Sustainability Committee
Inquiry into access to inland water in Wales
Access to inland waterways inquiry
What is your interest in the issue of access to inland waterways?
I am a recreational paddler, sailor and swimmer, and enjoy just walking beside rivers. Much of my environmental training (BSc Environmental Science and MSc Ecology) was carried out in Wales. I run a Welsh activity tourism company.
Are you a member of an organisation related to your use of water?
I am a member of Canoe Wales (formerly the Welsh Canoeing Association). I was elected in 1995 to chair the Welsh National Access Committee, and continued in this post, re-elected every two years, for approximately 13 years, until the committee was disbanded.
I am nominated by Canoe Wales to represent recreational paddlers on the Environment Agency’s Wye Navigation Advisory Committee.
I am a member of the Outdoor Swimming Society and River and Lake Swimming Association.
Which stretches of water do you use?
I enjoy paddling, swimming, sailing, rambling and occasionally gorge-walking widely throughout Wales. Inland water I have used includes, but not exclusively: Wye, Usk, Irfon, Monnow, Teifi, Tywi, Sawdde, Dee, Severn, Vyrnwy, Tryweryn, Glaslyn, Prysor, Llugwy, Conwy, Teme, Clydach, Sychryd, Mellte, Ogmore, Taff, Gwynant, Llynau Mymbwr, Llyn Padarn, Llangors, Usk Reservoir, Pontsticill Reservoir, Talybont Reservoir, various Canals.
Are you happy that your legal rights are clear and well defined?
No.
Can you briefly outline your understanding of your legal rights over the stretch of water/s that you own/use/manage
Under Roman law, all perennially flowing rivers (all rivers in Wales would come into this category) and their banks were ‘res publicae’. Magna Charta enshrined the public right of navigation. Enclosure Acts removed many rights of way over land, but excepting a small number of specific documented cases, there is no evidence of alternation to ancient navigation rights. I believe that I have a legal right to navigate (i.e. boating or swimming) inland waters in Wales and England wherever no subsequent legislation exists contrary to these rights.
Would you like to see any changes to your legal rights?
Yes.
If yes, what changes would you like to see?
Existing public rights of navigation are frequently challenged without a sound evidential basis. This leads to conflict. Public rights need to be enshrined in modern legislation.
Exercising navigation rights can be problematic where there is a lack of public access to the waterside. Legislation needs to facilitate the exercise of navigation rights, by enabling access to and from the water.
Are you aware of any legislation that exists in other countries that could be used in Wales?
Most countries have legislation predicated on a presumption of public rights to be exercised responsibly. In this culture, appropriate management mechanisms can be implemented.
The principle of ‘res publicae’ informs legislation in widely differing countries, for example France and South Africa. ‘British territories’ have tended to codify public access rights as soon as they obtained legislative powers, for example in 1892 when legislative competence was granted to an independent New Zealand, the ‘Queen’s Chain’ legislation codified access rights. Scandinavian legislation tends to codify existing public rights within a modern legislative framework.
Scotland’s Land Reform legislation enshrined existing public rights in modern legislation with a Code of Practice.
Do you have any experience of voluntary agreements for access to the stretch of water/s you own/use/manage.
Yes, Considerable.
If yes, please briefly outline the agreements that exist and your experience of how they operate.
I began canoeing and kayaking in the 1970’s, and soon learned ‘through the grapevine’ that there were problems in accessing rivers. I began coaching paddlesports in the early 80’s, and as a coach became more aware of the access situation as we understood it then. I have been more actively involved as an access volunteer for 15 years.
My experience of agreements as a recreational paddler, and as a coach, was one of constant frustration and uncertainty. As a mountaineer, I could make informed decisions as to when and where to go walking or climbing, depending on conditions. In contrast, if I wanted to go canoeing, my decisions on when and where to paddle were made on the basis of arbitrary restrictions set by others who had no knowledge of canoeing.
