Sustaining multifunctional agricultural landscapes: comparing stakeholder perspectives in New York (US) and England (UK)

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Land Use Policy 22 (2005) 313–321 www.elsevier.com/locate/landusepol

Sustaining multifunctional agricultural landscapes: comparing stakeholder perspectives in New York (US) and England (UK) Nelson Billsa,, David Grossb a

Department of Applied Economics and Management, Cornell University, 453 Warren Hall, Ithaca, NY 14853-7801, USA b Department of Natural Resources, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853, USA Received 28 November 2003; received in revised form 3 April 2004; accepted 7 June 2004

Abstract This paper compares levels of public subsidy and community stakeholders’ perspectives on American and British approaches to managing agricultural landscapes. In the US, changes in agriculture have played out on the landscape (i.e. countryside) with far less discussion about nonfood, public benefits derived from the working agricultural landscape. British stakeholders outlined a purposeful approach to landscape conservation and management programs, targeted at enhancing the agricultural system in support of landscape functions deemed to be of direct social value. In contrast, the New York stakeholder group was less comfortable with the idea of achieving a shared positive vision for the rural countryside, and more concerned with the negative consequences of agricultural production and greenfields conversion. r 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Keywords: Agri-environmental policy; Landscape; Countryside; Conservation; Resource management; Rural environment

Introduction Part of the public policy debate about farming is the recognition that agricultural land resources have a variety of functions beyond the primary function of supplying food and fiber (Lowe et al., 1999). As economists point out, agriculture is a complex economic sector with multifaceted effects on environmental, social and human systems (Pretty et al., 2001). For the students of land use, farmers are primarily land managers who take action to achieve preferred outcomes for their investment of human and financial capital. The role that farmers play as land managers is the focus of this study; specifically, we effect intercountry comparisons of agri-environmental subsidies and on-the-ground perceptions of farmers as producers of ‘‘multifunctional agricultural landscapes.’’ Our use of Corresponding author. Tel.: +1-607-255-7734; fax: +1-607-2559934. E-mail address: [email protected] (N. Bills).

0264-8377/$ - see front matter r 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2004.06.001

the term ‘‘multifunctional agricultural landscapes’’ builds on a literature and a policy discussion underway since the mid-1990s under the aegis of WTO trade negotiations (USDA, Economic Research Service, 1999). Trade concerns involve ongoing disputes between countries over farm commodity policy and whether subsidies and border protections that affect commodity prices are warranted because farming is multifunctional, i.e. leads to both food and environmental goods and services (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), 2001). Much of the recent economic literature generated in both academic and government circles saves the term ‘‘multifunctionality’’ for discussions of policies leading to freer trade (see Batie, 2003; Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), 2001; Blandford and Boisvert, 2002). Proponents of multifunctionality argue that the agricultural landscape is inter-related to its genuine farming origin; its aesthetic, recreational, and biological resource values are closely contingent upon the landscape’s

ARTICLE IN PRESS 314

N. Bills, D. Gross / Land Use Policy 22 (2005) 313–321

authenticity as a food producer (Bohman et al., 1999). Presenting an antithetical view, US Department of Agriculture researchers argue that multifunctionality is an insufficient basis for continuing trade-distorting agricultural policies. They maintain that many nonfood benefits are achieved with greater efficiency through nonagricultural policy instruments (Bohman et al., 1999). Other observers point out that ‘‘multifunctional services’’ are typically local in nature and suggest that one-size-fitsall policies set at the national level are inferior to local-level alternatives for pursuing interests such as the protection of open space, scenic vistas, and wildlife habitat (Blandford and Boisvert, 2002). While carefully avoiding use of the term ‘‘mutifunctionality,’’ a recent USDA report (Hellerstein et al., 2002) further suggests that amenities and outputs (public benefits) commonly associated with multifunctional agriculture are misdirected and may not actually require agricultural production. The multifunctionality debate aside, the fact remains that both US and UK agricultural policy environments reflect increased demand for countryside goods (Hodge, 2001), with emphasis on protection of the environment and maintenance of the diversity of landscapes through environmentally responsible farming methods (Hart and Wilson, 1998). The challenge is to better integrate agriculture into broader functions (Lowe et al., 1999) and to change the ‘‘culture’’ in agriculture (Hart and Wilson, 1998). Future agricultural landscape will not be the accidental by-product of farming as it was in the past. A key ingredient is more creative and imaginative thinking from planners and land managers to give a vision of a new multipurpose countryside (Green, 2002). In this paper, we focus on the fundamentals of a farming presence in the countryside and the values of food and agricultural pursuits for local communities. Increasingly, the broader role that farmers play on the landscape is more fully appreciated (see O’Riordan et al., 1993; Pretty, 1998; Deverre, 1995; Hodge, 2001; Libby, 2000; Hart and Wilson, 1998). In Europe, most conservation values, from biodiversity to scenic sites, are integral parts of agricultural landscapes. When these landscapes change because of agricultural policies, natural values—species, habitats, landscapes—are usually affected (On˜ate et al., 2000). In the UK, paying farmers to deliver not only food but also amenity environmental goods such as wildlife, beautiful scenery, access, and clean water has transformed conservation policy and practice. Those concerned with wildlife, cultural systems, and informal recreation are all interested in the same basic resource, natural and seminatural landscapes, and in their same use as amenities (Green, 1996). In addition, we will point out that a growing body of literature on farming and rural amenities in the US (see Hellerstein et al., 2002 for a summary of the literature) is

