Ethical land use?
The countryside, as we all know, is a hotbed of conflict! One grower’s polytunnel to boost production is a neighbour’s eyesore; one farmer’s GM crops to maximise yields is another’s pollutant. Increasing pressure on scarce resources on the one hand, coupled with growing societal concerns for aesthetic values (views, landscape, light pollution) and preservation of biodiversity on the other, suggest that the countryside will continue to be an ethical minefield for generations to come.
Many of the discussions relating to ‘land ethics’ tend to focus on the outcomes, whether real or perceived, and are often highly subjective. Thus if we take GM crops as an example, depending on your point of view they may lead to increased yields and enhanced nutritional value or wholesale environmental ruin. Of course the truth is rarely as polarised and both outcomes may be realised in different
circumstances. The problem is that it is difficult to prove either scenario conclusively, and when evidence is presented to support one argument it is discounted by the opposing camp. Perhaps a more useful approach, therefore, is not to concentrate on outcomes but to
build confidence in the principles and processes of decision making and the values that underpin them.
In the last decade there has been a growing re-assessment of some of the theological principles relating to land use. These draw particularly on Old Testament insights and encompass a number of themes.
• The land is the crucible where we experience God; we are physical creatures and our experience of the divine has a physical context.
• Land is gifted for the benefit of the entire community and access to land is a basic human right.
• Land is to be used responsibly and with respect for its own needs as well as the outcomes we desire.
The discussion ranges over many types of relational motif including those of steward, trustee, companion and priest.
Ethical decision-making that builds on these principles will invariably place more emphasis on the land manager’s responsibilities, rather than their rights. If land use has a purpose, the purpose is to benefit the whole community rather than the rights of the owner; and the practise of land management must respect the principle that the land
itself has inherent value (it is where we encounter the divine), and that it requires nurture and care.
When moving from a theoretical concept into the actual practise of decision-making, these issues broadly translate into two areas. Firstly, identifying the stakeholders who are affected by land management and deciding on the appropriate weighting to be given to their views. These include people who are directly affected through land ownership or employment, those in the wider community and the non-human life forms affected by land management. Secondly, the extent to which our current activity may enhance or reduce the ability to transfer assets to future
generations (again encompassing both human and non-human ‘future generations’).
Thus, whilst there is no right answer to complex questions about resource allocation, it is important that people have confidence in the way in which decisions are made and that consensus can be built around the values that should underpin these decisions.
Nick Read
Chaplain for the Environment, Agriculture and Rural Life, Diocese of Hereford
18
www.countyway.org.uk
green and pleasant land
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32