I was interested to see the FT Westminster blog pick up on the fact that we aren't pushing ourselves forward to run the New Forest.
And I've done a radio interview with Farming Today (BBC R4) and a TV interview with the Politics Show (BBC1 - Sunday) on the same subject. Everybody is talking forests at the moment.
So let's talk about something else. I was interested to see the Agriculture and Forestry (ooops, I mentioned the F word again) Minister, James Paice, talking tough about the Campaign for the Farmed Environment last week.
According to Farmers Guardian, Mr Paice praised the work of the Campaign in using targeted land management to deliver valuable environmental benefits and said: “The Government is putting food production back up the agenda, but we have made it clear that this must be done alongside protecting and enhancing the environment and farmers must show they can do both.
“We want the Campaign to be a success and don’t believe that we should regulate and impose more red tape if the farming community can achieve the same results through its own actions.
“The CFE is the farming industry’s chance to demonstrate that this voluntary approach can work better than regulation and that they are best placed to decide on, and tackle, their local environmental priorities, without intervention.
“But if the farming community cannot step up and achieve these results voluntarily the Government will have to consider a compulsory approach to deliver these same benefits.”
From next Monday, Defra will be sending out the annual survey of land managed under the CFE to 5,500 farmers and land managers across England. The survey will reveal what voluntary measures they have put in place to support the campaign and will help determine its future.
NFU President Peter Kendall applauded ‘those farmers and advisers who are ensuring that the Campaign has already had real impact’ but said compulsory measures were a ‘real threat’ unless more is done.
He said: “I urge those who are about to renew their Environmental Stewardship agreements or considering entering, to choose key target options, those that deliver most for wildlife and resource protection. The success of our industry’s campaign lies in our hands.”
There are some chickens, skylarks and corn buntings coming home to roost here. Way back, when I was a naive and energetic blogger, I wrote on 20 May 2009 about how Peter Kendall might be worried about getting what he asked for on the subject of a voluntary approach to replacing the wildlife value of set-aside. And then when Hilary Benn announced that he was going with the NFU's(and CLA's) voluntary approach I pointed out, 10 July 2009, that Defra were putting 'a huge amount of trust in the NFU's ability to persuade farmers' and then when the Campaign for the Farmed Environment was launched on 5 November 2009 we wished it well but questioned whether the voluntary approach would work. It's not too late for it to work - but clearly government and farmers aren't exactly cock-a-hoop at this test of Big Society.
And I notice that on 10 July 2009 I wondered whether Peter Kendall's own farm would be having skylark patches - I still wonder.
Nightjar----subsidies have held farming back far too long as long as level playing field british farmers will do really well but of course the U K government has absolutely no control over subsidies so threats are pointless for all practical purposes what French and Germans decide as European policy goes just look how our immigration,fishing,laws etc etc.For all practical purposes we are ruled by Brussels but for sure 100% ruled on subsidies,the U K government all the time try to get them cut because of the drain on U K tax payer but Europe over rules them.U K Government are now very small fry in big lake.
I think the total designated is 42% - and there's been realtively little mention of the huge areas of Natura 2000 sites - almost the whole of Thetford is SPA, the New Forest SAC & Ramsar. More is under discussion for Nightjar & Woodlark SPA in the Sherwood area and the North Yorks Moors forests probably qualify (up from 50 which was seen as very good when i surveyed them in the early 80s to over 200 pairs today).
And, Sooty, it won't come to force - but it could come to subsidy - Mrs Spelman has made it clear things are going to change and wildlife-free farming might want to consider whether its ready to be subsidy free too ?
Think it reads differently whether you have a preconceived idea that farmers will not do anything.How I read it seems quite positive reaction perhaps surprisingly so and is the first time I personally as I would suggest a critic normally of the NFU are pleasantly surprised by them looking positive but all these things take time to come to fruition.
Force will not work so no one should even contemplate that approach and while I would in a perfect world hope all farmers embraced wildlife how would it help if farmer Giles collects grants for Skylark patches under force,Skylarks nest there and not being happy by force puts his size 10 welly on nests.
Anyone talking about force is without doubt wrong and normally I am quite happy for anyone to have a different opinion.Even a army could not police force on farmers it is too big an area.
Would not be surprised if the Governments attitude changed a bit as where we produced 75% of food as home produced soon it will be 50% and when someone wakes up to the cost of importing that 25% of food we could get back on the productivity band wagon.
Feel sure the way is to go along voluntary route and every say 4 farmers that go into schemes another one will follow seeing it as a good chance to get on the band wagon.
Hi,
Talking forests and below is Porrit's latest blog. Its seriously worth a read; its an integrated overview. We now know now that 25% of the forest estate is in National Parks and that this doesnt include New Forest and Forest of Dean; so how much more is in AONB's ? How much of the forest estate is under some form of landscape designation? All in a Forest and Wildlife Service funded by the whole forest operation with entry remaining free at the point of access for all recreation activities ? Thats my addendum !
www.jonathonporritt.com/pages
For me it makes great deal of sense to include NNR's in with the entire forest estate; given that my understanding is that public forestry is run to higher environmental standards than private forestry the whole focus of this debate should actually be on the standards of private forestry; why and how is it that we are even prepared to be talking about breaking up the public forest estate? Especially given the Inheritance Tax break ?
Would echo Sootys view and add that I suspect there is a divide between those who already carry out 'environmental' work voluntarily because they see it of value themselves and want to see a countryside with diverse wildlife and are not doing it because they are being told to. Then there's the other side - the hard nosed business run organisations that won't give a square inch to wildlife unless they are 'compensated' or forced to do so. But then I'm not a farmer (nor a Land Agent) - but I know a few farmers who subscribe to both approaches. Rather amusingly 2 farmers who are neighbours who have opposing views on this and one blames the other for the pesky Hares 'decimating' a wheat field... The reality is that very little will change by those at the top who write and mutter platitudes - it will be on the ground where those in the countryside need to be convinced and learn from the excellent examples of others.