You have to choose!

(Proviso: this was written in haste and with passion... and thus without the diligence and due care of my normal post proofreading... let alone a scientific paper! I'll edit it up as I go along, but I promise to retain its primary 'essence' and honesty, for good or ill, at the core.)

I have been driven (as it were) with a desire (or rather, frustration) to post a quick blog entry elucidating my immediate thoughts with respect to the Westminster hearing that took place yesterday on Dr Mark Avery's (and 123,075 co-signers'!) petition to ban Driven Grouse Shooting (DGS) ...as well as a more recent counter-petition set up by the pro-shooting lobby.

Before I do though, I think it is only right to suggest that you watch the recording in full first and perhaps also consider analysing the additional supporting documents before you make any conclusions of your own. A conclusion that might decide whether I am making any valid points here... but, most importantly, should also define whether you believe there was a winning side in this first (shorter) half of the action... or not.

By the way, for a good while now I have wanted to write a nice, detailed, post on the case for banning DGS (which is not the same as walked-up shooting by the way), but of course, I won't be able to do any better than the 320 or so pages of Dr Avery's book, Inglorious, which I implore anyone interested in UK conservation and (future) countryside planning to read, regardless of initial viewpoints. I also don't want to waste space writing about it in full for this 'meeting reaction' blog post.

What I will point out, in the interests of clarity, is that, of course, in order for there to be debate, there has to be opposition. Therefore, the position on DGS made by the Countryside Alliance (CA), Moorland Association (MA), Game & Wildlife Conservation Trust (GWCT) and British Association for Shooting Conservation (BASC) is somewhat different from Dr Avery's, and we must also factor in that of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB), who (currently) take a position, arguably, of somewhere in between.

As Dr Avery has so often put it himself: you have to choose!

So, what happened yesterday?

Trying to be as succinct as possible, what happened was that Dr Avery formally presented his petition and argument (being the main name behind the petition to ban DGS) to a "party neutral" panel of MPs alongside that of Jeff Knot of the RSPB, who's organisation did not support the petition, but certainly shares some of its core concerns, namely raptor persecution, habitat degradation and flood risk.

Whereas, in full opposition, Liam Stokes of the CA and Amanda Andersen of the MA, put their case for retaining the DGS industry and protecting grouse moors and grouse shooting.

And... that's it really. This was merely a preliminary set of Q&As to the full debate, so there was no cross examination or chances for come backs. Mark and Jeff went first and Liam and Amanda went second. And that was that.

No-score draw

So, my initial thoughts were that both sides did well. At least, in the eyes of those present on the panel. I think that Mark and Jeff put their cases well, but that their 'united front' approach may have confused those MPs present as to who wanted what, and whether there was consensus on the core issues*. It may have sounded good on paper, but I feel their honest and open approach was slightly undermined by a feeling that they weren't always singing from the same hymn sheet and thus were easier to divide and conquer by the panel's subsequent questions.

Jeff made it clear the RSPB (still) favours a licencing scheme as the next attempt to address the outstanding issues, and whilst Mark admitted it would be good to have, as would having a vicarious liability law in England, it would ultimately fail because the DGS industry cannot be trusted to comply. (Don't quote me that those were his words verbatim by the way, as they were not.)

Liam and Amanda, on the other hand, seemed more content with deferring to each other's 'expertise' and using a joint-argument that banning 'their' industry would result in the loss of jobs and 'biodiversity' on Britain's upland communities. And neither wanted any changes in existing laws either. In other words, their hymn sheet was pretty much the same... almost word-for-word.

Frustration...

So, again, I won't dip too much into what was said across the two hours or so as you can all review it for yourselves. I will admit that some of Amanda's words riled me into firing off (as it were) a few angry real-time tweets as I watched, but I did try and stay calm and objective overall none-the-less.

What I will say is that I thought the MPs' panel exposed a clear bias of, admittedly openly declared, existing interests, and that the questions were all pretty standardised and without a consideration for joined-up thinking or strategy. But then again, perhaps that is all MPs are allowed to do...or capable of... or simply want to do.

