Yet More Greed and Wanton Habitat Destruction in Talysarn, Gwynedd, North Wales

Location: (OSGB36)
Easting = 248288
Northing = 352867
Grid Ref = SH48285286
National Grid Field No = SH 4852 2886
Latitude = 53°3'4.31"N
Longitude = 4°15'49.32"W
Latitude = 53°3.0718'"N
Longitude = 4°15.8219'"W
Latitude = 53.051196
Longitude = -4.263699
Postcode = LL54 6HG

• [ ¹ ] if you see a tractor with a large tank, possibly a boom too, mounted on the back or other similar farm vehicle configurations engaged in spraying activities in Dyffryn Nantlle [ the Nantlle Valley ] area anytime before the 30th of June, please photograph or video it (if possible) with timestamp, obtain the registration number of the vehicle (if possible), the map grid reference, make a report to the RPW and, if there are water courses anywhere in the vicinity, the local Environmental Protection Agency, who might also be able to use water samples taken from the site at the time of spraying.
  
  Most importantly of all, check the field number on DEFRA's MAGIC website and add that into your report. Provided you have evidence of the alledged activity, the farmer can hide their tractor, obscure themselves from view whilst spraying, whatever, but all RPW require is something to show that the alledged activity has taken place (even if it is only the withered remains of the field a couple of weeks later) along with the field number, and they can apply sanctions or suspend payments to the farmer(s) or landowner(s).
  
  Please, too, report any areas that you know to have already been sprayed, providing whatever additional details you can in the process and maintain an ongoing timeline with additional photographs taken on later dates, and ensure that the report, especially those of "caught in the process" are posted everywhere, online and off, yn Cymreig a Saesneg!
  
  
• [ ² ] Cross-Compliance and Greening rules disallow the trimming and removal of brush, copse, and hedgerow between the 31st of March and the 31st August, but a derogation for situtations where the farmer is planting rape seed or temporary grass seed at the same time means that this work can be carried-out at any time in August (ie: up to a month earlier than would otherwise be allowed); although it should be noted that the farmer in this case trims and removes brush and hedgerow, in addition to trimming copses whenever they feel like throughout the year. It should also be noted that the major work was carried-out on the other side of the river: they had already cut-down, removed and/or trimmed any bush and copses around the destroyed fenland area several months previously.
  
  
• [ ³ ] coppicing, in this case, refers to a traditional method of woodland management which exploits the capacity of many species of trees to put out new shoots from their stump or roots if cut down, and is something that salix, or willow, will readily do [ source: Wikipedia ]; thus making floodplains absolutely ideal for this kind of activity, and capable of generating a good return for the farmer; especially as a return to timber products, or timber-pulp composites, is likely as an alternative to plastic compounds.
  
  Unfortunately Pritchard and Jones (as an example of how greedy and ignorant these characters are) decided to take advantage of misty weather on the 24th of June in order to interpret this as an opportunity to illegally fell and remove a good hectare (approximately 10,000 square metres) of trees on unimproved land between Tanyrallt and Gwynfaes in the misguided belief that the potential situation of a hectare at standard rate with no enhancements for a preserved habitat is preferable even if only allowing for being able to further gouge CAP payments on that land until 2021. These characters truly are an insult to those who can truly call themselves farmers.
  
  
• [ ⁴ ] the self-same soakaway would also have been retained, originally, because it is (or was) the soakaway for a considerable amount of water that comes off the watershed leading up to a highway and housing on the hills above the B4418 side of the field; so the action of deliberately destroying it effectively constitutes a criminal act in the scope of its stupidity, not simply one of extreme ignorance where the environment is concerned.
  
  
• [ ⁵ ] the NRW have since apologized for this, following further communication from both myself and Hywel Williams, AS, Plaid Cymru and have referred the matter onto the Senedd, Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Department, for further consideration.
  
  
• In determining whether or not a project requires an EIA, NRW have a key test that revolves around whether or not land contains less than 25% improved agricultural grass species and / or white clover. In the case of the destroyed fenland the answer was unequivocally yes.
  
  Then there is the question of whether or not the area had been cultivated at any time within the last 15 years prior to the commencement of the work, or if it was a semi-natural grassland or semi-natural area, in which case an EIA screening decision would have been required prior to it being worked on; but, as with the land containing less than 25% improved agricultural grass species and / or white clover, NRW did not inspect the site, or check available records (eg: records that the farmer is legally obliged to both submit and keep as part of their Basic Payment Scheme and Cross-Compliance obligations).
  
