... A FORUM TO STIMULATE DEBATE ... ... JUST ADD A COMMENT AT ANY ENTRY BELOW... ... FOR THE SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT OF TOWN AND VALLEY ...

Sunday, 6 July 2014

W(h)ither "localism"?

There have been several pieces in the press of late about the 'big idea' of 'localism':

From today's Sunday Telegraph, an editorial and a piece on how to cope with flooding by "thinking globally but acting locally":

Using payments for ecosystems services (PES) to reduce flood risk on a national scale will require expertise from many different disciplines, from economists, planners and sociologists to engineers and ecologists. The challenge requires a co-ordinated response from government bodies including Defra, the Environment Agency, the Treasury, the Forestry Commission, and the Department for Communities and Local Government, as well as non-governmental organisations such as the National Farmers Union and Woodland Trust.

Localism is an important part of the PES picture. Communities directly affected by flooding, for example, might consider a local levy to fund investments that benefit them. Rivers do not adhere to administrative boundaries so money raised in one jurisdiction may need to be invested in another to reap the expected benefits.

The negotiations required to instigate such measures are complex, but not impossible. Coping with extreme weather will require putting a familiar concept into action: thinking globally but acting locally. We need to rethink traditional binary positions of hard-engineered defences versus soft natural flood risk management. Innovative combinations of both are required to tackle the challenges that lie ahead.


Thinking globally but acting locally - Business Reporter
From austerity comes a bold, new Britain - Telegraph

From yesterday's Western Morning News, suggesting that "loosening Whitehall’s vice-like grip on power is easier said than done":

Every city should have its own Joseph Chamberlain, the 19th century reformer who transformed local government – and Birmingham – by re-imagining how local government works.

That's what Labour wants, and if they win the election it could be what we get. Possibly.

Chamberlain borrowed money to buy the local gas and water works, and used the profits to transform squalid corners of Britain's second biggest city. Lord Adonis wants councils, in cahoots with local business, to do the same.

The Labour peer and Cabinet minister under Gordon Brown was recruited by Ed Miliband to carry out a review into boosting economies outside of London. It reported last week and the Labour leader accepted much of the Adonis Review, notably proposals to let combined “super-councils” have control of local business rates.

This is where the Chamberlain bit really kicks in. Rather than councils deciding what day your bins are picked up, Labour wants them to be “regional economic powerhouses”. Bombastic stuff for the world of municipal politics.

Put simply, if councils implement policies that encourage firms to start up, expand or relocate, that area gets to keep the added tax they generate, rather than give it back to the Treasury. More money that can be spent, say, on Chamberlain-like good works. Which all sounds self-evidently like a good idea. So good, in fact, regional devolution – or “localism” to use political-ese – is already happening.

The coalition have their own Lord Adonis in the form of Michael Heseltine, or Lord Heseltine. He’s already suggested that Whitehall relinquish power and money to the regions. Coincidence or not, there is expected to be something of a red letter day for the Heseltine agenda next week. Ministers will unveil details of where the first round of a £10 billion hand-me-down to the regions to build roads and railway lines and develop skills will be thrown.

They will be called Growth Deals. The far South West is looking for a piece of the action (two major bids are in, one from Devon and Somerset, the other from Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly) and we will see for the first time whether the coalition’s idea to pit region against region (a sort of Hunger Games in suits) will bring out the best in everyone or see some regions thrive while others perish.

So what’s different? Labour say they will go further with the Heseltine principles, offering regions £30 billion – three times more – and giving them extra powers over business rates. It’s an arms race, in effect. Which begs the question: if it is such a good idea why hasn’t it been done before? If we agree that local decisions are best made by local people, these are fine words. In reality, loosening Whitehall’s vice-like grip on power is easier said than done.

Cornwall business leaders were furious when London decided it wanted to seize control of £450 million of EU regeneration money earmarked for the Duchy – despite Cornwall having autonomy over its funding for 14 years.

Therein lies the rub. For every good reason a minister has to devolve power there’s a Sir Humphrey Appleby, or a Malcolm Tucker, with three other reasons why it’s a terrible one. Maybe if more of the civil service was located in the regions they would have a more trusting view.