Yes, I think Angela Smith asked the best questions, and yes, no doubt the pro-shooting lobby thought Simon Hart and Chris Davies picked the necessary holes in the various arguments and reasons put forward for banning DGS... but what I would have really liked to see was some passion from some (inner) city MPs, asking questions without the aforementioned interests... just to see what they would ask and how they would react. But maybe we yet will...

Joined-up thinking

The presentation by Mark and Jeff, if one could argue at all that it got clogged up, was a little stalled by the claims of 'Science'. Whilst the evidence is there that flooding, just for example, is exacerbated by DGS land management (and it was highlighted), there was just as much chatter (and agreement) around it about where scientists and their reports oft contradict each other... and whether more work was needed to highlight what is going on on a wider scale. Considering the rather linear (as opposed to holistic) thinking of the average MP, that kind of talk and peripheral uncertainty didn't help I think.

After all, there is good science and bad science.... and I find opinion pieces like this, pardoning the pun, just muddy the waters.

I think it would have been nice, for example, for a short, even prepared, summary to be allowed to be read out at the end of each presentation. But perhaps that can happen for the longer, Round No. 2?

But what I thought didn't come out well at all was a consideration about how this all ties in with a Post-Brexit Future Britain, and what will happen when the CAP ends, and how UK taxpayers will react to the general needs of farming across the UK... in the short term, mid-term and long term.

Amanda Andersen tried to paint a picture of how upland communities are fragile and that losing DGS will mean an end to traditions and the qualified people who help maintain the land, and Liam Stokes seemed obsessed with asking what the true alternatives there were to replacing what 'good' DGS currently provides.**

And, in all honesty, I think these are good points to make, and they were well made.

But I would also counter by saying that they are easy points to make. 

And what I would also like to add is that we have to start thinking about the bigger picture one day. Farming as a whole only employs about 2% or so of the nation's workforce, and DGS is hardly a speck on that statistic, no matter how wide you cast the net of influence. So, with respect to just aiming at banning DGS initially, we mustn't mix up the needs - and problems - of, say, upland sheep farming, or start plucking the heartstrings by suggesting communities would be broken by losing DGS... if, as by the CA's own admission (when it suits them), these communities are already broken. You can't have it both ways, surely?

But it does make sense to me to at least have a quick, and FAR wider, look at the picture (and possible future) beyond DGS, and to, just out of interest, consider what getting rid of all UK bloodsports AND even the meat-for-food industry as a whole, could actually result in. Getting rid of the sheep industry... and cattle farming... and so on as we approach a future where we can no longer rely on meat to provide for our growing populations seems inevitable in my mind. None of the aforementioned parties are looking at this right now... and why would they: it doesn't affect what they currently stand for. The MA wants to protect heather-dominant moorland, the CA wants to protect current and historic 'country' interests (not undermine them), and Mark wants to focus on ridding the country of a specific form of hunting in order to give the #BanGS3 campaign focus. Talking about banning the meat industry in the context of the proposal to ban DGS would be debate suicide. Only the Green Party seems to have the (meat-free) guts to hint at such issues in their policy portfolios; the rest of us seem to have our heads stuck in the bog.

In a way then, it's just the RSPB who are knocking on this door out of the main protagonists highlighted at the beginning of this post. Whilst they want to give 'Nature a Voice', they are actively looking into how to do this without undermining our farming and food production needs.

Am I going too far talking about a meat-free future? For this post... perhaps, it's way off-track from the task at hand. And it's not as if Dr Avery is not blogging about it. But what I would say is that you should try replacing DGS with fox hunting... or badger baiting in this debate, and then ask yourself the same questions about whether you (would then) want to ban it. Would you ban badger baiting if it still employed lots of people and maintained well-established traditions and a unique type of land management?

Pro-shooters would no doubt immediately argue that badger baiting, or even fox hunting, are not the same thing here as grouse are eaten... and looking after the wild Red Grouse habitat is necessary because it is a meat (food) industry. Well, perhaps... but I ask you, without bias, how many of you ever see grouse in your local shops, let alone then buy it and eat it? It is not a (food) industry that, if lost, would affect many people. As a sport and country pursuit? Maybe... so let's just admit that!

In my eyes, the 75% or so of the World's Upland Heather Moorland that we have in the UK (that the CA and MA continually love to highlight) is too much, Yes, it is a lovely-looking landscape and of value to (some) eyes and (some... not much) wildlife, but I say we could do with getting rid of a good deal of it.

