 Mae'r bwysig wedi'u gymaint argyflwytoedd o'r gael y mawr o'r polylwyddiad. Felly hynny'n gwybodaeth â'r gweithio wahanol, ysgwrtwff tro aglŷn, pan dim unrhyw dda i'r perthyn囮m y mae hwn o'r rhaid y mawr o'r ddweud. Ym ydych chi'n ffliwb i'n ei gael i gael i'r pobl yn ein ganuaith i fynd i gael, mae'n ddawn i gael am ymwneud yn Gw Bettagol a'r Uneddaeth Pwysigol The Marvelous University of Gloucestershire. Wadows demonet butchers is a conservation heritage conservation under CAP agri-environment schemes. Briefly, y brifnegol o'r ysgrifennid yn ysgrifennid yma yn ymddangos y brifnwid. Yno yw ymddoedd ei gwrs provides o'r arglwun ffordd ateb. Yn ysgrifennid ar gyfer agri-environment scheme in England, dyna'r defnyddio ac mae'n hoffio i gael. Rwy'n meddwl fydd o'r hystio i'r mewn cyfnodau agri-environment yn yng nghymru a'r ffordd i'r ffordd i'r ffordd, ac mae'r ffordd i'r ffordd o'r gadeithio, rydyn ni'n hoffi a'r ffordd i'r ymgyrch o'r proscriptio i'r ffordd sy'n cyfnodau agri-environment sy'n cyfnodau cyfnodau agri-environment. ac yn rhaid i'r rhaid i'r rhaid i'r cyflwyno ac oedden nhw'n rhaid i'r rhaid i'r cyflwyno. Felly, rydyn ni'n ffacrwm, fel y byddai oedd yn eurodd, byddai'r 20 ysgrifennu, rydyn ni'n fwylo'n gwneud y byddwch yn agri-gulch, y byddai'n agri-gulch, ychydig yn meddwl i'r rhaid i'r ymgyrch yn ymgyrch, ac yn dda'r ddwynt yn dweud. a dweud y Ffwrdd yn ymweld, mae'n falch yn unig o'r ffordd. Felly, mae'n rhan o'r cyffredinol o'r cyfrifio agri-cyrchu. Ond, oherwydd y cyfrifio agri-cyrchu, mae'n ddweud y ffordd o'r cyfrifio agri-cyrchu. Mae'n ddweud bod yn gwybod o'r ffwrdd o'r cyfrifio, a'r ddweud o'r cyfrifio o'r ddweud o'r cyfrifio agri-cyrchu, Mae'r eu unigwr yn wahanol. Ar yw i'r ystyried yma, a yma i ddim yn ymerthyn i'w ffawr, ond mae'n parwpteit agorion ymargrifennu lleolwadau i facilion euich meddwl. Ond Abertab, cyclydd, pob wahanol, cei'r gwahanol. Felly mae'n parwpteit agorion ymargrifennu lleolwadau, felly i meddwl eu chyned i siaradau am ddellon eu ffawr diwethaf ac mae'n mynd i b democratr o rhan o'r cyfrifennu esp survival. Mae'r gwneud yn fawr i cyfnol y bydd ymwysgol yn gyweithio gyda'u byw. Mae'r fawr i gyfnol, ac mae'r ymwysgol yn gyfnod o'r fwgiau, a'r fawr i gyfnod o'r mynd i dechreu. Mae'r fawr i gweithio anodol iddyn nhw i'n bod pan gan gweithio am gyda'u byw. Ac, os yw, mae hwnnw hefyd yn bod yn ymddangos hípig. I would say, not trying to be too controversial, but nature tends to dominate culture in discourse and policy, and that has over the last 30 years influenced the allocation of resources, particularly in staff within agencies and the amount of money that's allocated to different types of management and family. That creates a problem for the historic environment, and hoping not to be too controversial, but I think culture has not been scientific, and certainly within England and at DEFRA and our major body, which is natural England, the focus is on science. The historic environment is people who are training science, ecologists and so forth, it's very difficult to understand what the historic environment is, and it tends to confuse natural scientists. I think one of the previous talks was saying that archaeology, speaking to the Department of Agriculture, hasn't happened in the past and is quite a sensitive thing, and the more of those interrelationships that you can build, the better. Overall, I would say that the historic environment tends to be portrayed within government policy as less of a privacy than nature, because nature is the earth's life support system. I'm quite often in meetings where people are saying the historic environment is interesting, but we are saving the planet, and that's a difficult conversation to have, particularly when you're arguing for resources. The challenge is, the opportunity is, because now we are leaving the EU, the UK and England, that we have an opportunity to do things differently. Hopefully, by demonstrating the importance of the historic environment to policy makers, we can get maybe a more appropriate share of resources. To do that, we need to construct a robust evidence base and a framework, which will provide baseline on the extended condition of resources, and I think some of the previous speakers have been talking about the way that that data is being collected and put together. We need to monitor changes, condition through time, and I identify the impact of the different drivers of change, of which one is agri-environment schemes, but there are other economic and social drivers as well. The last two on this list is really to determine value for money, because resources are tight, therefore, these schemes have to deliver in terms of the historic environment, and finally, if we have this information, collect this evidence, we can inform policy. Working definition of the agri-environment for the historic environment for the ESAs is very particular within England. It consists of archaeological sites, historic features such as the farm buildings that we've heard about, historic field boundaries and ancient trees, and designated landscapes. It kind of merges into landscape, but landscape is seen as a different objective within these agri-environment schemes. So, what we