DOCSLIB.ORG

Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee RURAL ECONOMY AND CONNECTIVITY COMMITTEE CALL FOR EVIDENCE ON THE IMPACT OF COVID-19 ON THE RURAL ECONOMY AND CONNECTIVITY IN SCOTLAND SUBMISSION FROM SCOTLAND’S REGIONAL MOORLAND GROUPS Thank you for this opportunity to provide written evidence. This evidence covers the areas of land management, fisheries and food and drink, to varying extents. In the month of April and into May, Scotland’s 7 regional moorland groups organised a confidential short-life survey to gauge the economic impacts of Covid-19 on the country sports sector. The regions looked at were Angus Glens, Grampian, Tomatin and Inverness-shire, Loch Ness-side, Tayside and Southern Uplands (communities below the Lammermuir and Moorfoot hills). The email survey asked respondents for details of income already lost for 2020 due to the pandemic ie: lack of bookings from visitors or cancelled/curtailed shooting programmes. It also asked what the projected losses would be on each business (based on previous years’ accounts) should it not be possible to have visitors coming to Scotland’s remote glens and waters to shoot and fish this year. Finally, respondents were also asked whether they had made staff redundant or used the UK Govt’s furlough scheme. In total 32 estates/businesses who would normally provide shooting, deer stalking or fishing responded to the survey. The respondents comprised varying sizes of businesses and covered a range of commercial aspirations. A regional breakdown of respondents is also given below (Constituency Projected losses- country sports sector). Of the respondents, the greater majority cited driven grouse shooting as an element of their business model but returns were received for low ground shoots (pheasants and partridge), red and roe deer stalking/management businesses and a smaller number for fishing. Some respondents also provided returns on the potential loss of visitor accommodation income and in the sale of venison and game foods to the game dealer market. The headlines are as follows: • Across all respondents, the accumulated (actual and projected) loss was £8,564,767. • This represented an average, per business, loss of £267,649. • Across all 32 respondents, there were no redundancies. • Across all 32 respondents, only 3 gamekeepers had been furloughed (1 on a mixed estate and 2 on a low ground pheasant/partidge shooting estate). • Across all respondents, businesses said they had continued to, or intended to, continue spending on trades/businesses in their local area. • The loss of a driven grouse shooting season would have disproportionate impacts in places such as Angus and the Southern Uplands, particularly, but would impact the economy of all the surveyed regions. In relation to the call for evidence, the survey showed a number of insights, despite great uncertainty within the sector. Firstly, it should be noted that country sports businesses have been excluded from the main business support mechanisms. While there has been sector dialogue with Scottish Government, which has been welcome and continues, financial support remains a sticking point. Small operators, for example, have struggled to access any funding or have found the process highly taxing and, like many tourism businesses, those operators (in the absence of booking income) are likely only to be able to survive through accumulating debt. Some may fold. One of the unresolved issues is why, when sporting rates were reintroduced by Scottish Government in order to bring shoots and deer forests ‘back into line with other businesses’, that shoots and deer forests were then made exempt from the initial £10 000 and £25 000 grants applicable to those other businesses in the same ratings categories. Other lessons are that, despite a lack of certainty over whether these businesses will receive trading income this year, they have continued to maintain employment. Similarly, the furlough scheme has only been used for 3 individuals. In the face of potential high losses, therefore, the sector has a very limited draw on the tax payer. This shows a level of resilience when it comes to maintaining jobs in remote rural places which are disproportionately fragile, economically. The importance of this can be seen when looking at other land uses such as charity managed land and land managed for conservation. These uses of land, through no fault of their own, have required the furlough scheme to retain staff, and have shown a far heavier reliance on public funds to survive the crisis. It is not yet certain whether visitors will be able to come to