Andrew Walker, Catchment Strategy Manager at Yorkshire Water, replies to my blog of earlier today:
“You are right to be concerned about rotational heather burning on blanket bog; we are too. As you are aware from our previous correspondence on the matter, last October, we are working with key stakeholders to find a more sensitive way of managing these internationally important habitats. Simply banning burning will leave the heather to grow causing more damage to the underlying peat.
“The work we did last summer, known affectionately as ‘Bogathon’, highlighted that the only habitat which delivers what we all need and want from the uplands is a healthy active blanket bog, with a lot more sphagnum and a lot less heather. Our approach has significantly influenced the Government’s blanket bog restoration strategy which was signed off by Natural England’s Board in March this year. So we are all agreed on the type of habitat we want to achieve – what we need to do now is work out how
we can deliver that habitat and ensure everybody is working to that end.
It’s by no means in the bag, but tomorrow we’re in the Peak District looking at ways we can accelerate the growth and coverage of sphagnum moss and next week the Government’s Uplands Stakeholder Forum is visiting our work on Keighley Moor. This was the first location for our peatland restoration programme, and following the consensus from ‘Bogathon’, I had 5,000 bags of heather mown off Keighley Moor earlier this year.
If collectively we can reduce heather coverage and increase sphagnum, I hope that in time burning will not be necessary, or at least become a rare management practice. It’s taken me 10 years of considered thought and dialogue to get where we are today. I could have chosen to implement a ‘no burn’ policy on the bits of our catchments that we could control, but that would have alienated the very people I needed to convince. By taking a collaborative approach we have formed a consensus that will protect all
uplands, from Exmoor to the Scottish Borders, not just our own catchment land.
With regard to grouse shooting, whatever you may think of it, it is currently legal. I am aware of the issue around raptors and it is a difficult nut to crack. The Moorland Association are committed to seeing more of these magnificent birds on their members’ moors, and I believe there is a Hen Harrier Recovery Plan on the table. Maybe we could ban grouse shooting on the bits of the catchment we can control, but wouldn’t it be better for everybody if we can educate these landowners and gamekeepers into managing their land in a way which actually benefits the habitat and the species that depend on it? That is a far greater prize to me, but it needs a degree of compromise along the way.”
Mark writes: I’m impressed by the speed and the quality of the response by Yorkshire Water. Thank you to them, especially Andrew. There are a few points that I’d like to pick up on, and they’ll be in a further blog at 5pm.
[registration_form]
Well done Andrew. This is the sort of open, honest and informative engagement that many others in public life today could learn from. Yes, there unanswered questions and points of debate – which I’m looking forward to hearing from Mark about later today. But the key issue is that where people are prepared to be honest and open like this then there is the possibility of real debate – like many others I’m not sure there’s a compromise to be reached on grouse/ BoP persecution – but Andrew makes it pretty clear this isn’t an are he’s expert on. His comments on the heather/sphagnum balance are, however, fascinating and important – just as he may not be well up on grouse/raptors, this was not something I’d appreciated at all. The one thing I would add, though, from experience in restoring the Border Mires, is how surprised I was at how quickly and vigorously sphagnum can grow back given the right conditions.
a good response.
“With regard to grouse shooting, whatever you may think of it, it is currently legal.”
Well yes but with regard to BoP shooting, whatever anyone may think of it, it is currently illegal! Hard nut to crack maybe but still illegal.
“Simply banning burning will leave the heather to grow causing more damage to the underlying peat.” Really? Not burning the heather is more damaging than burning it? I would like to see the evidence that supports this statement. YW have been a big sponsor of the work that seeks to address the causes of colour and frankly, they should have been doing a lot more with the evidence than they have done to date. They cannot hide behind Natural England or the Environment Agency for ever.
I think he is right to question what should replace/supplement burning. One might say simply ‘nothing’ but that isn’t necessarily the best answer.
I think an excellent response on the heather burning/spagnum issue (which clearly is and should be YW prime consideration) but weak on the subject of Raptor persecution and indicates an unwillingness to takle this issue with their tennants but rather wait for the hopeless and hapless DEFRA to do something sensible. I fear we will wait a long time for an agreed action plan with the clear arrogance and escalation of the shooters this year.
