Private Eye are on to Save Our Woods

Private Eye never pulls its punches and in the current edition their HP Sauce column 'Forest Chumps' goes hard at the government's idiotic idea:

"THE coalition clearly can’t see the wood for the trees if it thinks its plan to sell vast swathes of Forestry Commission land in England makes economic sense. In 2009 an attempt by the Scottish National Party to lease Scotland’s national forests to private firms was opposed by all political parties.

It was recognised, among other things, that as well as threatening jobs and access, any firm taking over the land and continuing forestry would still be eligible for public funding. As MSP Elaine Murray said at the time, logging firms could “chop down timber that was planted at public expense, walk away with the profit and then get paid to plant more trees” (Eye 1228).

The same issue exists in England, where the cost of regulating and dishing out funds to private forestry companies is likely to outweigh the money raised from land sales. Lorraine Adams, branch president for the scientists’ union, Prospect, which represents more than 200 researchers, cartographers, rangers and skilled Forestry Commission (FC) workers, has uncovered evidence of this since the FC already sells off land occasionally. When it recently flogged an area of woodland for £60,000, for example, the new landowner immediately applied for funds under the English Woodland Grant Scheme to grow and cut timber and was given assistance totalling £55,000.

The private landowner will also be able to come back and ask for more grants in future – as well as bidding for other environmental stewardship and rural development subsidies available to forest owners – while the government can only sell the land once.

So will the coalition cut back on grants so the sale makes economic sense? Er, no. In an attempt to head off the more alarming protests – suggestions that buyers would develop huge holiday parks or housing estates – the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs said in a statement: “Full measures will remain in place to preserve the public benefits of woods and forests under any new ownership arrangements. Tree felling is controlled through the licensing system managed by the Forestry Commission, public rights of way and access will be unaffected, statutory protection for wildlife will remain in force and there will be grant incentives for new planting that can be applied for.”

Then there are the earnings the FC will lose from no longer selling timber (around £61m in 2008). Thanks to that cash, it costs the taxpayer just £15m a year to regulate and license the private forestry sector, plus providing numerous education schemes and leisure access to woodland, not to mention the FC scientists who do vital research to combat tree diseases – such as sudden oak death (now devastating larch trees in the south west) and pests like leaf miner moths which attack horse chestnuts.

Harper’s bizarre
Anger at the proposed sale is particularly acute in the Forest of Dean, where a campaign group, Hands Off Our Forest (HOOF), has been mobilised and 3,000 people rallied earlier this month to make their voices heard.

Notably absent was local Tory MP Mark Harper, who believes the forest sale to be an example of Dave’s Big Society in action as it would allow local people to buy and manage things as they see fit. As environmentalist Jonathon Porritt and many others point out, however, thanks to rights and entitlements secured over centuries, people in the Forest of Dean already see “the Dean” as their forest anyway.

The strong relationship between the foresters and the local Forestry Commission is largely down to longstanding mutual respect and an understanding well beyond the financial realm of what “ownership” of this precious resource means. For Harper to offer to sell people something they already believe to be theirs could be a suicidal electoral strategy for the ex-KPMG accountant.

The last Tory MP to trip up in the Forest of Dean was one of Harper’s predecessors, Paul Marland. He favoured the Thatcher government’s attempt to sell the Forest Estate in the early 1980s. But public pressure on him was so intense he managed to secure an exemption for the Forest of Dean, concluding: “I regard the possible sale of the Royal Forest of Dean and other Crown Forests to faceless investors as a national disaster. The Royal Forest of Dean is steeped in ancient history and tradition. Today’s Forester is of the same independent mind and rugged character as were his forefathers. It is our duty to preserve his ancient rights and traditions.”

If Harper disappoints his constituents, he could become the first victim of another coalition brainwave: the “right of recall” which enables voters to recall an MP if they lose faith in him or her. This would be ironic. When Harper isn’t calling for the sale of his constituents’ natural environment, he is the minister for constitutional reform responsible for… the right-to-recall policy!"

From Private Eye

Save Our Woods

“I go to nature to be soothed and healed, and to have my senses put in tune once more.”
John Burroughs (1837-1921), American Naturalist.