Why, say, is Defra – the department for farming – not based in Devon, the Department of Culture, Media and Sport in Liverpool, the home of The Beatles? The desire for strong civic leadership makes a good headline when people feel disenfranchised from politics, but the establishment’s distrust of the provinces runs too deep for it to be meaningful.


WESTMINSTER INSIDER: What impact can the rise of ‘localism’ really have? | Western Morning News

From Ian Birrell in the Guardian on Friday 4 July: "It is not enough just to devolve authority from Whitehall to town halls":

... the "big society", which began with a lofty desire to transform the relationship between state and citizens by giving away power. This much-maligned idea sought to use devolution and transparency to empower individuals, driving improvements in public services that too often let down the most disadvantaged. In France, it is being pushed by a thinktank fed up with the failures of fumbling socialists; in Britain, even charities see it as a dismal failure, according to a new survey.

Although rarely mentioned, traces of the core concept can still be detected in the coalition. They can be seen in the 24 "City Deals" transferring chunks of funding and control to local communities, pioneered with a Labour mayor in Liverpool, patiently pursued by Greg Clark in the Cabinet Office and now purloined by Lord Adonis in his growth review.

The paradox is that localism must be driven from the centre. Several key Tory ideologues quit government in frustration, driven out by a stifling combination of civil service complacency, establishment arrogance and political short-termism. In truth, few politicians paid more than lip service to the idea. It is also far more attractive to people in opposition scrabbling around for policies than those wrestling with the realities of government. "We seem to want localism and Bonapartism at the same time," says one cabinet minister drily.

Now we see Labour going through similar contortions. Jon Cruddas, the thoughtful policy supremo, was intrigued when Tories in opposition began discussing ideas that dovetailed with some of his views on devolution. But a leaked conversation has revealed his fears that bold proposals to disperse power may be blocked by party leaders, contrasting the "hope and optimism from some thinkers on the left" with the ability of politicians to deliver change.

We live in a consumerist age driven by digital disruption, with constrained budgets against a backdrop of deep scepticism over politics. As Cruddas argues, the new political faultline lies between statist conservatives clinging to centralised control and liberal modernisers ready to let go. It is not enough just to devolve authority from Whitehall to town halls; on both left and right, politicians should seek power today only to give it back to the people. But which party will fully grasp this?


What happened to those lofty Tory ideals of the big society? | Ian Birrell | Comment is free | The Guardian

Also from Friday and how Warton Residents Against Poor Planning (WRAPP) - a community group near Blackpool - have made localism a central plank to their campaign on housing:

The Localism Act 2011 introduced new powers allowing parish councils to draw up neighbourhood plans to give people more control over the development of their local area.
Show of strength in housing battle - Blackpool Gazette

And from Sebastian Payne in the Spectator earlier in the week - an overview of how "all politicians love to talk up localism":


All political parties want to devolve powers to held bridge the North-South divide.


How much common ground do the political parties have on localism? As Isabel pointed out this morning, Labour and the Conservatives are engaged in an arms race to see who can out do the other on plans to devolve powers from central government. All politicians love to talk up localism — particularly in opposition, where there’s no Whitehall machine to deal with — but their dreams and slogans frequently change. This is what the three main parties have said, and currently believe, on empowering the regions:

Conservatives

In opposition, David Cameron put forward plans to devolve power in a more radical way than ever before. In the Conservatives’ 2010 manifesto, a section entitled ‘Make politics more local’ outlined their plans for doing this through elected mayors:

‘We will put neighbourhoods in charge of planning the way their communities develop, with incentives in favour of sustainable development. We will make it easier for everyone to get onto the housing ladder. We will give individuals and local government much more power, allow communities to take control of vital services, and give people the chance to have a powerful, elected mayor in England’s largest cities.’

The implementation of elected mayors didn’t go to plan in government. A referendum was held two years ago and only a handful of cities said yes. As I wrote in the Spectator earlier this year, it’s a shame England didn’t vote for more elected mayors. It could have been a great opportunity to give mayors much needed control over their own areas.

