which I call a discourse of paternalism in land management. This discourse portrays the natural environment of the defence estate, especially the large training areas, as a direct consequence of a speci"c set of land management practices and a model of land management. This discourse celebrates paternalism, in that it credits the existence of many landscapes used by the military to well-meaning but restrictive controls on what may or may not be undertaken on such land. Paternalism in land management is identi"able in policy documents, publicity brochures and public statements about the types of activities that can and cannot be undertaken on the defence estate. I argue that it is possible to identify a discourse of paternalism in land management which seeks to explain the form and content of the defence estate as a consequence of the military presence and the particular practices of military stewardship. One place to start this exploration of a discourse of paternalism in land management is to examine the claims made for the bene"ts of military occupation. A good example comes from a book celebrating 75 years of chemical and biological research at Porton Down. The biodiversity of the downland is explained thus: The 7,000 acres of Porton Down [2] are the jewel in the crown of the Ministry of Defence conservation. For example, at Porton Down there are more species of butter#ies than anywhere else in the United Kingdom, the largest remaining tract of chalk grassland, one of the top stone curlew breeding sites and a major neolithic industrial #int centre. Preservation of the natural environment of this gem is a valuable side product resulting from the ownership and care of the 7,000 acres by the Ministry of Defence Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment. (Pearson, 1992) The key point here is that it is MoD stewardship which is credited with the existence of this jewel in the crown. In general, this is no exaggeration, although again there is little de"nitive research to support or refute this categorically. Military occupation blocks other land uses. In particular, it is widely argued that by blocking intensive arable agriculture and extensive coniferous plantation, military occupation has, by default, succeeded in preserving habitats and environments now valued for their environmental and landscape quality. The heathlands around Aldershot and the moorlands of Dartmoor, once peripheral unused spaces (and hence valuable to the 19th century Army for training) have, through processes that have nothing to do with the Army, become signi"cant relict landscapes that we now wish to preserve. The military has been a benign occupant. The interesting point is the use made by the contemporary Army and

210

R. Woodward / Journal of Rural Studies 17 (2001) 201}217

MoD of this fortunate fact. A discourse of paternalism in land management operates by turning conservation by serendipity into an active land management strategy, part of which has involved keeping out unwanted (and environmentally damaging) activities. For example, an Army publicity video celebrates the fact that Salisbury Plain covers an area of the size of the Isle of Wight. It contains over 1700 ancient archaeological sites * a concentration unique in Europe. Yet on any given day, of any year, up to 2000 men can be found training here for war. Skirting monuments under considerably less threat from them than from the burrowing of rabbits or the farmer's plough. (SSVC, 1995) The &fact' is that military training has kept out the farmer's plough. And for centuries the farmer's plough has been uninterested in the Plain. But in this discourse, the emphasis is on the benign e!ects of military training compared with the destructive potential of agriculture. As with all discourses, it is not monolithic or total. For example, a recent Army training lands publicity document rather unusually points out how the protection of Salisbury Plain may well have been the consequence of a happy accident, rather than active strategy: It is widely recognised that military ownership and intensive military training have restricted urban development and agricultural practice to such an extent that the whole of the Plain has been preserved far better than any comparable area in the UK. [2] To a great extent, of course, this was achieved by accident. For much of the last 100 years of military use, little recognition was given to the need for nature conservation and protection of archaeology. (HQ Land Command, 1998, p. 8) But such admissions are rare. More common are the celebrations of the existence of valued landscapes as a direct result of military land use strategies. For example, the MoDs arguments for the development of infrastructure to enable to Otterburn Training Area to be used for heavy artillery training had to accommodate the fact that most of the Otterburn Training Area lies within the Northumberland National Park. Accommodation was achieved by attributing the presence of this valued landscape to military occupation and military activities. In the House of Lords, Viscount Cranborne, whilst Parliamentary Under-Secretary for the Armed Forces, argued that: 2 one of the reasons for the wilderness [Otterburn] being as it is [2] is that the Army has been the guardian of that wilderness at a time when large sections of wilderness have been subject the depredations of that ugly beast, man. (Hansard, 1994)