I joined the WCA access team in 1994, as local officer for the Usk. I was elected regional officer for the Wye and Usk catchments and subsequently elected to Chair the Welsh National Access Committee. I had hoped to be able to improve matters, however, in the face of determination to maintain the status quo, decades of negotiation, by a hard-working and committed team of volunteers, later supported by dedicated access staff, resulted in highly restrictive and unsustainable agreements on limited sections of, at most, 11 out of 300+ canoeable rivers in Wales.
General
As Chair of the National Access Committee, I had overview of the negotiations and agreements on all rivers in Wales. In practice, there was little room for negotiation. Restrictions were handed down as a condition of consent for any paddling to take place. With one exception, Afon Sawdde, these restrictions were based not on environmental protection, but on confining canoeing to the close fishing season.
In spite of Afon Sawdde being a model agreement in terms of environmental protection, EA advised WCA to cease promoting it when one of the riparian owners moved house, as there was no longer anyone to sign up for that (unoccupied) property. This illustrated one of the flaws of reliance on negotiated access. It was impossible to identify all the potentially interested parties for any river. While paddling strictly within the terms of access agreements, it was common to be confronted by various, often unidentified, individuals on the bank and in car parks, denying the existence of the agreement and insisting that canoeing was not allowed. The agreements were unsustainable, being subject to unilateral cancellation at any time by any one party.
Attempts to negotiate improved or additional agreements usually met with flat refusal. On the rare occasions where it was possible to enter into negotiations for new access, this was usually considered, not on its own merits, but as a trade-off against removing or reducing access elsewhere.
It was a condition of agreements that they should be for BCU members and affiliates only. WCA was expected to police agreements, which was impracticable and inappropriate.
The Effects on Tourism
I was often made aware that the access restrictions affected both local and incoming tourism. In my capacity as access officer, tourists from other countries often contacted me for information about Welsh rivers, and were incredulous when informed of the access restrictions in Wales.
After an agreement for the Upper Wye broke down, I received correspondence from local B&B’s, asking why the paddlers were no longer coming to the river as, the income was important to them. Under the restrictive system of access on the Dee, traders in Llangollen had been unable to fully enjoy the benefits of paddler tourism. The large numbers trying to access the river on the few weekends allowed, exceeded the capacity of the town and caused problems. Even so, traders expressed concern at the effect on the town’s economy of the loss of paddling-related income after the Dee Tours were withdrawn. I was contacted by families and groups who wanted to paddle the Dee quietly when it was not crowded, and at times other than mid-winter. Under the restrictive agreement, this was not possible. If paddlers had been allowed to visit the Dee throughout the year, instead of on only three weekends, the town would have benefitted considerably.
The River Usk
As local officer, I had ‘hands-on’ involvement with the Usk access ageement. I have been aware of recent statements to the effect that the Wye and Usk agreements “worked well”. My experiences, and the correspondence files dating back to the 1980’s, tell a very different story.
In 1994 the Usk agreement was 10 years old and had been largely unchanged throughout that time. However, it was in jeopardy as one of the local fishing clubs was refusing to sign the renewal. The agreement seemed to be held hostage to a turf war between rival fishing clubs, a situation which took months to resolve. In the years following, the agreement was frequently in a state of flux, as one or other of the numerous parties raised objections.
In common with my predecessors, I received correspondence from riparian owners claiming that they had not been consulted about the agreement, and stating that they had no intention of taking part.
I was frequently called upon by anglers and landowners to remonstrate with paddlers who were using the river outside the terms of the agreement. These paddlers often made the same points as those opposed to paddling: that they had not asked anyone to negotiate for them, and they were not interested in the agreement, which did not meet their needs. I received letters from paddlers who found that the restrictive dates ‘allowed’ by the agreement were not possible for them.