highly selective and ignores important classes of public subsidy for amenity production/protection measures. Our paper takes a wider view and considers both direct cash assistance (the hallmark of high-profile agrienvironmental programs in the US and in Western Europe) and the tax expenditures that arise from the more nuanced programs operated by state and local governments in the US. Using New York State as an example, we will show that studies of amenity protection that consider government efforts at all levels can dramatically change assessments of public support for multifunctional agricultural benefits. Comparisons of subsidy outlays in England and in New York are arranged in this paper to provide context for recording on-the-ground views of farming’s place in the rural countryside.

Background: evolving agri-environmental policy in the US and the UK Reforms of the EU’s Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) over the last decade are weakening the link between production and farm income in Europe by reducing direct price supports and shifting subsidies to area-based payments for programs, or ‘‘schemes’’ in British parlance, to provide new incentives for meeting environmental objectives. Recent revisions in CAP regulations provide for ‘‘modulation’’ or country-bycountry decisions by EU members to shift some of their CAP funds to rural development and agri-environmental programs. In the UK, a vigorous debate is centered on the pace of that adjustment. In 1999, the EU made provisions to shift 2.5% of all direct payments to farmers under CAP commodity regimes to either rural development or agri-environmental initiatives by 2001, with this proportion expected to approach 5% by the mid-2000s (UK Policy Commission on the Future of Farming and Food, 2002). More recently, in June 2003, the UK Department of Environment Food and Rural Affairs announced CAP reforms that uncouple the bulk of subsidy from production, going forward from 2005 (Department for Environment, Food, and Rural Affairs (DEFRA), 2004). In the US, efforts to uncouple subsidy from production have been far less decisive. In 2002, the US Congress similarly reauthorized Federal farm legislation that features continued funding for income support and supply management control for key US farm commodities, and authorizes appropriations for a suite of federally sponsored environmental enhancement programs (Harl, 2002). While these initiatives under the conservation title of the Federal farm bill are almost uniformly represented as the centerpiece of US agri-environmental policy, American policy is actually far more nuanced, thanks to the program efforts by

ARTICLE IN PRESS N. Bills, D. Gross / Land Use Policy 22 (2005) 313–321

state and local governments. Limiting attention to high-profile programs administered by Federal agencies misses the vast amount of discretion over agri-environmental issues devolved to state governments and, in turn, to thousands of local governmental units. Thirdparty nongovernmental entities, organized under Federal and state statutes as not-for-profit conservancies or land trusts, are also making an increasingly important contribution to agri-environmental efforts (Fairfax and Guenzler, 2001). Another feature of the American policy dialogue is to rivet attention either on farmland protection concerns (greenfields development) or on soil erosion/water quality problems. As a result, research studies tend to be piecemeal and devoted to separate strands of public concern about farm and food production. Regardless of emphasis, most research tends to dismiss programs featuring tax expenditures—the local property or income tax revenue foregone with tax preferences for farmland owners to achieve state and local farmland protection objectives. Tax expenditures are ignored in Great Britain, as well, but for the right reason: farm property is not subject to a property tax there. Other important policy comparisons can also be made between the UK and the US. Growing British concern about the public health effects of agricultural pollution has merged with a long-established concern about landscape change (biodiversity, aesthetic, heritage) resulting from intensification in agriculture (Potter, 1998). In addition, the rural economy and the countryside and its amenities have been seen as inseparable from the practice of farming (Green, 1996). In the US, agrienvironmentalists have never been particularly concerned about the implications of agricultural intensification on landscape diversity, biological resources, wildlife habitat, etc. Instead, policy dialogue has focused largely on protection of water quality through nonpoint source management. Agricultural pollution, landscape change, and loss of biodiversity due to intensification and concentration of production remain distinctly European concerns (Potter, 1998). Another fundamental difference between the UK and US emerges in the management of farmland (‘‘greenfields’’ in UK parlance) conversions in each country. In the UK, land conversions are regulated at the national level with reflexive oversight by local regulatory authorities (Lowe et al., 1999). In the US, most land conversion decisions are at the other end of the spectrum, with local governments and individual property owners making decisions on new land uses. Farmland protection in US parlance refers to a suite of programs to influence the decisions of individual landowners on either the timing or location of greenfields conversion from farm to developed uses (Bills, 1996; Kline and Wichelns, 1996; Batie, 2003; Hellerstein et al., 2002).