participate this year. This depends on Scottish Government advice and community safety. What is certain, therefore, is that businesses are not receiving advanced bookings and some programmes, particularly in pheasant and partridge shooting, have already been cancelled completely or reduced significantly. Finally, with estates planning to continue investing in local trade in the face of losses, the survey suggests that country sports - if supported by Scottish Government- could play an important role in economic recovery in dispersed, small rural communities, where other opportunities can often be limited by remoteness, lack of infrastructure, high costs and poor connectivity. CONSTITUENCY PROJECTED LOSSES- COUNTRY SPORTS SECTOR • Angus Glens: 7 respondent estates. Total potential loss £3,001,498. Total average potential loss, per holding = £428,785. The biggest concern expressed was the potential loss of driven grouse shooting which would remove £2,071,750 across the respondents. There were also signifiant losses in pheasant shoots, deer stalking and tourist accommodation. Only 1 gamekeeper has been furloughed across the respondents. • Grampian: 5 respondent estates. Total potential loss £1,002,304. Total average potential loss, per holding = £167,050. The loss of sporting visitors will impact tourism in this area, with also loss of seasonal shoot wages for local beating staff. No sporting staff furloughed across the respondents but a maintenance worker had been furloughed on one holding. • Speyside: 4 respondent estates. Total potential loss £1,002,545. Total average potential loss, per holding = £250,636. Grouse shooting losses, principally, followed by deer and low ground shooting are the areas which will potentially hit, alongside sporting tourism within the wider community. No sporting staff furloughed across the respondents. • Tayside: 5 respondent estates. Total potential loss £730,551. Total average potential loss, per holding = £146,110. Biggest losses would be in grouse shooting but high potential loss to local accommodation providers, if shoots were cancelled. Other downstream spending being maintained. Two sporting staff furloughed in low ground shooting across the respondents. • Southern Uplands: 7 respondent estates. Total potential loss £2,447,469. Total average potential loss, per holding = £349,638. Biggest potential losses in driven grouse shooting (£1,775,600) but also large losses in pheasant shooting and accommodation. One estate reported potential fishing losses of up to £138,000. No sporting staff furloughed across the respondents. • Tomatin: 2 respondent estates. Total potential loss = £201,400. Total average potential loss, per holding = £100,700. No sporting staff furloughed across the respondents. • Loch Ness-side: 2 respondent estates. Total potential loss = £179,000. Total average potential loss, per holding = £89,500. No sporting staff furloughed across the respondents. Lianne MacLennan, Co-Ordinator, Scotland’s Regional Moorland Groups (who organised the survey). .
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Scottish Birds 37:3 (2017)
    Contents Scottish Birds 37:3 (2017) 194 President’s Foreword J. Main PAPERS 195 Potential occurrence of the Long-tailed Skua subspecies Stercorarius longicaudus pallescens in Scotland C.J. McInerny & R.Y. McGowan 202 Amendments to The Scottish List: species and subspecies The Scottish Birds Records Committee 205 The status of the Pink-footed Goose at Cameron Reservoir, Fife from 1991/92 to 2015/16: the importance of regular monitoring A.W. Brown 216 Montagu’s Harrier breeding in Scotland - some observations on the historical records from the 1950s in Perthshire R.L. McMillan SHORT NOTES 221 Scotland’s Bean Geese and the spring 2017 migration C. Mitchell, L. Griffin, A. MacIver & B. Minshull 224 Scoters in Fife N. Elkins OBITUARIES 226 Sandy Anderson (1927–2017) A. Duncan & M. Gorman 227 Lance Leonard Joseph Vick (1938–2017) I. Andrews, J. Ballantyne & K. Bowler ARTICLES, NEWS & VIEWS 229 The conservation impacts of intensifying grouse moor management P.S. Thompson & J.D. Wilson 236 NEWS AND NOTICES 241 Memories of the three St Kilda visitors in July 1956 D.I.M. Wallace, D.G. Andrew & D. Wilson 244 Where have all the Merlins gone? A lament for the Lammermuirs A.W. Barker, I.R. Poxton & A. Heavisides 251 Gannets at St Abb’s Head and Bass Rock J. Cleaver 254 BOOK REVIEWS 256 RINGERS' ROUNDUP Iain Livingstone 261 The identification of an interesting Richard’s Pipit on Fair Isle in June 2016 I.J. Andrews 266 ‘Canada Geese’ from Canada: do we see vagrants of wild birds in Scotland? J. Steele & J.
