The PaddlerUK magazine March 2015 issue 1 | Page 43

Access agreements
are based on the misunderstanding that
the relevant sections of the rivers are private

The petitions committee commented after a short
inquiry: “We believe that the clear balance of rights in
Scotland has inherently moved the access debate forward
onto a more productive footing.”
“Different parties in Scotland have been able to leave
behind cul-de-sac positions concerning who has which
legal rights on their side...
“We therefore suggest it provides a useful basis from
which a unique Welsh model may be developed.”

Same failed strategy

In 2010, despite the Petitions Committee’s
recommendations; following a full inquiry which heard
how voluntary agreements had failed to work, and of
the success achieved in Scotland; Welsh Government
decided to continue with the same failed strategy by
recommending:
G
the setting up of voluntary access agreements by
landowners
G
that SPLASH funding be targeted at these pilot
projects; and that
G
the effects of the pilot projects should be closely
monitored and the outcomes widely disseminated.

By coincidence, Rev Caffyn completed his PhD the
same year, and in 2011 wrote, “…expenditure on
negotiating access agreements, and the resulting delay in
implementing the policy, is not required. Access
agreements are based on the misunderstanding that the
relevant sections of the rivers are private.”
Over the next two years, a series of ‘Round-Table
Discussions’ took place, and ‘SPLASH’ funded projects
were implemented. More than £2m of public money
was spent, with no demonstrable improvement in
public access to inland water.

ThePaddlerUK 43