George Osborne is still a fan of localism, as seen in his ‘Northern powerhouse’speech last week. The Chancellor has advocated building a high speed railway between Manchester and Leeds; to help the Northern cities build better links and work together to further their interests. Through improved infrastructure, careful planning and united politicians, the Chancellor believes the north will be able to take on London.

It’s likely more devolution commitments (along these lines) will feature in the next Tory manifesto.

Labour

Andrew Adonis’ growth review released today argues for a ‘really big package’ of devolution to rebalance England’s economy. Under his proposals, £6 billion a year of transport, housing, welfare and infrastructure budgets would be devolved from central government to councils or combined authorities. Adonis has also proposed creating 100 ‘University Technical Colleges’ and giving more procurement contracts to SMEs.

Sound familiar? Labour’s proposals are along the same lines as the Tories, although arguably more radical. The cities minister Greg Clark suggested on the World at One that today’s announcement is really just Labour backing the government’s devolution plans.

This isn’t Labour’s first attempt at giving more powers to the regions — remember John Prescott’s regional assemblies? The one and only vote lead to 78 per cent of the North East saying no to his idea of an extra layer of government.

Liberal Democrats

At the party’s spring conference, a motion was carried on a policy paper which would allow cities to have ‘devolution on demand’. A council (or grouping of them) with at least one million inhabitants could apply to Whitehall for devolution. If successful, the council would be granted similar powers to Wales.

There’s one area that’s very keen on this idea: Cornwall. The Lib Dem proposals would offer ‘immediate devolution to Cornwall’, according to the Local Government Chronicle. It isn’t clear if any other councils would be interested in begging for devolution.


Briefing: The three main parties' offers on localism » Spectator Blogs

See also:
Futures Forum: "An appetite for stronger local democratic institutions"
Futures Forum: Localism: The uses and abuses of power: "No politician willingly surrenders control downwards."
Futures Forum: Relocalisation
Futures Forum: "Helping to drive and deliver many localist actions such as the community rights, the general power of competence and neighbourhood planning."
Futures Forum: Neighbourhood plans... and planning for a low-carbon economy
Futures Forum: "Promoting local economic activity, local services and facilities, social and community wellbeing and environmental protection"
.
.
.

Sidmouth Trawlers at Tourfish in Hastings

A very positive event promoting sustainable fishing and tourism has just taken place:
Futures Forum: Tourfish
Futures Forum: Tourfish in Hastings: 21st to 24th June: "raising awareness of inshore fishing and locally produced food - to promote the importance of these industries to local economies and responsible tourism."
Futures Forum: Sidmouth Trawlers: representing UK in-shore fishing

This week's Herald has covered the event:

































Latest local news & information in Sidmouth | Sidmouth Herald

Here are some tweets from the event:

From the Geography of Inshore Fishing and Sustainability:


Great example of tourism and sustainable fishing working together -Haliotika, Port du Guilvinec in Brittany


From Matt Booth of Sidmouth and the Drill Hall Hub:


partners Jo and Yasmin from Hastings visiting Sidmouth to meet Mary Bagwell

Twitter / Search - #tourfish
Sidmouth Drill Hall | Save Sidmouth Drill Hall Campaign
Visserstrui Arnemuiden wordt exportproduct

Here's a report from GIFS:

Geography of inshore fishing and sustainability

Fishing communities along the Channel and southern North Sea are facing challenges and changes at a time of strict regulation and measures to address the ‘crisis’ in fisheries. 
GIFS is a project co-funded by the Interreg IVa 2 Seas programme and aims to understand the socio-economic and cultural importance of inshore fishing to better inform fisheries policy, coastal regeneration strategies and sustainable community development. Learn more…



Food Fisheries and Tourism: New opportunities for sustainable development
    …   

The Tourfish conference took place on Monday 23rd and Tuesday 24th of June 2014 in Hastings. The event included demonstrations, exhibitions and interactive conference sessions. The event focused on how agro-food, fisheries and tourism can work together to deliver new opportunities for sustainable development along the coast and in the towns and countryside of the 2 Seas area.