    [Show full text]
  • Driven Grouse Shooting
    Driven grouse shooting RSPB Council updated our previous policy on driven grouse shooting in October 2020. Our policy is to support licensing of driven grouse shooting across the UK, following expected progress on this issue in Scotland in 2020. Unless substantial progress (including effective licensing, stopping raptor killing, cessation of burning on peat soils, and banning use of lead ammunition) is made in reforming driven grouse shooting by 2025 in line with RSPB principles for sustainable gamebird shooting, we will consequently call on governments to introduce a specific ban on driven grouse shooting. Background Driven grouse shooting is defined as where shooters sit in lines of grouse butts on open moorland, and red grouse are then driven by beaters and dogs over the guns to shoot. The activity usually involves shooting large grouse “bags” (where large numbers of grouse are shot in a day). It is a unique hunting type to the UK (mainly England and Scotland) and shooters will pay large sums of money for a day’s shooting. Typically, gamekeepers are employed to kill predators that eat grouse; heather is burned to create young heather (the main foodplant of red grouse); and other additional management techniques are employed to produce as many red grouse as possible for shooting. The red grouse shooting season opens on the 12 August (“the Glorious Twelfth”). The alternative walked up grouse shooting involves a small number of shooters accompanied by dogs. They generally take small and sustainable numbers of grouse, as walked up shooting is more about the hunting experience. This is much less of a conservation issue for us.
    [Show full text]
  • Review of Illegal Killing and Taking of Birds in Northern and Central Europe and the Caucasus
    Review of illegal killing and taking of birds in Northern and Central Europe and the Caucasus Overview of main outputs of the project The information collated and analysed during this project has been summarised in a variety of outputs: 1. This full report Presenting all the aspects of the project at regional and national levels http://www.birdlife.org/illegal-killing 2. Scientific paper Presenting results of the regional assessment of scope and scale of illegal killing and taking of birds in Northern and Central Europe and the Caucasus1 https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/bird-conservation-international 3. Legislation country factsheets Presenting a review of national legislation on hunting, trapping and trading of birds in each assessed country http://www.birdlife.org/datazone/country (under ‘resources’ tab) 4. ‘The Killing 2.0’ Layman’s report Short communications publication for publicity purposes with some key headlines of the results of the project and the previous one focussing on the Mediterranean region http://www.birdlife.org/illegal-killing Credits of front cover pictures 1 2 3 4 1 Hen harrier Circus cyaneus © RSPB 2 Illegal trapping of Hen Harrier in the UK © RSPB 3 Common Coot (Fulica atra) © MISIK 4 Illegal trade of waterbirds illegally killed in Azerbaijan © AOS Citation of the report BirdLife International (2017) Review of illegal killing and taking of birds in Northern and Central Europe and the Caucasus. Cambridge, UK: BirdLife International. 1 Paper in revision process for publication in Bird Conservation International in October 2017 when this report is released 1 Executive Summary The illegal killing and taking of wild birds remains a major threat on a global scale.
    [Show full text]
  • The Effects of Upland Management Practices on Avian Diversity
    The Effects of Upland Management Practices on Avian diversity Bronwen Daniel September 2010 A Thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science and the Diploma of Imperial College London 1 Contents 1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 3 2. Background................................................................................................................................. 11 2.1 Birds as indicators ................................................................................................................ 11 2.1.1 Upland birds ...................................................................................................................... 11 2.2 Management Practices......................................................................................................... 13 2.2.1 Grouse Moor Management........................................................................................... 15 2.2.2 Predator control ............................................................................................................ 16 2.2.3 Burning .......................................................................................................................... 17 2.2.4 Grazing Pressure............................................................................................................ 17 2.2.5 Implications of upland management for bird populations ..........................................
    [Show full text]
  • RED GROUSE and Birds of Prey
    RED GROUSE and birds of prey This leaflet is supported ● by 17 voluntary bodies and addresses Illegal killing of birds of prey is limiting the concerns about the impact of predation population and distribution of several of red grouse by birds of prey (raptors). It species. explains how serious habitat loss and degradation have caused ● Management for grouse has helped to long-term declines in grouse bags, and how a high density of birds protect heather moors from forestry of prey can affect bags when grouse densities are low. It details plantations and livestock production, but why killing of birds of prey, illegally or under licence, and setting heavy grazing by sheep and deer is the quotas for birds of prey are not acceptable. It identifies measures main cause of declines in grouse bags. that can be taken to reduce the impact of predation on grouse and ● enhance heather moors for wildlife. ‘It is extremely unlikely that raptors were responsible for either the long-term decline or the fluctuations in grouse bags.’ Joint The concerns Raptor Study, Langholm.11 Conservation groups and the Government are ● ‘The raptor issue should be put on one side concerned because widespread killing of birds of because it is a diversion that has too often prey, especially on upland moorlands managed for resulted in managers taking their eyes off driven grouse-shooting, limits the population and the ball.’ The Heather Trust.25 distribution of several species. Killing birds of prey is ● Habitat management is fundamental to a a criminal activity involving hundreds of birds every long-term recovery of upland wildlife and year; for example: grouse shooting.
