The EU referendum.

A letter I sent to the Leek Post and Times this week:

If, like me, you are passionate about the fantastic wildlife and landscape in our local area you should take this into account when you decide how to vote in the upcoming EU referendum. The “out” campaigners you have you believe that the EU is simply a financial burden on the people of the UK, and that we get nothing in return. However, of the £13 billion or so that membership of the EU costs the UK, we do get some of it back; and of that amount some of it comes back to enhance the quality of the nature in and near the Staffordshire Moorlands. For instance, last October The Moors for the Future Partnership, which works to protect priority international habitats in the Peak District and South Pennines, was granted £12 million to deliver the MoorLIFE 2020 project. The largest share of the pot, £9 million, coming from the EU’s LIFE fund - which is dedicated to support environmental, nature conservation and climate action projects throughout Europe; while the balance is from private companies, such as Severn Trent Water, who own land in the area. MoorLIFE 2020 itself is following on work that has been carried out over the past four years and which also received public money, that time £5.7 million came from the European Union. In addition to that vitally important project, closer to home the Churnet Valley Living Landscape Partnershp is currently preparing a LIFE+ bid for £1.5 million; if sucessful this which will also be used to improve the ecology and appearance of the surrounding countryside. And it isn't just the aesthetic qualities and biodiversity that will be improved by these projects, they also aim to ensure the long-term storage of atmospheric carbon (in blanket bog), produce plenty of fresh, clean, drinking water; and help to prevent flood damage in adjacent urban and rural areas. And, of course all that practical work has positive economic effects as it povides custom for local businesses, work for local people, and helps attract visitors to the area. So, for that original investment of those millions of Euros we get an almost incalcuable return. If you want to see some of the fantastic habitat restoration that has been done in the Peak District take a walk up Bleaklow or the paths above the Goyt Valley and admire the view!

Admiring the view from Bleaklow, one of the moors in the Peak District National Park.

Looking for Snipe.

Two days ago on 10.02.16 65+ Snipe were seen and heard flying up from the marshy area adjacent to the upper River Trent near Baddeley Green; they rose up out of the vegetation, making their raspy flight call as they flew, travelling in a notherly direction. Where do they spend the night I wonder? During the day presumably they spend their time feeding by probing in the soft ground for invertebrates. Then, as darkness approaches they fly up and off somewhere, maybe somewhere safer than their daytime feeding grounds. These are, perhaps, not resident birds, but some of the 1,000s that have bred in nothern continental europe, Iceland and the Faeroes and come to overwinter in the milder climate of the British Isles. Some of them are regular winter visitors to this area just on the outskirts of Stoke-on-Trent - I have seen them in this area in the past three winters. I was looking forwards to seeing 65+ Snipe fly over my viewing position on the Caldon Canal towpath. However only about 15 were spotted that time!

Why I think George Monbiot is wrong about heathland burning.

Last week the environmental campaigner and journalist George Monbiot published this article. I think he is wrong and here are my reasons why.

Where I don't agree with G Monbiot in the article called “meet the conservationists who say burning is good for wildlife”