The first day of the conference started with activities on the stade hall, including an indoor and outdoor Photography exhibtion, chef demonstrations, a guided tour of the working fishing beach and the stade, … The opening session of the conference in St. Mary in the Castle included a welcome to Hastings speech, an introduction to TourFish, a cluster programme of the GIFS project and Fish&Chips project. Followed by an overview of the GIFS and Fish&Chips project.

Dr Harold Goodwin from the International Centre for Responsible Tourism and Manchester Metropolitan University gave a keynote speech about “Responsible Tourism, Sense of Place and Local Economic Development”. In his speech he raised the important question “Does fishing use tourism, does tourism use fishing?”.

The Vlaams Huis voor de Voeding (Flanders House of Food) led a thematic session about “Boosting your regional identity: Discover how regional branding can stimulate regional development, entrepreneurship and innovation”. In this session the work of Flanders House of Food was introduced.

The thematic session ended with a public voting in which the public was asked to give their satisfaction about the way their region is branded. In general the public was not that satisfied. In order to have good branding, a triple helix of stakeholders: industry, government and research needs to be involved which is often not the case.

The second thematic session “The Taste of Place: A curious journey to the province of Zeeland in the Netherlands” was led by the Municipality of Middelburg with Dr Gerard van Keken. Place branding is more than just a brand, it deals with culture, distinctiveness, sense of place and history. During his session Gerard van Keken included an interactive quiz and finished with an Arnemuiden catwalk.

The second day of the conference started with “Fish, Food and Festivals: Responsible tourism and fishing-led community regeneration” led by Sidmouth Trawlers, Hastings Fishermen's Protection Society and University of Brighton. During this session 5 lessons learnt of two very different fishing communties were presented: heritage, identity, fishers and community knowledge, community ownership and connectivity.

The Bagwell’s fisher family was invited on stage for an interview. Stan Bagwell’s wife, his daughter and grandson were interviewed about their lives as fisher family. The daughter works in the family fish shop and her son, Mark is a fisherman who works 6 days in a week with days from 2:30 am till 10 pm.

Also in this session, Yasmin Ornsby from the Hastings Fishermen’s Protection Society introduced the Classroom on the Coast and Joy Collins talked about her experience as Hastings FLAG manager.

The next thematic session “Education, fish and food: Raising awareness of food, sustainability and responsible tourism” was led by University of Brighton, Hastings Fishermen's Protection Society, Flanders House of Food and Nausicaa. During this session innovative alternative educational models were introduced together with a demonstration of the Classroom on the coast.
In this session, a fish filleting demonstration was held by Tush from “Tush and Pat's Famous Fishermen’s Rolls”.

Classroom

Clare Devereux, Policy Director of Food Matters held a keynote speech about “Sustainable Food - Making the Connection from Spade to Spoon”.

“From Catch to Plate & Plough to Plate: Sustainable seafood and local land products for today and tomorrow” was the final thematic session led by Nausicaa and Taste South East. In this session, the Mr Goodfish programe was introduced by Nausicaa together with the Local catch programme introduced by Taste South East.

The day ended with a concluding session led by Tim Acott and Julie Urquhart from the University of Greenwich.

More information about Tourfish: 


Food Fisheries and Tourism: New opportunities for sustainable development
.
.
.

Saturday, 5 July 2014

Town/Village Green application: rejected ......................... Knowle relocation project: to resume

Following on from:
Futures Forum: Town/Village Green application: recommended for refusal: but: "The inspector concluded that all the open land at Knowle is held by East Devon District Council as public open space."

the County Council has formally rejected the application.