315

Outlays for agri-environmental programs To redress piecemeal treatment of agri-environmental programs in this study, we assembled comprehensive data on environmental program subsidies in New York State and in England. Taking into account both New York State and Federal programs, we identified eight programs operating either under the aegis of water quality or farmland protection—see Table 1. This analysis extends the literature which has, until now, focused only on direct subsidy. These cash assistance programs include the USDA’s high-profile Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) and New York State’s purchase of development rights program which protects farmland from greenfields development. To account for tax expenditures, we also account for property or income tax revenues foregone with programs promulgated by the New York State legislature for purposes of farmland protection. Measurement of tax expenditures is absolutely essential. Owners of farm real estate throughout the US are benefiting from tax forgiveness programs dating from the mid-1950s (Tremblay et al., 1987). Under Federal programs, we included all initiatives funded by the USDA from the mid-to-late 1990s into 2001. Although Congress expressed concern over greenfields conversion and authorized cash subsidy for farmland protection efforts in 1996, few funds have been expended to date. Rather, the focus of Federal funding is on soil erosion control and water quality management, as evidenced by funds for the CRP and an Environmental Quality Incentives Program authorized over the last 15 years by Federal farm legislation. Also included are funds from the Agricultural Conservation Program (ACP), dating from the mid-1930s, and persistent US concerns with soil erosion and land management. The ACP has been phased out by Congress. For the UK, we focused on 11 programs administered by the Department of Environment Food and Rural Affairs. These programs have been instituted since the early 1990s and the CAP reforms initiated by the EU as discussed above—see Table 1. To achieve comparability between countries, we identified a funding stream for the 6-year interval between 1996 and 2001 because complete data were accessible for those years. The English data were then adjusted with prevailing exchange rates to express cash assistance to farmers and landowners in dollar terms. Tax expenditures in New York were estimated by applying effective tax rates to the amount of taxable farm real estate exempted under current NYS property tax law. This procedure resulted in estimates of taxes foregone each year for exemptions on new or newly reconstructed farm buildings and preferential agricultural (rather than full market value) assessments on farmland. Finally, published data were assembled for the same 6-year interval on tax expenditures associated

ARTICLE IN PRESS 316

N. Bills, D. Gross / Land Use Policy 22 (2005) 313–321

Table 1 Estimated agri-environmental outlays for England and New York, in US dollars, 1996–2001 1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

Dollars (Mil.) England Environmentally sensitive areas (1992)a Countryside stewardship (1992) Organic conversion (1995) Nitrate sensitive areas (1992) Woodland schemes (1992) English nature, SSSI (1992) All otherb

41.8 17.0 0.5 7.3 5.9 9.5 2.6

46.8 25.7 1.1 7.7 7.7 10.3 3.4

62.3 33.0 2.0 10.3 8.9 10.3 3.5

63.9 37.8 3.7 6.3 9.5 12.6 4.4

61.9 43.7 23.3 3.9 9.1 11.5 4.9

60.5 57.0 38.2 2.4 10.9 11.1 5.2

New York NYS—Purchase of development rights (1996) NYS—Farmers school tax credit (1997) NYS—Agricultural assessments (1971) NYS—Farm building exemptions (1969) NYS—Agricultural environmental management (1996) USDA—Conservation reserve program (1986) USDA—Agricultural conservation program (1936) USDA—Environmental quality incentive program 1996) USDA—All other programsc

3.7 0.0 56.5 8.9 0.4 3.0 2.3 0.2 0

3.5 12.4 55.1 9.0 0.6 2.9 1.1 0.9 0

4.5 18.5 57.8 8.8 1.9 2.4 0.8 1.4 0

7.7 19.0 60.7 8.8 2.3 2.4 0.5 1.9 0

12.0 19.6 67.4 9.4 2.4 2.9 0.1 1.8 0.1

8.0 20.7 68.0 10.0 2.3 4.3 0.1 1.8 0.1

Source: Estimated from average annual currency exchange rates and payments reported by the UK Department of Environment Food and Rural Affairs; file data obtained from the NYS Department of Agriculture and Markets and the Office of Real Property Tax Services; a report on, the NYS tax expenditures by the State Division of the Budget/Dept. of Taxation and Finance Controller, and Federal program payments reported by the Environmental Working Group (2003). a Year of program inception in parentheses. b Includes programs for Arable Stewardship (1999), Countryside Access (1995), Habitat (1995), Moorland (1996), Woodland (1992), and Energy Crops (2000). c Includes the Farmland Protection Program.