The Army is guardian of the wilderness. From the tone of some parliamentary debates, one would be forgiven for thinking that the MoD had actually created that wilderness. For Nicholas Soames, a former Minister for the Armed Forces, it became possible and perhaps necessary during debates in the House of Commons to attribute the creation of National Parks at Otterburn and Dartmoor to the very presence of the Army: Although military training may not conform to the general perception of quiet enjoyment, it is often forgotten that it is that very military presence which has helped to preserve and secure the exceptionally beautiful and varied landscape which attracts so many visitors to the national parks. [2] It is an often forgotten fact that the Army has had a presence in the national parks since long before they were designated as such. At Otterburn, for example, the military training area was established in 1911, some 45 years before it was designated as a national park. [2] there has been a military presence on Dartmoor since the early 19th century, again many years before the national park was created. (Hansard, 1995) This argument was used at Otterburn during the 1997 public inquiry as part of a discursive strategy deployed by the MoD which aimed to naturalise the military presence in the National Park and establish the environmental credentials of the MoD in an area under statutory protection (Woodward, 1997). `We were here "rst,a says the argument, `before any designation of the landscape. We caused it to be as it isa. A sense of pride and achievement in the heritage of the defence estate is easy to detect in MoD publications such as Sanctuary. Also evident is a sense of vindication, that land management policies have resulted in a level of environmental protection surpassing both public expectation and the e!orts of other major land users. I would argue that both emotions serve a wider purpose. First, this sense of pride in land management practices has a particular signi"cance. At a time of defence expenditure cutbacks, ever-changing roles and responsibilities for the Armed Forces, o$cial censure over racism and public criticism for homophobia and sexism, the Armed Forces feel beleaguered. The celebration of environmental protection successes is very important. It grants an organisation that feels itself maligned and besieged by constant political and cultural change an opportunity to show its activities in an unusually positive light. Second, the celebration of the successes of military environmentalism is underpinned by a deep-seated paternalism in land management practices, the hallmarks of which are sets of well-intentioned but restrictive controls, consolidated by a world-view which prioritises the landowner's natural authority over the land. Paternalistic land management strategies are not the sole preserve of the MoD, of course. Marsden et al. (1993)

R. Woodward / Journal of Rural Studies 17 (2001) 201}217

identify in what they term the &paternalistic countryside', marked by deference to a social order based on a perception of the landowner's &natural' authority (pp.188}189). Lowe and Ward (forthcoming), develop this theme with reference to paternalism the management of large estates in rural Northumberland, where they identify a set of management practices which re#ect a compromise between the "nancial imperatives of land management on the one hand, and social responsibilities (to agricultural tenants and to employment provision) on the other. What is speci"c to the MoD are issues which are incorporated within arguments which support the case for the MoD's authority over its estate * in this case its role in environmental protection. This paternalistic discourse of land management prioritises the military as a careful user, with good husbandry based in part on an ability to assert absolute control over territory, and with that power originating in the natural authority of the land owner as ultimate adjudicator over appropriate land management practices. This paternalism in the Army is not restricted to land management issues, of course. Take, for example, the comments of Eric Joyce, an Army major suspended from his job in the Army Training and Recruiting Agency for the publication of a Fabian Society pamphlet advocating a renewal of the Army in line with strategies for modernisation and professionalisation adopted elsewhere in the public sector. He talks of a 2 traditional Armed Services philosophy of &peacetime paternalism', where senior o$cers &know what is best' for their troops and even in peacetime reserve sole rights to expressing a public view.' (Joyce, 1998, p. 20) Joyce's arguments are directed primarily at the personnel and management practices of the Army, but his comments are relevant in this context. He talks of a &paternalistic social prescription designed for battle' of compliant social relationships within the Army, with its emphasis on obedience within a chain of command. Joyce's speci"c point is that the structuring of social relations within the Army works to deny most military personnel a voice in managerial decisions. My argument here is that these observations apply equally to land management practices. Restrictive tenancy agreements, the over-riding authority of the land-owner in determining land uses on leased farms are one example of paternalistic land management in action. Another example relates to the management policies and initiatives out-

 There are other issues drawn on by the MoD to support its role and management practices * such as its social and economic responsibilities * but the complexities of military paternalism more generally require separate consideration. Su$ce it to say at this stage that military paternalism is highly selective.

211

lined above, with the co-option of statutory and nonstatutory bodies onto environmental decision-making bodies. Ultimately, there is provision within such agreements and Statements of Intent for the interests of military training to over-ride other (conservation) considerations when military training requirements necessitate, an argument underpinned by a philosophy that the military knows best. This paternalistic discourse of land management has a further e!ect, as it is used to conjure up threats of desolation and devastation to lands should the military be denied its authority over it. According to Joyce, a Commander's right to absolute power over his or her troops in wartime is extended during peacetime as a sine qua non upon which that Commanders' authority rests. Joyce calls this the &military chaos' argument &since it implies that any departure from military paternalism during peacetime will result in chaos on the battle"eld' (Joyce, 1998, p. 23). For Joyce, this argument is fallacious, because it ignores the ability of service personnel to distinguish between war and peacetime environments, and it is mischievous because it is used by senior service managers to suppress internal comment whilst changes are made. Similarly, military land management practices are bound up in discourses which assert that only military land management practices produce the natural environments and landscapes we value so highly. This argument asserts that military land management practices are better than those emanating from other activities (such as agriculture) or institutions (for example, the Forestry Commission). It is an argument which also asserts that &the Army knows best'. So, to paraphrase, Joyce, within this paternalistic discourse of military environmentalism, any departure from established military land use practices opens up potential for chaos in the (literal) "eld. This paternalistic discourse of land management rests in turn upon a discursive construction of conservation * a set of de"nitions of what conservation is and is not * and it is to these I now turn.

