John Morgan writes

Spot on, Jim. We_should_, indeed we must, pay farmers for good
stewardship, raising some of the money in the form of fines
levied on those who practise bad stewardship.

The problem with this is defining 'good stweardship'.
One man's 'good stewardship' is another mans 'bad'.

For example a conventional farmer might reasonably say that organic
farming is bad stewardship and vice-versa. Both might object to
reversion to the wild, but ecologists might consider it good.

Whether its good or bad depends greatly on what you strive to achieve
and even what you actually achieve (which may not be intentional).

As I'm sure you're
aware, it's not your land you are farming, it belongs to your
children and mine.

Er, no, actually it belongs to Jim.
It belongs to anyone else about as much as your house belongs to someone
else. Jim may, or may not, run it with children in mind (or even the
rest of the population), but that's another matter.

I've got my cheque book ready! How much do you need?

Of course given appropriate funding one's aims might change.
But that's quite another matter too.

No realistic amount of money would make me plant any more trees, for
example. Simply because once planted they can in effect never be removed
due to legislation.

--
Oz
This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious.

BTOPENWORLD address about to cease. DEMON address no longer in use.
Use
still functions.