 |
||
| ADDENDUM -Oct 2011 "Nature conservation” or “fishery purposes”? Clearance of water crowfoot in fishing rivers |
It took the decision of only one person walking the 15.86ha of Winchester Meadows on a day in June last year to unleash the fury and discontent of 220 people who live in the nearby St Cross area. So much power vested in one person, and yet this is how we carry out nature conservation. A tale of two water meadows The Hampshire Chronicle ran an article in June that achingly contrasted the fate of two adjacent water meadows in the corridor of the River Itchen near Winchester (1). The more northerly water meadow is a reserve of the Hampshire and IoW Wildlife Trust, who has a whacking £1.3m, mostly from the Heritage Lottery Fund (HLF), to “turn back the clock” on Winnall Moors by chopping down hundreds of alder, poplar and willow and reintroducing cattle grazing. The vision is to return the water meadow to the mostly treeless state that existed in the 1930’s when agriculture sucked the vegetative life out of the landscape (2). Two smiling trust workers are pictured in the Chronicle article (1), content in the knowledge that their mastery will re-impose the correct landscape, with 40% of the trees removed, cattle grazing reinstated, and the long, open views - much loved by the conservation industry - restored. Why is this the correct landscape? Because the same person who surveyed Winchester Meadows and condemned it as being in unfavourable condition (3), came to the same conclusion for Winnall Moors (4). These water meadows are units notified for “Fen, marsh and swamp” and “Neutral grassland – lowland” in the extensive River Itchen SSSI. The Common Standards Monitoring guidance for units of this type specify that they should have less than 10% and 5% tree cover respectively (5, 6). Thus Rue Ekins of Natural England decided that both water meadows had too much scrub and were in need of grazing.
These are
the landscape micro-management opportunities that Wildlife Trusts live
for, the justification for their existence, and the means with which to
obtain the funding like HLF and Higher Level Stewardship that enables them
to build empires. As the Chronicle article notes, there had been no outcry
at the felling of trees on Winnall Moors as few people live nearby and
access is not universal. The situation is however different at Winchester
Meadows. Winchester College, the owners, faced with the unfavourable
condition report, drew up plans for a similar tree-felling exercise. Once
the plans were out, the criticism began. A Dr Chris Dixon of nearby
Kingsgate Street, wrote a letter to the Chronicle, saying that it was the
worst idea to “restore” the water meadows to their condition in the 1930s
(7): Dr Dixon has a dim view of the predominantly agricultural landscape that lies to the south of Winchester meadows, where the effect of livestock on the land can be seen for miles: “It is featureless and unattractive, with far less of the wildlife we all enjoy so much”
The
letter was a portent of what was to come from people living in the nearby
St Cross area, moving city councillor Robert Sanders to predict widespread
opposition as the college’s plans became better known. Local resident
Keith Story explained his opposition to tree felling on the basis of the
importance of the visual value of the trees, but it went deeper for him
(1):
The
extent of opposition is shown by the petition voicing concerns to
Winchester College, and it had its affect. The college amended the
proposals in the light of public reaction, with the intention of perhaps
only 200 of the non-native trees being removed, followed by grazing with
some 4-6 cattle introduced. Robin Chute, college estate bursar explained (8): Mr Chute was perhaps mindful of the howls of protest in 2006 when St Catherine’s Hill, owned by the college but managed by the Hants and IOW Wildlife Trust, was at the centre of a previous row over scrub clearance and re-introduction of grazing due to a monitoring report of that SSSI by the very same Rue Ekins, saying that it was in unfavourable condition (see St Catherine’s Hill (9)). The reality of the SSSI system interjects though as Mr Chute then notes that in theory Natural England could force the college to remove more trees from Winchester Meadows, but that because of the objections, the College had “persuaded Natural England to tone down their wish list” (8) The new proposals are to be presented at a meeting at the college in a few days time by an outside consultant, but someone from the wildlife trust will be there, as will Dr Ekins from Natural England, the latter two undoubtedly intending to bolster the proposals by saying how important and successful are the works at Winnall Moors, the water meadow to the North that is now under the heel of invasive management. As is the fashion with wildlife trusts, the Hants and IOW WT promote their Winnall Moors restoration as an opportunity to come and "meet the cows" now grazing the water meadows, as if Highland cattle are somehow an embellishment or enhancement for wild nature (10). They did the same with St Catherine's Hill when they encouraged people to attend their "Born To Be Wild" event there to mark their re-introduction of sheep grazing after a gap of many decades (11). While the concessions on management works at Winchester Meadows may be of some comfort to the people of St Cross, it does not prevent the inexorable onslaught on our landscapes that the