Hi,
I hope you all have been following the debate re National Nature Reserve and Forest Commission Sell Off. Well if not, it is damn near done and dusted; its through Parliament and beyond the Lords 2nd Reading; it was not in either Tory or Liberal manifesto and NOT consulted on prior to legislation . Its been rammed through in a fashion that defies the spirit and conventions of our democracy.
38 Degrees deserve a great deal of credit for their petition, which while a bit inaccurate as least put up a bit of resistance, which has been totally lacking from the established nature conservation NGO's ie FoE, RSPB, WWF and Wildlife Trusts; with one notable exception well done Woodland trust. Where an earth have the others been ? Sitting quivering before the Tory Big Society ?
Not a peep re National Nature Reserves; not a petition not a sound from the entire nature conservation movement. These are very finest ecological sites.
As our beleagured ecology sinks below the pressure of industrialisation and the burden of a populous and extravagant humanity do NGO's have the strength to take the weight off the state's responsiibility ? When the FC costs only 10 million a year and the NNR's a drop in the ocean of the CAP state subsidies. In all honesty who is privatising what when the whole of UK agriculture receives European state subsidies to the tune of £3 billion; much of it directly into the pockets of the Tory Landowners that are providing the votes in the Commons and the Lords. Its a dogma driven shuffling of the chairs.
There is one last chance; influence the Liberals and Cross benchers; pick up a pen and write to the Lords; decry the Forest Sell OFF. How can you sell something like The Forest of Dean or the New Forest and put a PRIVATE sign on it. Its PUBLIC and owned by all of us; keep the PRIVATE signs OUT.
This campaign has been fought by a few individuals largely without the support of the highly financed organisations WWF, RSPB, WILDLIFE Trusts etc etc.
WHY IS THEIR SUCH SILENCE ON THIS ? WRITE TO THE LORDS NOW ! THEY HAVE EVERY LEGITIMATE RIGHT TO THROW THIS OUT. IT WAS NOT IN EITHER MANIFESTO. IT HAS BEEN RAMMED WITHOUT CONSULTATION THROUGH PARLIAMENT.
This is the stuff of dictators; be a cause and make arise the Lords, write and defend the principle that legislation is debated in elections from manifestos and then enacted after consultation.
THROW THE SELL OFF OUT.
Peter Plover
i wrote to my MP Dr Phillip Lee expressing my displeasure...
he wrote back... on lovely house of commons head paper...
"Thank you for contacting me about forests. It is vitally important to protect the public'saccess rights and enjoyment of our woodlands whilst securing our natural heritage.
The Government is actually publishing a consultation paper and is trying to gatheropinions on a range of options for future ownership or management. I strongly encourageyou to take part in this process at: www.defra.gov.uklcorporate/consultlforests/index.htm
The Labour Government sold over 25,000 acres of forestry land with few protections.This Government's consultation paper guarantees protection on rights to access, walk,cycle or ride in woodland and maintain and improve biodiversity. They also set out howheritage forests could be transferred to charitable trusts while commercial land could beleased, with strict protections built into its clauses. The Government's key commitmentsinclude:
Enshrining in law the commitment that no Heritage Forests such as the New Forestor Forest of Dean, can be sold to the private sector.Offering first refusal to community groups or civil society organisations in sales oflocal woodland.Guaranteeing access and benefits in any sales of commercial forests by onlyselling land on a leasehold basis.Preventing the sale of any site in which more than 10% are Planted AncientWoodlands.
These are much stronger commitments than have ever been attached to ForestryCommission land in the past. I think the arrangements proposed will lead to animprovement in the protection of the native and historic woodland and I can assureyou I will try to ensure that we achieve that in practice."
my response... 'meh'
what goes around comes around!
http://www.flickr.com/photos/guyfrankland/sets/72157623175917620/show/
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.
Stand Where The Peaks Meet The Sky
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.
The Cotswold Water park sightings website
My Flicker page
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.