Simply put, I believe we need more native forestry in this country. And I think our uplands - including sheep pasture AND heather moorland are good places to put it, rather in our lowlands, where farming of a more practical nature takes place. To summarise (simply, in a rather Leadsom-like fashion), let's use the flat lands for crops, and the sloped lands for trees!

Getting rid of DGS will help birds of prey, mountain hares, reptiles, water quality, the climate... and will also put a well overdue debate over land ownership on the agenda, but it WILL undoubtedly also get rid of (some) jobs. And Governments don't like getting rid of jobs as a general rule... but it's not as if they haven't done this kind of thing before.

A small ray of light in all the uncertainty is that, unlike in abandoned coal mines, the 'new', DGS-free UK uplands will surely present some new, eco-oriented, employment opportunities if the Government plans ahead and applies strategy.

And there we have it then... as I said... if the Government plans ahead and strategises.

I don't think they ever will... even though, in a way, Brexit (for good or ill) provides an opportunity. The rule book has been torn up after all... so let's start again and prove all those Remainers (like me) wrong!

Back to the meeting please, John!

Yes, sorry... I guess what I am drifting about trying to say is: for all that a Westminster debate brings, talk is cheap. Hen Harriers need help now for example... and, with the greatest respect to intelligent and well spoken people like Jeff Knott, and even Liam Stokes, they are young and perhaps don't yet feel the long-term frustration that someone like Dr Avery must feel.

They see solutions to be found in discourse and compromise; but I don't... at least, not in this case. If anything, it's the failure of already decades-long talk and debate that makes me lean to a total ban... and whilst the call to ban DGS has triggered all sorts of other interesting (and arguably more important) things to debate beyond just the fate of some, albeit rather special and beautiful, birds of prey, let's not forget: wildlife crime triggered all this in the first place... and the wildlife crime will go on if we stick with the status quo.

Must Hen Harriers go extinct in England first before we then acknowledge the fault(s) and resort to considering re-introduction? Why must we always accidentally tread in the smelly stuff first before deciding our shoes were overdue a good clean anyway? (And all the other fun analogies!)

What next then?

Well, the full debate takes place at 4.30pm on October the 31st. Let's perhaps ignore all what I've written above and reserve full judgement until the main course is served.

I will no doubt post a reaction on here to that too, so watch this space! Or... let's watch it together first. I promise not to talk over the action and say the film isn't as good as the book!

ZeeOx

* Which there no doubt is by the way!
** I'm guessing he was very much of the 'few bad apples' brigade.

P.S. I'll tidy this all up later and add some meta tags... I've got a working day to put up with first!

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/sep/07/mps-to-debate-ban-on-grouse-shooting

It Ain't Rocket Science.

A Happy New Year to you.

Rather than catch up on the (now four!) outstanding blog entries I need to write, I am going to write a quick entry regarding flooding and housing... even if there are numerous blogs and articles out there that cover it better than I ever could!

***

After one of the UK's worst periods of flooding since...well, the last time!... and the mildest December on record, a lot of fuss is being made (again) about the Environment Agency's response (or lack of) to the floods and what could have potentially been done - both before and after.

Yet again, people talk of inadequate defences, un-dredged rivers, saving water voles and subsequent insurance nightmares.

Also, the now standard post-flood debate rages on about how much money the (allegedly once cash-strapped) Majority Conservative Government should be dredging out (as it were) to help versus how much they have done (and then say they are truly doing all they can to help).

Well... I am not going to jump right down the EA's or Conservative's throats this time (or at least for this blog!) and say it is entirely their fault and that they could have done much better all round.

That may well be true (and I note that EA's Chairman, Sir Philip Dilley, has just resigned from his £100,000 a year 3-days-a-week post), but regardless, what I am going to briefly comment on here is just what we should be doing now... in general - for the the future - and why it shouldn't need to be a divisive, political 'thing'.

Before that though, let's establish some facts first. Here are three indisputable (albeit flippantly put) truths...

No. 1 - lots of rain falling in a short period makes rivers and streams rise in height.

No. 2 - if water levels rise higher than flood defences, houses previously protected behind the defences are then in danger.