'The Government wants to sell all publicly owned forests. This can’t happen'

Further to my post the other day about the Government's nasty plan to sell off state own woodland, Twitter (#saveourwoods) has once again provided insight and information. There's now a well thought out and well put together resistance gathering speed with a raft of ways to get involved and to protest.

From their website:

"Our ancients woodlands and forests are our natural heritage. Around two-thirds of our woodland is privately owned already. The remaining 33% is publicly owned, managed by the Forestry Commission (FC) and other public agencies, including local authorities.

The Government have proposed a Bill that will allow them to sell all publicly owned forests – the Public Bodies Bill clauses 17 and 18. Buyers could include foreign energy companies, private organisations, charitable trusts, companies and individuals for shooting rights, leisure developers and many more.

• We believe our trees, woods and forests are too important to be sold to the highest bidder.
• We believe our woodlands and forests play an essential part in the biodiversity of our country.
• We believe our forests are our natural heritage and it is in the public’s greatest interest for them to remain under public ownership.

Maybe some of our forestry land isn’t managed well in terms of biodiversity (as some “mono-culture” farmed pine plantations could be deemed) but it has its benefits in providing a source of timber to our construction industry among others.

Maybe some of these pine plantations could be harvested and replanted with native deciduous woodland to start the long road back towards an ecologically sound and biodiverse environment – beneficial to both wildlife and humanlife.

What ever happens – we would rather our forests remained as publicly owned lands so that WE can decide how they could be managed and not a foreign energy company, a rich landowner expanding territory, a leisure developer for shooting rights or holiday parks.

If you feel the same way – sign the 38 Degrees petition then go here to find out how to contact your MP."

http://saveourwoods.co.uk/

'The BP oil is all gone!' Oh really?

Why did it seem very unlikely that the massive oil spill could magically disappear.

Naomi Klien has the inevitable evidence against.

http://www.thenation.com/article/157723/search-bps-oil

Modest suggestions for anyone trying to save the world

Recently I've become much more interested in Twitter as a speedy, wide-ranging and often very funny news source. It's not the vacuous status update many think it is, and if you choose to follow the right people (probably not 'celebs') you get an informed (mostly) and vigorously debated (often) take on breaking news and issues that may not get great coverage in the mainstream. Selective filtering and healthy scepticism are required, but it's easy to find some real gems to read. My previous post of Johann Harri's article is a case in point - and so is this little gem for anyone keen on organising any kind of 'Change' campaign....from saving the world to beach clean-ups. 12 invaluable steps for the supine activist.

Note to self: must get off my arse and DO more. Thanks Shihab for the reminder.

For sale - Cameron's green credentials

Johann Hari writes in the Independent, 'Why do the Tories think timber companies want to buy the forests? To abandon the work they do and become druids?'

Can you hear the silence of the huskies? When he was rebranding the Tory party, David Cameron promised us he would lead "the greenest government ever". Since he came to power, he has broken every environmental promise he made – and then gone much further. He has opened up the coasts of Britain to the deep-sea drilling that worked so well in the Gulf of Mexico, and put a "for sale" sign outside every single remaining forest in England. Yes, as his own Environment minister puts it, Cameron is determined to "dispose of public forest" – and the timber companies and holiday parks are preparing their opening bids.

In order to raise £2bn, the Government is selling all 650,000 acres of our forests – a privatisation that even Margaret Thatcher blanched at. These are the most popular outdoor spaces in Britain. They are the last places where millions of people can go to escape their anxieties and glimpse what Britain looked like to our ancestors for millions of years. They are the site of some of our most potent national myths: what would Robin Hood say if he knew Sherwood Forest itself was now on the market? Is Cameron really taking the Sheriff of Nottingham as his role model? This is in direct contradiction to what Cameron told us he would do before the election. In 2007, talking about forests, he promised he would "take a more effective and strategic approach to safeguarding a priceless – and irreplaceable – natural asset." He said the countries that were cutting forests down were "barmy". The Government says there is no danger to the forests in selling them to timber companies and the other highest bidders. They say they will still be standing, they will be cared for as well, and the public will have just as much access. Does this match the facts?

It is true that once a company has bought a forest, it will still need planning permission to cut the woods down. This is a crucial brake. But – wait – Eric Pickles, the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, has just announced he is "remov[ing] the structures of control" and making it "much easier" to get planning permission across the country. Planning is being massively deregulated, just as the forests are sold.