    [Show full text]
  • Your Essential Guide to Grouse Shooting and Moorland Management
    Your essential guide to grouse shooting and moorland management Who we are The Game & Wildlife Conservation Trust (GWCT) is a research and education charity conducting conservation science to enhance the British countryside for public benefit. For over 80 years we have been researching and developing game and wildlife management techniques and have had 135 scientific papers published in peer-reviewed journals on issues relating to upland ecology over the past 46 years. On the basis of our scientific expertise and credibility, we regularly provide advice to such statutory bodies as Defra, Scottish Natural Heritage and Natural England. We also provide practical advice to farmers and landowners on how to manage their land with a view to improving biodiversity. Much of our research is undertaken in collaboration with other institutions and organisations, including the following: Exeter, Imperial College London, Newcastle and Aberdeen Universities, the British Trust for Ornithology, the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology and the RSPB. To help disseminate this knowledge, representatives of the GWCT sat on over 100 external committees in 2015, including the following: Defra’s Upland Stakeholder Forum, Natural England’s main board and the UK Birds of Conservation Concern Panel. Why we support grouse moor management After spending 46 years researching and advising in the uplands we support grouse moor management for three primary reasons: 1. The habitat management undertaken on grouse moors preserves and enhances heather dominated habitats1. 2. The package of management, notably habitat enhancement along with predator control contributes to the conservation of a suite of upland bird species including upland waders2–4.
    [Show full text]
  • Environmental Impacts of High-Output Driven Shooting of Red Grouse
    Ibis (2016), 158, 446–452 Viewpoint ulating quarry species, hunting season and permitted hunting methods. There is no statutory requirement for hunters to report their bags, although records are col- lected by a non-profit organization, the Game & Wildlife Environmental impacts of Conservation Trust (GWCT). This combination of inten- sive shooting practice with weak regulation is almost high-output driven unique (Mustin et al. 2012), and offers general insights shooting of Red Grouse into the environmental impacts of intensive game man- agement when managers operate without much of the Lagopus lagopus scotica regulation recommended by Loveridge et al. (2009). PATRICK S. THOMPSON,1* DAVID J. T. DOUGLAS,2 There is growing public debate about these impacts DAVID G. HOCCOM,3 JEFF KNOTT,3 (Thompson et al. 2009, Avery 2015, Wightman & Tin- STAFFAN ROOS2 & JEREMY D. WILSON2 gay 2015), part of a wider trend of public engagement in 1RSPB, 1 Sirius House, Amethyst Road, hunting policy (Minnis 1998). For example, the recent Newcastle-upon-Tyne NE4 7YL, UK near-extirpation of the Hen Harrier Circus cyaneus as a 2RSPB Centre for Conservation Science, RSPB breeding bird in England (Redpath et al. 2010) and Scotland, 2 Lochside View, Edinburgh Park, claims of mass culls of Mountain Hares Lepus timidus in Edinburgh EH12 9DH, UK Scotland by grouse moor managers (Anon 2014) has 3RSPB, The Lodge, Sandy, Bedfordshire SG19 2DL, UK prompted three UK public petitions to license or ban dri- ven grouse shooting, one for the introduction of vicarious liability (whereby the rights-holder is held responsible for the actions of an employee) and one for stronger legal protection of Scottish Mountain Hares, collectively amassing over 85 000 signatures by 29 January 2016.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter on Grouse Shooting
    The Moorland Balance 1. Grouse Shooting Grouse shooting in the UK occurs in two main forms: driven shooting and walked-up, often over dogs. Driven shooting typically requires higher grouse densities, and this needs more eective management. The scale and impact of this management is the issue which provokes much of the debate around grouse shooting. This chapter describes grouse shooting and introduces the management techniques used. Left: © Tarquin Millington-Drake; Above: © Matt Limb Above: Millington-Drake; Tarquin © Left: 1 Grouse Shooting What are grouse and where are they found? There are four species of grouse in Britain: red grouse, black grouse, capercaillie and ptarmigan. The red grouse population is estimated to be 230,000 pairs1, and it is one of this country’s few endemic sub-species, meaning that they are only found in the British Isles. They inhabit heather moorland including areas of both blanket bog and upland heath. The black grouse population is estimated to be 5,100 males UK- wide1. They are found on the moorland fringe and use hill-edge woodlands of both conifer and deciduous species. There are fewer than 2,000 capercaillie in a handful of pine-dominated Scottish woodlands1. Ptarmigan live above 800m and like capercaillie are also only found in Scotland. Grouse populations tend to fluctuate in size over the years and in relation to management, so these figures are an estimate. Species Population Population UK conservation estimate status trend Red grouse 230,000 pairs Fluctuating Amber listed Black grouse 5,100 males Severe decline Red listed Capercaillie 1,300 individuals Severe decline Red listed (800-1,900) Ptarmigan 2,000-15,000 pairs Unknown Green listed (range stable) The number and trends of grouse species in the UK, based on figures from Birds of Conservation Concern 42, Population estimates of birds in Great Britain and the UK¦ and Birdlife International’s Datazone.