with a State program that gives qualified farmers a refundable State income tax credit for a portion of the taxes to fund local elementary and secondary schools. As expected, Table 1 shows that outlays in the UK are dominated by assistance to participants in Environmentally Sensitive Areas and a Countryside Stewardship program (see Dobbs and Pretty, 2001 for a detailed description of these programs and a review of the literature about their impact on the British landscape). In addition, subsidies for British farmers seeking to convert their crop or livestock operations to organic production have increased precipitously in recent years. To achieve greater comparability between the dollar estimates in each geographic situation, we weighted the annual dollar estimates by the acreage of arable farmland in each location. Results shown in Fig. 1 suggest that New York and England, with a similar land mass and with relatively high levels of affluence and population density, are also on a similar trajectory with agrienvironmental support for farmers and owners of farmland resources. According to our estimates, by the early 2000s both New York and England realized agri-environmental subsidies in the vicinity of $20 per acre per year. It is important to note that these results are largely dictated by an acknowledgment of tax

Cash subsidy

Tax expenditures

15

1996

17

1997

23

2000

2001

23

2001

5

10

15

20

15

1999

2000

0

14

1998

21

1999

11

1997

19

1998

9

1996

25

Dollars per acre-New York State

17 20 0

5

10

15

20

25

Dollars per acre-England

Fig. 1. Estimated per acre state/national agri-environmental subsidies for New York and England, 1996–2001.

expenditures in US agri-environmental policy, which heretofore has not received substantive treatment in recent economic research and literature in the US (see e.g. Batie, 2003; Blandford and Boisvert, 2002; Dobbs, 2002; Dobbs and Pretty, 2001; Hellerstein et al., 2002; Hollis and Fulton, 2002; Libby, 2000). Filling this void in the literature seems critical because tax avoidance motivated initial farmland protection efforts in the US

ARTICLE IN PRESS N. Bills, D. Gross / Land Use Policy 22 (2005) 313–321

and is particularly compelling in the Northeast where municipalities are relatively more dependent upon local property tax to fund local services. In New York State, effective annual property tax rates average about 3% of market value per annum in most localities. Conversely, tax avoidance programs now in place for New York farmland owners result in tax benefits that amount to roughly $100 million per year (Table 1). These tax benefits dwarf the much discussed and ballyhooed Federal and state environmental initiatives for water quality management, land retirement, or purchases of farmland development rights in New York.

Two case studies The preceding picture of Federal/state-sponsored agri-environmental program assistance in New York and national support in England is essential background as we turn to assess the impact of on-farm managerial interventions on broader landscape conservation issues by case comparisons of focus group discussions in each country. As we will discuss, the agri-environmental policy context of each case study area was a critical influence on issues raised and views expressed by focus group participants. Following a structured study protocol (Gross and Bills, 2003), we convened two focus groups. In England, the focus group centered on the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) of Kent and East Sussex, an ancient landscape derived from a highly integrated and labor intensive land management system, where agriculture and woodland were managed as one system on every farm holding. Despite its proximity to London, this 1450 km2, high-value landscape of hills and ridges, small valleys, woods-bounded fields, and extensive ancient woodland has survived more or less intact since the fourteenth century because the area’s harsh conditions and the heavy, poorly drained soils have inhibited agricultural intensification and ensured the marginality of the farming that originally created it. Close to a number of major economic growth areas, the AONB is vulnerable to multiple development pressures, such as the threat of major road improvements on routes through the AONB between London and the coast, and noise nuisance from the continued growth of nearby Gatwick Airport. Residential and associated commercial development pressures are particularly affecting villages in the north and west of the AONB, as evident in residential conversion of traditional buildings and the increase of horse paddocks and swimming pools. Several critical issues in the area include farming at the very margins, loss of farm viability leading to farm fragmentation, high land values, and lack of maintenance of key landscape features (Countryside Agency, 1999).

317

For the US contrast, we convened a focus group in the Skaneateles Lake watershed (i.e. catchment), located in the Finger Lakes region of Central New York. Skaneateles Lake is the primary source of unfiltered drinking water for the City of Syracuse and surrounding communities. The watershed area measures 189 km2 with a drainage area (land only) of 153 km2 (City of Syracuse, Department of Engineering, 1996); the ratio of land-to-lake surface area is 4.36 to 1. Land use in the watershed is 48% agricultural, 40.2% forest, 5.4% private/residential, and the rest vacant or commercial. The lakeshore was largely developed prior to the 1980s. One growing trend is the conversion of seasonal homes to year-round and the development of lake-view homes on the watershed hillsides. Only 8% of the total land area in the watershed is publicly owned. Skaneateles Lake watershed abounds in extraordinary scenic vistas as the narrow lake winds through the rolling landscape. Views of the lake add to the rural character, the tourist economy, and the desirability of living in the watershed and preserving lake water quality. In the face of long-term development pressure, local interests recognize the importance of maintaining biodiversity and protecting a variety of wildlife habitats (City of Syracuse, Department of Engineering, 1998; City of Syracuse, Department of Engineering, 1996) and have developed watershed protection programs to address nonpoint source pollution. A cross-section of stakeholder participants was invited to each focus group: farmers, agri-environmental technical/financial providers, environmental and community enhancement interests (NGOs), and local elected officials. In addition, we talked with other stakeholders unable to attend the focus groups and incorporated their input into our findings (Gross and Bills, 2003).