5. A discourse of administrative rationalism in conservation The third discourse under consideration, of administrative rationalism in conservation, has a bolder remit than the two already discussed. The discourse of &crateras-habitat' serves a legitimizing function for the Army and their activities on the defence estate, and that of paternalism in land management has a consolidating function by establishing certitude in the consequences of military stewardship over lands. My argument is that a discourse of administrative rationalism in land management is foundational, in that it operates to de"ne what environmental protection and conservation are all about. It sets the terms in which the debate over the

212

R. Woodward / Journal of Rural Studies 17 (2001) 201}217

environmental impact of military land uses can be discussed. It is bold in the extent to which it sets the parameters around what environmental protection is and is not. The concept on which my argument draws most heavily here is John Dryzek's typology of environmental discourses, their forms and their functions, of which administrative rationalism is one (Dryzek, 1997). Dryzek de"nes administrative rationalism in environmental protection as a discursive strategy primarily of governments. Such discourses de"ne environmental debates and disputes in terms which emphasise con#icts as problems to be solved (rather than, for example, symptoms of irreconcilable di!erences), where the role of the state rather than the citizen in achieving a solution to a dispute is prioritised, in a social context imagined as hierarchical. For Dryzek, the essence of discourses of administrative rationalism in conservation can be captured by examining the actual practices in the development of policies, institutions and methodologies, rather than in the words of theorists and activists. The social practices where administrative rationalism in conservation is manifest include professional resource-management bureaucracies, pollution control agencies, regulatory policy instruments, environmental impact assessment, expert advisory commissions and rationalistic policy analysis techniques: The essence of administrative rationalism can be found in the discursive &software' that unites these six items around a common purpose. As a problem-solving discourse, administrative rationalism takes the politicaleconomic status-quo of liberal capitalism as given. It then puts scienti"c and technical expertise, organised into bureaucratic hierarchy, motivated by the public interest, to use in solving environmental problems without changing the structural status quo. (Dryzek, 1997, p. 76) Military environmentalist discourses, I would argue, are essentially discourses bearing the hallmarks of administrative rationalism. Dryzek suggests that discourses of administrative rationalism can be assessed in terms of four aspects: basic entities recognised or constructed; assumptions about natural relationships; agents and their motives; and key metaphors and other rhetorical devices. In order to illustrate the close equation between military environmentalism and administrative rationalism, and examine some of the consequences of this, in the remainder of this section I examine these four aspects of administrative rationalism with reference to a range of examples taken from the public debate conducted at the Otterburn Public Inquiry (OPI). The point here is not to test the adequacy of the "t between Dryzek's schema and military environmentalist discourses, but rather to seek at a theoretical level some explanation for the military

environmentalist discourses that are used by the Army and MoD to de"ne what environmental protection and conservation are all about. 5.1. Basis entities recognised or constructed For Dryzek, administrative rationalism assumes a context of liberal capitalism. Environmental policies constitute an intervention within that status quo. There is a strong conception of government as the administrative state, with the function of government being the rational management of resources, in the public interest. My argument is that public statements produced by the MoD during the OPI reveal how a case (for the developments) was constructed with these basic entities in mind. Government is taken as the manager of a resource (the Otterburn Training Area), within a framework set down by government policy: The defence estate 2 is ultimately held in trust for the nation. MoD recognises the duty to conserve the environment of Ranges and Training Areas in accordance with Government policy. (Otterburn AFTC, 1993, p. 84) That rational management of resources was presented as a process which had determined a speci"ed pattern of uses for existing military training areas; great weight was attached to an exposition of the process using language to suggest that this had been careful, rational and e$cient (MoD/P/1, 1997; MoD/P/2, 1997). Furthermore, claims put by opponents to the MoD that an alternative pattern of land uses might be possible, which might suggest that the OTA could be used for activities other than military live "ring, were dismissed on the grounds of the rationality of the MoD's planning process for the use of military training areas (MoD/R/1, 1997; MoD/R/1/4, 1997). In the MoD's case at the Otterburn Public Inquiry, we can also see how Government was taken as the arbiter of the public interest. A consistent line of argument presented by the MoD was that it was in the public interest to permit the developments to proceed (MoD/P/12, 1997). Policy statements such as Planning Policy Guidance Note 7 (on land use in England's rural areas) were interpreted as supportive of an argument that developments should be permitted in National Parks where there is a demonstrated need, an absence of alternatives and where it is in the public interest to allow such developments to proceed. That public interest was de"ned, repeatedly, as the need for a national defence capability, rather than a less signi"cant public interest in the protection of designated landscapes. Furthermore, that de"nition was promoted by an organisation (the MoD) which argued that, as an arm of government, weight should be attached to its de"nition of public interest (see for example I/MoD/292, 1997).

