Biodiversity Offsets and the Antique Woodland Roadshow

Posted on November 8, 2013 by Miles King

What exactly is an Antique Woodland?

The other day I found myself at a recent event put on by the All Party Parliamentary Group on Biodiversity to discuss Biodiversity Offsets. The Consultation is out at the moment and you can respond here  – please do. I have recently blogged about BO (sorry) for the Woodland Trust and will try not to repeat myself.

Owen Paterson seemed genuinely enthusiastic about BO and seemed to believe that it would only generate more improved and better biodiversity. OP is keen to improve the environment. He’s not so interested in protecting it, presumably because protection can mean something does not get improved. OP said “I want to improve the environment, not protect it.” I think I knew what he meant, but it could be read two ways couldnt it.

There were some interesting discussions about the duration of an offset. David Hill, chairman of BO-cheerleaders the Environment Bank (and deputy chair of presumed BO-regulators Natural England) suggested that having  agreements with BO providers of improved biodiversity longer than 20 years would constrict the “supply side” of the market. I suggested that from experience, all would struggle to get commitment from BO providers beyond 15 years, as that was the cut-off after which open farmland habitats could be classified as “semi-natural”and protected under the EIA regulations. Nobody seems to have pointed this out to the SoS.

There was discussion of metrics and how important getting the metrics right was. But the current metric of habitat hectares ignores the time dimension. Does 10 habitat hectares for 10 years equal 5 habitat hectares for 20 years? I suggested we needed the metric to include time and become habitat hectare years.

But if we destroy say, a piece of heathland that has been around for 4000 years, and replace with a piece of new habitat that is only guaranteed for 20 years, what kind of offsetting is that? We were reassured that if a developer wanted to develop a piece of land that had been “improved” for biodiversity through offsetting, the cost in credits would be so astronomical as to be impossible. But if the land is farmland, there’s nothing to stop it being ploughed in (apart from the aforementioned EIA regs – which don’t work.)

OP painted a picture for us of a bypass going through a woodland (not necessarily ancient) and a “bit of wet ground.” Offsets could pay to “improve a local ecosystem” for “the pleasure of future generations”. He then mentioned a Dairy having to be extended and destroying a (great crested) Newt Pond. The answer, to create more ponds nearby and more Newts.

 OP talked about a visit to the Nene Valley recently where he had met Steph Hilborne of the Wildlife Trusts. He waved a map showing the extent of ELS/HLS in Northants (he had waved the same map at the Environmental Audit Committee not a week previously) and stated that BO could provide a substantial financial endowment for landowners in AE schemes, for a 25 year programme “to enhance the habitat.” OP seemed excited at the prospect of long term well funded large scale projects being funded by BO. He seemed less concerned about the concept of additionality.

Under questioning, OP suggested that a functioning BO market would actually reduce the risk of development damaging biodiversity, because of the price. A road scheme in NSW had caused the loss of 50 VOTs (very old trees). BO had paid for a 25 year programme to manage 200 VOTs in return. OP argued that this was about environmental gain and that it would bring in substantial funding in addition to Pillar 2 funding.

At least everyone agreed that in order to function at all, offsetting needed to be mandatory. But then OP suggested that it was really only about large projects – a threshold of 10 housing units would remove 90% of housing developments from the OP system. What would happen to the biodiversity loss caused by all those developments then?

As far as irreplaceable habitats are concerned, Professor Dieter Helm, chair of the natural capital committee is at this moment working on the “bricks” of the metrics, according to OP. I have visions of Prof Helm with a big pile of lego – now let’s say ancient woodland are green bricks – how many bricks do we need to offset an ancient woodland. What about meadows – shall we use yellow because they have many yellow flowers…” perhaps not.

Barry Gardiner interjected “what about Antique woodland, surely that’s irreplaceable?” Everyone agreed antique woodland could not be replaced using Biodiversity Offsets. It just needs a bit of beeswax now and again.

Posted in barry gardiner, Biodiversity APPG, biodiversity offsetting, housing, Owen Paterson | Tagged , , , , , , , | 4 Comments

A nice surprise

Posted on November 2, 2013 by Miles King

This morning I had a nice surprise. My blog has been referenced in yesterday night’s Guardian Editorial.