SSSI system imposes, and which undoubtedly will be revisited in full force on Winchester Meadows if not now then later. No one who protested at the felling proposals on White Moss in Cumbria are in any doubt that while Natural England have backed down for now, they will eventually come back at some point in the future with revised plans that may just spread the agony out longer (see Natural England withdraw felling application for White Moss (12)). As with White Moss, it is very likely that much of the tree cover on Winchester Meadows, and in particular the line of wingnut trees (Pterocarya) were in place before its notification as a SSSI in 1984 (13). It is thus perverse some 25 years later to impose an "ideal condition" on the meadows that harks back to an agricultural past of the 1930s, especially when that past is not a certainty for Winchester Meadows based on the much lower content of drains and channels there compared to other areas of the River Itchen valley. Moreover, it is iniquitous to base the need for such interventionist management on a judgement of favourable condition, the criteria for which in Common Standards Monitoring have only been in place since 1999. As I have written before, this process of enforcing and maintaining land in a prescribed stasis is a "McDonaldising" of our countryside. Worse still, the pressures for our landscapes to comply with these recent standards is resulting in drastic actions "to turn back the clock", a level of abrupt devastation and damage that only the ideologues of the conservation industry are immune to. Water crowfoot in the River Avon
Hampshire
provides me with yet another example of one person’s decision having
profound implications for wild nature. The River Avon System SSSI extends
through three counties, but it is the Lower Avon section in Hampshire that
concerns Ray Walton, an angler who also has a keen interest in river
wildlife. He believes that water crowfoot, a water weed plant that provides a habitat and food
source for wildlife, is being cut unnecessarily by the Environment Agency.
He said of the recent cutting in the river in June (14):
An
Environment Agency spokesman, aware of the competing agendas of
agriculture and nature conservation swirling around the Avon, said that
the agency was in the difficult position of trying to achieve a balance
between the interests of the flood plain and the interests of the river: And there we have it, since Dianne Matthews of Natural England decided in her monitoring reports that the River Avon SSSI (15), from Burgate to Burton, is in unfavourable condition because of “Invasive freshwater species”
Perhaps the
Environment Agency need to step back from always being in thrall to
Natural England and instead consider the health of the river in front of
them, and the damaging effect of their weed cutting, rather than adhere to
some mechanistic formula derived elsewhere. They do understand the
importance of river bed gravel as refuge and spawning sites for many
native fish and invertebrates, or they would not be laying new beds in
sections of the River Medway in Kent. As Ben Lord, Environment Agency
technical officer, said (16):
Ray Walton
is filming the destruction on the River Avon, to add to his persuasive
case, and it is perhaps that which brought forth the following from the
Environment Agency (14): Natural justice for wild nature? Should the views of people like Ray Walton and Chris Dixon be listened too? On the basis that the decisions of Natural England employees Rue Ekins and Dianne Matthews alone have such profound implications then natural justice would suggest yes. That the latter are representatives of a system, and they were only doing their job, denies the force of argument of people like Walton and Dixon, unbound by orthodox dogma, and with the eyes to see for themselves the reality of wild nature and the processes that go on without our interference. Theirs is not just a difference of opinion – it’s a fundamental disagreement with the way “nature conservation” is regulated and carried out. Mark Fisher 3 September 2009 “NATURE CONSERVATION” OR “FISHERY PURPOSES”? CLEARANCE OF WATER CROWFOOT IN FISHING RIVERS
Shortly after I wrote this article, the decision was taken
to stop the mass removal of weed and aquatic vegetation from the River
Avon, the Environment Agency announcing that the five-year plan then in
operation would not extend beyond the end of 2009 (18). For more than a
decade, the Environment Agency had been using a weed cutting boat to
remove tons of aquatic vegetation each year from the Hampshire Avon in
order to meet “specific conservation objectives” – presumably, this
was the removal of the “Invasive freshwater species” (see above). I
was always puzzled by this justification since the river was designated as
the River Avon System SSSI in 1996, with the
Reasons for Notification stating the various water
crowfoots as features of interest (18):
In 2005, the aquatic flora in the river was given further
recognition through the river system being designated a SAC for the Annex
1 Habitat 3260 Water courses of plain to montane levels with the
Ranunculion fluitantis and Callitricho-Batrachion vegetation
(19). The latter vegetation refers to
watercourses
characterised by submerged or floating-leaved vegetation, of which the
water crowfoots play a major part. This from the description of the SAC: How was the Environmental Agency able to destroy this vegetation on the River Avon?