R. Woodward / Journal of Rural Studies 17 (2001) 201}217

Dryzek also argues that another basic entity recognised or constructed in discourses of administrative rationalism are experts and managers, which the state denotes as providing the best expertise within the administrative monolith to advise on environmental issues. During the Otterburn Public Inquiry, continual reference was made by the MoD to the weight to be attached to the opinions of experts (i.e. consultants employed by the MoD, and serving Army o$cers) in contrast to the opinions of those appearing at the inquiry in a voluntary or non-professional capacity (e.g. local residents, or representatives of voluntary organisations) (this argument is summarised in I/MoD/292, 1997). Similarly, the absence of objections to the MoD's proposals for the Otterburn Training Area by &experts' from statutory bodies such as English Nature and the Environment Agency were accorded great weight in the MoD's arguments. 5.2. Assumptions about natural relationships Dryzek argues that although administrative rationalism is not explicitly concerned with the fundamental character of relationships between human and non-human worlds, one assumption within administrative rationalist discourses is that nature is subordinated to human problem-solving. The environment cannot be left to itself, but has to be managed, ordered, and con#icts solved through human interference; humans are the appropriate stewards of the natural environment. A clear example of this assumption about natural relationships from within the MoD and Army comes from a strategic estate management plan for the Otterburn Training Area, which gives an indication of the conceptualisation of human/environmental relationships in reference to which conservation is de"ned: Environment includes not just the natural environment (which in any case is only at best semi-natural due to the in#uence of man) but also the man-made features of historic importance. Conservation should not be regarded as preservation i.e. protection from damage, but comprises pro-active management to enhance the value of the environment. (Otterburn AFTC, 1993) The de"nition of conservation given here describes it as active engagement with the land. Protection of the natural environment, in this framework, is a dynamic human activity. The existence of diverse natural habitats

 There is some anecdotal evidence to indicate that some statutory and non-statutory bodies with an interest in environmental protection issues did not object at the OPI to the MoD's plans for more mundane reasons such as lack of o$cer time or lack of resources within the organisations concerned to participate in a lengthy public inquiry.

213

is not the function of land left to its own devices, but rather a consequence of human engagement with the land. This de"nition of conservation, which prioritises human engagement, allows nature to be given a helping hand as a matter of course. This discourse allows even quite extreme practices, such as the creation of shell craters, to be incorporated within the de"nition of conservation. The implication is that natural landscapes cannot possibly survive without any kind of human interference, be it intervention through Environmental Steering Groups, Integrated Land Management Plans, Conservation Management Plans and black grouse monitoring projects, or through a broader block on other land uses through the very presence of the Army in that space (see for example MoD/P/7, 1997). Again, this is not a view unique to the Army; Grint (1997) identi"es a similar portrayal of conservation within business, re#ecting a traditional Western approach to nature where, without human control, nature cannot be exploited for human bene"t and where nature itself is viewed as an anarchic formation with no rightful place in the properly ordered world. Ideas of what is &right' and &proper' are both translated into material practices and also re#ect the construction of how the natural world is. For Dryzek, another assumption of administrative rationalism in terms of natural relationships concerns two complementary hierarchies. In the "rst, people are subordinated to the state. At Otterburn, this was evident in discussions about the unassailable importance of military training, in contrast with the relative (and by implication lesser) importance accorded to the rights of the individual over the territory of that state for recreation and related purposes (see I/MoD/1, 1997; I/MoD/292, 1997). The second hierarchy prioritises experts and managers above the citizen (as we have already seen); for Dryzek, implicit within this hierarchy is the denial of the existence of politics, i.e. a denial of the basic contestability of these hierarchies and the views expressed therein. At the Otterburn Public inquiry, for example, an attempt by a local resident to widen the debate on the value of Environmental Impact Assessments by submitting an academic paper on the topic, was dismissed as irrelevant to proceedings. The paper, an examination of the politics of Environmental Impact Assessment by Sharon Beder, was itself dismissed as &a rather unpleasant article' and discounted on account of its &political' nature (OPI cross-examination, 7 October 1997; Beder, 1993). 5.3. Agents and their motives The signi"cant agents in administrative rationalism are representatives of the state * again, the experts. For Dryzek, in administrative rationalism, the discovery and application of the public interest is a technical procedure. For this reason, signi"cant weight is attached to techniques such as cost}bene"ts analysis, landscape

214

R. Woodward / Journal of Rural Studies 17 (2001) 201}217

assessment procedures and environmental impact evaluations. At the Otterburn Public Inquiry, for example, evidence indicating that a type of rocket used in MLRS training could produce a toxic e%ux of potential danger to the natural environment, was dismissed by the MoD on the grounds that expert opinion from both external consultants and from the Government's statutory advisers on environmental issues had concluded that the e%ux was safe (MoD/FI/1, 1997; MoD/R/14/8, 1997; MoD/R/13/8, 1997; JWS/P/1, 1997; JWS/P/2, 1997). A similar technique was used to counter objections on the noise e!ects of the Apache helicopter (R/JWS/P/1, 1999; R/MoD/R/10/8, 1999).

trative rationalism par excellence). There is considerable scope for further explicitly comparative work here, comparing and contrasting discourses of the military and, for example, business, agriculture, forestry and commercial recreation. In some ways, the military presents discourses and a discursive strategy similar to other large bureaucratic land managers, but there are signi"cant distinctions both because of what the Armed Forces actually do (training for and "ghting wars) and what they actually exist for (national defence and military engagement). A more explicit comparison between military and other institutional environments constitutes the next step for this research agenda.