It’s the one about scrub in the uplands, which itself refers to an article I wrote for ECOS in 2001.

I don’t normally blow my own trumpet (or am I just deep in self deception?) but I was very pleased to see that my writing had been picked up in this way.

The CAP consultation is only around for a few weeks so please everybody put in a submission even if it’s just a one liner “public goods for public money”.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

A walk in the woods

Posted on October 30, 2013 by Miles King

The afternoon was mild and sunny, after a wet day yesterday. My wife’s uncle noted that the moon was now waxing so mushrooms would not be growing quite so prolifically. We headed up the hill along a very small road into the woods. Immediately, on the edge of the road, we spotted some toadstools – a second one confirmed it as a panther cap, and this was quickly followed by some very good examples of the Destroying Angel. Though beautiful these were not what we had come to find.

Up the road a bit and just past a house with a spring in its garden, there was a low drystone wall, with a humid shady and very unassuming looking narrow verge between the base of the wall and the edge of the road. In amongst the sweet chestnut leaves, prolific patches of moss and polypody fern, were patches of bright yellow. Called Girolle in this part of France, in England they are Chanterelle. Jacquie, my wife’s aunt, checked carefully to see they were the genuine article and not False chanterelle. The gills were clearly decurrent, continuing down the stem of the mushroom. At first we only saw a couple, but as we all got our eye in, they appeared from amongst the moss and leaves. Excitedly we picked or cut them carefully, removing any soil before putting them in the basket. There were a surprising number along this wall and we had collected 30 or 40 of these delectable mushrooms without any effort. As the wall petered out, the verge became more grassy and and the Girolle quickly disappeared. I wondered how the mycelium had chosen this particular spot and how vulnerable it was to disturbance or destruction. The girls’ great-aunt Jacquie explained that this set of conditions is what she always looked for for Girolle, a damp shady mossy place.

We headed on up the hill and left the road up an old track into the woods. The woods had what we might call ancient woodland indicators, though as to whether this applies in this part of France is debatable. I looked down and saw Aspen leaves – then spotted a grove behind me on the other side of the road. This is a sure way to know the woodland has been there for a long time, as Aspen is a clonal species that spreads slowly out to form a large patch. Jacquie said that our quarry should be around here somewhere. We stood amongst large Sweet Chestnut – some had fallen in a storm – perhaps the big one of 2000. Others appeared to be old pollards. There was a great deal of deadwood on the ground and standing. As we stood by a dead Sweet Chestnut trunk lying prone, there was a sound of triumph and delight and we were shown a small patch of the Trompete de Mor, or as we know it, Horn of Plenty. Perfect little trumpets of a dark grey purple above, and dark lilac gills below. Small ones in singles, larger ones with small ones alongside and large troops or five and six growing together. These larger troops leant themselves to be being picked as a bunch and we all delighted in finding the best largest and freshest examples. Soon we were all happily collecting these beautiful and tasty fungi, and the more we looked the more we found. Around each tree and past each stump another patch appeared. The previous day’s rain had brought them up and they were at the perfect stage for picking. We carried on until the basket was mostly full before deciding to stop as we had all we needed.

As we climbed through the wood I noticed terraces suggesting this too had been cultivated at some point in the past. We came out on a road further up the hill, then headed slowly back down to the valley bottom. The girls walked along together chatting away happily. Our eldest had used her knife to carefully remove the bark off a small beech twig. The younger was delighting in tramping down the rainfall gully along the edge of the road. We came across the entrance to a small mine – gold had been mined in these hills from before Roman times, and there was a quick foray into the cave.

Well satisfied with the afternoon’s haul, we wended our way back down the hill for a nice cup of tea and a cookie.

20131030-090800.jpg

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | 2 Comments

Biodiversity Offsetting – some related issues

Posted on October 27, 2013 by Miles King

here’s yesterday’s blog, reblogged.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Biodiversity Offsetting – some further thoughts

Posted on October 26, 2013 by Miles King

Today’s blog appears on the Woodland Trust Blog site.

http://wtcampaigns.wordpress.com/2013/10/26/biodiversity-offsetting-some-related-issues/.