Focus group results The focus group discussions centered on two main questions that are the organizing framework for our analysis: (1) What are the current countryside issues and what do we know (or need to know) about them? (2) How do we create a vision for the kind of countryside we want in the future? Both themes were broken down further into key discussion topics. A summary of findings for both focus groups follows. Land ownership and landscape management Most interests represented in the two groups recognized the importance of farm stewardship and of continued presence of crop and livestock agriculture in order to achieve/maintain landscape diversity as a key element in the working landscape. High Weald farmers emphasized their role in managing the landscape and the

ARTICLE IN PRESS 318

N. Bills, D. Gross / Land Use Policy 22 (2005) 313–321

need for neighbors, policymakers, and the wider society to recognize that heritage. Such acknowledgment was deemed necessary for the farm community to have sustainable business models adapted to the realities of modern European agriculture and ever-emerging settlement patterns in the countryside. Nonfarm interests in the Skaneateles Lake watershed registered similar concern about a viable business model but also exhibited a sharper set of concerns about the issue of sustaining proper farm management. High Weald farmers and local officials, on the other hand, were less concerned about current farm management than about high property values encouraging sales to newcomers. Focus group participants generally agreed that farm sales and subdivisions were having a significant impact on agricultural sustainability and biodiversity protection. In both areas, farmers spoke of the significance of farm ownership and stewardship when considering the future of their respective landscapes. In the Skaneateles Lake watershed, farmers cited uncertainty and loss as they sought to sustain their farms into the future, and High Weald farmers expressed similar concerns about their survival challenges such as high land values, changing landownership, and limitations of government support. A cross-section of participants in both settings articulated the importance of sustaining agriculture into the future to protect the areas’ landscape qualities. However, all voiced concerns about how to do that given ongoing economic and public policy challenges.

however, significant emphasis was placed on the development of new farm enterprises and services. In sharp contrast, the Skaneateles Lake watershed group did not specifically address diversification issues for farm businesses apart from recognizing the importance of tourism to the area. This could be consistent with a less emergent interest in farm diversification. Yet, interestingly, farmers and local officials in both the High Weald and the Skaneateles Lake watershed were only cautiously optimistic about the role farm diversification will ultimately play in increasing farm profitability and as a strategy to connect farmers more closely to their consumers. Local officials in both settings saw the need to accommodate equine businesses as an integral part of local agriculture. In England, the growing presence of horses and related landscape interests—such as training facilities and bridle paths—was clearly recognized and integrated into the wider discussion about shifts in landownership, in-migration of new residents, and attendant impacts on landscape and landscape biodiversity. However, economic differentials were also noted, with farm holdings identified as ‘‘equine’’ receiving adverse property tax treatment compared to farm holdings identified with commodity production. This contrast provides a fascinating comparison with the New York locale, where horse boarding and riding operations are automatically eligible for preferential property tax relief under New York’s agricultural district law (New York State Department of Agriculture and Markets, no date).

Diversification and agri-sustainability

Farmers’ roles and standing

Local officials in both settings saw the need to help farmers sustain and grow their farm businesses. A clear understanding exists of the relationship between socially desirable landscape management and the profitability of local farm businesses in both the UK and in the US. The rules of engagement for farmers in both countries revolve around a satisfactory and sustainable relationship between business receipts and expenditures. Conversely, unfavorable mixes of receipts and expenditures lead to the termination of the enterprises that give the landscape its visual and biological vibrancy. The High Weald group provided dramatic contrasts with the upstate New York group on subjects related to farm business growth and its impact on the rural landscape. The British group was prepared to discuss strategies for growing farm businesses in a highly nuanced fashion. Over the course of the group discussions, a multipronged strategy for business diversification emerged. The first and most prominent diversification strategy mentioned was a series of steps landowners might take to increase the business revenues gathered from converting farm buildings and structures to nonfarm, commercial use. Inside the farm gate,

All Skaneateles Lake watershed participant groups commented that farmers are often singled out as an environmental threat and often get mixed messages from community stakeholders about their importance on the landscape. At the same time, sharp divisions of opinion were evident around the roles farmers and farmland owners play in the watershed. The overriding tension between farm and nonfarm constituencies involves the perceived deleterious impact of livestock and crop operations on water quality. In stark terms, is the farmer a water polluter, or is the farmer a benign feature and even an enhancer of the working landscape, exerting influence principally through crop and livestock practices that reflect communities’ long-term concerns about natural resource stewardship? In the High Weald, farmers, private organizations, and local officials expressed divergent views about the status of farming, but all recognized the important role of farmers as landscape managers. Public policy and programs All Skaneateles Lake watershed and High Weald focus group representatives expressed views regarding