A press release from the District Council yesterday:

Knowle Residents’ Association TVG application rejected


Friday 04 July
Devon County Council has formally rejected an application by Knowle Residents’ Association (KRA) to make East Devon District Council’s site at Knowle into a Town and Village Green (TVG).   This paves the way for EDDC to fulfil its commitment to market the site for development and get a price that will help to pay the cost of moving to a modern HQ building.
In his report, the inspector commissioned by Devon County recommended rejection of the KRA’s application. This was based  not only on the particulars of the Knowle application but also the relevance of a recent Supreme Court ruling (The ‘Barkas’ Case).
Council leader Paul Divani said: “The attempt to stall the council’s plans to relocate has been rejected by the inspector and we can now move another step forward with our relocation plans.
“The TVG application has added time and cost to the council’s relocation planning but the outcome has given us the clarity needed to ensure that we are able to market parts of Knowle that we had designated within the draft Local Plan for residential use. It is important to emphasise once again that the council has guaranteed a publicly accessible future for the parkland at Knowle.  
“Remaining at Knowle keeps us tied to old and inefficient buildings and fails to make best use of this valuable council owned asset. At present the council is struggling to maintain an oversized, inefficient and low-value headquarters on a site that has significant capital value as well as continued amenity value. We will now move forward with plans to market Knowle and the nearby Manstone depot site.
““Relocation is central to our plans to transform the council into an organisation that meets the needs of our residents and businesses in an accessible, cost effective and joined up way.”
East Devon is working hard to transform and modernise the way staff go about their work and the ways in which customers can do business with the council. There are a number of projects currently underway including the roll out of mobile devices to ensure staff have the right IT equipment to allow them to work from home, flexibly or in a mobile way. There’s also the revamp of the council’s website which will deliver an additional 230 online services for customers.
East Devon District Council - News


BREAKING: Knowle village green status bid rejected

Angry Sidmouth residents gathered at Knowle Gardens after having their application for a public footpath to run through the grounds rejected. Picture by Alex Walton. Ref shs 5623-26-13AW
Angry Sidmouth residents gathered at Knowle Gardens after having their application for a public footpath to run through the grounds rejected. Picture by Alex Walton. Ref shs 5623-26-13AW
Thursday, July 3, 2014
1:57 PM
The district council’s relocation plans can resume after an effort by residents to safeguard parts of Knowle from development was turned down.

Devon County Council decision-makers have today rejected a Town and Village Green (TVG) application that was lodged by the Knowle Residents’ Association.
The move had halted East Devon District Council bosses’ (EDDC) marketing of the site as they looked to sell it to move its HQ to SkyPark.
An EDDC spokesman said: “The attempt to derail plans to relocate our HQ and sell the existing developed parts of the site, while offering the park to the town council as a gift to Sidmouth has failed. The TVG added time and cost to our relocation planning but the outcome has given us the clarity needed to ensure we can market parts of Knowle designated within the draft Local Plan for residential use.”
See more in next Friday’s Herald.

BREAKING: Knowle village green status bid rejected - News - Sidmouth Herald
Knowle TVG application rejected | The Exeter DailyKnowle TVG application rejected
Knowle Residents’ Association TVG application rejected (East Devon District Council) - WorldNews
.
.
.

Friday, 4 July 2014

On the River Otter: DEFRA considers 'rehoming' beavers: further reaction

A couple of years ago, Chris Packham took us to Scotland to look at what reintroduced beavers had been up to:



Wild British Beavers - The Animal's Guide To Britain, Episode 1 Preview - BBC Two - YouTube

The chances of wild beavers in England doing anything similar seem very slim:
Futures Forum: On the River Otter: DEFRA considers 'rehoming' beavers

And there's been quite a reaction:

Removal of beavers from Devon's River Otter would be 'senseless'


By Western Morning News | Posted: July 04, 2014

By Martin Hesp, WMN Editor-at-large, Twitter: @martinhesp



Westcountry-based Derek Gow believes that there is no scientific reason why the beavers should be removed
Comments (1)

A leading UK beaver expert has joined the fray surrounding the members of that species now living on Devon’s River Otter by telling the Western Morning News that they should be left to flourish.

Westcountry-based Derek Gow – who runs a specialist wildlife consultancy and who has been involved with animal re-introductions for many years – believes that there is no scientific reason why the animals should be removed, as the Government intends.