5.4. Key metaphors and other rhetorical devices 6. Conclusions Dryzek notes that administrative rationalism, unlike other environmental discourses, has a muted rhetoric and little in the way of grandiose claims. Environmental problems are recognised as existing, but are there to be solved in isolation, not understood as su$ciently serious to warrant fundamental changes in the way in which society is organised. So, for example, MoD evidence to the Otterburn Public Inquiry placed great emphasis on allaying concerns about the environmental impacts of the use of heavy artillery live "ring in a National Park by "rst o!ering recognition that those concerns existed, and by then putting forward a range of mitigating measures to be undertaken to ensure that those impacts would not then take place. The idea the concerns about environmental impacts could be serious enough to warrant a rejection of the MoD's proposals was dismissed or sidelined with reassurances on the e!ectiveness of existing policy and legislation in countering any potentially harmful environmental e!ects (see I/MoD/292, 1997). In summary, my argument is that the MoD and Army view conservation as environmental management. This takes place within a context that understands the natural environment as a resource to be managed in accordance with policy prescription. Those with authority to speak on conservation issues are designated experts. A silence within this discourse of conservation is the denial that conservation might be a political process, open to public debate and contest. Rather, conservation is presented as a technical task. This is not a view con"ned to the Ministry of Defence or Armed Forces, but rather a hallmark of UK and European conservation policy (adminis-

This paper has been concerned with an analysis of military environmental discourses. I have sought to show how the activities of the Army on the defence estate are constructed through discourses which explain military activities and their potential impacts on the natural environment in speci"c ways. A discourse of crater-as-habitat legitimates the military presence in the countryside, and provides a narrative which constructs military activities as complementary to environmental protection. A discourse of paternalism in land management constructs the Army as the appropriate custodians of defence lands. A reading of discourses visible at a major inquiry into MoD proposals for the Otterburn Training Area suggests that conservation and environmental protection are constructed according to the tenets of administrative rationalism which prioritises the role of the state and the expert, within speci"ed hierarchies of the state, in determining what conservation might mean in practice. In short, military environmental discourses have been presented as frameworks in which the Army give meaning to the natural environment and the activities of the military upon it. In conclusion, I turn to address the question of the importance or signi"cance of a consideration of military environmental discourses, "rst to academic debates and second to wider debates on militarism and environmentalism. Academic debates on the social construction of place, space and landscape bene"t from a consideration those constructions produced by the MoD and Army. Commentators within the social and cultural geography

 One referee argued that this rationalising approach to nature conservation suited the military mind and military machine, raising the rather interesting question about the origins of these ideas about environmental management and ecology in ideas about the machine and the organisation developed during the 1930s and 1940s with the harnessing of industrial organisation and processes to military purposes. This is an interesting point.

 International comparisons would also be illuminating; there have to date been no explicit comparisons between British and other national military environmentalisms, although there are indications to suggest some interesting parallels and divergences in policies, practices and discourses (see Stolpe (1999) on Eastern Europe; Dycus (1996); Boice (1996) and Greenberg et al. (1997) on the USA; D'Souza (1995) on India, and Lohmann (1991), on Thailand).

R. Woodward / Journal of Rural Studies 17 (2001) 201}217

literature referred to in the introduction point to the signi"cance of recognising that the process of construction of ideologies of place and space, and of mapping out that process as social practice. In this paper, I have explored that process with reference to the activities of the MoD and Army, adding (if you like) an exploration of the geographical imagination of yet another institution or group to the list. These activities and the discourses which explain them are signi"cant because of the dominance of the MoD and Army within the state, because of the importance of this institution in the lives of hundreds of thousands of forces and civilian personnel, because of the importance of the defence estate as a major land holding in the UK and ultimately because of the speci"cities of the daily functions and ultimate existential rationale of the military. Furthermore, whilst much writing on the social construction of rurality has been orientated towards an exploration of marginal or hidden ruralities, and whilst not denying the political signi"cance of this body of scholarship, an exploration of the ruralities constructed by the powerful is also a political requirement. This is particularly pressing given that the process and practices which I have described are taking place within the context of an institution undergoing structural reorganisation and perhaps even cultural reorientation. Finally, I would argue too that consideration of military environmental discourses also has signi"cance for wider debates on militarism and environmentalism. Space here precludes a fuller consideration of this (see KaK koK nen, 1994), but some indication of the reasons for this signi"cance is given in a critique by Andrew Ross. For Ross, the appropriation of discourses of environmental protection within wider discourses of national defence and security constitutes a dangerous precedent. Ross argues explicitly with reference to the USA, but his comments resonate with the British experience. For Ross, the key problem associated with the &greenwash' or greening of military activities is that it obscures the issue that military activity is in itself environmentally damaging. The consequences of this, for Ross, are worrying. What he terms the &greening of the Pentagon' can be seen as part of a wider agenda establishing environmental security as a new doctrinal cornerstone for the US defence establishment, in compensation for the loss of the old Cold War enemies. For Ross: In its attempts to identify a new global enemy in the existence of environmental &threats', the Defense establishment displays yet again its structural need for all forms of planetary life to mirror its own bellicose mentality. Risk assessment, among other things, is emerging as the new managerial language for preserving this mentality. If the Pentagon succeeds in its kinder, gentler mission, it may result not in the greening of the military but in the militarization of greening. (Ross, 1996, p. 44)

215

It is perhaps premature, in the absence of fuller research, to pass judgement on the British case, but Ross's warnings give an indication of where research in this area might proceed.

