It's quite interesting, isn't it, that the Government is getting into a bit of a tight spot over forestry sell-offs and lease-offs. People aren't uniformly enthusiastic about small government when it comes to slimming down the Forestry Commission and handing things over to Big Society. And to be fair, it's difficult to find much of Big Society that seems terribly keen on it either.
I was at an excellent conference on Saturday, organised by the Sussex Ornithological Society, where, after my talk, I was asked a question about forest sell-offs. The line that I gave was, of course, the same as in this blog. And it seemed to be pretty much what the audience thought too - dispose of some commercial forests, with safeguards, by all means, but protect the biodiversity-rich heritage sites.
And the same issues will be coming along with NNRs soon too.
As publicised over the Christmas break, a group of NGOs including the RSPB have agreed some principles about whether we would be prepared to take on heritage sites from NE and FC.
A love of the natural world demonstrates that a person is a cultured inhabitant of planet Earth.
petercrispin thanks first for Edward Thomas - I love that poem too, the way it conjurs up a perfect English countryside.
But thanks also for your comment about 'duties' of the FC because what the whole debate is showing is that the Government perception of Fc and what FC is to its 'users' are two completely different things. What we really need is a new remit for Fc, not, unusually, to change its direction but rather for Government and scoiety to catch up with where it is at and encourage it forward in the good work it is doing.
It has already happened: the New Forest has a 'Minister's Mandate' which instructs the Forestry Commission in its duties. Elliot Morley changed that mandate to make 'Conservation of the Natural and Cultural Heritage' the FC's first and overiding duty in the New Forest - as far as I'm aware, it may be a shock to him, that continues to be Jim Paice's mandate to the Forest - perhaps he could simply extend it to Fc as a whole and stop all this nonsense ?
Petercrispin, Thank you. You have just brought memories of 40+ years ago of studying Manley Hopkins at A level. Sprung rhythm and all that. Will have to get that book back out and read it again.
The Cotswold Water park sightings website
My Flicker page
Re NNR's and their management; there is hide on Shapwick that I call my "cathedral"; it is where I go to worship the simple peace and solitude of these beautiful places.
The Nature Conservancy Council used to have a poster of Gerald Manley Hopkins "Long Live the Wild and the Wilderness yet"; well to that I would like to add the line from Edward Thomas' Aldestrop although another title might be that of Hardy's "Far from the Madding Crowd"
"No one left and no one came
On that bare platform. What I saw
Was Aldestrop-only the name"
"And willows, willowherbs and grass,
And meadowsweet and haycocks dry,
No whit less still and lonely fair
Than the high cloudlets in the sky.
And for that minute a blackbird sang
Close by, and round him, mistier,
Farther and farther, all the birds
Of Oxfordshire and Gloucestershire.
Let those NGO bodies that take seek to take the credit from the public duty and yet conversely seek public funding for that credit and thereby in my view undermine that most important principle of the past 150 years of our society; let them consider the sentiments of Thomas' poem as one of the central principle that guides them on the management of NNR's.
Peter Plover
Hi Mark !
Early bird !
I still want to check with you re the new 150 million figure that I quoted last night; its down as I remember by 350 million pounds from the original Sell OFf value which is the success of the campaign fought by HOOF et al.
Now Melvyn Bragg, the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Sunday Times are calling this a privatisation too far. It seems to me the public value their "state forest farms" and trust the FC far more than you give credit. The campaign seems if anything to be widening and the stuff from the government about charities which has NOW been included will have to be funded; so it is difficult to see any advantages of the model that the government is proposing. Its just more moving of the goal posts while potentially losing long standing expertise and experience in places such as Forest of Dean; where there is a 50 strong team.
The point I have nt seen you comment on is which comes to the nub of this debate is that FC has an economic duty which it has to balance with its environmental duty; surely all one has to do is remove FC's economic duty in specific areas of amenity woods or biodiverisity value in the uplands or heaths ? Then all the sort of stuff that you have outlined is included in a future remit without the need for the break-up of experienced local teams ?
Re NNR's I am in 100 per cent agreement with Voyager Shapwick NNR is now a human buzz from 20 years ago when I could watch the starling roost in solitude ! To quote "nothing moved and nothing came". Bliss. I blame the TV !!!
Voyager, My post crossed with yours and as you will see takes a slightly different view on NNR disposal. Yet you will also see on a previous entry I am totally against the forest disposal.
I think the difference is arguably for similar reasons you are against it. NNRs are 'last bastions of land managed for conservation' but tend to be exactly that and tend (not always) to be discrete places that are visited by very few people for the scientific value, quietness and all the other words that people use. Most can be protected by specialist NGOs.
On the other hand Forests, as well as being wood growing locations and places of biodiversity are also places of public enjoyment where large numbers of people can get out and exercise, ride their bikes, pick up conkers, walk the dog and birdwatch without undue impact on that habitat. That is what I fear will be lost.