Written evidence from the Countryside Alliance (FFP 113)

 

 

Background

 

  1. For many communities the damage caused by the flooding this winter has been the worst in living memory. The experience of witnessing homes, and even whole farms, under water has rightly led people to ask why it happened and what can be done to mitigate and prevent it happening again. The Countryside Alliance welcomes the opportunity to give evidence on how rural communities and businesses can be protected from flooding. However, it is disappointing to see that this Inquiry is being used by some to advance an anti-shooting and, in some cases, anti-farming agenda. The accusation that grouse shooting has contributed to the recent flooding shows a lack of understanding about the work of grouse moor managers and the role they play in conserving heather and peatland across our uplands, which is some of our most valuable habitat.   

 

  1. There is no proven link between grouse shooting and flooding. What is clear is that the concerted efforts of grouse moor managers to block drains and re-vegetate bare peatland across the uplands contributes to the ability of the moorland to store and slow the flow of water through the catchment area, and this should be seen as part of any flood prevention strategy rather than a causal factor.

 

Heather Management

 

  1. Grouse depend almost entirely on heather moorland and grouse moor managers understand that a healthy population of grouse relies upon a healthy heather habitat. Grouse shooting and the conservation of heather moorland therefore go hand in hand.

 

  1. The most extensive study into loss of heather moorland in the Scottish uplands, carried out by Robertson et al, surveyed 229 moors between the 1940s and 1980s and compared moors managed for grouse with those where grouse management no longer took place. In areas where grouse management was maintained, heather loss took place at a slower rate compared to moorland where grouse moor management had ceased. The study suggested that grouse shooting provides an incentive to conserve heather moorland despite economic pressures and the attractiveness of subsidies to intensify forestry and farming operations.

 

  1. Part of grouse moor management involves rotational heather burning, otherwise known as muirburn, which is undertaken to increase diversity of heather age and structure to provide a healthy habitat for the grouse which other ground nesting birds benefit from. It also prevents the build-up of rank heather and helps maintain a balance of upland vegetation.

 

  1. Burning takes place in patches on a rotational basis, the frequency of which is dependent on the speed at which heather grows in a particular area. This ensures that there is a mixture of older heather for protection and nesting, younger heather shoots for feeding and a fresh burn where regrowth is just starting. The aim is to create lots of micro habitats so that within one hectare of moorland the grouse and other ground nesting birds have the full range of habitats they require. Controlled heather burning does not involve burning the peat beneath the vegetation, in fact great care is taken to avoid this as burning the peat would delay the regrowth of the heather.

 

  1. Burning is also beneficial for hill farmers as the patches of fresh burn provide space for grass varieties and young heather to grow which helps to spread grazing out across the moor.

 

  1. Controlled, rotational burning also helps reduce the risk of damaging wildfires and reduces carbon loss by up to 34 per cent, according to Allen et al, 2013. Large stands of rank and woody heather pose a major fire risk due to a significant build-up of fuel loads. Uncontrolled wildfires are damaging as they burn with greater intensity and are likely to burn the peat beneath, causing considerable damage to the ability of the peatland to store water and carbon. This view is supported by research into heather burning by the Game and Wildlife Conservation Trust.

 

  1. Evidence linking rotational heather burning to hydrological changes in upland areas is limited to a single study carried out in Yorkshire. The EMBER study focused on the effects of prescriptive burning on blanket peat but did not address the effects of the devastating impact of wildfires, the risks of which are reduced by controlled rotational heather burning. The study also failed to consider the impact of stopping burning altogether, and the effect this would have over a sustained period of time on the health of the moorland and the wildlife sustained by it. For example, work by the Heather Trust has shown that in some areas heather beetles are the “driving force” behind the reduction in heather cover on moorland and burning is an effective way of reducing the beetle population. 

 

Peatland Management

 

  1. Approximately 70 per cent of the UK’s drinking water comes from the uplands, according to Natural England, and all land managers, not just those responsible for grouse moors, need to be aware of the valuable role of the uplands in the hydrological cycle.