Posted in agriculture, biodiversity, biodiversity offsetting, Charities campaigning, ecosystem services, environmental policy, forest elephant, George Monbiot, housing, management, meadows, neoliberalism, Owen Paterson, rewilding, scrub, spiritual value, straight tusked elephant, uplands | Tagged , , , , , , | 3 Comments

Homecoming

Posted on October 25, 2013 by Miles King

I was undecided until yesterday morning, whether to drive up to London or take the train. Pros and Cons swirled around my mind and the signs of rumination and anxiety were clear enough for me to recognise. In the end I knew it would be uncomfortable sitting on a train for 3 hours next to my brother’s ashes so I took the car.

It was an easy run up to town and as I parked just a hundred yards from where my brother and I had grown up in East London, and got out of the car, the sweet sound of the recently repaired church bell struck 12. It was so clean a sound it could almost have been a Tuscan church bell ringing out across olive groves. The horse chestnuts had all gone from under the avenue that ran down to the church  – those that had survived the recent cull anyway. It can’t have been a good year anyway, too dry. The day was beautiful, softly warm for late October. As I walked up to the high street, I noticed two women purposefully collecting sweet chestnuts from beneath the three giant old trees on the green. I wondered at how many places in London there would a wild harvest happening today.

As I walked up the high street to the funeral directors I tried to remember where the shops had been when I was a child. I remembered where the wood mill was that I could go and ask for a bag of sawdust for my rabbit’s hutch; and the nice butchers. Most of the shops now seemed to be cafes and restaurants, estate agents or clothes shops. One butcher, no greengrocer, no fishmonger.

The funeral directors was a fixed point, around which everything else had changed. It felt a bit like a pilgrimage returning to my childhood home again, on my own, now that my mum has moved down to Dorchester. I thought of her campaigning to stop the roads being built through the local park in the 60s, and the subsequent Wanstonia road protest 30 years later. The sister sweet chestnut to the three survivors became an icon of that protest – there’s even a short film about it.  I felt like an amateur psychogeographer, sensing the events that created the identity of this amazing place.

I chatted to Bob at the Funeral Director’s, who had kindly put my brother’s ashes into a large cardboard tube for me. It was at the funeral that his fishing friends and I had come up with the idea of scattering his ashes into one of his favourite fishing lakes up in the Hertfordshire Lea Valley. The forecast was looking pretty dodgy and I wanted to make sure the ceremony did not descend into farce, especially as both our girls and my mum will be there. We plumped for a scatter tube, which we would either use to scatter Simon’s ashes into the water, or if the winds were too high, just open the ends and let it sink to the bottom. The tube was as Bob had described it, about the size of a 25 pounder shell case. It weighed a lot too, and I decided not to take it with me on my tube journey into town. I thought about taking Simon on one last tube journey, but what if I left him on the train? I decided to travel light.

I had to go to St James’ Park, to pick up my coat, which I had left at RSPB Sandy a few weeks earlier. Brendan had kindly brought it down with him from the Lodge that day. It was a trip I knew off by heart, having travelled it daily for 2 1/2 years when I went to Westminster in my sixth form. At least I didnt have to take my cello with me, as I had often to do. Travelling on the rush hour tube with a cello is the sort of character (and muscle) building activity that goes with attending a Public School I guess. I started reading a book I had as a birthday present – The 32 Stops by Danny Dorling. It’s a book about the Central Line! The irony had not gone un-noticed. As I travelled in from the east, the book started at the west end, which left my slightly reeling from the dissonance. Most people were either on their phones listening, talking, texting or gaming. As we pulled into Mile End the Distrct Line driver waited for our doors to open, before closing his. Why do they do that? I wonder if it’s some sort of grim satisfaction gained from watching our faces drop.