Each SSSI has a statement on the Views About Management
(VAM) of the notified features. These statements tend to be compilations
of generic views about Management principles for standard features, and so
for Rivers and streams, the River Avon System VAM has (20): You can judge for yourself whether this is what used to happen on the River Avon, as Ray Walton has posted his filming of the destruction on the river as an 18-minute video on YouTube (21). The video shows many of the wild inhabitants of the river and their association with the water crowfoot, such as swans and their cygnets, ducks and duckling, moorhens and coots, and fish life. It also shows an Avon Weed Boat (22) a bizarre and devastating contraption, scattering waterfowl as it proceeds, the massacred weed seen floating downstream after its severing. The boat is shown running aground and thus having damaging contact with the river bed, after which it thrashes around until freeing itself. It is not surprising that a comment has been left for the video that decries the “wanton vandalism and needless destruction” Was this destruction about “nature conservation”? Each SSSI also has a list of Operations Likely to Damage the Features of Special Interest. There is a prohibition on the “destruction, displacement, removal or cutting of any plant” in point 11 of this list for the River Avon System (23), but there is an exception to this for “selective cutting and removal of submerged and emergent water plants….. as currently**undertaken for fishery purposes (see Footnote 5)” So was the massacre of water crowfoot for “nature conservation” or for “fishery purposes”? The asterisks take you to a note that explains that “currently undertaken” means activities that were carried out before designation of the SSSI and which are continued after designation, and Footnote 5 refers to Fishing and fishery operations, including water weed cutting and explains that these activities are subject to regulation by the Environment Agency through byelaws etc., and which therefore “will not require prior notice to be given”
This level of confusion (obfuscation?) about the purpose or
even need for the clearance of water crowfoot helps no one, especially
when set against the fact that objections to it often comes from anglers,
like Ray Walton who led the objection to the massacre on the River Avon.