ARTICLE IN PRESS N. Bills, D. Gross / Land Use Policy 22 (2005) 313–321

the public policy context of agricultural interests and landscape management. The discussion in both settings called for the formulation of improved policies as well as expanded programs that enhance incentives for farmbased landscape management that the public supports. The discussion about policy in the Skaneateles Lake watershed focused largely on the efficacy of current watershed management programs in controlling nutrient delivery to the lake and ultimately to the City of Syracuse water supply. The important roles that several layers of government play were acknowledged and that nongovernmental organizations were also at the table for an implementation phase. The High Weald focus group advocated a clearly articulated ‘‘national policy’’ because the size and scale of England and English agriculture demanded that virtually all programs were national in scope. The promulgation of these programs has featured a top down approach, with programs devised at the national level and implemented on area bases to achieve a targeted group of environmental issues. This policy milieu allows little scope for local government intervention, certainly less intervention than in New York. Information and community involvement In the Skaneateles Lake watershed discussion, two tracks developed around the theme of information and the strategies that should be followed to assure that land managers make fact-based decisions about land use. All but the farmers mentioned the need to seek information from outside sources. In sharp contrast, farmers seemed comfortable relying on internal sources of knowledge, even stressing that the best learning is direct, local, and conditioned by personal experience. All Skaneateles Lake watershed interests recognized a crucial, persistent, and possibly worsening disconnect between farmers and the wider community. A much wider set of agricultural and community interests understood and discussed the contributions and challenges of land management by farmers in the High Weald. Whereas the connections between farming and community were not an issue in the High Weald, farmers and agency participants sought to better understand what communities want and are willing to pay for in the way of landscape management. All Skaneateles Lake watershed representatives, except the farmers, spoke of the need for solid action, improved dialogue, and better linkages as ways to create a new vision for the area. Similarly in the High Weald, most groups represented, except local officials, mentioned the need to align agri-environmental management to community (public) preferences. In the Skaneateles Lake watershed collateral issues related to farming and perceptions of farmers trace, in part, to deeper concerns about literacy levels in the wider

319

community on matters related to food and agriculture. From the farm perspective, a common lament is: ‘‘What is wrong with these people—they just don’t get it!’’ Nonfarm members of the Skaneateles Lake watershed group, on the other hand, seemed more optimistic about the promise of education for resolving differences. Integration across countryside management interests Perhaps surprisingly, in the Skaneateles Lake watershed we saw a lack of unanimity on several processes and organizing principles often advanced as pivotal requirements for community progress and community policy resolution. Growers and producers, in particular, hesitated to hold out hope for vision sharing. Ambivalence was evident on matters related to achieving workable linkages between subcommunities and the watershed. It was clear that additional discussion was necessary regarding the nature of communication channels, who should participate, and the expectations the community should have regarding outcomes. In the High Weald, however, both farmers and private organizational representatives stressed that a shared vision was not only achievable but was also central to integration of land management interests.

Discussion This paper enriches and deepens understanding of farming and its position in the community in several different ways. More comprehensive data on funding provided here overcome deficiencies in previous studies and showcase some congruencies between financial commitments in the UK and in the Northeastern US. Follow-up work with focus groups and a directed discussion allowed us to look carefully for patterns of convergence in opinions and views on community issues in the two countries. Although the focus groups are simply cases, the results seem a useful addition to a literature that dwells on the multifunctional aspects of the farm industry virtually exclusively on a conceptual level. As the debate around farming—and all the values it provides in complex, densely settled communities— begins to mature, it will be important to build in these on-the-ground judgments of farm landscape functions. The importance of identifying themes that build cohesion around diverse interests in a small community become evident. One significant question that emerged from the discussions was: ‘‘What elements are involved in engaging this diverse set of interests in a wider landscape discussion about not only achieving countryside management milestones but also encouraging the very continuation of agriculture?’’ Several unifying themes emerged from the focus group discussions, which were replete with converging ideas and concerns

