How dramatic!  The Prime Minister kills off his own policy in a brutal and public manner (BBC, Guardian, Independent). 

The RSPB is quoted as follows in the Independent: "If the Government abandons the policy, that is fine by us. This whole debate has shown the public care about forests and how we are going to have better ones in the future.".

The consultation on the future of forests will be scrapped (does that mean government is not interested in our views on the subject any more?), some of the clauses from the Public Bodies Bill will be removed (but it remains an awful Bill) and a panel of experts will be set up to look at access and biodiversity issues within publicly owned woodland (and presumably non-woodland areas owned or managed by the Forestry Commission).

This story has a long way to go.  After such a public outcry the status quo is no longer an option, but government no longer wants to know what you think on the subject.  Hmmm.

This is a defeat for Big Society as an idea - isn't that the Prime Minister's big idea?  If a forest sell-off is no longer going to happen then the State is going to remain as a major player in the business of growing commercial timber crops.  What happened to Small Government and what are the implications for all other aspects of the Government's Small Government/Big Society programme?

The Public Bodies Bill will be amended - but remains a fundamentally awful Bill which would allow any future government huge powers to abolish, merge or amend public bodies, many of them Defra bodies, into the future.  At least Defra was consulting on its radical Big Society plans for forests - the Public Bodies Bill would allow many equally dramatic and controversial measures to be made without public consultation.

Are forestry sales now halted?  I'm not sure we know. Will those sales that were put on-hold be allowed to proceed now?  They were put on hold because it was thought foolish to go ahead with sales when government was consulting on the added safeguards that were thought to be needed to protect their wildlife, and access to those woods.  Government is no longer consulting on that issue.  So...?

And what does this mean for Defra's budget?  Were the projected income figures from forest sales built into Defra's CSR settlement with the Treasury?  I suspect they were.  So is there now a hole in Defra's budget?  I suspect there is.  What will be the knock-on environmental impacts of that budgetary shift?

And the status quo is rarely good enough.  The mixing up of making a buck and delivering a public service that is the current Forestry Commission is too peculiar to last.  We welcome the setting up of an expert panel, and the RSPB would be keen to play a part in its work, but we will have to see what is its remit.  It should be allowed to look at the role of the Forestry Commission and see whether its current remit is well-suited to the delivery of public access and a richer wildlife in our publicly owned forests, heaths and grasslands.

And what does this mean for National Nature Reserves?  What is their future now?

As I say, this issue has a long way to go.  How many people will stick with it for the long run?  The RSPB will.

 

  • Mark you say -

    trimbush - interesting post but whilst the government is spending my money I have a stake in what they spend it on.

    Firstly - May I remind you that your role is that of Conservation Director of a Charity - with all the associated legal obligations

    Secondly - I take it then that both you and the RSPB and its members (have you asked them?) are happy with paying out an increasing £100 million each year for allowing an ever-increasing number of Diseased Badgers to fatally infect cattle, alpaca, pigs, deer etc etc and do nothing

    What are your answers to both of the above?    

  • Miles - rubbish - Why can the FC not grow conifers. Conifers provide a wonderful habitat for many woodland species like Pied Flycatcher, Redstart, Crossbill, Woodcock, Goshawk not to mention the main habitat for Red Squirrel. Private Forestry will never manage their woodlands for wildlife other than game birds and then the Birds of Prey will be removed like Goshawk, Tawny and Long eared Owl. The old plantations of the past are now being changed into timber and wildlife corridors by FC. Golden Eagle, Hen Harrier and Black Grouse are the birds of the future. Vast areas of British Uplands have been left with soil erosion damaging lakes and rivers in many areas and causing flash floods many owned by the National Trust especially in the Lake District. Real management is needed. Look at Iceland turning eroded hill sides into forest. Non native trees encourage native trees to establish as the micro climate is established keeping out those Arctic winds. I just hope 'cowboys' will not end up on this panel to advise the government as they obviously did before.

  • Trimbush

    I am not sure what the relevance of the Big Wheel in York is to the debate about selling off forests or not but for what it is worth (a) I don't see anything wrong with proposers of a big wheel having to take due account of its possible impacts on bats and (b) from the report I heard (on BBC Look North News) the Big Wheel proposal fell because it was deemed that it would adversely affect some views of York Minster.

  • nightjar - thank you.  The inalienable forests of England - sounds good to me.

    Keith Fitton - this is the end of the beginning I think. So, have a breather but don't think it's finished.

    Bob - you aren't the only one who has lost the plot - if you have - I'm not sure that David Cameron looked on the top of his game in terms of collective responsibility or seeing the big picture yesterday.

    peter crispin - I'm glad that you are pleased.  But this isn't the end of the game.

    trimbush - interesting post but whilst the government is spending my money I have a stake in what they spend it on.  And I try to be tolerant of all views here but even more so when the poster describes me as 'young man'.

    CPAGB20 - or may I call you CP? There do seem to be cycles of this activity.  What is different this time is that the Countryside and Rights of Way Act has reduced, but not totally eliminated, the angst over public access to FC land.

    Miles - I liked your blog but I might not always let you pinch my readers!

    redkite - thank you.  I need to find that website.

  • Listening to the BBC news at 1.00pm, Mark, the current hullabaloo surrounding the forest issue may mean that politically, it will not now be possible for the Government to sell any forests, not even the commerial plantations. So while I would still strongly support your proposal (and my comments) on your earlier blog this morning, it may well be that some alternative thinking needs to be done on the basis that no woodlands or very few will now be sold. However as you say, this still has a long way to run, with, I am sure, lots of twists and turns to come, so it is excellent the RSPB will be there and ready with its expertise and inputs .