Acknowledgements My thanks to those who commented on the draft version of this paper, including participants at a University of Exeter Department of Geography seminar, March 1999. My thanks also to the Otterburn Public Inquiry secretariat for ensuring that I had full access to all relevant documentation. Figure 1 is reproduced with the permission of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery O$ce.

References Army Press Release, 1997. Gurkhas &Hug a Tree' to help the Environment. 9 June. Bansal, P., Howard, E. (Eds.), 1997. Business and the Natural Environment. Butterworth-Heineman, Oxford. Barnaby, F., 1991. The environmental impact of the Gulf War. The Ecologist 21, 166}172. Beder, S., 1993. Bias and credibility in environmental impact assessment. Chain Reaction 68, 28}30. Beder, S., 1997. Global Spin: The Corporate Assault on Environmentalism. Green Books, Totnes. Blake, R.N.E., 1989. The development of military and civil air"elds in the UK since 1909 with special reference to land use. Ph.D. Thesis, University of London. Boice, P.L., 1996. Managing endangered species on military lands. US Department of Defence Brie"ng Paper. Childs, J., 1998. The Military Use of Land: A History of the Defence Estate. Peter Lang AG, Berne. Cloke, P., Little, J., 1997. Contested Countryside Cultures. Routledge, London. Coulson, M., Wright, D., 1995. &&Train Green'': environmental awareness training in the British Army. In: Coulson, M., Baldwin, H. (Eds.), Proceedings of the International Symposium on the Environment and Defence. CCMS Report No. 211, NATO, University of Wales, Swansea. Council for National Parks, 1993. Military Training: A Con#ict of Principle in our National Parks. Council for National Parks, London. Cox, G., Hallet, J., Winter, M., 1994. Hunting the wild red deer: the social organisation and ritual of a &rural' institution. Sociologia Ruralis 34, 190}205. CPRE (Council for the Protection of Rural England), c.1994. Military Training in the Northumberland National Park: Its Future, Our Concerns. CPRE Information Lea#et, London. DASA (Defence Analytical Services Agency), 2000. UK Defence Statistics 2000. The Stationery O$ce, London. Defence Estates, 2000. In Trust & On Trust: The Strategy for the Defence Estate. The Stationery O$ce, London. Defence Estate Organisation, 1996. Conservation on the Defence Estate: The Role of the Ministry of Defence Conservation O$ce. MoD Conservation, O$ce, Chessington. Defence Estate Organisation, 1998. Sixth Annual Report on Historic Buildings on the Defence Estate. Defence Estate Organisation, Sutton Cold"eld.

216

R. Woodward / Journal of Rural Studies 17 (2001) 201}217

Dickens, P., 1996. Reconstructing Nature: Alienation, Emancipation and the Division of Labour. Routledge, London. DoE: Department of the Environment, 1994. Sustainable Development: The UK Strategy. Cm. 2426, HMSO, London. Douglas, M., 1966. Purity and Danger: An Analysis of the Concepts of Pollution and Taboo. ARK Paperbacks, London. Doxford, D., Hill, T., 1998. Land use for military training in the UK: the current situation, likely developments and possible alternatives. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 41, 279}297. Doxford, D., Savege, J., 1995. The proposed development of Otterburn military training area in the Northumberland National Park: a national perspective. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 38, 551}560. Dryzek, J., 1997. The Politics of the Earth: Environmental Discourses. Oxford University Press, Oxford. D'Souza, E., 1995. The potential of the military in environmental protection: India. Unasylva 183, Vol. 46, pp. 57}62. Dycus, S., 1996. National Defense and the Environment. University Press of New England, Hanover. Fairclough, N., 1997. Critical Discourse Analysis: The Critical Study of Language. Longman, London. FOCUS, 1998. The Ministry of Defence House Journal, June. Gregory, D., 1994. &Discourse' Dictionary of Human Geography, 3rd Edition. Blackwell, Oxford. Gregory, D., 1994a. Geographical Imaginations. Blackwell, Oxford. Greenberg, M., Lowrie, K., Krueckeberg, D., Mayer, H., Simon, D., 1997. Bombs and butter#ies: a case study of the challenges of post cold ward environmental planning and management for the US Nuclear Weapons sites. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 40, 739}750. Grint, K., 1997. Relatively green: sociological approaches to business and the environment. In: Bansal, P., Howard, E. (Eds.), Business and the Natural Environment. Butterwoth-Heineman, Oxford, pp. 83}101. Halfacree, K., 1995. Talking about rurality: social representations of the rural as expressed by residents of six English parishes. Journal of Rural Studies 12, 1}20. Hall, T., Hubbard, P., 1998. The Entrepreneurial City: Geographies of Politics, Regime and Representation. Wiley, Chichester. Hansard, 1994. House of Lords Hansard, Vol. 557, Col. 135. 19 July 1994. Hansard, 1995. House of Commons Hansard, Vol. 263, Col. 343. 5 July 1995. HarreH , R., Brockmeier, J., MuK hlhaK usler, P., 1999. Greenspeak: A Study of Environmental Discourse. Sage, London. Harvey, D., 1996. Justice, Nature and the Geography of Di!erence. Blackwell, Oxford. HCDC (House of Commons Defence Committee), 1994. First Report on the Defence Estate, Vols I and II, HC67 i and ii. HMSO, London. Hirst, R. 2000. Ecological and socio-economic impacts of military training on Salisbury plain. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Liverpool. HQ Land Command, 1995, Striking a Balance: A Report on the Management of the Major Army Training Areas. HQ Land Command, Wilton. HQ Land Command, 1997. Striking a Balance: A Report on the Management on the Major Army Training Areas. HQ Land Command, Wilton. HQ Land Command, 1998. Striking A Balance 1998: A Report on the Management of the Major Army Training Areas. HQ Land Command, Wilton. I/MoD/1, 1997. Opening Observations on behalf of the Ministry of Defence. Presented to the OPI by Nigel Macleod QC, 22 April 1997. I/MoD/292, 1997. Closing Submissions on Behalf of the Ministry of Defence to the Otterburn Public Inquiry. Nigel Macleod, Christopher Katkowski and Lawrence McDonald, presented 30 October 1997. Jones, O., 1999. Tomboy tales: the rural, nature and the gendered nature of childhood. Gender, Place and Culture 6, 117}136.