ARTICLE IN PRESS 320

N. Bills, D. Gross / Land Use Policy 22 (2005) 313–321

about the countryside and how agricultural pursuits influence the working landscape. The overriding consideration in both groups dealt directly with the economic circumstances confronting the farm community. Economic pressures, both in the Northeast US and in England, are increasingly putting farming and farm businesses at risk, and appear to be keenly felt in the nonfarm community as well. Agri-environmental subsidies play directly into these concerns. Both focus groups manifested strong appreciation for programs that improve cash flows for farm businesses and provide a compensatory framework for achieving environmental milestones. In both countries, well-defined lines of communications inform the wider public of the economic footing for food production, so considerable information is shared on the cost and return relationships confronting the industry and the families involved. To a degree, the relationship between farm economic decline and the appearance and vibrancy of the rural landscape was understood in both settings. Focus group participants indicated the necessity of maintaining a working landscape, where active crop and pasture use blends with more passive, open space uses. Our assembly of data on financial assistance to landowners clearly signals the wider public commitment to achieving those ends. A striking difference between the British and the New York settings, however, is that the British example highlights what might be described as the ‘‘intentionality’’ of countryside management. In the High Weald, stakeholders outlined a purposeful approach to landscape conservation and management programs, targeted at enhancing the agricultural system in support of landscape functions deemed to be of direct social value. In NY, in contrast, the discussion was more focused on land management outcomes regarded as undesirable—excessive or untimely greenfields conversion or degraded water quality from crop or livestock practices. Because of this subtle difference in reference point, the New York focus group was more tentative and less comfortable with the idea of achieving a shared positive vision for the rural countryside. New Yorkers exhibited a marked tendency to dwell on the negatives (i.e. lack of public understanding of the prerequisites for modern farming, farmer the polluter, no future in farming), instead of buying into a discussion about creating a positive vision for the countryside they want. Both focus groups expressed fundamental concerns about the prospects for marshaling the economic resources necessary for sustaining a farming landscape. Pressing economic circumstances for the farmer-investor were matched with equally incisive reservations about the size and accessibility of the public purse for maintaining farming landscapes. Participants pointed out that, in both the UK and the US, an increasing share of public support for active agriculture is turning toward environmental concerns and away from direct supply

control/income maintenance programs. Nevertheless, these increases remain only a tiny fraction of all farm program efforts. Both focus groups were ambivalent about the likelihood of substantive future public support to ameliorate the impact of structural change in agriculture on the rural landscape. As educators and researchers, we infer from this study that efforts to engage organizational leaders, farmers, and elected officials must somehow be redoubled. The dialogue over farming and its presence on the rural landscape must be more extensive and more textured to shed more light on all the benefits that might accrue from forums that would enrich the dialogue about the future of the areas. A better understanding of the layering effects of program efforts at multiple levels of government may prove to be essential. This study emphasized high levels of tax expenditures that materially influence the flow of benefits to farmers and landowners throughout the Northeastern US and other parts of the US as well. As funds need not be appropriated or bonded for, the transparency of these property tax benefits (and costs to nonfarm taxpayers) is relatively low and thus downplayed or even ignored in the ongoing debate over conserving rural resources. These findings also illustrate the need for strengthening agri-environmental policy dialogue in local settings if the promise of multifunctional agricultural landscapes is to be achieved. More focus is needed on the long-term implications of policy on sustaining the countryside. Agri-environmental programs may be nationally (or state) developed but they are locally implemented and must be locally understood. Better comprehension of how programs help sustain the vibrancy of the countryside may also stimulate more local discussion about how to achieve more coherence across the landscape for various environmental and social objectives. The role of local leadership is central to stimulating policy dialogue about countryside conservation. Finally, we infer that linkages between the farm community and other countryside interests must be strengthened for reasons other than monetary. Communities must be encouraged to look for ways to develop an integrated, shared vision for the future of the rural landscape. Interest in the countryside must be parsed out among multiple organizations, units of government, and several categories of landowners to assist in realizing the promise of a vibrant, commercial agriculture as a key constituent part of countryside management.

Acknowledgement Funding for this project was provided by the Cornell University Agricultural Experiment Station, Hatch Project NYC147805.