Earlier this week George Eustice, a minister in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra), announced that there were plans to capture the first wild group of beavers to be spotted in England for around 500 years, and find a new home for them in a zoo or wildlife park.

But Mr Gow says: “Their removal from the Otter is a senseless move which is completely counterproductive.

“Defra feel that the habitat for them on the Otter is not suitable. This is rubbish – the bits I have seen are very good. Frankly they really don’t know what they are talking about – it is a threadbare excuse.”

Mr Gow explained: “We understand that the reasons given by Defra for the decision are as follows – that they are concerned about the potential these individuals may have to act as a transmission route for other wildlife and potentially humans or domestic dogs for Echinococcus multilocularis (EM).

“Also, that doing nothing in response to their presence would set a precedent should other individual or breeding groups of beavers appear elsewhere.

“We do not believe that either of these justifications are valid,” said Mr Gow. “It is likely that the beavers present are the result of accidental escapes over time from a nearby captive population.

If this is the case then they cannot have EM – only wild beavers captured and imported from certain central European countries can harbour this condition as it does not currently exist in Britain.”

Mr Gow believes genetic testing should be carried out to discover the parentage of the wild beavers now living near Ottery St Mary. He said if they were carrying the disease, they could be humanely destroyed .

“A precedent has already been set with regard to the acceptance in England of wild boar,” said Mr Gow, quoting from the government’s Species Action Plan of 2008.

This states: “Defra’s underlying strategy for managing wildlife starts from the basis of no government intervention, with intervention only where there is a sound reason and evidence for doing so.”

Mr Gow said: “The Eurasian beaver is a former native species. There is significant national and local support for the restoration of this species and a wider appreciation within society of the ecological benefits that would accrue from its presence. Britain is now the last large western European nation state where the species has not been reintroduced.”

In conclusion, he said the beavers on the Otter should be captured and tested and – if clear of the EM disease – be tagged and re-released following a survey to ensure the river was a suitable home for them.

However, he said local communities should be made aware of the lifestyle and ecology of the Eurasian beaver and of the implications of them being re-established. He said: “If the communities democratically vote against beavers, then they should be captured and re-homed.”

Mr Gow added that he and his colleagues would consider a legal challenge if Defra went ahead with the capture and re-homing programme.


Removal of beavers from Devon's River Otter would be 'senseless' | Western Morning News


Stop the control freaks who want to capture England's wild beavers
Posted by George Monbiot Friday 4 July 2014 09.00 BSTtheguardian.com
Jump to comments(163)

The government is going against public opinion, and its reasons for wanting to rehome beavers in Devon fall apart easily

Three beavers on the bank of the river Otter, Devon, spotted by Tom Buckley with a hidden infrared camera. Photograph: Tom Buckle

British people love wildlife, but the government, yet again, seems determined to show that it hates it.

An opinion poll in Scotland found that 86% of respondents were in favour of reintroducing the beaver. As most people seem to understand, it's a magnificent animal which can enrich our lives and our countryside. It was once part of our native fauna, but was exterminated by hunting. It's also a critically important species, essential to the functioning of aquatic ecosystems.

So when beavers were discovered, living and breeding on the River Otter in Devon, after they escaped from a collection somewhere, the public reaction was, overwhelmingly, delight. It's the first population to live freely in England for hundreds of years.

The five-year Scottish Beaver Trial at Knapdale in Argyll has also been wildly popular, drawing in visitors from all over Britain, entranced by the prospect of seeing this wonderful creature spreading once more into its native habitat.

A couple of months ago, I visited Bamff in Perthshire, where beavers have been allowed to recolonise the valley of a small stream. The results are astonishing: a transformation from dull pastureland to a mosaic of ponds and marshes, little lawns (maintained by the beavers) and coppiced trees, swarming with life of all kinds.

In the evening, hiding under the trees, I watched the beavers, which are shy animals, emerging from their dams, swimming around the pools they have created, feeding and playing. I defy you to do the same without becoming entranced. Watching them turn from hippo to dolphin and back again as they moved between land and water, picking up hints about their elaborate social structures as they groomed each other and swam together, seeing them navigate the marshy maze they've built, I was overtaken by an awe and enchantment that I have seldom felt in this country.

