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.
Well wiggly if this your first welcome and what a way to start.
There are so many sides to this. I might be a bit dim but.. Let's see if I've got this right.. Forestry Commission is an arm of government and therefore the government is entitled to sell Forestry Commission land... However, do the 'government' (our current government) actually own the land that they intend to sell to individuals and corporate interests? How is it that they own it? Is it not the case that the British people own it and the Forestry Commission manage it for us? Does taxation pay for the Forestry Commission? I'm just a little confused about how any particular government can 'own' so much land? Are we over looking one rather obvious flaw to the intended sell off?
At the ecological level there are some interesting issues. I find it hard, personally, to be convinced that non-native plantations are absolutely useless in every way. They're certainly not ideal but (leaving aside the brooding majesty of a 40 year old dark hulk of Sitka in (what some consider) an otherwise bleak/featureless and in many ways manmade landscape. Leaving aside the gut churning sadness of the scars left when these familiar plantations are scraped away over the course of a few months. Their very presence (apart from acidifying the water table perhaps :( ) must serve some purpose in controlling land erosion and rain water seepage? Forty acres of roots, above a little riverside village, must be having some positive effect? Must do something to alleviate the destrustive force of helm winds and such like.
Has no native species evolved to find timber plantation useful?
The whole environmental issue of trees and carbon capture/retention is so complicated I'm not even going to start with it except to say that I've heard that thoughtful/subtle felling of spruce plantation (to use as fuel) is a hell of a lot 'greener' than burning fossil fuels. A whole lot prettier (yet I quite like them) than wind turbines. Very complicated though, depends on type and age and where.
Before news of forest sell off reached us we, on the border of Northumberland/Cumbria/Durham, started to notice the 'woodland for sale' signs and before we could co-ordinate to react they were sold and new roads were being constructed to facilitate the timber extraction. All over the place. It seems like every familiar plantation is being clear felled in the area. No idea who has bought (one private interest or is it just suddenly fashionable to sell timber) the land but is it just a co-incidence that it's all being cleared at the same time? I found the sale schedule for one particular wood, which was very close to my heart, and it was stated that the purchaser would also have mineral and hunting rights on the land. I'm probably extremely suspicious but, about a year ago, there was some local discussion and hoohaa about a Canadian Zinc mining company seeking to test mine for zinc in the area. The discussion, at that time, was whether the suggested employment opportunities were a cruel tease or would it infact mean an imported work force who would catastrophically burdon already stretched local infrastructure. Now I really suspect that all the plantations sold locally came with a promise of mineral rights and our community is going to become an enclave of Canadian Zinc mining via the back door.
This is what happens when it's confusing who actually 'owns' land and it is sold into the private sector.
Hi Peter good points but of course the wealthy pensioners you spoke of almost certainly paid massive taxes during 50 years working because for sure to be a wealthy pensioner you have to earn a massive amount during you working life and of course you would not realise but that wealthy pensioner will still be paying considerable taxes though retired.
Find the point about trees difficult as I would like to keep conifers where Red Squirrels are or could expand to as that seems there preferred habitat.
Hi Sooty; glad you laughed but very serious point; why are we so burdening the young ? My Dad God Bless him "benefited" greatly here for he lived to 91 and I am sure his pension was geared to age 70 life expectancy when he was contributing.
Mark; I think you and RSPB are letting the public down with this stuff about "state forestry farms"; the questions remain about the environmental record of private forestry and the management of landscape; two very good letters in today's Guardian; I personally wish to row back on letting large upland tracts go.
The truth is that if this government wishes to be the "greenest" ever then surely the replanting of conifer monoculture with greater numbers of native broadleaves to prevent the further acidification of soils and streams is the way for ward; ie larch etc.
At this moment I am very anxious that Baroness Royall is sacrificing the wider public interest re public woodlands for her own birthright as a "Forester of Dean" and focusing solely on the defence of the Forest of Dean and the traditional rights.
Peter Plover
Thought that funny Peter but I want to live a bit longer got a special day out on Mull planned in September,your comment stumped me and perhaps I have to be thankful society has been so generous with us and did not give us a jab on reaching 65 and said thanks goodby been nice to know you and with that put us 6ft under.