1. He compares the conservation burning of heathland with burning tropical forest to clear it for agriculture or horticulture. They are not comparable in that way because the conservation burning on Dartmoor is aimed at maintaining the heathland habitat not destroying. Burning the tropical forest is intended to eliminate the habitat completely.
2. He compares burning grouse moors, which are upland habitats with lowland heath. The RSPB and others are against poorly carried out burning moors for grouse shoots because the burning can be deep in to the substrate and cause the vegetation to change, e.g. from heathland plants to monocultures of purple moor grass. Deep burning can also damage peatland, cause pollution of water courses and other harmful effects. Lowland heaths grow on shallow well drained podzolic soils (as a pose to deep wet peat), so may not react to burning in the same way. There is blanket bog in the Dartmoor Nat Park – he shows that on the map, and he also shows it and the heathland are in decline, and says the National Trust say this decline is due to burning and overgrazing. I find this unlikely to be the whole story as heathlands were created by a combination of burning, cutting, grazing since Bronze Age times until about the middle of the twentieth century, the decline could also be to do with drainage, eutrophication, pollution, fragmentation etc. We don't know from the article that the Nat Park own or manage the heaths and bogs that have declined, and if they do ,we also don't know how they were managed up to now. Also, I think, had he asked them , he will find the the RSPB acknowledge that many waders benefit from rotational burning of upland moors for grouse shooting, even if there are also negative effects. Mostly it is poorly carried out burning and installation of grips (for drainage) that they are against, though I expect organisations such as the RSPB would rather that the habitat mosaics were maintained by cutting. And, oh while I'm on that subject, he does not mention that the burning, cutting or gazing would be carried out on a rotational basis, in patches (less than 2ha) thererby not properly explaining to the readers, who may not be aware of it, the rationale behind the burning, cutting and/or grazing regimes. Personally I think that cutting and followed by appropriate grazing would be preferable to periodic rotational burning as I believe that burning can kill invertebrates, reptiles etc. if they cant escape the fire quickly enough, and because it can go wrong and burn too deeply into the soil and/or peat. .
3. He describes Skylarks as being species that are “resilient” to the forms of management that we “deplore” when we see them used in other countries e.g. cutting, burning and grazing. And that conservationists use them (Skylarks) as an excuse when they want to use these destructive processes. In this way he makes it sound like the birds are present during the vegetation clearance and thereby benefit because they survive the burning, cutting or grazing process, when in fact these techniques are used to create suitable breeding habitat, and in the case of burning, cutting and possibly grazing would not be done whilst the birds are breeding. He makes no mention of the other ground-nesting or scrub nesting bird species, and hence their predators (e.g. birds of prey, cuckoos) that also benefit from creating habitat mosaics by rotational clearance of vegetation.
4. He makes no mention of all the other classes of organism that benefit from creating open patches within the heathland or blanket bog. e.g. dragonflies, reptiles, sand wasps and bees, lichen, ericaceous plants and their mycorrhizal partners, insectiverous plants to name but a few.
5. The paragraphs he quotes from the Nat Park Authority are worded in and unfortunate and ambiguous way as they say that the grazing animals will “delight” in the cleared patches. When, of course what they mean is that they can then reinstate the grazing to areas where taller vegetation has been cleared, and this grazing will maintain open areas which will benefit classes of organism mentioned above. He seems to be under the impression that the Nat park people are only interested in producing good grazing land, which they don't, they want to create habitat mosaics! It doesn't suit his case to explain this to the readers
6. Conservationists, as he calls them, who are in fact ecologists, he says have a “mortal fear” of natural processes leading to growth of gorse and bracken. Whereas in fact they just don't want to see huge areas of bracken monoculture as that would be inimical to much wildlife; as uniformly structured monocultures tend to be - this is why they are trying to reintroduce grazing. As for the gorse, it is likely they want to remove that to prevent it from smothering floristically interesting grasslands which will, apart from their own intrinsic value, will in turn provide nest sites, pollen, nectar, basking sites etc, etc, for a range of warmth-loving heathland species. The gorse itself will become less common if George gets his way and the natural succession is allowed to proceed to its woodland climax. And if that happened we would be left with a mature woodland where none of the birds, insects, reptiles etc. that benefit from scrubby areas could exist. Indeed the concept of natural woodland (my term here, not his in the article) would be open to question as, without the intervention of conservationists, the National Park would no doubt be colonised by whatever propagules were able to get there, this would include exotic species, species that are not associated with ancient forest such those that are present in the cairngorms etc. and would not therefore become the equivalent to those woodlands. Of course the development of large expanses of dense woodland with a very sparse shrub and field layer would be prevented if large herbivores and their natural predators where available to create a more diverse and open vegetation structure. But as they are not and are extremely unlikely to be for the foreseeable future, the Nat Park Authority are forced to adopt the interventionist, and somewhat artificial management regime that in some ways mimic the actions of wild grazers and their predators.
7. He makes no mention of the Common Agricultural Policies in the 1990s and early 2000, which paid farmers according to how many livestock they held. These “headage” payments as they were called encouraged farmers to maximise the number of animals they owned, which in turn led to many upland habitats being closely grazed. A practice that is widely accepted to be detrimental to sheep walks and heathlands; it contributes, if not causes heathland vegetation to be dominated by graze-tolerant grass swards.
8. He says upland woodland harbours more important species than do heathlands, and maybe they do. There is more ecospace in them and hence perhaps more niches available. Also if they are ancient woods, as with the Cairngorms he mentions, they are more ancient habitats hence perhaps containing more anciently established species; thereby possibly more complex and hence richer in species. However the two habitats host a different range of species, and that is important if we want to maintain biodiversity in the UK; if all Britain were to become wooded, which may be the case if George had his way, there would be fewer species as there would be fewer ecological niches available. And, I repeat, without the effects of natural grazing produced by the presence of megafauna that roamed the British Isles between the end of the last Ice Age and the start of the Neolithic period, nor any human management which imitate it in Britain all the nature reserves, apart from perhaps, lakes, water courses, eroding cliffs and estuaries, will become covered by secondary woodland, of who knows what ecological value. In addition to this, he fails to mention that the Caringorms National park, somewhere he does seem to value for its wildlife (as he offers it for comparison with the heaths and bogs) he does like, is also managed by wildlife conservationists form the National Parks Authority, Wildlife Trusts etc. who's techniques he so despises!!
9. The habitats and wildlife that the Nat. Park (if it is they who determine what management takes place – it could be Natural England for all we know) is trying to maintain by burning etc. are the habitats that are protected under the EU Habitats Directives. He suggests someone could take the Nat Park to court for failing to meet the demands of the directives. This is what it ways of their website:
   The Dartmoor SAC was designated principally because it is home to the southernmost blanket bog in Europe but also because of important areas of wet and dry heaths. The South Dartmoor Woods SAC displays fine examples of old sessile oak woods whilst the portion of the South Hams SAC within Dartmoor National Park contains the largest known maternity roost for Greater Horseshoe Bats in the UK. So the EU nature directives cover three Dartmoor Special Areas of Conservation (SACs) which include areas of wet and dry heaths and blanket bog. It is these that the National Park and others are trying to improve by their management (which appears to include swaling) the heaths - if they were not looking after them there would be a case to challenge this in a EU court. In fact the charge of neglect would come about if they allowed the heaths to become woodland. Also, in this article he has mentioned three different organisations Dartmoor and Exmoor National Park Authorities, and the National Trust. The first two are not primarily nature conservation organisations, their remit being to protect landscapes and public access to National Parks, and the third a landowning charity. None are the bodies charged with giving permission for activities on designated sites or monitoring compliance with EU nature directives or UK nature sites designations, those are Natural England, Scottish Natural Heritage, Northern Ireland Environment Agency and Natural Resources Wales. Hence i anyone were to be taken to court it would be Natural England.
10. By all means, George Monbiot should criticise the practice of burning or swaling and other management techniques used on nature reserves if he feels they are damaging to wildlife or biodiversity. And by all means promote his pet project of rewilding. But do it on fair terms in which he fully and honestly explains to the readers the techniques or habitats he doesn't like. Don't just pick and choose the bits of the whole issue to suit your story – that's like what creationists do when they are trying to convince people that evolution never happened! 