So how does the government respond to this enthusiasm? "We intend to recapture and rehome the wild beavers in Devon," says the environment minister, George Eustice. Why?

Before exploring this question, let's consider for a moment the beaver's remarkable natural history.

We don't know exactly when the species became extinct in Britain, but in her book Beavers in Britain’s Past, Bryony Coles suggests that it might have persisted until the mid-18th century. Beavers were hunted to extinction for their beautiful warm fur, for their rich meat and for castoreum, the secretion from the scent sacs close to the tail, which was used for making perfume and medicines.

They once lived throughout our river systems: they were as much a part of the native ecosystem here as they are in Canada today. Beverley in Yorkshire, Beverston in Gloucestershire, Barbon in Cumbria and Beverley brook, which enters the River Thames at Battersea, are some of the places named after them.

The beaver is a keystone species. This means a species that has a larger impact on its environment than its numbers alone would suggest. They create the conditions that allow other living creatures to thrive.

By altering the structure of the rivers, creating dams and pools, riffle runs and ditches, they build the habitats that many other species need for their survival. They provide niches for water voles, otters, ducks, frogs, fish and insects.

In Wyoming, streams where beavers live harbour 75 times as many waterbirds as those without. The total weight of all the creatures living in the water may be between two and five times greater in beaver ponds than in the undammed sections.

Just as forests in Britain are desperately short of the dead wood that many species need, our rivers are desperately short of the submerged wood on which a wide range of aquatic life depends. The branches that beavers drag into the water provide shelter for fish, amphibians and invertebrates, and food for creatures such as freshwater shrimps, caddis larvae and water hog-lice on which many other species depend for their survival. Their dams help to hold back floods, prevent scouring and erosion and stabilise rivers' banks and beds. They also filter out the sediments containing faecal bacteria, reducing the risks of contamination and disease.

In Yorkshire, where the town of Pickering has been repeatedly flooded, government agencies are now pulling woody debris back into the streams feeding Pickering Beck, to slow their flow, protecting communities downstream. This requires a good deal of expense. Beavers would do it for nothing – and keep doing it long after government funds dried up.

Beavers have been re-introduced in 161 places in 24 European countries. The results, of course, have been appalling. As the Agriculture and Rural Development Directorate of the European Commission notes:

By these was the third part of men killed, by the fire, and by the smoke, and by the brimstone, which issued out of their mouths.

Oh, sorry, wrong report. No, beavers have been welcomed back all over Europe. They are so widely-accepted and loved wherever they've been reestablished that proposals to remove them would probably cause a minor riot.

Here too many people are furious about the government's decision, anda petition against it is rapidly gathering signatures. Please sign it.

The government gives the following reasons for capturing England's only free beavers:

Depending on the source of the animals, they could be carrying a disease not currently present in the UK. In addition, beavers have not been an established part of our wildlife for the last 500 years. Our landscape and habitats have changed since then and we need to assess the impact they could have.

Let's take these one by one. The disease it's referring to is alveolar echinococcosis, which infects animals and (less frequently) humans, and is caused by the fox tapeworm (Echinococcus multilocularis). It can be carried by many species. As the government says, the disease is not present in the UK, and it should certainly be kept out.

A government assessment notes that the probability of a beaver brought to Britain being infected with this tapeworm "is negligible if sourced from a free area (e.g. Norway) and low if sourced from an endemic area (e.g. Bavaria)." Free means places without fox tapeworm; endemic means places where some animals are infected.

We don't yet know where the Devon beavers (or their ancestors) originated. But there's a straightforward, single-step test for determining whether or not they are carrying Echinococcus multilocularis: a DNA analysis of their faeces. It's so accurate that you can detect the presence of the tapeworm from less than a single egg. In other words, you can discover whether or not England's only free beavers are carrying the disease without having to capture them.

