I feel a bit for Defra over the subject of flogging off the family trees - the nation is up in arms over it. But it's not clear what 'it' is yet.
Every now and then Caroline Spelman produces reassurances in the media or parliament which actually look quite reassuring - see here, here and here. and yet the subject does not go away (see here, here, here and here). Let's wait and see what the consultation says - and then look to fix anything that is wrong with it. Or maybe I'm getting soft?
Back in October this blog set out the RSPB's view that there may be some sense in the state selling off some purely commercial, intensive forest plantations and yet we would be worried if forests of high nature conservation value are not protected. That remains our overall take on the subject.
I can understand why the residents of the Forest of Dean do not want their forest destroyed - but as I understand it, the Forest of Dean is Crown land and can't be sold. Am I wrong?
What we may see is that some forest land is sold - let's make sure they are the right areas. It isn't unreasonable for government to look at selling off some assets or to look at different methods to get those forests managed. But let's see what government proposes. Maybe we in the RSPB will hate the proposals - and if so then we'll say so, and be as bolshy as everyone else!
And I have just noticed that the article in the Independent over the Christmas break about NGOs and NNRs prompted a very nice letter from a Mr Crocker from Gloucestershire and a slightly blustering letter from Defra Minister James Paice. Mr Crocker - nice letter though it was - is wrong to say that the RSPB is rich and wrong to say that we don't know much about all those species that are not birds - but all the nice things he says are completely true. And Mr Paice seems to say that the Independent article is wrong and then confirms much of what it said! That's clear then.
If any ancient woodland is sold we need cast-iron guarantees that they will be protected in perpetuity. I am against the idea of selling any woodland. If the government presses forward, organisations such as the RSPB must demand permanent protection for our woodlands - preferably with a clause that keeps the right to buy back the woodlands (at a reduced rate) at any time in the future if bodies such as the RSPB (not the government) believe the woodland to be under threat. I am quite prepared to march and protest if any woodland is threatened!
Madeleine Longhurst
Hi Mark,
Stage 1 Victory to 38 Degrees as Sell Off seems rolled back a bit !
Mark I am pretty happy with what you have said; however as with NHS reforms I wonder whether any savings will actually be won through what seems like bureaucratic duplications ie Forest of Dean and Isle of Wight with rightly FC overview. But why reform when you are trying to make savings ? Its just complicates things.
I would note that your emphasis is on the lowland heathland ! My major worry is that in all this the upland tracts are going to be forgotton about and leased off to EFG; what about recovery of upland soils and streams re acidification; no vociferous lobby groups and key area of international interest.
My gut feeling remains that simply opposing this nonsensical reform is probably the simplest way forward. Retain expertise and cores of experience in places like Forest of Dean where there are 50 staff and a huge forest estate. The FC only costs 10 million a year and tagging on greater local control might be the way forward but we know with National Parks local councillors/farmers is a bloody nightmare because local is often "ignorant and proud of it". The tension between increasing local representation on national duties does not necessarily lead to greater wildlife value. I would also note that FC record on Stewardship must not be lost by private leased takeover.
I stand by the view that simply retaining the FC is the best way forward; there is very little to be gained here especially when we really need a timber industry to deliver sustainable housing. This reform seems a waste of energy and effort to me and should be opposed; these proposals are principally to avoid defeat in the Lords in my view and as such are a distraction. A generation ago we defeated this sort of nonsense; as with Cancun our movement seems to suffer 10 reverses for every 1 success.
I do not applaud this at all.
Love ----think you would find that I have perhaps in 99% of cases been the encouraging force for more comments and you would find with a bit of looking at early blogs we struggled for numbers on Marks blog and of course you could not find 5 minutes to comment on his blog while getting everything right on conservation front and now that it is all pucker you managed to join on the same day with a big plea which I am quite comfortable that all members will make there own decision on as I always allowv people to have their opinion and me the same but do not plead for everyone to follow me.
Wiggleywormhole - welcome and that's a great post - belated thank yous!
Loveitorloseit - welcome - and thank you too. Your comments are very welcome and Sooty will feel bad that he has upset you I am sure.
Tomorrow we will probably see what the government actually says about forests. We'll read the proposals carefully, think about them and then respond. I am sure that there will be things with which we will taqke issue. But they may not be the things that have been rattling around in the media for the last few weeks. Not long to wait now - a matter of hours probably.
Sooty
I am completely and utterly mystified by your comments and, quite honestly, very upset. My aim in submitting my post was not, I repeat not, to get members to support 'my' scheme. It is not mine. I have no connection whatever to 38 degrees. My aim was to do everything in my power and to play whatever part I could in all of us conservationists banding together to stop this rotten selloff in its tracks. As regards joining the forum with some ulterior motive then posters have to join at some point. As regards giving a monkeys about you and other RSPB supporters I don't recall offending any one of the posters in any way, shape or form. And how exactly am I supposed to prove to you that I care about you as a person? I would have thought being polite would be a good start, which I went out of my way to do.
And anyway, Sooty, why shouldn't the one million RSPB members oppose the forestry sell-off? It would appear that you have set yourself up as judge of what members can and cannot respond to, and now police 'your' forum in a vain attempt to censor anyone who dares to post in your chosen arena.
Sooty, I suppose I should accept that every Internet forum is bedevilled by these kinds of flame wars, but you really, really do seem to have the wrong end of the stick here. The reason that I was not posting a year ago was not some sort of conspiracy of ignorance, it was that I was doing other things, as you were before you first joined. In my case that was digging ditches, fencing, scrub clearing, hedge laying, doing bird and insect surveys and generally busting a gut in doing about £20,000 worth of the conservation voluntary work I've done over the last 10 years.
So I, and I expect the other poster who recently joined whom you also criticised, am not, repeat not, taking advantage. What I am trying to do is my best. I can only sincerely hope that you stop lashing out at any newcomer who joins 'your' forum and you start looking again at the monstrous threat we all face from these truly terrible forestry proposals. United we stand, divide we ...