REPLIES FROM MY MEPS TO THIS EMAIL.

"As you may know some biologists believe that we are currently experiencing a majoor mass extinction of species, and it is suggested by some that this in a large part  due to human activities which: damage wildlife habitats; spread non-native invasive species; cause harmful pollution; reduce the space availabe for wildlife; and over exploit natural resources (e.g. by excessive fishing). 

One of the best ways we have of preventing this loss is by protecting natural areas by use of  EU  Directives such as the Habitats Directive, Birds Directive and Water Framework Directive. 

Watching wildlfie and visiting the special habitats it inhabits is an important part of my life; plus the services provided by nature such as pollination, clean water, food are essential for all of  humanity. 

Please use the February Plenary vote as an opportunity to demonstrate your support for nature and to defend the Nature Directives, by voting in favour of the Environment Committee’s report on the Mid-term Review of the EU’s Biodiversity Strategy."

Jan. 2016

From Daniel Dalton, Conservative. 

Dear Ms Birks,

Thank you for contacting me about the Mid-term Review of the EU’s Biodiversity Strategy.

In late December, the European Parliament’s Environment committee adopted a report on biodiversity in Europe.  In short, it called for the full implementation and enforcement of all existing nature laws.  

This report was initiated by the Conservatives in the European Parliament and was adopted by a large majority. 

As you note in your correspondence, in February this report will reach the plenary session in Strasbourg and I can confirm that I will be voting in favour. 

Thank you again for taking the time to contact me.

Yours sincerely,

Daniel Dalton MEP

22.01.16

Dear Ms Wendy Birks,

Thank you for email regarding the importance of the European Nature Directives to biodiversity in the UK.

The Birds and Habitats Directives form the cornerstone of Europe’s nature conservation policy, and have had a huge impact in protecting Europe’s most threatened bird species — including the nightjar and woodlark which can be found here in the West Midlands.  It is disappointing therefore to see the Directives threatened under the review. 

I am committed to keeping this crucial legislation as it is, enabling wildlife to flourish for local communities to enjoy and I support the RSPB as well as over 100,000 people from the UK who have registered their views against changing them.  I and other Labour Party MEPs will work to ensure that the fitness check is not used as an excuse to water down or weaken the legislation. You can read my question to the Commission on the need to maintain the Directives here. 

In September last year I visited Rugeley Heath, Cannock Chase, to discuss the Directives review with the RSPB.  With the Chase being the smallest area of ‘Outstanding Natural Beauty’ in England, and the only place in the West Midlands that can be relied on to see breeding Nightjar and Woodlark, it is vital that this crucial legislation is kept as it is to enable wildlife to flourish.

Thank you again for taking the time to write to me and should you have any further queries please do not hesitate to get in contact.

Kind regards,

pp. Victoria Fowler

Senior Parliamentary Assistant

Neena Gill MEP

25.01.2016

Dear Constituent

Thank you for your email regarding the mid-term review of the EU's Biodiversity Strategy. I apologise for my standard response, but I have had many emails regarding this matter and I wanted to respond to you as quickly as possible.

The importance of biodiversity should not be underestimated, nor should the value it provides to our economy and personal wellbeing. Indeed, without biodiversity, our necessary ecosystem services are jeopardised and the natural resilience of the Earth for addressing new challenges is undermined. The EU's Biodiversity Strategy recognises the pivotal role biodiversity has to play and I therefore welcome this report.

The primary aim of the mid-term review is to assess whether the EU is on track to halting biodiversity loss by 2020. At the mid-term, progress is encouraging. The threats posed by biodiversity are increasingly recognised and this serves as an important foundation for future success. However, while seemingly positive, it is also clear that much more still needs to be achieved. Nature's capacity to clean air and water, to pollinate crops and to limit the impacts of catastrophes continues to be threatened and such threats present our society and economy with potentially unforeseen costs. It is therefore evident that until more meaningful action is taken, there is little hope of reversing the current trends.

Reducing the administrative and other unnecessary burdens on Member States, alongside a greater intensification in ambition and effort will be imperative if further and more long lasting progress is to be made.

Improving policy integration is also crucial. Agriculture is particularly important and whilst recognising that the current Common Agriculture Policy (CAP) provides a range of instruments that can contribute to supporting biodiversity, there is nevertheless scope to reform CAP in order to achieve more environmental outcomes. The current Greening rules are for example, too complex and are an inefficient means for delivering environmental benefits. A strengthened Pillar 2 of the CAP would offer the potential to achieve better diversity and deliver more environmental public goods.

The full implementation of the nature directives will also prove beneficial. The current review by the European Commission of these directives should therefore be viewed positively as well as the Commission's decision to undertake a thorough and evidence-based fitness check to ensure that the Directives are functioning effectively. I am a firm believer in the benefits of evidence-based policymaking and so this fitness check should be allowed to run its course so that discussion can be informed by the evidence that it is gathering rather than seeking to pre-judge it.

To date, EU biodiversity legislation has made a significant contribution towards the protection of sensitive ecosystems and endangered species while simultaneously working to restore natural habitats. If such steps are taken, I am confident that this report will only add to this. It is for these reasons that I intend to vote in favour of this report.