In the unlikely event that the tests prove positive, I would have no complaint about the beavers being trapped or killed - with the proviso that they were then replaced with a disease-free population, re-released into the River Otter. But if the tests prove negative, this excuse for rounding them up evaporates.

As for the claim that "Our landscape and habitats have changed since then and we need to assess the impact they could have", Miles King has neatly swatted it on his excellent blog:

Sorry? Defra are suggesting that a once ubiquitous native mammal, which was hunted to extinction, might not fit into our modern landscape and habitats. Surely that’s a problem with our perception of landscape, not an argument for removing a native mammal. As for habitats, look at the equivalent habitats in Europe with beavers and compare them with the UK habitats without, then tell me we will be better off without them ... The point is that beavers create habitats and public environmental goods that we have missed for the last 500 years; habitats that support a whole range of other species. Is it better to create a pond with aHy-mac, or have a beaver create one?

When the given excuses fall apart so readily, we need to look for other explanations. One, perhaps, is this government's obsession with control, and its apparent desire to imprison anything and anyone that does not conform to an ever narrower range of prescribed behaviour. Another is its determination to appease powerful interest groups, even if they carry almost none of the public with them.

In this case the group lobbying hardest for their removal is, incomprehensibly, the Angling Trust.

In fact the government's statement seems to be a summary of the trust's statement. Here, to remind you, is what the government says:

beavers have not been an established part of our wildlife for the last 500 years. Our landscape and habitats have changed since then and we need to assess the impact they could have.

Here's what the trust said:

Although beavers were native to some parts of the British Isles more than 500 years ago, our rivers have changed dramatically in the past five centuries

When government departments uncritically repeat the claims of lobbyists, you know we're in trouble.

I find the trust's position astonishing. Throughout the period in which beavers last lived in Britain, almost all our rivers swarmed with vast runs of migratory fish such as salmon, sea trout, lampreys and shad. Giant sturgeon swam from the sea into the heart of Britain. Huge burbot lurked on the river beds. Today, burbot and sturgeon are extinct here and the populations of many other species, especially the migratory fish, have been greatly reduced.

Studies show that in both Sweden and Poland, the trout in beaver pondsare on average larger than those in the other parts of the streams: the ponds provide them with habitats and shelter they cannot find elsewhere. Young salmon grow faster and are in better condition where beavers make their dams than in other stretches.

The trust rightly points out that our rivers "suffer from endemic pollution, over-abstraction of water and the presence of tens of thousands of man-made barriers to fish migration." It then claims that "beaver dams would only increase the number of obstacles that fish have to overcome." But fish have been negotiating beaver dams for 200,000 years. Unlike many manmade structures, they are both low and permeable. In the rare cases in which they create a genuine obstacle, they can be removed in just a couple of hours.

Yes, there's a problem with manmade structures impeding fish migration, so let's campaign to remove or alter them wherever possible. But far from adding to the problems our native fish face, the net impact of beavers is greatly to reduce them, by creating the shelter, habitat and food sources that fish require.

The trust says we can afford to think about re-establishing beavers only when "good ecological status has been achieved in all catchments". In other words - given the way things are going - never. But little would restore good ecological status to our rivers as rapidly as the return of this keystone species.

I'm an angler, and the Angling Trust does not represent me on this issue. I know others who are disgusted by the trust's position, and it would not be surprising to discover that the majority of its members belong to the 86%. Most anglers, in my experience, have a powerful connection with nature. The chance of seeing remarkable wild animals while waiting quietly on the riverbank is a major part of why we do it.

When I visited Bamff in May, the pools and runs the beavers had created were stippled with rising brown trout, feasting on the resurgent insect life. Hawthorn flies and iron blue duns – species of great interest to anglers – clouded the air, in greater numbers than I've seen anywhere else in Britain. Why would people who fish not want this?

The Angling Trust and government ministers are making a terrible mistake here, as they would know if they had been to Bamff, or Knapdale, or any of the 161 places in which beavers have been introduced to Europe, and seen the remarkable and thrilling transformation taking place there.


Stop the control freaks who want to capture England's wild beavers | Environment | theguardian.com
.
.
.