    [Show full text]
  • Socioeconomic and Biodiversity Impacts of Driven Grouse Moors in Scotland
    Socioeconomic and biodiversity impacts of driven grouse moors in Scotland. Summary Report Acknowledgements This research was commissioned by the Scottish Government via the Scottish Government’s Strategic Research Programme 2016-2021. The work has been undertaken by The James Hutton Institute (through the Policy Advice with Supporting Analysis (PAWSA) component of the Underpinning Capacity funding) and Scotland’s Rural College - SRUC (via Underpinning Policy Support funding). The views expressed in this report are those of the researchers and do not necessarily represent those of the Scottish Government or Scottish Ministers. We would like to acknowledge the advice and support of the project Steering Group: • Gita Anand: Scottish Government • Charles Warren: University of St Andrews • Claudia Rowse: Scottish Natural Heritage • Colin Shedden: British Association for Shooting and Conservation • Helen Duncan: Scottish Government • Hugh Dignon: Scottish Government • Ian Thomson: RSPB Scotland • Tim Baynes: Scottish Land & Estates (Moorland Group) Cover Photo © Mark Ewart (Lammermuirs Moorland Group) Citation Rob Brooker, Steven Thomson, Keith Matthews, Alison Hester, Scott Newey, Robin Pakeman, Dave Miller, Volker Mell, Inge Aalders, Rob McMorran and Jayne Glass (2018). Socioeconomic and biodiversity impacts of driven grouse moors in Scotland: Summary Report. Contents Acknowledgements ...................................................................................................................... 1 1 Background..........................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Turn Your Back on Grouse
    1 Turn your back on grouse A popular campaign against greed and intensification on England's grouse shooting estates. back ur on o y G n R r O u U T S Ethical Consumer Research Association (ECRA) May 2014 E Turn your back on grouse Ethical Consumer Research Association (ECRA) May 2014 2 “The hen harrier is a UK flagship species and extinction of any species of wildlife in the UK, through criminal activity, is unacceptable in the 21st century.” Richard Brunstrom, Chief Constable of North Wales “It is time for this industry to prove to the rest of the country that they can leave archaic activities behind. They must show their activities are sustainable and don’t rely on the illegal killing of birds of prey to promote ever increasing grouse-bags.” Martin Harper, RSPB Conservation Director “Upland estates feel they can divorce themselves from the collective wishes of the electorate, the requirements of the law and a recognition that they have a responsibility to nurture some of the most iconic members of our natural heritage.” John Armitage – Former RSPB conservationist Turn your back on grouse Ethical Consumer Research Association (ECRA) May 2014 3 Contents 1 Introduction and summary 4 2 The Hen Harrier 7 3 Grouse shooting estates 9 4 Consequences of intensification 11 5 Initiatives aimed at improving the fate of the hen harrier 14 6 The view from the grouse shooting industry 17 7 The political situation 20 8 A public campaign 24 9 Who to avoid? 26 Available as Appendix 1 Individuals and businesses connected to driven grouse a separate shooting in the UK document Appendix 2 Information sources 29 Appendix 3 Academic papers 32 Glossary 34 Cover image: Hen harrier Circus cyaneus, female in flight.
    [Show full text]
  • Sustainable Driven Grouse Shooting?