Yours sincerely

Anthea McIntyre MEP

Conservative - West Midlands Region

A: The Chapel, Wythall Estate, Walford, Ross-on-Wye

27.01.16
Hi Wendy,

Thank your email on the importance of the European Nature Directives.

The Habitats Directive and the Birds Directive form the cornerstone of the EU's nature conservation policy and have been central to the protection and preservation of biodiversity in the West Midlands.

As part of its reform programme the European Commission has identified both the Habitats Directive and the Birds Directive as legislation that requires a 'fitness check'.  As part of the check the Commission is evaluating the effectiveness of the directives.

The Commission wants to simplify EU law and reduce the regulatory burden.  While I support the idea of simplifying EU law where this will make legislation clearer and easier to understand and implement, I’m also wary of calls to 'slash red tape'.

We need to make it clear that there should be no watering down of vital environmental and social protections.

As part of the fitness check, the Commission launched a public consultation, which asked respondents to rate the benefits of the Directives. The response to the consultation was incredible, with over 100,000 respondents from the UK alone speaking up in support of the Directives.

I’m committed to protecting the EU Nature Directives and will work to ensure that legislation isn’t weakened. That’s why Labour MEPs will be voting in favour of the Environment Committee’s report on the review of the EU’s Biodiversity Strategy.

I'll continue listening to people in the West Midlands about this particular issue, Wendy - And I'll be sure to update you on any developments.

You can follow what I'm doing in the European Parliament by joining the conversation on Facebook. Just click the big button at the bottom of this email and then like my page.

Best wishes,

Siôn

Siôn Simon
Labour Member of the European Parliament for the West Midlands

28.01.16
Dear Mrs Birks,

Thank you for your email. We in UKIP believe in the importance of preserving nature reserves and natural habitats for wildlife in Britain and in Europe.

However, we believe that this task should be a national, not a European, responsibility and we will therefore oppose new EU legislation in this area. Nevertheless, we will support all amendments aimed at improving the existing legislation on this issue.

UKIP strongly believes that the best people to decide on natural habitats in Britain are the British people. We do not trust the unelected EU Commission to decide on the protection of the environment and animal welfare. The EU has caused irreparable damage with its environmental policy. It has destroyed our fish stocks and caused widespread deforestation with its policy on bio-fuels.

Thank you again for writing to us and we shall certainly keep in mind your opinion on this legislative proposal.

Best regards

Catkins today.

Alder.

Silver Birch.

Hazel.

Snowy scenes from yesterday.

My back garden.

View from Dunwood area along disused railway towards Endon.

View of temporary pools which were frozen this day - towards Dunwood. 

Small reed bed next to the disused railway line.

Skein of over 100 probably Pink-footed Geese flying west (well they are very hard to see, but they are there in the bottom of the photo with the point of the "v" shape at the bottom). 

Badger footprints in snow. 

Hazel catkins in Deep Hayes Country Park.

Deep Hayes CP.

Endon Brook where it is joined by the stream that passes through Deep Hayes Country Park (I don't know its name, or even if it has one but it comes from Coalpitford Lane, Cheddleton). 

Fracking in Staffordshire.

On Tuesday (12^th Jan. 2016) evening the topic of the regular talk hosted by the Leek local group of the Staffordshire Wildlife Trust was about fracking. The talk was given by Dr Ian Stimpson, a geologist at Keele University. The talk was very informative and Dr. Stimpson assured us that there will be no fracking under Staffordshire, as the shales (or mudstones) that underlie this part of the UK are of insufficient depth to contain usable gas – however research is being done into the possibility of utilizing methane that is present in former coal mining areas.