I made numerous attempts to put the Usk agreement onto an environmental basis which could include the tributaries, and following discussions with EA, I spent time identifying the minimum levels at which the rivers in the Usk catchment would be paddlable, from a canoeists’ perspective. EA supported the principle, but were unwilling to give an environmentally safe level until they had the agreement of angling clubs (at this time I was unaware that EA had previously stated an environmentally safe level for the Usk and its tributaries). The environmental approach was always dismissed in favour of the system of advance written permission, even though it was acknowledged that this encouraged paddlers to paddle on the dates they had booked, regardless of level. The reason given was that those representing the anglers/landowners wanted “to retain control”. The control was illusory, however, due to the large numbers on both sides of the agreement who were unaware of it, objected to its terms, or chose to ignore it.
When Canoe Wales began to campaign for legislation, a representative of the Country Land and Business Association stated publicly that they would cease to negotiate access with Canoe Wales if we continued with the campaign.
It has been widely reported that “WCA tore up the Usk Agreement”. This is not the case. When the Usk agreement again came up for renewal, I outlined WCA’s policy of agreement based on environmental considerations, and asked for discussions on this basis. My letter was widely circulated, without my permission, to groups and individuals with no involvement in the Usk agreement. At a subsequent meeting about the Wye, it was stated by a landowners’ representative that “the Usk agreement has been abandoned and rescinded”.
Restrictive arrangements relating to the Wye and Usk have since been made between the WyeUsk Foundation and a small number of commercial operators in the locality of Glasbury on Wye. In real terms, they provide less paddling than the previous unworkable agreements. The levels do not appear to correspond to previously existing environmental parameters, and disadvantage all but the most experienced paddlers. These publicly funded arrangements appear to be widely disregarded by paddlers, and there is anecdotal evidence of riparian owners stating they are not party to them.
Would you like to see any changes to the voluntary agreements?
Yes. In my opinion, the arrangements made by the WyeUsk Foundation are private arrangements between limited parties who choose to ignore the question of existing rights of navigation and who seek to impose restriction on the public for their own benefit or expediency. As such, it appears that public money, including European funding, is being used to undermine public rights. Welsh Assembly Government needs to examine the basis for supporting this programme.
Are you aware of any voluntary arrangements in other countries that could be used in Wales?
In most countries, including Scotland, which have a presumption of public rights of access, agreements are made between user groups where activities genuinely conflict with each other. This fair and equitable management mechanism is not available under the present circumstances in Wales, where one group is able to veto all other activity and has no reason to compromise. Meaningful agreement can only take place where all parties come to the negotiating table as equal partners.
Please can you briefly outline what you think are the key issues for recreational access to inland water in Wales and how you would like to see them addressed.
The hegemony of strong vested interests. All other issues stem from this.
Commodification of the countryside. Those with the ability to pay large sums demand exclusivity in return.
Uncritical acceptance of the assertion that the interests of field/blood sports are synonymous with conservation.
Presumption against access – even where not supported by statute.
Failure by successive governments to recognize the issue of public rights; attempting to polarize them into ‘angling v canoeing’ / ‘town v country’ / ‘local v incomer’ conflicts.
Concentration of access into too few ‘honeypots’ creates pressure on the immediate environment, a poor quality experience, and a ‘theme park’ perception of the countryside.
The impossibility of educating the public on their responsibilities to the countryside while excluding them from most of it.
Denial of the rights of the public as stakeholders who pay for the upkeep and protection of the countryside through their taxes.
Placation of vested interests leading to piecemeal, unsustainable and unworkable arrangements.
Solutions:
Legislation needs to be on the basis of presumption in favour of public rights.
Rigorous scrutiny of cases where public access is controlled, restricted or prevented.
A scientifically-determined environmental constraint as a basic requirement for exclusion of the public from the countryside.
A realistic definition of what constitutes ‘private property’ for the purposes of excluding the public, as opposed to ‘privately owned property’.
Public utilities need to be held to account against their statutory responsibility to provide public access to their landholdings.
‘Rights and Responsibilities’ education campaign to be rolled out contemporaneously with new legislation, as happened in Scotland.
Pam Bell
