Forest Commission and NNR Sell Off; STIR YOUR STUMPS NOW OR NEVER; to the Lords and Ladies

It seems to me that the RSPB is being thoroughly and unusually seduced by this government; are the personal charms of Ms Spellman a "wooing" "the boys" here; if so they are not alone for the Wildlife Trusts seem to be harking the same tune.

I see the narrow call of "self and private interests" here and not the "public"interest; are these funds not desperately needed somewhere else for other conservation projects; what is the pay off here; this is most uncharacteristic of RSPB who would normally demarcate this line quite clearly. This is a loss of available charitable conservation capital to target natural capital and depends largely on the sort of woodland that is being sold off ie deciduous in the south east or larger tracts including conifers and only 8% will be charitable I believe; I am not a lawyer but is that not acting against their own charitable interests ?

Heads in the "charitable sector" are clearly being turned by what they see as an enhanced role under the Big Society; what is needed is clear definition re costs of these changes which will not save money.

Caroline Spellman has mishandled this Sell Off spectacularly. She announced a Sell Off; then in response to the outcry a Sell Off she has been forced to row back considerably on amenity forests by powerful local campaigns such as HOOF in the Forest of Dean while the wildlife charities have sat on their hands.

In my view the Forestry Commission should be retained with its local expertise and experience ; in the Forest of Dean or New Forest all that is required is for its economic duty to timber production is removed; similarly on heathlands and uplands of ecological significance; we need a timber industry and expertise in disease control. This is another unnecessary managerial new broom; "It ai'nt Bust so dont Fix it"

I have to admit that in the early days, the Forestry Commission were rightly perceived as the enemy, planting hundreds of millions of conifers in my part of Northern England and destroying the habitat of tens of thousands of moorland birds. They have learned well though and in the last 30 - 40 years have reintroduced many native species of hardwoods on the fringes of the main forests. They have even been filling in drainage ditches and blasting out peat to make small ponds on the moorlands - this has been very successful in recreating habitat for upland birds. Thousands of nesting boxes have been erected for birds and mammals and new platorms built for Ospreys. A fine job has been done - "at the taxpayers expense".

The questions is - would private companies, who buy up tens of thousands of acres of forest for timber production, be prepared to do so much at their own expense? - I suspect not. Let's face it, they are not funded by us nor are they charities. I do know of private estates in Scotland, who appear to be combining the profit-making parts of the land with eco-tourism, very successfully, with local produce being sold, interpretive trails and vistor attractions, all providing the public with recreation, yet keeping visitors to certain areas where they won't disturb wildlife. These estates do everything well, but their main income is not timber production and is more likely to be tourism.

Can privatisation of forests be achieved without wholesale destruction of habitat? - Yes.  Will it? - probably not.

In response to Guy:     My M.P wrote back to me using exactly the same words. 

Party Politics aside.    The letter refers to 25,000 acres sold by the last government but doesn't refer to the 100,000 acres put up for sale last month at market value outside of and not part of the dscussion paper.  This area of land gets a short paragraph in the paper to point out it this is excluded but you have to dig into the FC website to find the details.

In response to Robbo.  The problem with this discussion paper in my mind is that it has hidden the fact, on which you can't submit an opinion, is that the Public Bodies Bill if unamended will allow future Ministers of any political persuasion to sell any forested land they want without discussion or parliamentary approival.

Rob,

         Re larch I said mixed plantations not monocultures and reiterate the main debate should be in the uplands; we have won a lot of ground from the original Sell Off proposals which had no outriders or proviso's at all. Thats where the debate needs to go.

          Bob Philpott makes a really key point here " In response to Robbo.  The problem with this discussion paper in my mind is that it has hidden the fact, on which you can't submit an opinion, is that the Public Bodies Bill if unamended will allow future Ministers of any political persuasion to sell any forested land they want without discussion or parliamentary approval".

         These are the woods that have been managed to a higher stewardship level thus far and we have been able to influence at FC as posted by Border Rivera and my experience in Wales. Also there is considerable concern that in breaking up FC you will lose the ability to monitor the control of forest disease. 

Coalition scraps plans for sell off of Nature Reserves

To use football parlance " I am over the moon"; I am truely and utterly delighted, this is the best late Christmas present for some years.

This was always a silly plan; running these extraordinary and beautiful places costs a small drop in the ocean compared to the big budgets of NHS, pensions, education the military etc.

The government was shooting itself in the foot.

Interestingly it was Tory rebels, including Zac Goldsmith that shot this down; which again suggests the Liberals are a total waste of space; they really have nt got a clue as to when and where to effectively throw their weight.

Have you completed the Public Consultation Document? 

kerry g said:

Have you completed the Public Consultation Document? 

Interestingly one of the campaigns against this forest disposal is advising people to delay completing the consultation.  It is challenging it on the grounds that the legislation that will permit the sale of forests is likely to be passed before the consultation is completed.  I am not sure that I agree with not filling it in but it does seem possible that the Public Bodies Bill will complete before the consultation.

Hi Bob,

                  Well I heard at my dance class (which is always the best place to pass on matters of environmental gossip from) and at the moment i have not substantiated this, (but it comes from a most attractive and professional source)  that this "consultation" is being legally challenged by a trades union. Now it seems to me that, if ever there were grounds, you have just outlined a most substantial case.

                 I find it incredible that a Conservative government having not placed this in their Manifesto, having not debated this at the election is now undertaking such a farcical consultation.

                  This is government at its weakest, inexperienced perhaps, profoundly undemocratic certainly.