have in England is four schemes over the last 30 years that have had a major impact on the agri-environment, but environmentally sensitive areas, the countryside stewardship scheme, the environmental stewardship scheme, and because we've run out of ways to name things, it's the new countryside stewardship scheme. So, what we've, briefly, I'll skip this one at a time, but basically, most of these schemes have common features, but in terms of historical environment activity, annual payments to conserve and maintain features run through all these schemes, and then capital payments to enhance and restore features. So, when we saw the farm building restoration, that would be classed as capital payments rather than annual maintenance payments. Here's an example of the Pennine-Dales landscape, which was an environmentally sensitive area scheme, and the maintenance element would be to repair small defects to these field barns and to repair and maintain the walls that are in good condition. But if these features had become derelicts, then you could get a capital grant for restoration, and he is like a farmer, as I say, repairing quite a derelict piece of wall, and being filmed by a cameraman for some strange reason, which I don't really know. So, what I've been involved in really over the last 10 to 15 years is actually governing evidence on what the impacts of these schemes have on the historic environment, and was involved in a major study by a chap called Nigel Boatman in 2008, where we pulled together everything that had been written on the UK agri-environment scheme in terms of the historical environment. It was part of a broader study, and this also illustrates, I think, where the research and the evidence bases at the moment. I mean, this was looking at it in 2008 because about 75% of the studies and the amount written about these agri-environment schemes was to do with biodiversity and habitats. It really dominates the academic landscape. 12% of studies and output was to do with the historical environment, and I was involved with that analysis. And we used two sources of information, reports, basically scientific monitoring, long-term, with baselines, which is mostly focused on the biodiversity and habitats literature. And then, historic environment, most evidence is through evaluations, which are short-term, based on expert appraisals, uses proxies, because we do long-term monitoring, and we infer the impacts, and I've been involved with a number of studies there and pulled them together. And what we've done, there was this 2008 study, and I've been recently updating that for the historical environment, the studies that have been published since 2008, including the newer agri-environment schemes. And we've produced two types of evidence, we've produced tables, which look at the indicators, for example, like historic buildings, what the key findings of the report were summarised, and summarised those, and what the reference is. So we created a large database of all the studies. And then we created a separate table, which looks at each study, in terms of really what is the value of the data that's being collected. Does it stand up to scientific scrutiny? That worked particularly well for the biodiversity study and habitats, but taking this scientific approach, and if you look at some of the categories that we've got in this table, about sampling approach, statistics and baselines and things like that, most of the studies in the historic environment don't have that. And then we use a traffic light system of red for limited or no impact on the historic environment, amber for meeting some of the objectives and effectiveness, and green for actually delivering quantifiable benefits, which seem to be effective in terms of delivery. So we have two scales there, impacts, beneficial outcomes and effectiveness, which is delivery. And when we look at the types of studies, we looked at 60 studies for the boatman study, and now we're looking at, I think that currently we're at about 30, 35 studies that we've been able to identify for the post-2008 period. And if anybody's interested in an original study, it's boatman et al, and it's produced for the land use policy group, and you can download that off the internet. And these here are just some examples of studies that we've looked at. There's one on traditional farm buildings that I was involved in, one on historic landscapes, and one landscape character. And although landscape character is a separate area of research in this study, quite a lot of the information that goes into these studies can be used for assessing historic environment as well, such as length and condition of boundaries, farm buildings, things like that. But most landscape studies don't include archaeology. Five? I think we're okay, almost. So, environmentally sensitive areas, this is our first scheme that we had in England that ran, basically from the late 80s to about 2005, in terms of the impact for the historic environment, things like repairing walls, protecting archaeological sites, restoring farm buildings, things like that. These schemes actually delivered quite well in terms of having measurable beneficial outcomes. And as I think you said in the