Not every buyer will cut them down, but some will. Why do the Tories think timber companies want to buy them – to abandon the work they do in every other country on earth and become druids? Confronted with this point, the Government admits there is a "possibility of established forest being bought by energy companies who would proceed to chip it all for energy recovery" – and then swiftly insists there is nothing to worry about.

The forests that remain will be less well maintained and harder to access. The Forestry Commission looks after our woods today, and 100 per cent of it is maintained to the international Forest Stewardship Standard. By contrast, only 25 per cent of private forests in England are looked after this way. After the sale, they will become more degraded, less biodiverse and less likely to survive for the long term.

And you will find it harder to get to them. The Government says that the legislation passed in 2000 granting us all the "right to roam" will mean we can enjoy them just the same. But the public only has a right to access woodland classified as "freehold". According to The Ecologist magazine, half of privately owned woodland is barred to the public.

It gets worse still. The Forestry Commission works very hard to make our woods accessible to everyone. It builds car parks, bike tracks, visitor centres, picnic areas. When the land is privatised, most of that will go. They can put a massive fence around the forest, they just can't put up a sign that says "keep out". Look at what happened to Riggs Woods in the Lake District, sold a few months ago. The car park has been shut down, the picnic area has been dismantled, the visitors' centre closed, and all you see when you go there now is a large, bolted gate that, legally, you are allowed to clamber over. And for what? To preserve our forests costs just 30p per taxpayer a year. Selling them off for ever will raise just half of the sum that one corporation – Vodafone – did not have to pay after the Tories came to power out of what Private Eye estimated was its total tax liability. (Vodafone denies this figure). So if you go down to the woods today, you'll find the best metaphor for Cameronism. Change your party's logo to a lovely green tree – then sell off all the real trees to corporations. Oh, and then say you are "empowering volunteers" by doing it.

The Prime Minister has said the forest sell-off "empowers local communities" to take over the forests for themselves as part of a "Big Society". Yet sources within the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs say that, unsurprisingly, only about 1 per cent of the sales are anticipated to go to local co-operatives or green groups. The "Big Society" is a fluffy fig leaf for dismantling and demolition.

But, amazingly, this may not be the biggest environmental vandalism of the Cameron years. The Conservatives have just authorised the launching of deep-water drilling off the coast of Shetland. The White House investigations are only now uncovering quite how disastrous this tactic was in the Gulf of Mexico – but it would be worse in the Shetlands, where the very harsh, cold and windy conditions would make a clean-up dramatically harder and more expensive. It would have to be bigger too: Chevron has admitted that if things went wrong it would release 77,000 barrels of oil a day – 25 per cent more than went into the Gulf.

The Health and Safety Executive warned that serious accidents on British oil rigs almost doubled last year. These are the very warning signs that preceded the Deepwater Horizon catastrophe. Even if the oil is excavated "safely", it will then release huge amounts of carbon into the atmosphere and destabilise our climate even more, which doesn't sound very safe to me. As if that wasn't enough, Cameron has also authorised drilling for shale gas off the coast at Blackpool – an extremely controversial practice that is suspected by many scientists of poisoning water supplies at several sites in the US.

Britain's forests and seas do not belong to David Cameron. They belong to us. As Bill Hobman, the former chairman of Forest of Dean District Council, says: "Mr Cameron should show us the deeds to the forest. How can they sell something they don't own?... This is a wonderful part of the world and shouldn't be auctioned off to the highest bidder to have their own little bit of heaven. We will fight this all the way." The fightback will be ferocious, and, like the inspiring fight against super-rich tax-dodgers, it unites people from the Tory shires with amazing left-wing activist groups like 38 Degrees.

This is a fight about what we value as a country. Do we want to preserve Britain's most beautiful places – forests and seas that were alive for our distant ancestors, and should be alive for our distant descendants – or do we want a few rich corporations to make a little bit more money from destroying them? David Cameron has made his choice. Now we need to make ours.

j.hari@independent.co.uk

You can sign the petition to save our forests: click here.

For updates on this issue and others you can follow Johann atwww.twitter.com/johannhari101 or you can get links to all his articles by following his Facebook fanpage here. www.facebook.com/pages/Johann-Hari/52060383293?ref=ts