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.
BobPhilpott - just check the NHS is still there first! Many of the wound up public were led to believe that sites like the Forest of Dean were about to be axed - that was never on the cards.
Peter Crispin 1 - read every one, think about every one. That's what the comment function is for - you are part of a community here. By the way, Jonathon Porrit still hasn't posted my comment on his blog. different people do things differently.
Peter Crispin 2 - we seem to agree that a FWS might work. I think it is an idea worth persevering with. And on the Public Bodies Bill, its significance is far greater than forest futures. It is a bad Bill, a thoroughly bad Bill, a terrible Bill. And the RSPB is working with parliamentarians on that subject with great enthusiasm.
Voyager - I think this blog has highlighted the plight of NE more than anyone else. And the transfer of management of NNRs out of NE is still what government is looking at. Another reason why ownership is not the only and sometimes not the most important issue.
Jockeyshield - I see. A bit sweeping?
FriendoftheForests - welcome to the RSPB community and this blog. Thoughtful and welcome comments. We have been working in Parliament on the Public Bodies Bill and will continue.
redkite - thank you.
Hi Mark
I have tracked back to what I said in Jan; here it is !
"The posting by Miles above makes clear that NNR's also should remain in public management; if savings are to be found let it be from other areas of the CAP not the prime environmental sites of national and international importance and their integrated and national management. This is most important in principle.
I am saying that the FC and NNR campaigns should be linked together in a defence of principle. Certainly that the FC principle broadleaved and recreation sites and NNR's should beincluded together as "public commons"; the integrity of management of large sites such as The New Forest or Forest of Dean should also be maintained. Landscape management is nt that the objective; this privatisation and fragmentation of management seriously affects that key aspiration?"
Its more or less the idea of a Wildlife and Forestry Service; I have mooted the idea to friends but I did not set it out as clearly here; what you have said is one step on from what I am saying here; anyway ideas unconsciously merge in group debates anyway and the original source is hard to pin down.
I simply say its a good idea.
However will RSPB agree to a joint position within the Wildlife and Countryside Alliance that sets out clearly its position re amendments to the Public Bodies Bill currently before the House of Lords to prevent this dismemberment of the FC and enable the above to become reality ?
All these charities should be condemned for their lack of support to the public. 85 % do not want the sale and must include most of their members. The fact they want to be given 'our' land so they can send letters to us asking for money to run 'our' land is a joke. We know they are weak when coming to 'Rock the boat' but this time the waves might come back and sink some of their membership.
Hi,
Well Mark I hope that RSPB takes a full note of the comments here; Not Content I would suggest
Just watched Caroline Spelman on the Politics Show. She seems to be claiming that the whole sell off is merely an "open consultation". As Bob says above, this doesn't seem to have been Defra's initial view. Interesting also that she claims the importance of the "primacy of parliament" at a time when the Public Bodies Bill will override such a thing. Why put forward such a Bill if the whole sell off is an idea that is open to full discussion?
Hopefully this is the beginning of a careful back down from an inexperienced government, but if so they seem to have put the cart before the horse if they are going to keep all this land in the public sector whilst shedding jobs from the agencies which look after them.