No. 3 - if you make it easy for water to disperse quickly down hills, water flows more quickly and rises higher if there's plenty of water behind it.

I hope we're agreed? Good. So...

Can we stop the rain falling?

Well, possibly... if we can make it rain, we can likely stop it too... especially if there was a genuine and full #COP21 response to Global Warming. But... for the sake of argument (and to appease the H.A.R.M. conspiracy theorists and right-wing climate change deniers), let's say that we can't really avoid rain falling and a potential flooding scenario being repeated. At least in the short term.

Can we build flood defences higher?

Yes. Just like a Trump Wall, it could be done. But do we want towns and villages protected by walls that are considerably higher than the ground floors of the houses behind them? And how much would that truly cost to do it everywhere? And remember, many of the walls that were engulfed this time around were not old. They were new flood defences. Many weren't even breached or damaged, they were simply topped by waters exceeding the planned/expected (e.g. 100-year) flood prediction levels. I mean, how high should you build a defensive wall before it gets silly?

Can we intercept the water?

Yes we can. A lot of effort (and for relatively low cost) can be made to intercept water before it reaches places of habitation. In other words, from land higher up where the bulk of rain falls and thus flows from.

Indeed, new policy is already being implemented here... where farmland will now be deliberately flooded when waters rise so as to slow up the movement of flood water before it reaches towns and cities. Some farmers may already be kicking up a fuss about it, but they know that the masses (of voters) that live in towns and cities will get priority over protecting crops and sheep... in much the same way that, historically speaking, farms and the needs of farms tend to get prioritised over the needs of wildlife and the habitats they live in. And besides, the farmers have been told that they will be paid subsidies for doing this 'service'.

***

But this is a response to flooding as it is happens of course,. Surely a wiser, cleverer course (as it were) would be to prevent the floods from happening at all? (Or, at least, reduce the floods to manageable levels?)

We've already agreed that we really can't stop the rain from falling and the conditions being 'right' for flooding... so to stop rain from turning urban areas into lakes, we must employ some basic land management techniques upriver... such as blocking up water courses so that water is slowed. Or reforesting land so that soils retain water more efficiently. Or bringing back old peatlands so that they become natural water reserves. Or reducing the numbers of sheep overgrazing on the hills in the first place. And so on and so forth!

Yes, yes, a lot of these things will have a negative impact on the people that work the land (i,e. farmers)... but if we can compensate them for having floodwater on their land when the floods occur, surely we can compensate them for reducing the sheep, reforesting the land and plugging up their once-drying-out bogs to help stop the floods from occurring in the first place? As with most "natural" disasters, I'd happily pay extra taxes to help prevent rather than simply cure.

Just Google some of these concepts... you'll get lots of returns, and lots of critique and balanced opinion too. I therefore do not need not explain any of them (badly) myself here. It's not just George Monbiot's idea you know... numerous people have been telling us about these solutions for decades!

***

So, like most things in Environmental Management, the potential solutions have already been found and though they are nearly always relatively simple in design, the solutions on the ground are rarely straight forward to implement. They often involve multi-tiered strategy and a lot of hard work bringing conflicted parties and interests together.

However, just a few basic changes in approach can still reap an instant award... and, as I said at the beginning of this blog entry, it is not rocket science and I don't want to make this a party political thing.

Slowing and absorbing the water higher up reduces the floods lower down... and building houses away from flood plains on higher ground reduces the pressure and has a bonus in allowing excess water to go where it should, rather than into overland flow.

Although I note the current Prime Minister, David Cameron, is potentially a bit confused about what is a flood plain, if people feel that avoiding genuine flood plains is a pie in the sky luxury we can't afford considering just how many houses we undoubtedly need to build in the future, then I say take a leaf out of The Netherlands' book.

The Dutch have rather a good track record with knowing how to deal with floods(!). So if we don't mind borrowing their heavy duty pumps when we have water to shift, then surely we shouldn't also mind borrowing their ideas and techniques when it comes to innovative ways of building in 'watery' places and anticipating what's needed when the water levels get too high?

Let's not just agree that these are all good ideas though... let's actually start implementing them! If we can't stop building next to rivers... let's at least stop building sub-standard buildings that not only occasionally flood themselves but also help pass on the problem downstream because the water has no other place to go.

Best,
ZeeOx