Governments often find the environment difficult to deal with. In today's Independent Environment editor Mike McCarthy has a real go at the government and at Defra.
McCarthy says that based on what the government is actually doing, its aspiration to be the greenest government ever is risible.
He uses the sell-off of forests, proposed disposal of NNRs and the failure to do anything about some pesticides as examples. He could also have brought into play the proposals to bump off our badgers.
Whereas floods, avian flu and foot and mouth disease can be regarded as events that government has to deal with, the Big Society aim of shifting forests and NNRs and letting farmers get together to kill badgers are government decisions. No-one forced them to go this way - it was a choice. And these are choices that, without a rethink, may come together over the next few weeks to create a storm of protest over environmental issues.
Government has time to rethink over forests - that's what a consultation period allows - and we hope that they will moderate their proposals. The RSPB does not think that all current FC forests need to be retained in state ownership but it is the commercial ones which might go (with the right safeguards) and the heritage forests which might stay. We will study the consultation in detail and make our views known on our website within two weeks - and then we'll be asking our members to make their views known too. I feel sure that RSPB members will want to respond to the consultation.
And there isn't much money to be saved out of selling NNRs, or perhap even long term leases, so that idea doesn't have many legs either. There may be some scope for Defra to involve organisations like the RSPB (but there are lots of others) in managing England's finest nature sites - that's something we can talk about although it's not our idea and we aren't pushing it.
Badgers - let's see how Defra gets on with forests and NNRs first.
A love of the natural world demonstrates that a person is a cultured inhabitant of planet Earth.
Mark, your thoughts on the state forests seem spot on.
It seems mad for the government to mess around with the NNRs. There are a few bits here and there (and perhaps some bigger areas) that would be more logically combined with RSPB or Trust reserves. Otherwise very little point to it. The government doesn't seem to like the state owning things. Why are the NNRs any different from the contents of the national museums and galleries?
Three further thoughts. Firstly to my mind it takes what it takes to manage a heritage forest or an NNR no matter who does it, Natural England /FC for the Government, or charities like the RSPB, Wildlife Trusts, or The Woodland Trust, it will cost about the same give or take a little either way. Therefore it is not really acceptable for the Government in their consultation to say site management support costs from them will be gradually phased out over time. I think that has a little bit of the "off loading" principle behind it and as you say Mark the charities did not ask to take these forests over.
Secondly I really don't think the RSPB wants to get into managing sizeable entertainment/ play areas including children's climbing frames and mountain bike trails, which feature in several heritage forests.
Thirdly, and most importantly, as we have said before, this is a good opportunity to removed those forest plantations planted originally on prime habitat such as heathland and chalk grassland. Despite the FC's committment to do this under the previous Government it is extremely disappointing that the current Government has not continued this committment into the current consultation (-not at all the greenest and not supportive of biodiversity). I trust this committment will be reinstated as part of the consultation process.
redkite