Editor,

It was entirely predictable that the farming unions would come out in opposition to the reintroduction of beavers into the wild in Wales (Concerns raised over plans to re-introduce beavers, Cambrian News, 17 Feb).

Beavers were driven to extinction in the UK something like 400 years ago, while their range and numbers dwindled across Europe to such an extent that re-introduction projects began in Sweden exactly 100 years ago. Since then 200 re-introduction projects have taken place in 25 European countries. At least ten such projects are currently under way in England and Scotland.

The beaver has been described as a ‘keystone species’. It is widely recognised that through the construction of their dams, beavers create numerous new riverine habitats leading to increased biodiversity in all sorts of ways. It is known that by slowing down the flow of water, their dams also help to prevent flooding along riversides further downstream. It seems like a win-win situation.

Wales is one of the most nature-depleted countries in the world and it seems that the Welsh farming unions are doing their very best to make sure this remains the case.It is almost touching to read about the NFU’s sudden concern for biodiversity in their opposition to the re-introduction of wild beavers.

The farming unions’ public relations campaigns promoting the idea of “family farms” which “look after the environment” really are quite laughable, given the history of the loss of biodiversity on Welsh farmland.

Family farms are just as capable of causing the destruction of nature as any other kind of farm, especially when it is repeated time after time again over extensive stretches of the countryside.“Looking after what’s left of the environment” might be a more accurate description of many farmers’ relationship with their land.

The NFU’s focus on any possible negative effects of wild beavers in Wales was paralleled by the FUW’s implacable opposition to the Summit to Sea “rewilding“ project.

Continually promoting the incorrect assertion that rewilding would be compulsory was one method used by the FUW to discredit the project.

In a long personal email from one of its senior officers I learned why they objected so strongly to rewilding. It was full of misunderstandings, half-truths, selective quotations and anti-English sentiment. There was an attempt to use conservation terminology but barely a hint of actual ecological understanding. Likewise in your article, Mr Parry-Jones seems to be suggesting that “the delicate balance of the earth’s ecosystem” would be upset more seriously by the presence of wild beavers than all the agricultural activity in Wales.

Perhaps he sees activities like regular re-seeding, fertilizer and pesticide use, over-grazing, tree felling and intensive poultry units as part of “nature’s balance”?

The truth is the agricultural community is terrified of losing control over “nature”. It would be quite contrary to their whole way of life.

There is, of course, a minority who produce food organically or farm using other nature-friendly methods, and this criticism would not apply to them. And one might be able to swallow the arguments of the majority if they weren’t so reliant on public subsidies for their continued existence.Let us hope that the Welsh Government’s forthcoming Agriculture Bill clearly puts into practice the new mantra of “Public Money for Public Goods”.

And as regards the beaver project, let us hope that Natural Resources Wales has the courage at last to overrule the intransigence of its opponents, and gives it the go-ahead.But I’m not holding my breath.

Jeremy Moore, Penrhyncoch