The next train came rapidly. I was pleased that I had picked the right carriage to get off at St James’ park, near the front – the old tube memory was still there. It was just a couple of minutes to the RSPB office. Back in Westminster, the old haunt in both senses. It has been a little while since I have travelled up there for meetings at Defra or the House of Commons. I felt a bit wistful. At RSPB I bumped into Brendan who had brought up my coat, and we chatted about biodivesrity offsetting and how the EAC select committee had let “Goalposts” Paterson off with some weak questioning the previous day. Brendan had given evidence  – I said I would have a look on the video. We agreed to meet up before the next biodiversity APPG where Paterson was coming along to say how wonderful offsetting is, in a couple of weeks time. Brendan was heading to Crushh cafe to meet up with colleagues before a Defra meeting about offsetting so I accompanied him and showed him the cut through Deans Yard where the school is. I had a peek into Little Dean’s Yard and chatted to the bursar about the time I got suspended (along with about 10 others) for trying to get the school minibus through a 15th century arch (failed miserably). He told the story of an earlier successful prank involving the headmaster’s mini, which was taken through the arch and left in the middle of the school wrapped up in a giant bow.

It was great to see them, and I had a quick chat with friends in the cafe, then left them to their pre-meeting, before heading across the road to have my sandwich while watching the Thames roll past Victoria Tower Gardens – my day had been leavened by seeing familiar faces and chatting about familiar issues. They jokingly suggested I join them for the meeting at Defra but I demurred.

Back at Westminster tube the District/Circle eastbound was down (broken down train at Sloane Square) so I wended my way back via the Jubilee Line, via West Ham. West Ham is where my brother and I were born, home to West Ham United, where my dad’s ashes are buried, but that’s another story.

Amazingly the same 2 women (plus another one) were still collecting sweet chestnuts from under the giants. The drive home was thankfully uneventful.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Babies and Bathwater

Posted on October 24, 2013 by Miles King

P1020667

Non-intervention management ((C) Miles King)

I boldly suggested the other day that conservation iconoclast  Mark Fisher now agreed with me that stopping human intervention on high value nature sites (such as SSSIs) was not the best way of achieving his ideal natural state of wilderness. What hubris!

Mark has corrected me. He originally stated this:

“If SSSI cover 6% of the UK, whats wrong with a proportion of that being wilder? Say 0.5% out of the 6%? That still leaves 5.5% or 10 times the area. To be honest, I’d rather not go for areas of SSSI for a number of reasons, and so ecological restoration doesn’t have to be a threat to any of the managed diversity”

Yesterday he went on to clarify:

I don’t see that you can construe from that anything about babies, bath water and the relative merits of semi-natural versus wild areas! Firstly, I don’t use the word “rewilding” nowadays. Secondly, the main reason why I would rather not go for for areas of SSSI is because of the compositional approach to nature conservation that the SSSI system embodies, and which holds land in stasis, as evaluated by reference to the ridiculous criteria in Common Standards Monitoring. Thus ecological restoration is inimical to the SSSI system, as its very intent is to inhibit natural processes. Its a nonsense that natural processes and wild nature are thus “illegal” in Britain, because they are effectively in breach of the requirement to maintain stasis. It is very worrying to me that the small number of protected areas in England where there is a locally originated policy of non-intervention have no status in nature conservation in Britain, and that the gains in wild nature in these areas could be lost if the local policy is over turned. Since the SSSI system is unlikely to be reformed any time soon, then it makes sense not to jeopardize any approach to ecological restoration – or reinstatement of trophic diversity as George may put it – by being constrained by SSSI designation.

As always with Mark’s comments there are many threads to tease apart. Instead I am going to focus on just a couple.

Converting 0.5% of the 6% of land covered by SSSIs into a wilder state.

the UK covers 24 million hectares, so 0.5% of that would be 1.2 Million hectares. What would happen to biodiversity if all management stopped on 1.2Mha of SSSI?

Well, firstly it depends on which SSSIs are affected. The large area of intertidal mudflat designated SSSI would not really be affected, unless bait-digging and other similar activities was banned. Similarly rivers and lakes would not be hugely affected as SSSI status already prevents most of the more active interventions – though of course it doesn’t stop indirect human impacts such as eutrophication.

But ceasing management on a 2ha SSSI hay meadow would fairly rapidly cause it to lose most of the biodiversity that it supported, without any concomitant increase in other species. Who would decide which 1.2Mha of SSSI was going to be left to go wild, or abandoned, depending on your viewpoint. Would it be a random decimation or targeted onto undeserving habitats. Or would a few large SSSIs (some upland heath ones for example) be targeted?

