Forests and NNRs again - what are people saying?

I've already mentioned the Sunday Telegraph piece on non-sale and non-lease of National Nature Reserves but it's also covered in the Sunday Times. In both it's portrayed as a U-turn which is a little unfair as I don't think the decision had ever been made so it never had to be unmade.  We welcome this clarification and we have said all along that state retention of NNRs (and forests - and the two are similar issues) is fine by us.

Charles Clover, writing in the Sunday Times, has at least the benefit of a long memory. He is right to point out the sins committed by the Forestry Commission in the past and is good enough to remember that the RSPB had a major part in fixing them in places like the Flow Country of northern Scotland (where we are still active - now as land managers and habitat restorers).  Charles doesn't seem to like the FC too much - he bears a long grudge.  I'd say that FC has improved hugely over the last 25 years, but is not the paragon that others are currently wishing to portray. 

Clover is right to question what will happen to all those bits of FC land which are actually damaged heathlands.  His suggestion is that people like the RSPB should buy them up and fix them - as we are doing in the Flow Country.  But the difference is that the Flow Country forests are owned by private individuals whereas some of the damaged heathlands of Dorset, Hampshire and elsewhere are already owned by me and you.  And the BBC has covered this issue on its website too - and it's good to see that Defra has clocked the issue at least.

It's so tempting to lock Jonathon Porrit and Charles Clover in a room together.  And Jonathon hasn't posted my comment on his blog yet, but then neither has he come here to argue his case.

And also in the Sunday Times their correspondent Jonathan Leake (too many Jonathans and each with a different spelling of their name) has said that FC has speeded up sales of woodland ahead of the consultation.  And these sales lack the protections that may follow from future sales after the consultation.  So does that paint the FC in a good light or a bad light?  Victim or willing accomplice?  Or doesn't it matter that much?  It's interesting and it might be important.

And once more in the Sunday Times, Martin Ivens covers the bigger politics of forests and Big Society in general.  Is the FC part of a broken society?  And if it isn't broken quite what needs fixing?  From our perspective the FC is not in anyway wholly broken but nor are its environmental record or future plans perfect (see yesterday's blog for the way we see these things as shades of grey).  This may stem from the fact that the FC always reverts to being about timber when times are good and about public goods when it is threatened.  The quick retreat to growing timber, selling timber, the price of timber is never far away. 

And Mrs Spelman has just given a brave and spirited defence of the government position on forests on the Politics Show.  She is right to ask people to read the consultation and to send in their views. She is right that a lot of the public outcry came before the consultation was published and is a response to speculation.  I don't know why I feel a bit protective of Mrs Spelman, she certainly doesn't need my help, I guess it seems a bit unchivalrous to take her to task for things she hasn't said and hasn't yet done.  Having said that, there are, as is obvious, real concerns about the impacts of the government's proposals for forests and National Nature Reserves.  And the RSPB will make its views clearly and publicly known on the whole of the consultation paper within two weeks - and ask our members to respond to the consultation.

I have to say that the idea of a Forest and Wildlife Service which picks up managing our forests and our best nature sites does seem to have some obvious attractions.  But I'm still thinking about it.