Joyce, E., 1998. Arms and the Man: Renewing the Armed Services. Fabian Society, London. JWS/P/1, 1997. MLRS and Toxic E%ux: The Potential for Dangerous Toxic Exposure on or near OTA. Proof of evidence of Mr J.W. Short to OPI, presented 22 July. JWS/P/2, 1997. M28 Safety. Proof of evidence of Mr. J.W. Short to OPI, presented 7 October 1997. KaK koK nen, J. (Ed.), 1994. Green Security or Militarized Environment. Dartmouth, Aldershot. Kearns, G., Philo, C., 1993. Selling Places: The City as Cultural Capital Past and Present. Pergamon, Oxford. Lohmann, L., 1991. Who defends biological diversity? Conservation strategies and the case of Thailand. The Ecologist 21, 5}13. Lowe, P., Clark, J., Seymour, S., Ward, N., 1997. Moralizing the Environment: Countryside Change, Farming and Pollution. UCL Press, London. Lowe, P., Ward, N., (forthcoming). Practising paternalism: a Northumberland case study. In: Marsden, T., Murdoch, J., Lowe, P., Ward, N. (Eds.), The Di!erentiated Countryside. UCL Press, London. Macnaughten, P., Urry, J., 1998. Contested Natures. Sage, London. Marsden, T., Murdoch, J., Lowe, P., Munton, R., Flynn, A., 1993. Constructing the Countryside. UCL Press, London. Milbourne, P. (Ed.), 1997. Revealing Rural Others. Pinter, London. Mills, S., 1997. Discourse. Routledge, London. Ministry of Defence, 1991. Britain's Army for the 1990s. Cm. 1595. HMSO, London. MoD (Ministry of Defence), 1993. Defending Our Future: Statement on the Defence Estimates 1993. Cm 2270. HMSO, London. MoD (Ministry of Defence), 1994. Statement on the Defence Estimates 1994. Cm 2550. HMSO, London. MoD (Ministry of Defence), 1995. Statement on the Defence Estimates 1995: Stable Forces in a Strong Britain. Cm 2800. HMSO, London. MoD (Ministry of Defence), 1996. Statement on the Defence Estimates 1996. Cm 3223. HMSO, London. MoD (Ministry of Defence), 2000. Strategic Environmental Appraisal of the Strategic Defence Review. Ministry of Defence, London. MoD/FI/1, 1997. Assessment of the E!ects of M28 Rocket E%ux. MoD Proof of Evidence to OPI, 7 October 1997. MoD/P/1, 1997. UK Army Training Requirements. MoD Proof of Evidence to Otterburn Public Inquiry, Lt. Col. James Carter, presented 22 April 1997. MoD/P/2, 1997. AS90 and MLRS Training Requirements. MoD Proof of Evidence to OPI, Lt. Col. Jeremy Bleasdale, presented 23 April 1997. MoD/P/7, 1997. Nature Conservation. MoD Proof of Evidence to OPI, Dr. Keith Jones, RPS Consultants Ltd. For MoD. Presented 24 April 1997. MoD/P/12, 1997. Planning. MoD Proof of Evidence to OPI. Mr. Rory Joyce for Drivers Jonas on behalf of MoD. Presented 25 April 1997. MoD/R/1, 1997. MoD Responses to the Evidence of Northumberland County Council. MoD Rebuttal Proof to OPI. Ltn. Col. James Carter, July 1997. MoD/R/1/4, 1997. MoD Response to the Evidence of the National Parks Consortium. MoD Rebuttal Proof to OPI. Ltn. Col. James Carter, July 1997. MoD/R/13/8, 1997. Modelling of Dispersion and Deposition of E%ux from the M28 Rocket at Otterburn and Response to the Evidence of Mr. J.W. Short. MoD Rebuttal evidence, Mr. I.Vince, 7 October 1997. MoD/R/14/8, 1997. Implications of the Products of the E%ux from M28 Rocket Launching at Otterburn and Response to the Evidence of Mr. J.W. Short. MoD Rebuttal evidence, Prof. J.W. Bridges, 7 October 1997. Murdoch, J., Pratt, A., 1993. Rural studies: modernism, post-modernism and the &post-rural'. Journal of Rural Studies 9, 411}427. Murdoch, J., Pratt, A., 1994. Rural studies of power and the power of rural studies: a reply to Philo. Journal of Rural Studies 10, 83}87.

