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.
A love of the natural world demonstrates that a person is a cultured inhabitant of planet Earth.
I have to say I think Jonathan Porritt has a good point. Environmental groups like the RSPB have been disappointingly quiet in this debate. Having said that, the reason why the campaign to Save Our Forests has been so powerful is that it has been a genuine grassroots campaign.
As Bob Philpott has already pointed out, the idea 'that a lot of the public outcry came before the consultation was published and is a response to speculation' is preposterous. The Forestry Minister did make the Government's intentions very clear before Christmas and the Public Bodies Reform Bill was going through Parliament before the consultation was published. This would give the Government the power to sell off all our forests.
Caroline Spelman's suggestion that those who have been opposing the Government's plans are simply misinformed has rightly caused considerable outrage. It's simply arrogant.
What is clear from the polls and the many public comments on this is issue is that the vast majority of people in this country want to keep these forest in public hands. We knew that was under threat before the consultation was published and the consultation itself has simply reconfonfirmed those fears.
The Forestry Commission may not be perfect but it is doing a pretty good job on our behalf. We cannot be confident that if this land ends up under different ownership we will retain the same rights of access and we can be pretty certain that private sector owners won't do as much as the Forestry Commission does now to encourage that access.
Private owners will also not have the incentive to go beyond the legal minimum in taking steps to improve the biodiversity of these forests. There are many great schemes that the Forestry Commission has led or been involved in. Of course there are some good examples of projects being carried out on private land but they are not typical. This matters - not just in the so-called 'heritage' forests but in those the Government is branding as 'commercial'.
I hope that the RSPB will not adopt the same position as the Woodlands Trust which says it just wants to save some of our public forests but seems happy to let the Government hand over the rest to private sector owners.
The RSPB is an excellent organisation which does a lot of great work. However, many people will feel very disappointed if you do anything that helps the Government justify transferring large parts of public forests to the private sector - even if it is on long leases.
The first issue we all need to address is the Bill rather than the consultation. Unless that is amended the consultation will be largely irrelevant and ministers will be able to sell off as much of the public forests as they want, whenever they want.
Bob - your right and things being done in the wrong order. Start with a plan and see how everything can contribute to it. Don't emasculate the plan by removing things that can really contribute and organisations and projects that can contribute.
The problem with the consultation is that it's in the narrow confines of what the Government thinks should happen and how it should happen. It's clear from responses I've heard from Joe and Janice Public that this makes it hard to respond and people end up up writing "not for sale". The only way I found to really get the message across was to be deliberately perverse at times to explain why some of the ideas in the consultation are fundamentally flawed. What they should have done was to identify through consultation what the important factors are and base the plan on that.
"There are no plans to change the ownership of the National Nature Reserves, and they remain, and will remain, in public ownership" is a definite U-turn. Natural England is currently laying off 400 staff. many of whom are planning to leave on the basis of the sell-off. It has been seen as a done deal for months. The proposed mutual ownership by wardens is not likely to be funded by UK public money.
If NNRs stay with Natural England or some new publicly-funded quango then it is a back down by Defra. A welcome one at that. Hopefully the public pressure is starting to pay-off, though the RSPB have hardly been at the forefront of this pressure, preferring to wait until the sham of the public consultation has finished.
Your idea, presumably just being floated at present, of the Government retaining NNR's and Heritage forests and merging FC and NE into a forestry and wildlife service together with a bigger involvement of the NGO's has to me a lot of "plus points" on the face of it, but as you say needs thinking through and discussing before becoming a firm proposal.
I see on the BBC news ceefax this lunch time they highlight that the RSPB is calling for the removal of plantation forestry on heathland. Good for the RSPB.
I think Jonathon Porrit is a bit of a "red herring" or "loose cannon" in all of this, but I am concerned about the current sale of up to 15% of woodlands that is outwith the consultation. What is being sneaked under the wire here?
redkite
Mark, You are keeping me busy today.
"She is right that a lot of the public outcry came before the consultation was published and is a response to speculation." Is she right to say that, I don't think she is. It was the Government through Jim Paice speaking to a select committee that said “We wish to proceed with… very substantial disposal of the public forest estate, which could go to the extent of all of it.” and "Our lawyers advise us that up to about 15% of the forest could be sold without risk of transgression of current legislation, which requires the Commission to own and manage the public estate. To get beyond that, we would need to change the law. That is the reason for it."
This all happened in November a long time before the consultation. No wonder there was an outcry and it wasn't speculation, the word 'sale' was clearly set out for all to see.
I have read the BBC link, thank you. We now have an offer to deal with habitat restoration. Very good, but that leaves us with current sales of forests already authorised, a consultation paper on forests, a Public Bodies Bill, a DEFRA White paper and a look at habitat restoration. It does strike me that some of those are actually coming to fruition in the wrong order.
Now at the end of all this when it is settled down and long gone, am I entitled to sue the Govt for raising my blood pressure on a regular basis?
The Cotswold Water park sightings website
My Flicker page