For those who couldn't attend the meeting and are interested I have made the following notes based on what I can remember from his talk and information in a report produced for a number of wildlife NGOs. There is a link to the report below. Of course, there are also lots of other sources of information on the internet. If anyone thinks I've missed something please let me know.

http://www.wildlifetrusts.org/sites/default/files/shale_gas_summary_-_amended_20_3_14.pdf

Process/Issue	Benefits	Disadvantages	Context
Shale gas as source of energy	1.Energy security (present source of oil and gas for UK - North Sea nearly exhausted). 2. Helps the UK compete for markets of manufactured goods with other countries that have the benefit of lower energy prices. 3. Jobs 4. Economy	1.One alternative would be nuclear which also has its opponents. 2. Another alternative is to import gas but may be costly and some suppliers (e.g. Putin's Russia) may not be acceptable.	Uk has only 3 days of energy supply to tide it over, therefore in order to maintain our current lifestyle we need to secure future supplies.
Reliablity	Available regardless of prevailing weather conditions – useful to offer back-up to renewables		(Currently) electricity generated by wind, solar etc. is only available during appropriate weather
Cost	Potentially considerably cheaper than renewables	Prices not certain at this stage as geology and regulatory environment in UK different from USA	Global price of gas anticipated to rise as supplies dwindle, hence fracked gas could help ameliorate this
Land coverage	Solar and wind farms use large areas of land surface and may reduce land available for agricultural purposes. Shale gas exploitation may use far less land/ kWh.	1.Many well heads may be needed and it is likely that small power stations will be constructed near these 2. There will need to be roads and other infrastructure associated with well heads.	Whatever form of energy we use involves impacts on the landscape. *Perhaps offshore wave power has the least impact (but this is very expensive at present and has its own ecological consequences) *my own thoughts.
Climate Change	Potentially lower CO2 emissions than coal.	1. Methane escape from worked mudstones may negate any benefits from CO2 reduction (when compared with coal). 2. Fracked gas may reduce the imperative to invest in research into innovation in renewables.	Shale gas would provide an interim source of energy whilst renewable technology is improved to provide all weather energy supply (storage in batteries, extra capacity etc.)
“earthquakes”	Earth tremors are minor, deep down and actually only detected by seismographs	1. Earth tremors in USA due to disposal of waste water back into fracked mudstones; those in Lancashire due to early errors in practice; UK legislation more rigorous than UK and should prevent any detectable (by people) tremors 2. There are concerns that reduced numbers of Environment Agency staff may lead to companies avoiding inspection	1. Many areas of UK experience earth movements, some are due to natural causes, most are due to mining subsidence.
Water pollution		1.Mining wastewater can be contaminated by substances added by mining companies to facilitate fracking plus others from the mudstones themselves – sometimes radioactive material is involved, this is then released in to rivers etc. and ultimately ends up in the sea.	1.UK environmental regulations stronger than those in USA 2. Pollutants may be no worse than other substances we put into water (from industry and domestic) (however this does not mean we should add to existing pollution)
Drinking water aquifers. Dr Stimpson explained that the drill bore hole has to pass through aquifers, which are beds of rock that are natural water storage areas, frequently used for piped water supplies. These are located above the gas-rich mudstones so accessing the gas beds involves passing through these areas and so it is essential that the drill is leak proof. Therefore the top 100s metres of the drill is cased in multiple layers of (metal) piping and concrete sheaths.		There is a risk of pollution due to accidental leaks of shale gas or fracking waters into potable water.	All this is subject to UK environmental regulations.
Water use		1.Uses vast amounts of water which may have to be transported to well heads by tanker lorry. 2. Fracking will compete with other users of water – supplies of water in some parts of UK (e.g.SE England) already under strain due to growing population and diminishing supply (possibly due to climate change)	UK environmental regulations stronger than those in USA.
Sand quarrying			Sand is required as part of the fracking process, would this involve more quarrying?
Aesthetic	Some people dislike wind turbines and solar arrays, well heads may be more acceptable.	Some people may prefer wind turbines and solar arrays to well heads and associated infrastructure.	All forms of electricity generation, gas extraction etc. and its transmission have an impact on the landscape.
Noise Pollution	May be quieter than other forms of power generation?	May disturb wildlife and annoy nearby humans.	Variable levels also associated with other forms of power generation.
Light pollution		May disturb wildlife and nearby humans.	Also associated with other forms of power generation though perhaps less so with wind and solar power.
Traffic		People living near well heads will be subject to increased traffic which may include water tankers.	Increased traffic is also a result of other forms of power generation.