previous talk with the archaeology, it's very easy to see the effect of a management prescription, whereas perhaps with some of the habitat and biodiversity prescriptions, one might have to see where 20, 30 years to see if there's an impact. And there is quite a bit of evidence to show that some changing in say, for example, grazing density on upland moorlands hasn't had a positive impact as well, because the regimes are fully understood. But for the historic environment, basically, you know, there is a very close relationship with the type of action and the output that you can get, and it's quite easily measured. In terms of effectiveness, in terms of that delivery and value for money, again, that the ESAs were seeing was quite cost effective. Cwndryside stewardship, which was an experimental scheme in England, which was trying lots of different things, wasn't as closely defined, I think, as the ESAs in terms of what they were expecting to get in terms of output. So we classed that, really, in the amber categories, and sometimes it wasn't particularly effective in its delivery. And then, more recently, in an environmental stewardship scheme, again, it's performed quite well. And the environmental stewardship scheme, interestingly, learned lessons from countryside stewardship and environmentally sensitive areas, so the delivery was quite quite good. And our new countryside stewardship scheme has insufficient information, because it's only been going a few years. So then we broke it down into archaeological sites, historic features, field boundaries and designated landscapes, these components, the historic environment, and then did basically the same sorts of analysis. And with archaeological sites, the impact has been very strong, very positive, but the effectiveness, we scored it as an amber, because in some cases, some of the prescriptions and options for farmland farmers didn't particularly take them up in great numbers, because it interfered with their reduction, which goes back, really, to one of the first thoughts about precision farming and what farmers want to do with their land, and the damage that they can take. Historic features, impact has been pretty good, but varies between, say, for example, walls and buildings. Some of the prescriptions for buildings in the earliest schemes were seen to damage some of the historic value of these buildings. So it was quite good for landscape, because they remained in the landscape and looked like these vernacular structures. But when you got into the detailed restoration, there were some practices that were seen to damage it, not to be quite good. But they were very popular with farmers, so in terms of delivery, it was quite effective. And field boundaries are very effective and has had a strong impact, and the same for designed landscapes. So the conclusions from this big literature review and trying to draw this evidence together, is that these options for the stroke environment, very popular with farmers and land managers, demand is high, demand is often greater than supply. Their purpose is easily understood, and I think this links also in with the previous talk, when we were talking about how heritage and culture and social glue, and the farmers actually appreciate the heritage, they can easily understand the purpose of these heritage interventions. Whereas maybe some of the very detailed biodiversity management leave them a little bit confused, or they can contest the management prescriptions that are being prescribed, they don't think they will deliver what they're hoping to. And they definitely meet the objectives of the scheme, and the stroke environment is often clear physical evidence of the condition that's changed that has taken place. And they're pretty effective, which when you look at value for money, and the expected valuations have taken place, it's pretty high. And again, there are economic benefits for local communities, because people spend, or farmers and land managers spend locally, and they're skilled for local, so there's an effect for local communities. But unfortunately, only 5% of the current agri-environment budget is actually spent on historic environment options. So finally, policy considerations, it's been effective. It only has a little slice of the overall agri-environment funding, but it delivers what it says it's going to deliver, and demand outstrips supply. So maybe there's opportunities for looking at investing more. But we currently have a lack of evidence. I think one of the things that we've concluded from the literature view is that there isn't that level of scientific evidence in terms of monitoring that biodiversity has, and seeing that how our evidence-based policy making system in the EU, or in England and the UK in general, likes evidence presented in a scientific way. There's ways of improving that, I think, that we could consider. And then, at the moment, we have a series of austerity measures that actually threaten the delivery of the historic environment options, and that's lack of staff, lack of resources. So that's an issue that policy makers should take aboard. But post-practice, there could be opportunities for a better integration. So there we have it.