ARTICLE IN PRESS N. Bills, D. Gross / Land Use Policy 22 (2005) 313–321

References Batie, S., 2003. The multifunctional attributes of Northeastern agriculture: a research agenda. Agricultural and Resource Economics Review 32 (1), 1–8. Bills, N.L., 1996. Farmland preservation: agricultural districts, rightto-farm laws and related legislation. Paper Presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Association for Advancement of Science, Baltimore, MD, February 12. Blandford, D., Boisvert, R., 2002. Multifunctional agriculture and domestic/international policy choice. The Estey Centre Journal of International Law and Trade Policy 3 (1), 106–118. Bohman, M., Cooper, J., Mullarkey, D., Normile, M.A., Skully, D., Vogel, S., Young, E., 1999. The Use and Abuse of Multifunctionality. Economic Research Service, USDA, Washington, DC. City of Syracuse, Department of Engineering, 1996. Skaneateles Lake watershed annual report. Syracuse, NY. City of Syracuse, Department of Engineering, 1998. Skaneateles Lake watershed management plan. Syracuse, NY. Countryside Agency, 1999. Planning for quality of life in rural England: the interim planning policy of the countryside agency, London, England, UK, ISBN 0 86170 144 5. Department for Environment, Food, and Rural Affairs (DEFRA), 2004. Common agricultural policy-reform. On-line at http:// statistics.defra.gov.uk/esg/publications/auk/2002/default.asp. (http://www.defra.gov.uk/farm/capreform/index.htm). Deverre, C., 1995. Social implications of agro-environmental policy in France and Europe. Sociological-Ruralis 35 (2), 227–247. Dobbs, T., 2002. Resource and ecological economics with a ‘multifunctionality’ perspective. Economics Staff Paper 2002–3, Economics Department, South Dakota State University, Brookings, South Dakota. Dobbs, T., Pretty, J., 2001. Future directions for joint agricultural–environmental polices: implications of the United Kingdom experience for Europe and the United States. South Dakota State University Economics Research Report 2001–1 and University of Essex Centre for Environment and Society Occasional Paper. Environmental Working Group, 2003. EWG farm subsidy database, Washington, DC (http://ewg.org/farm/). Fairfax, S., Guenzler, D., 2001. Conservation Trusts. University Press of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas. Green, B., 1996. Countryside Conservation. E & FN SPON, London. Green, B., 2002. Farming the landscape. Town and Country Planning 72 (3), 74–75. Gross, D., Bills, N., 2003. Impacts of changing agri-environmental policy on countryside conservation: a report of focus groups held in association with Skaneateles Lake watershed, Skaneateles, NY, USA, and high weald area of outstanding natural beauty, Goudhurst, Kent, England, UK. Working Paper WP 2003–06, Department of Applied Economics and Management, Cornell University (http://aem.cornell.edu/research/researchpdf/ wp0306.pdf). Harl, N., 2002. Farm security and rural investment act of 2002 (summary of selected provisions). Center for International Agricultural Finance, Iowa State University, Ames, IA. Hart, K., Wilson, G., 1998. UK implementation of agri-environment regulation 2078/92/EEC: enthusiastic supporter or reluctant participant? Landscape Research 23, 255–272.

321

Hellerstein, D., Nickerson, C., Cooper, J., Feather, P., Gadsby, D., Mullarkey, D., Tegene, A., Barnard, C., 2002. Farmland protection: the role of public preferences for rural amenities. Agricultural Economic Report No. 815, Economic Research Service, USDA, Washington, DC. Hodge, I., 2001. Beyond agri-environmental policy: toward an alternative model of rural environmental governance. Land Use Policy 18, 99–111. Hollis, L., Fulton, W., 2002. Open space protection: conservation meets growth management. Solimar Research Group, Inc., A discussion paper prepared for the Brookings Institution Center on Urban and Metropolitan policy, Brookings Institution, Washington, DC. Kline, J., Wichelns, D., 1996. Public preferences regarding the goals of farmland preservation programs. Land Economics 72 (4), 538–549. Libby, L., 2000. Farmland as a multi-service resource: policy trends and international comparisons. Paper Prepared for the International Symposium on Agricultural Policies under the New Round of WTO Agricultural Negotiations, Taipei, Taiwan, December 5–8. Lowe, P., Falconer, K., Hodge, I., Moxey, A., Ward, N., Whitby, M., 1999. Integrating the environment into CAP reform. Report to Countryside Commission. Centre for Rural Economy, School of Agriculture Food and Rural Development, University of Newcastle upon Tyne, UK. New York State Department of Agriculture and Markets, no date. Article 25aa—Agricultural Districts (as Amended Through February 1, 2003). Circular 1150, Albany, NY. New York State Division of the Budget and Department of Taxation and Finance, no date. Annual Report on New York State Tax Expenditures. Albany, NY. On˜ate, J., Anderson, E., Peco, B., Primdahl, J., 2000. Agri-environmental schemes and the European agricultural landscapes: the role of indicators as valuing tools for evaluation. Landscape Ecology 15, 271–280. O’Riordan, T., Wood, C., Shadrake, A., 1993. Landscapes for tomorrow. Environmental Planning and Management 36(2), pp–pp?. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), 2001. Multifunctionality: Toward an Analytical Framework. Paris, France. Potter, C., 1998. Against the Grain: Agri-Environmental Reform in the US and the EU. CAB International, Wallingford, Oxon, ISBN 085 199 2285. Pretty, J., 1998. The Living Land: Agriculture, Food and Community Regeneration in Rural Europe. EARTHSCAN, London. Pretty, J., Brett, C., Gee, D., Hine, R., Mason, C., Morison, J., Rayment, M., Van Der Bijl, G., Dobbs, T., 2001. Policy and practice. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 44 (2), 263–283. Tremblay, R.H., Foster, J.H., MacKenzie, J., Derr, D.A., Lessley, B.V., Cole, G.L., Bills, N.L., 1987. Use value assessment of agricultural land in the Northeast. NE Regional Research Publication, Vermont Agr. Exp. Station Bulletin 694, University of Vermont, Burlington, VT, 24pp. UK Policy Commission on the Future of Farming and Food, 2002. Farming and food: a sustainable future (the Curry Report). London, England. USDA, Economic Research Service, 1999. Multifunctionality in the WTO trade negotiations. Washington, DC.