“Not burning the heather is more damaging than burning it” Really!
Would love to see the evidence to support that statement!
Also. I agree it would be better for everybody, including Hen HarrHarrier’s if it was possible to educate landowners and gamekeepers into managing their land to benefits the habitat and the species that depend on it!
Unfortunately one can’t educate someone if they’re not listening!! And grouse moor owners/manager’s & their gamekeepersgamekeepers arn’t/won’t & don’t listen to reason!
I am amazed by how many people “like” the YW reply. Strikes me as being the typical all things to all men twaddle that is so prevalent from fat cat run utilities and public servants. You lot have all been had. YW won’t do anything until it is forced too. Thank god they are not my rates being flushed down the river with all that carbon.
A reasonable response from YW but its just delaying the inevitable. The problem is, continuing burning will favour fire tolerant species such as heather on bogs and deep peat at the expense of all those species that should be there. Blanket coverage of heather will also exacerbate drying of peat until its eventually dealt with (as Andrew points out). So in one way, Andrew is right that banning burning will continue to allow heather to dry the peat BUT its burning that has caused heather dominance of the bogs in the first place and this cycle is prolonging its occupation of peat soils. Yorkshire Water – please do the sensible thing and break this cycle plus send a message to your tenants that it is burning that has caused this unacceptable legacy so by allowing it to continue it does not make the situation better, just perpetuates it.
Its like lingering death, just grow some balls, kill it off then get on with restoring the estate by heather removal, hydrological restoration and Sphagnum introduction. Maybe the tenants can play a part in this to maintain their management of the land. Im seeing some head in the sand here to avoid upsetting tenants – who is more important, them or water rate payers and the environment? I bet YW daren’t put that one to a public vote.
i think the point is if you ban grouse shooting and heather burning and block drains and introduce sphagnum. Then the tenants are going to leave, why you pay money to rent a piece of land that only benefits customers of Yorkshire water? and then without tenants Yorkshire water loses an income stream to their business. Then they have to charge more money to their customers. unfortunately it all comes down to money.
That’s a very narrow way of looking at it Peter.
I’d like to know how the rent from the shooting tenants compares with the costs of dealing with discolouration and indeed flooding both of which are exacerbated by burning and grip drainage.
And if blanket bog in question is classed as SSSI then it’s unrealistic to expect the land to be eligible for BPS (*£32/ha) and indeed CSS (£43 – 61/ha) if it continues to be mismanaged.
*pre-modulation/inter pillar transfer, financial discipline etc.
Ernest – thank you. And I particularly like the fact that you use discolouration with a ‘u’. My publisher made me change it to discoloration in Inglorious.
The Inglourious Basterds…
Got to keep our friends over in the colonies happy Mark,we might need to trade with them oneday
Agree with most comments there Ernest,I really doubt that the income from leasing the moors will cover the cost of cleaning the water up. I was with YW a good number of years and saw what the treatment of water off the moors involved. If they had to make up the shortfall the cost spread among all consumers would probably not be noticed
Surely YW are also in receipt of other payments through the public purse if the areas are designated?
Surely any ‘Agri-welfare’ payments are supplementary payments on top of the commercial ones received through ‘customers’?
It’s only a reasonable reply if you think it is ok for YW to dickabout pretending to be everyone’s best mate. You are right though, they need to put in their tenancy renewals that burning will no longer be allowed on blanket peat. Will they do it, is the question? The land can still be shot though and/grazed so they can still generate some income but it must be generated in an environmentally sustainable way.
Mark, how about asking YW on our behalf?
If I’m not mistaken, YW are bound by section 156 of the water industry act 1991 (or whatever it is) to dispose of their rights or terms of use of their land only after consultation with the statutory undertaker which is Natural England. So any consultations for the renewal of shooting tenancies for shooting lets following the recent review of evidence regarding the burning of blanket bogs should be intriguing. Furthermore, and I could be wrong about this, but wouldn’t you think that such a tenancy (being in effect, a proposal for an operation in a special area of conservation), should be compliant with the habitats directive in YW’s capacity; as is there duty as a section 28 (wildlife and countryside act) body? Just saying like….oh and that goes for Severn Trent and Northumbian Water too by the way. Have a nice day.