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.
A love of the natural world demonstrates that a person is a cultured inhabitant of planet Earth.
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.
Peter Plover