And what would the outcome be? For lowland SSSIs that were not already woodland, succession would take place over years or decades. Open habitats would cease to be open, go through a scrub phase before becoming secondary woodland. Species of open habitats would decline and eventually disappear, and the woodlands created would be relatively poor in biodiversity, both compared with ancient examples, and with the habitats they replaced. Put simply this is because succession does not equal ecological restoration.

In the uplands the situation would be different: succession would happen much more slowly, especially on deep peat soils. In the absence of predators populations of wild (deer) and feral (sheep) herbivores would increase, possibly to levels which maintained the open landscape, but to the detriment of the biodiversity.

Non-intervention

I am surprised Mark suggests there is no official recognition of the value of non-intervention as a management tool in British conservation. This is simply not true. Non-intervention has been employed officially in nature conservation for well over 30 years and is a widely adopted approach. Originally non-intervention on nature reserves was usually an excuse for not carrying out management due to a lack of resources. But certainly by the 1980s there were strong advocates for a positive approach to non-intervention – such as Mike Alexander at CCW and Tony Whitbread at the Sussex Wildlife Trust.

I carried out some brief research on the value of deadwood in ancient woodlands in 1989, at a time when many woodlands (and more importantly limbs that had fallen off ancient pollards in wood pastures) were still being manically tidied up and burnt. Times have changed to such an extent that deadwood is now left in places where it has very limited ecological value ( eg tied down with wire on sunny railway cuttings).

There are countless nature reserves and other land around the country now where there is a deliberate policy of no intervention – including on SSSIs. So I find that comment very strange.

Ecological Restoration occupies a continuum. At one end, stopping adding artificial fertiliser to a grassland is a basic type of ecological restoration, much like tree planting. At the other end is the introduction of elephants to a 250,000ha new nature landscape. Why make one the enemy of the other?

Posted in anti conservation rhetoric, anti-environmental rhetoric, biodiversity, environmental policy, forest elephant, George Monbiot, Mark Fisher, rewilding, Saum, scrub, self-willed land, SSSis, straight tusked elephant, uplands | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

Wolves Dogs and Sheep

Posted on October 21, 2013 by Miles King

Old_English_Sheep_Dog

Where’s the wolf Fido?

By User:Squigman (Own work) [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons

I used to be quite good at statistics, but that was a very long time ago. Now I marvel at my colleagues at Footprint Ecology, who painlessly manipulate huge datasets, often with complex spatial elements to them.

But here are some simple statistics that I can get my head around, from the June Agricultural Census . There are 32 million sheep and lambs in the UK. This is a staggering figure – but what is even more amazing (to me anyway) is that the UK has the largest number of sheep in the EU – by quite a long way. Next biggest sheep producer is Spain then the rest are way behind (2o1o figures).

Nearly 100,000ha of “sole right rough grazing”, that is mostly upland grazings of heathland and acid grassland, has disappeared from the statistics in the last 2 years – where has it gone? Not to scrub and woodland.

112,oooha of permanent grassland has disappeared in the last 2 years, while temporary grassland under five years old has increased by 105,000ha. This is the direct result of the botched greening proposals in the “reformed”CAP, as temporary grass falls outside the permanent pasture greening measure.  I have blogged before about losses of permanent grassland – eg here and here, though indeed some farmers may have simply renamed their grassland as temporary.

So we have less permanent pasture and more sheep (and cattle). To my mind that is a simple indicator of intensification, as temporary grassland is more intensively managed that permanent pasture.

Meanwhile Wolves continue to march westwards across mainland Europe. Now Farmers in France are complaining (as reported in the Indy) that Wolves are returning to lowland areas of France and eating their sheep. France is 5th on the list of sheep producers but have just one third of the national sheep flock of the UK, on a much larger area of agricultural land. According to the Indy 300 French wolves are killing around 5,000 sheep in France a year. This compares with an estimated 100,000 sheep killed in France by stray or domestic dogs. The Farmers are complaining they may have to invest in “a savage dog” to protect their sheep from the Wolves.

As much as anything this to me shows how the quality of environmental reporting at the Indy has declined so much since Mike McCarthy left.