R. Woodward / Journal of Rural Studies 17 (2001) 201}217 National Parks Review Panel, 1991. Fit for the Future: The Report of the National Parks Review Panel. CCP 471. Countryside Commission, Cheltenham. Nugent, Lord., 1973. Statement on the Report of the Defence Lands Committee. Cmnd 5714. HMSO, London. Otterburn AFTC: Army Field Training Centre, 1993. Otterburn Training Area Strategic Estate Management Plan. Unpublished OTA document. Owens, S., 1990. Military Live Firing in National Parks. UK Centre for Economic and Environmental Development, London. Pearson, G.S., 1992. Preface. In: Carter, M. (Ed.), Porton Down: 75 Years of Chemical and Biological Research. HMSO, London. Peers, A., 1994. Defending Our Heritage: Historic Military Buildings on the Defence Estate. MoD, London. Philo, C., 1993. Postmodern rural geography? A reply to Murdoch and Pratt. Journal of Rural Studies 9, 429}436. Pile, S., Thrift, N., 1992. Mapping the Subject: Geographies of Cultural Transformation. Blackwell, Oxford. Pratt, A., 1996. Discourses of rurality: loose talk or social struggle?. Journal of Rural Studies 12, 69}78. R/JWS/P/1, 1999. Proof of Evidence on Apache MLRS, AS 90, Highways and Apache. Presented April 1999 to re-opened OPI. R/MoD/R/10/8, 1999. MoD Response to Mr. J.W. Short on Noise and Vibration. Rebuttal evidence presented on behalf of MoD by Mr. Graham Parry, April 1999. Ross, A., 1996. The future is a risky business. The Ecologist 26, 42}44. Savege, J., Brotherton, I., Owens, P., 1995. The Future for the Defence Estate: Changing Demands for Army Training. London Defence Studies 26, Brasseys, London. Savege, J., 1997. Soldiers, stone curlews and SSSIs: maintaining the balance. ECOS 18, 68}74. Seager, J., 1991. Earth Follies: Feminism, Politics and the Environment. Earthscan, London. Sharp, Baroness., 1977. Dartmoor: Report of a Public Inquiry into the Continued Use of Dartmoor by the Ministry of Defence for Training Purposes. HMSO, London.

217

Shields, D., 1996. Defence of nature's realm. The Field July, 92}95. Smith, N., 1990. Uneven Development: Nature, Capital and the Production of Space. Blackwell, Oxford. Soja, E., 1989. Postmodern Geographies: The Reassertion of Space in Critical Social Theory. Verso, London. SSVC (Services Sound and Vision Corporation), 1995. Room to Manoeuvre. Publicity Video C. 1871. SSVC, London. SSVC (Services Sound and Vision Corporation), 1993. Train Green. C1824. Army Training Video, SSVC, London. Stolpe, G., 1999. Proceedings of the Information Seminar on Military Land and Conservation. International Academy for Nature Conservation, Vilm. Thomas, W., 1995. Scorched Earth: The Military's Assault on the Environment. New Society Publishers, Philadelphia. Van Dijk, T., 1997. The study of discourse. In: Van Dijk, T. (Ed.), Discourse as Social Interaction. Sage, London. Warner, F., 1991. The environmental consequences of the Gulf War. Environment 33, 7}9, 25}26. Woodward, R., 1996. Deprivation and the rural: an investigation into contradictory discourses. Journal of Rural Studies 12, 55}67. Woodward, R., 1997. Guardians of the wilderness? The Army's portrayal of the Otterburn Training Area. ECOS 18, 75}81. Woodward, R., 1998a. Defended territory: the Otterburn training area and the 1997 public inquiry. Research Report, Centre for Rural Economy, University of Newcastle. Woodward, R., 1998b. It's a Man's Life!: soldiers, masculinity and the countryside. Gender Place and Culture 5, 277}300. Woodward, R., 1999. Gunning for rural England: the politics of the promotion of military land use in the Northumberland National Park. Journal of Rural Studies 15, 17}33. Woodward, R., 2001. Local interest, regional needs or national imperative? The Otterburn question and the military in rural areas. In: Ward, N., Tomaney, J. (Eds.), A Region in Transition: North East England at the Millennium. Avebury, Guildford. Wright, P., 1996. The Village that Died for England: The Strange Story of Tyneham. Vintage, London.