  The NRW then decided, initially at least, that, because the area was not already a designated Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI), local nature reserve, or other statutory designation, it would come under the EIA department of the Welsh Government (a fallback that allows NRW to refer an EIA decision back to the government when a decision needs to be made on an area as whether or not it qualifies for NRW protection or restoration).
  
  The Welsh government's EIA department, in turn, said that an inspection of the area had taken place (but declined to say whether this was before or after the destruction of the fenland) and claim that there is no need to grant the area any kind of protection because it lacks anything by way of wildlife, plant or animal, that would constitute doing so, in spite of there being skylarks, shrews, otters and other protected or endangered species in the area.
  
  

• 
  The Welsh government's EIA department and the NRW have, to date, completely and totally failed to protect this habitat, but this is influenced by a number of factors including (but not limited) to:
  
  

  • their cases have to be uncontestable, so if work has already been completed on land it can be very difficult to determine whether or not that land was unimproved or not, plus existing plants on the site may not be enough to conclusively say whether or not a site has been worked, and clover (used in the key tests) will frequently colonize many areas (if allowed to) and give a positive on land having been worked even when it has not.
    
    On the plus side, the EIA has access to extensive ærial reconaissance photographs and heat-maps, plus ground-radar records, and can determine whether land should have had an EIA screening application even if it has been improved, or should any evidence of the land being unimproved have been removed. A farmer can then be prosectuted even up to 7 years later (and ordered to implement remedial work) should it be determined that they destroyed an area of unimproved land.
    
    DNA and soil-testing is also increasingly being used to determine cases, along with photo and video evidence from campaigners, environmentalists, and members of the public; not to mention the resources of, and checking by, local authorities, RPW, the Environmental Protection Agency, and Natural Resources Wales.
    
    
  • the destroyed fenland area is not already, and was not previously, designated as a protected habitat; so this becomes a case of having to prove that this land should be protected or whether it would be better protected through a stricter observance of GAEC and Cross-Compliance.
    
    
  • there is no legislation in place to protect the very habitats required by our protected species (unless the former condition applies); so it is considered unecessary to designate an area as protected just because of the presence of protected species, even if it is known that continued destruction of their habitats will result in their destruction too.
    
    
  • under the circumstances, no checks are made to verify whether sites are semi-natural or not in the first place, ie: if a site is not already designated as being protected then that is that: short of direct intervention by llywodraeth Cymru [ the Welsh government ] an area, no matter how natural or unspoilt, essentially has no protection at all. That said, though, the government's EIA department, as detailed above, are able to determine whether a screening should have been applied to land that has been 'improved' and prosecute landowners and farmers, or even order resorative work, years after the initial destruction.
    
    
  • whilst the presence of otters and skylarks, alone, within Dyffryn Nantlle is known, the EIA and NRW cannot give them any kind of special protection: their protection in undesignated nature areas comes down to little more than the Countryside and Wildlife Act in conjunction with GAEC and Cross-Compliance.

  
  

• The government, in turn, and Lesley Griffiths AM | AC specifically, in her role and capacity as Gweinidog yr Amgylchedd, Ynni a Materion Gwledig [ Minister for the Environment, Energy and Rural Affairs ] has granted additional funding and made a commitment to protecting waterways and the quality of water in Cymru whilst at the same time refusing to intervene in protecting the destroyed fenland area beyond imposing RPW sanctions which will amount to little more than a penalty of a couple of thousand pounds and do precisely nothing to prevent the damage that is being, and has already been, caused to Arfon Llyfni, the watertable itself, and the floodplain both in general and as a habitat, nevermind downstream where the river passes through the low-lying residential area of Llanllyfni.
  
  The area of destroyed fenland, itself, even after RPW sanctions, is still in direct contravention of GAEC 5 in that there are no sediment fences in place and most definitely no 5 metre strip of uncultivated or unimproved land between the reed bed of the river and the field area. This is also true of an adjacent area that was destroyed in a similar manner a good few years previously.
  
  

• Cross-Compliance in Cymru
  
  
• BPS, Cross-Compliance, RPW: What it Means and How it Works
  
  
• UK Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) Payments
  
  
• Fenland or Permanent Grassland, - Which Is It?
  
  
• A Need For Change
  
  
• Who Owns What?
  
  
• With Thanks

I can also be contacted via Mastodon

Short URL: http://bit.do/DestroyedFenland