 

  1. The drainage of peatland with open drains, or grips, was once widespread in the uplands, and in the 1960s and 1970s successive governments offered farmers and landowners grants for draining their land; grants that were aimed at increasing agricultural productivity, not grouse. This practice has since been discredited, and research undertaken by the Game and Wildlife Conservation Trust in the 1980s and 1990s into erosion and moorland drainage found that drains continued to erode over time, and concluded that blocking these drains was the only way to reverse the deterioration of the moorland. The research found that blocking drains could also help restore natural drainage patterns, encourage re-vegetation of bare peat, and minimise the hydrological changes downstream.

 

  1. Grouse moor managers, working in conjunction with Defra and Natural England, as part of the Upland Stakeholders Forum, are actively working on a number of projects which include re-vegetation of bare peat and blocking government-incentivised drains in order to re-wet damaged moorlands and encourage the growth of sphagnum moss which slows the flow of surface water and filters out discolouration. Peat Restoration Partnerships have proved highly effective and are an example of stakeholders working together to restore peatland. In 2013 the Yorkshire Peat Partnership, which receives support from moor owners, farmers and the Environment Agency, reached a milestone with the successful restoration of just over 24,700 acres of peatland.

 

  1. Grouse moor owners in the North Pennines have already been responsible for blocking approximately 2,700 miles of moorland drainage ditches, and have created approximately 4,485 moorland ponds that benefit insects, water vole and amphibians as well as catching sediment and slowing the flow of water through the catchment area. This work resulted in the North Pennines Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty Peatland Programme being awarded the Climate Change Award at the Durham Environment Awards 2015. Their Management Plan for 2014-2019 recognises that “sound grouse moor management can contribute significantly to the conservation and enhancement of natural beauty.”
  2. Over the last 25 years, grouse moor owners have re-generated and recovered 217,000 acres of moorland, 57,000 in the last decade alone, far exceeding the Government’s 2010 conservation target by 170 per cent.

 

  1. It is possible, even probable, that this restoration work may be reducing flood risk downstream, but it is worth noting that the prominent ecologist Professor Jeremy Purseglove recently stated in Countryfile Magazine that any link between grouse moor management and flooding is “unproven.”

 

Existing Legislation and Code of Practice

 

  1. The Heather and Grass etc. Burning (England) Regulations 2007 apply to the burning of heather, grass, bracken, gorse and vaccinium. In England these Regulations have been transposed into The Heather and Grass Burning Code. Similar regulations are in place in Wales and Scotland.

 

  1. The Regulations prohibit various types of burning which may create a high risk of soil exposure and erosion, unless under licence from Natural England. These include:

 

i)                    “In any burning season you must not burn in a way that exposes a single area of more than 0.5 hectares of bare soil. An area of soil is ‘bare’ for these purposes if no more than 2% of it is covered by vegetation or plant litter.”

 

ii)                   “In any burning season you must not burn in a way that exposes an area of bare soil which extends more than 25 metres along the bank of a watercourse and which is at least a metre wide at all points.”

 

  1. In addition to the requirements of lawful burning, the Code includes a ‘strong presumption’ against burning in ‘sensitive areas’, these include:

 

i)                    “Peat bog and wet heathland. These areas should not be burned other than in line with a management plan agreed with Natural England.”

 

ii)                   “Areas within 5 metres of watercourses. There can be an increased risk of soil erosion close to watercourses (e.g. once vegetation has been removed by burning, soil could be washed into a watercourse by rainwater, or the watercourse might flow with sufficient force that its banks could be eroded).”

 

Conclusion

 

  1. Any link between grouse moors and flooding is unproven, but the concerted efforts of grouse moor managers to block open drains in the uplands and re-vegetate bare peatland undoubtedly contributes to slowing the flow of water through the catchment area.

 

  1. The Countryside Alliance believe that Defra and the Environment Agency should recognise the role that well managed grouse moors play in storing and slowing the flow of water through the catchment area and this should be reflected in any new policies as part of future flood prevention.

 

  1. Grouse moor managers must be seen as part of the solution to addressing flooding and not demonised by those with an objection to shooting wherever it takes place.

 

March 2016