    Sustainable Driven Grouse Shooting? A summary of the evidence Authors Professor Simon Denny, BA, MA, PhD Dr Tracey Latham-Green, BA, MBA, PhD Professor Richard Hazenberg BA, MA, PhD Independent chair Professor James Crabbe, Wolfson College, University of Oxford July 2021 1 Date Version Updates 18.07.2021 1.0 First edition 2 CONTENTS FOREWORD BY THE INDEPENDENT CHAIR 7 1 INTRODUCTION 9 1.1 AIM OF THE REPORT 9 1.2 RELEVANCE AND AUDIENCE 9 1.3 THE LOGIC OF OPPOSITION TO DRIVEN GROUSE SHOOTING 10 1.4 ABOUT THE AUTHORS 12 1.5 INDEPENDENT REVIEW 13 2 SYNOPSIS 14 2.1 ECONOMICS 14 2.1.1 ECONOMIC IMPACT 1 14 2.1.2 ECONOMIC IMPACT 2 15 2.1.3 ECONOMIC IMPACT 3 16 2.1.4 ECONOMIC IMPACT 4 16 2.1.5 ECONOMIC IMPACT 5 17 2.1.6 ECONOMIC IMPACT 6 17 2.2 BIODIVERSITY 18 2.2.1 INTRODUCTION 18 2.2.2 IMPACT OF POLICY DECISIONS 19 2.2.3 RENEWABLE ENERGY 19 2.2.4 TOURISM 20 2.2.5 INTEGRATED MOORLAND MANAGEMENT 20 2.2.6 PREDATOR CONTROL 20 2.2.7 MOUNTAIN HARES 21 2.2.8 BIRDS 21 2.2.9 INVERTEBRATES 22 2.2.10 TICKS 22 2.2.11 MEDICATED GRIT 22 2.2.12 HEATHER BEETLE 23 2.2.13 STAKEHOLDERS 23 2.3 NATURAL CAPITAL AND ECOSYSTEMS 24 2.3.1 INTRODUCTION 24 2.3.2 DEFINITIONAL ISSUES 25 2.3.3 FIRE 25 2.3.4 BURNING VS. MOWING 28 2.3.5 WATER 28 2.4 SOCIAL IMPACTS 29 2.5 ALTERNATIVE USES 32 2.6 OPPOSITION TO DGS: MOTIVATIONS AND METHODS 36 3 METHODOLOGY 40 4 OVERVIEW OF DRIVEN GROUSE SHOOTING 41 4.1 THE RED GROUSE: AN INTRODUCTION 41 4.1.1 INTRODUCTION 41 4.1.2 DIFFERENT SPECIES OF GROUSE 41 4.1.3 THE RED GROUSE 42 3 4.1.4 HABITAT AND DISTRIBUTION 43 4.1.5 DISEASES 44 4.1.6
    [Show full text]
  • The Facts of Rural Life
    THE FACTS OF RURAL LIFE Why we need better wildlife management CHARLIE PYE-SMITH The Facts of Rural Life Copyright: © 2015 Charlie Pye-Smith THE AUTHOR © All rights reserved Born in Yorkshire, Charlie Pye- No part of this publication may be reproduced, in any form or by Smith studied botany and any means, without prior written permission from Brian Fanshawe Old School House, Ashley, Tetbury zoology at Newcastle-upon-Tyne Gloucestershire GL8 8XS University and conservation at University College London. His books include The Other Writer: Charlie Pye-Smith Nile (Penguin), Rebels and Design: Elodie A. Sampere, Wild Communications, [email protected] Outcasts (Penguin), The Subsidy Scandal (Earthscan), In Search Printing and publishing advised by BPG Media of Wild India (Channel 4), Rural Rites: Hunting and the Photo credits: Politics of Prejudice (All Party Parliamentary Middle Way David White: iii, iv, v, 5, 7, 8, 9, 12, 14, 20, 32, 35, 38, 55, 58, 62, 67, 71, 73, 74 and 80. Group) and Trees for Life (World Agroforestry Centre). He has Laurie Campbell: 4, 11, 16, 24, 28, 29, 33, 60, 63, 66. written scores of feature articles for the Financial Times, the Charlie Pye Smith: 2, 3, 6, 10, 13, 15, 17, 18, 21, 23, 25, 26, 30, 31, Daily Telegraph, New Scientist and other newspapers and 34, 39, 40, 41, 43, 44, 45, 48, 50, 51, 53, 54, 59, 61, 65, 68, 69. journals, presented radio programmes for BBC World Service, iStock/Getty Images: 46, 49. and written and researched television documentaries for Readers may notice that I have used both imperial and metric Channel 4 and the Discovery Channel.
    [Show full text]