Plans to sell nature reserves in trouble.

[eeyore]

Originally Posted by Ukwildlifeo

TBH there probably going to get hammered whatever happens, you are more optimistic than I if you think NE will get all, if any of the money from the sale of NR.

As fot giving it to charities, there is no mention of which ones. What if they give bird of prey heavy reserve to the lastest incarnation of the 'songbird survival trust' or another bunch of idiots mascarading as a conservation charity. Hopefully this is unlikely but based on the last few months anything is possible!

They wont actually get the money from the sale but thats beside the point and likely to be pennies only anyway - the point isthe ten million pound saving on the operating budget - NE have been told they have to find in the region of a 30% saving by 2014 - so if they dont save it from the NNR operation they'l have to save it elsewhere - probably from either grants, or stewardship (they are already slashing staff and offices so its doubtful the can save more there)

the latter point the organisations they are looking at are people lke the NT, RSPB , and wildlife trusts - but even if somone like songbird survival were to get a reserve as you suggest (which I agree is unlikely) reserve operations would still have to comply with the law.

[eeyore]

Originally Posted by Johnny Redgate

Not relevant - we are only talking about the sale of state owned land. Yes, some NNRs are owned by other organisations.

indeeed - but my point was that the NNRS maintained by other organisations are not neglected - indeed many are flagships of good management

Originally Posted by Johnny Redgate

They will have their own staffing oncosts. As if all the charities money was spent on on the ground work only NE staff may have other duties than organising on the ground work but perhaps you can give some examples of where their time is wasted. Charities staff have the expertise but they are overstretched already.

I didnt say that the NE staff who dont do on the grounds works time was wasted - the point is that only the on the ground work is relevant to the operation of the NNR and thus those are the staff that the charities might need to replicate (wardens/rangers/ and estate workers) they wont need to double thier payroll and procurement teams for example to deal with a greater land area

Originally Posted by Johnny Redgate

Oh, right. Is that inside information or a guess? What we are witnessing here is the ruination of an internationally respected nature conservation body that has been developing its expertise for 60 years.

Both my wife and I work for NE funded projects so I do have some "insight" but the requirement for NE to save 30%+ of their budget is a matter of public record - as the "ruination" NE hasnt existed for 60 years - in fact its existed for less than 5 - being formed from a merger of Countryside agency and English Nature, and the forerunner the CA was itself transfirmed out of the Countryside Commision - and they came from the break up of the NCC - This latests transformation is just more of the same

I

Originally Posted by Johnny Redgate

This amounts to a cut of funding available for nature conservation.

Well duh - public spending is being slashed accros the board of course it ammounts to a cut in nature conservation funding - the only question is where the cut falls

Originally Posted by Johnny Redgate

The charities should have nothing to do with this.

And if they dont ? - would it be preferable for the NNRs to just be abandonded and not maintained at all - which is the likely outcome if they arent handed on to anyone else but no money is allocated to their maintenance

Originally Posted by Johnny Redgate

I'm incensed. This is ideological in that the Tories do not want state owned land (or industry) or regulation in the countryside. Would they have brought in the 1949 National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act? I doubt it.

We dont do politics on wab so its better that we dont get into which party has the most (or least) commitment to the countryside (though I would note that the 1981 Wildlife and Countryside act, and the 1985 WCA Amendments were passed under a tory Government so your logic doesnt really stand up) but the bottom line is this is where we are - there will be huge cuts made in public spending between now and 2014 - and we can either cry about it and be "incensed" or we can do something useful like make the most of the oportunity for organisations who will protect the NNR land in perpetuity to acquire them (the current situation amply demonstrating why the best of Nature conservation land shouldnt be in public ownership - because it needs consistent management, not a regime thats subject to political change every five years)

[Johnny Redgate]

Originally Posted by eeyore

I didnt say that the NE staff who dont do on the grounds works time was wasted - the point is that only the on the ground work is relevant to the operation of the NNR and thus those are the staff that the charities might need to replicate (wardens/rangers/ and estate workers) they wont need to double thier payroll and procurement teams for example to deal with a greater land area

So conversely. NE staff who don't work on the NNR operational side will still require support from payroll and procurement.

Originally Posted by eeyore

Both my wife and I work for NE funded projects so I do have some "insight" but the requirement for NE to save 30%+ of their budget is a matter of public record - as the "ruination" NE hasnt existed for 60 years - in fact its existed for less than 5 - being formed from a merger of Countryside agency and English Nature, and the forerunner the CA was itself transfirmed out of the Countryside Commision - and they came from the break up of the NCC - This latests transformation is just more of the same

Nature Conservancy - Nature Conservancy Council - English Nature (+ Countryside Commission) - Natural England. Just name changes and mergers. I do know the history. Still 60 years of nature conservation. And reserve acquistion has been going on since the 1950s.

Originally Posted by eeyore

I Well duh - public spending is being slashed accros the board of course it ammounts to a cut in nature conservation funding - the only question is where the cut falls

Quite. Little enough goes to nature conservation. Funds will be diverted from agri-environment schemes to NNRs and that is an abdication of responsibility. Wake up.

Originally Posted by eeyore

And if they dont ? - would it be preferable for the NNRs to just be abandonded and not maintained at all - which is the likely outcome if they arent handed on to anyone else but no money is allocated to their maintenance

Well, this may be the outcome if no-one speaks out. Thought we'd signed up to some international conventions on biodiversity.

Originally Posted by eeyore

We dont do politics on wab so its better that we dont get into which party has the most (or least) commitment to the countryside (though I would note that the 1981 Wildlife and Countryside act, and the 1985 WCA Amendments were passed under a tory Government so your logic doesnt really stand up) but the bottom line is this is where we are - there will be huge cuts made in public spending between now and 2014 - and we can either cry about it and be "incensed" or we can do something useful like make the most of the oportunity for organisations who will protect the NNR land in perpetuity to acquire them (the current situation amply demonstrating why the best of Nature conservation land shouldnt be in public ownership - because it needs consistent management, not a regime thats subject to political change every five years)

Well, you do do politics on WAB and it was a pretty big issue on the FC sell-off thread despite some people telling everyone else to keep their politics out of it whilst making their own views perfectly clear. The 1949 Act set the ball rolling - it would never have happened without a labour govt. And the bottom line is I simply do not agree with you. Try not to patronise me. NNRs have not done too badly until now, they are better off in public ownership and once they are sold that's that. The charities may see this as an opportunity to increase their importance but I don't see that funding that relies on membership, donations and grant schemes will result in any greater consistancy in management.