Sheepdogs come in two distinct flavours – dogs for rounding up sheep (eg Collies) and dogs for protecting sheep from predators eg Wolves. French sheep farmers seem to have forgotten about the latter version – anyone who looks at an Old English sheep dog for example would wonder how such a lumbering beast could round up sheep – they didn’t, they were bred from droving dogs strong enough to fight off Wolves. The Pyrenean Mountain Dog is another such breed.

Anyone wishing to re-introduce Wolves to Britain will come quickly up against the National Sheep Association as the main antagonist, but may find allies at the Kennel Club.

Posted in agriculture, farming, grazing, rewilding, sheep dogs, wolves | Tagged , , , , , , , | 6 Comments

Saum, Clarkson, re-wilding and whither British Conservation?

Posted on October 19, 2013 by Miles King

Pentridge scrub clearance 1

the challenge of maintaining Saum

I just read an excellent review of Feral on the blog of Green Alliance Director Matthew Spencer. It arrived, in timely fashion on the same day as George published his challenge to British Conservation in the Guardian.

I wrote this response to Matthew Spencer’s blog, and thought I would share it with you too.

Thanks for this excellent review Matthew.

I was a bit tougher on George than you are when I reviewed Feral (which you can find here http://wp.me/p3vKib-5e) but then again I have been arguing with him about it for the past two years. I have to say that, as someone who has worked in nature conservation for the past 25 years (and I now am much less sure about it than I was to begin with!), my views have changed as a result of this ongoing debate, but I am also pleased that George’s have too. He does now recognise the value of semi-natural habitats like the chalk downland you cherish, as does his re-wilding guru Mark Fisher. Mark up until very recently argued for re-wilding to best be pursued on semi-natural sites, because they might act as innoculation points for species to spread into currently sterile landscapes. Mark also recognises now that this is “throwing the baby out with the bathwater”.

George picked you up yesterday on your comment about sterile scrub, though he mistakenly claimed that scrub was more biodiverse than the downland. You’re both wrong! “Southern Mixed Scrub” is a very rich, though transient habitat. Conservation managers often attempt to maintain a mosaic of chalk downland of differing types, and southern mixed scrub at various stages of development. This is an extraordinarily rich habitat for wildlife and it is the dynamic boundary between the grassland and the scrub which makes it so rich. Many of the rarest species of this habitat occur on this boundary. It is so important ecologists have a special name for it – “Saum”. It is also extremely difficult to manage, because it’s effectively balancing on an ecological tightrope – the system is always tending towards one state (grassland) or the other (scrub to woodland). I think that in prehistory (especially in previous interglacials) this was a significant habitat in its own right, created as a result of wild herbivore grazing, fire, drought and storm. It’s the British equivalent of mediterranean garrigue or phrygana. Elephants would undoubtedly have helped maintain it.

And it’s for this reason that I don’t agree with George about re-wilding the uplands. First there is the knotty problem of Carbon – much of the uplands is now covered in carbon-rich soils (peat) – reforestation, if even possible on deep peat soils, would cause a large amount of C to be released. Secondly as you say the entrenched elite will not be pleased to lose their playgrounds.

But re-wilding would be so much more exciting and effective if it occurred in the lowlands, especially if it included a large coastal area. I don’t have a problem with the Clarksons of this worled paying handsomely to off road through it, or even shoot the odd bear. The key thing is scale. Mark Fisher estimates that an area of at least 250,000ha is needed to support 9 wolf packs. Back of the envelope sums suggested that would cost around £5bn. Which actually isn’t an unachievable figure.

Ultimately this isn’t about either conservation of semi-natural habitats OR re-wilding. I think we need both approaches, one for one set of reasons

– these cultural habitats are the lifeboats (most of them are badly leaking though) in which our existing biodiversity currently sits; these are also the places that hold so much of our history, culture and sense of place.

The other for the future

– re-wilded areas will be new sanctuaries for nature, and probably new nature (or a return of nature from previous interglacials) that will thrive under much warmer conditions.

I’m having a debate with George on re-wilding at the Linnean Society on 13th November. The event is already full but I am hoping that LinnSoc will film it and put it on the web.

