SC(3) - AIW36
Sustainability Committee
Inquiry into access to inland water in Wales
I am writing to express my opinions to the Sustainability Committee’s inquiry into access to inland water in Wales. My interest in the issue is primarily as a user for waterborne recreation, specifically a kayaker. I attended the University of Aberystwyth 2001-2005 and during that time was a keen kayaker, a member of the university canoe club and the Welsh Canoeing Association. Although I have now moved abroad I regularly return to Wales to see friends and, often, to go kayaking.
The current access situation for kayakers in Wales (as in England) is extremely frustrating and confused.
The most important thing is to clarify the position for all concerned. The legal complexities of the current system make it almost impossible for a recreational user to find out what the legal situation on a particular waterway is. This has a number of effects:
It discourages users who are actually entitled to use a particular waterway from enjoying their rights.
Users can become frustrated with the system and simply ignore it, leading to conflicts
It makes it impossible for users to defend their rights when these are arbitrarily infringed.
For example, if a farmer put up a new fence across one of my favourite walks, I could take out my OS map and show the footpath crossing his land. If a landowner turns up and tells me I cannot enter the river I am about to paddle, I have no such recourse.
In my experience, voluntary agreements work well because they provide the necessary clarification. One example with which I am familiar is the Aberglaslyn gorge. This is a classic short section of river which has provided much enjoyment and excitement to many paddlers. I don’t remember anyone I know paddling outside the agreed season, when in any case the water levels are usually too low for paddling. Similarly I can’t imagine that many fishermen would be disappointed to miss this rather bleak spot in the middle of January.
An access agreement which didn’t work very well was the Dee (I’m not sure of the current situation, this is based on about 5 years ago): the weekends allocated to kayakers were far too few. This led to congestion on those weekends - less enjoyable and sometimes dangerous for all the paddlers, and I imagine impossible for the fishermen; while many paddlers balked at the injustice and flaunted the rules by paddling on other weekends. If the river had permanent access, I imagine there would only be one or two parties of paddlers on any day, causing only a few minutes disruption to any fishermen. Kayaking on the Dee causes no damage to the river or its ecosystem, it is a wide and usually deep (when people want to kayak it) river with a number of good access points. The situation exists at root because fishermen have more money to spend than most kayakers - a patently unfair reason as well as misleading. Money from fishing permits goes into the deep pockets of a few landowners, whereas I know few paddlers who would kayak the Dee without stopping for a pint in one of Llangollen’s fine pubs afterwards, and probably visiting local shops and filling up their car. So although we may spend less money it is more fairly distributed into the community.
I would argue that voluntary agreements are generally good where they exist, but are no substitute for legislation. All users should have an equal right of access by law. A system of voluntary agreements essentially asks some users to beg for access from others, who may simply refuse to cooperate.
The only other country which I have experience of paddling in is France, where the situation is immeasurably better. In the French Alps paddlers are recognised as a valuable source of tourism. Access points are generally marked. This simple and cheap step not only makes it much easier for paddlers but prevents bank erosion from people launching in unsuitable places. Similarly there are signs on the river to point out exit points (and explain why you must get out there, e.g hydroelectrics ahead!). Some rivers have time-sharing agreements, usually paddlers during the day and fishermen in the evening (this works very well there since most paddlers are tourists and most fishermen are locals, but probably doesn’t apply very well in Wales). The most striking thing about the whole system is its clarity and the abundance of information available to paddlers.
Most importantly, since the vast majority of rivers are open most of the time, no-one objects to those few that are closed (perhaps for environmental protection) and these are never trespassed on.
However I would say that the best template is simply to look at the situation for walkers and extend this to inland water users. Since the right to roam act it is assumed that walkers have access. However they only have this right if they are behaving respectfully and not causing damage. It does not extend to walking through a planted field; similarly a right of access to water need not apply where an investment has been made in a particular stretch of river, e.g. salmon steps. It can be revoked for limited periods e.g. for lambing, similarly access to a river could be removed for a short period each year if there is a justified reason.
The key point is that the right of access exists as a default state, and a landowner must justify any changes to that right; these changes are limited in area and time they can be applied to.
I hope that this submission is useful and I would be happy to answer any further questions which the inquiry may have.
Yours faithfully,
Adam Jeff