Ray contacted me last week about the posting of his
video footage of the pre-2010 vegetation cutting
by the
Environment Agency
on the River Avon,
which he had done in response to evidence that it was still going on
elsewhere around the UK:
There a number of videos on YouTube showing a mechanical
cutting boat clearing vegetation on the Kentish Stour (see, for instance
(24)) and Ray has also set up a discussion forum on the Barbel Fishing
World website that has brought in responses about similar damage, such as
on the River Test. This from Peter Littleworth (25):
It seems the heavy-handed and unjustified use of these
maniacal machines is set to continue. As Ray says (25): Mark Fisher 24 October 2011 (1) Turning back the clock at Winnall Moors, Andrew Napier, Hampshire Chronicle 11 June 2009 (2) Restoring the Winnall Moors, Hampshire Chronicle 10th January 2009 www.hampshirechronicle.co.uk/search/4025886.Restoring_the_Winnall_Moors/ (3) Winchester Meadows, Unit 66, River Itchen SSSI, Natural England www.sssi.naturalengland.org.uk/special/sssi/unit_details.cfm?situnt_id=1026904 (4) Winnal Moors, Units 61, 62, 64, 65, Condition of SSSI Units, River Itchen SSSI, Natural England (5) Common Standards Monitoring Guidance for Lowland Wetlands Habitats, Joint Nature Conservancy Council www.jncc.gov.uk/pdf/CSM_lowland_wetland.pdf (6) Common Standards Monitoring Guidance for Lowland Grassland Habitats, Joint Nature Conservancy Council www.jncc.gov.uk/PDF/CSM_lowland_grassland.pdf (7) Worst idea is to ‘restore’ meadows, Dr Chris Dixon, letter to Hampshire Chronicle, 8th April 2009 www.hampshirechronicle.co.uk/yoursay/letters/4277671.Worst_idea_is_to____restore____meadows/ (8) College waters down plan for meadows, Andrew Napier, Hampshire Chronicle 19 August 2009 www.hampshirechronicle.co.uk/news/news/4551322.College_waters_down_plan_for_meadows/ (9) St Catherine’s Hill, Addendum November 2006 to Blacka Moor in peril from the conservation professionals, Self-willed Land www.self-willed-land.org.uk/articles/blacka_moor.htm#St%20Catherines%20Hill (10) Meet the cows on Winnall Moors, Hampshire Chronicle 24 August 2009 www.hampshirechronicle.co.uk/news/4562072.Meet_the_cows_on_Winnall_Moors/ (11) Trust’s edict leads to howls of protest, this is Hampshire 28 September 2006 http://archive.thisishampshire.net/2006/9/28/107059.html (12) Natural England withdraw felling application for White Moss, Addendum July 2009 to Cutting down trees to restore open habitats – only now a policy emerges, Self-willed land (13) River Itchen SSSI, Natural England www.sssi.naturalengland.org.uk/citation/citation_photo/2000227.pdf (14) Avon weed clearance ‘harmful’ to wildlife, Bob Jolliffe, Daily Echo 31st August 2009 www.thisisdorset.net/news/4573521.Avon_weed_clearance____harmful____to_wildlife/?ref=rss (15) Units 11, 12, 34, Condition of SSSI Units, River Avon System SSSI, Natural England (16) Gravel beds improve river habitat, BBC News online, 2 September 2009 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/kent/8233695.stm (17) Hampshire Avon weed cutting set to end soon, Angling Times Fishery News 15 September 2009 (18) River Avon System SSSI, Natural England www.sssi.naturalengland.org.uk/citation/citation_photo/2000183.pdf (19) River Avon SAC, JNCC http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/protectedsites/sacselection/sac.asp?EUcode=UK0013016 (20) A statement of English Nature’s views about the management of River Avon System Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI). www.sssi.naturalengland.org.uk/Special/sssi/sitedocuments.cfm?type=vam&sssi_id=2000183 (21) THE LEGAL DESTRUCTION OF THE HAMPSHIRE AVON SSSI/SAC and UK Rivers - The Movie - Part 1, YouTube 23 September 2011 www.youtube.com/watch?v=JeIvqo9rDhg (22) Avon Weed Boat, Weed Cutting Boats, Water Plant Ltd http://aquaticweedcutting.co.uk/page/equipment (23) Operations Likely to Damage the Features of Special Interest, River Avon System Site of Special Scientific Interest www.sssi.naturalengland.org.uk/Special/sssi/old/OLD2000183.pdf (24) ENVIRONMENT AGENCY-PLEASE DONT CUT THE WEED (PART VI), YouTube 12 September 2011 www.youtube.com/watch?v=YJVnqczQAyU (25) 'How to Destroy UK Rivers' - The Movie, Ray Walton, Barbel Fishing World Forum 24 September 2011 www.barbel.co.uk/site/vbulletin/forum/barbel-talk/4536-how-destroy-uk-rivers-movie.html url:www.self-willed-land.org.uk/articles/one_person.htm www.self-willed-land.org.uk mark.fisher@self-willed-land.org.uk |