 

Posted in biodiversity, carbon storage, climate change, Downland, forest elephant, George Monbiot, management, Mesolithic, rewilding, Saum, scrub, straight tusked elephant, uplands | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | 5 Comments

Sacrifices, ancient and modern

Posted on October 17, 2013 by Miles King

We like to think we live in such settled, civilised and rational times.  It wasn’t so long ago though  – up to  the 19th Century – that farmers feared the effect of evil spirits on their  livestock and made Land Sacrices to appease them. And perhaps it’s still going on in England today.

While searching for something else (about which I have long forgotten) I stumbled upon a very old paper in the Jounal of the British Agricultural History Society called “The untilled Field”. Curious, I read on, and discovered a fascinating story about just how long pagan rituals survived in Britain, despite the best efforts of the Church to suppress them.

In the far north-east of Scotland, where the Norse influence was strongest, farmers were punished by the Church, from the 17th to 19th century, for leaving small patches of land untilled and ungrazed, as a sacrifice to spirits unknown. Although these sacrifices were blamed as the Devil’s work by those of the Protestant Faith, the local farmers knew them as Goodman’s Field, Goodman’s Croft, Halyman’s Croft, Cloutie’s Craft, Devill’s craft or Gi’en Rig. These names suggest something that goes back far before Christian Influence came to bear on this distant part of the Kingdom.

The farmers believed that by leaving a piece of good land untouched, and throwing stones into it (to indicate to the spirits that the farmer had abandoned all plans to farm the field), they would appease the spirits that brought disease to their Cattle. The disease was called Murrain  – this is the fifth plague that appears in Exodus. There were also widespread beliefs that any crofter who did try and till, manure or graze a piece of Goodman’s land, would die on the spot. In one recorded case crofters would pour milk onto their Goodman’s field (known as the Cheese Hillock) every year on the first April to appease the spirits or Faeries.

The Church prosecuted farmers for this pagan practice, and in several cases took action for Sorcery and Witchcraft against farmers who refused to farm such plots. Censure by the Church in those days was extremely serious, and could lead to complete social ostracism.

Now some of these sites were known as Goodman’s Fields for a very long time, and were characterised by the presence of many flints, hearths, heaps of stones and ash. It would make sense to assume these were what we would now call prehistoric archaeological sites; though of course then no such things were known. These places were instintively venerated and feared, as places with supernatural powers, but also places of the dead.

One particularly bad outbreak of Murrain happened as a result of a farmer cultivating a Faerie plot (or Goodman’s field) in Caithness. So severe was the outbreak of disease, that need-fire was used to overcome it. Need Fire or Force Fire was a ritual fire created using the age old method of friction.  Need is derived from Neat a  In this case, magical friction fire could only be created at a particular place in the parish and with certain other rituals in place (such as described in the The Golden Bough).

Bonfires kindled from the magical Need or Neat ( derived from the Old English word for Horned Oxen) Fire were used to cleanse Cattle by driving them through the flames. This is the origin for our November 5th (or more accurately November 1st Beltane) Bonfire Night celebrations.

While we all enjoy letting off  some fireworks or having a bonfire (well I do) to celebrate Beltaine, or Bonfire night, or Guy Fawkes night, we may get a fleeting glimpse into the lives of our forebears. Whether any farmers these days leave much land “for the faeries”….well it seems rather unlikely.  But perhaps leaving patches of land on farms (or elsewhere) “for nature” is much closer to maintaining this tradition, than we might think. One could apply the Ecosystem Services approach to Goodman’s Fields and ascribe spiritual value to them.  I also think the idea of self-willed land, which I have commented on here before, may be a modern parallel to such ancient beliefs.

But a far stronger modern parallel with Goodman’s Fields may be the Badger Cull. A mysterious and deadly cattle disease which appears as if from nowhere (up from the soil) to wreak havoc on farmers livelihoods and lives – this is the modern version of Murrain. A sacrifice must be made to expiate whatever gods, spirits or faeries have been angered. But this time, it’s not Goodman’s Fields which are created, but it’s Badgers which are scapegoated and sacrificed in a modern “transference of evil” ritual.

 

Posted in animism, badgers, churches, farming, self-willed land, spiritual value, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , | 9 Comments