In 2006 a consultation was held and it finished with some controversy as SWT decided to go its own way irrespective of the results.
Earlier this year, in January, SWT after requests for information about how the next management plan was to be arrived at, produced an outline timetable for discussions starting in September.
After enquiries about dates and other details eventually an email was received at the end of last week saying that the consultation and planning process was being held back for twelve months ....
.............“so that it ties in, and is in direct response to the much wider Sheffield Moors Partnership Master Plan. This master plan will be a strategic vision and action plan for the Sheffield Moors Partnership Project. It’ll take the form of workshops with key stakeholders to determine the content of the plan. We want to write a 5-year management plan for Blacka, which is in response to this process and plan for the wider landscape”
Some inside knowledge is necessary to understand the management calculations that lie behind this. Among those are these:
1 The Sheffield Moors Partnership is a working group of people and organisations that are talking themselves into a takeover of Burbage, Houndkirk etc.
2 The SMP has no official status in relation to this land and their right to be considered as a force has no current validity. Nobody should seriously assume that any ‘Master Plan’ from them has any legitimacy as things stand.
3 Sheffield Wildlife Trust had committed itself to consulting this autumn and wanted a reason for backing out of it at the very last minute, being aware that their preferred management options have been shown to be flawed.
4 They are showing contempt for the RAG and contempt for the very idea of public consultation.
5 It is absurd to say that this should be a pretext for delay when the Eastern Moors Partnership - a sort of identikit version of the Sheffield Moors Partnership and a part of it, is just at this moment going ahead with publishing a draft management plan for consultation. What goes for one should go for the other.
And that is only the beginning. But knowing them as we do how surprising is this? It’s getting to be tiresome to have to go on pointing out just how cynical the local conservation industry is.
5 comments:
Such breathtaking arrogance on the part of SWT, but then these NGO's have become so untouchable in their headlong empire building. Who do they represent? As stewards of publicly owned land, the Forestry Commission recently published a guide on the Principles of Public Engagement, and a toolbox for public engagement in forest and woodland planning. To paraphrase an article by Paul Tabbush in the May issue of the Landscape Research Group newsletter - the Forestry Commission has shown itself to be much more communicative than in the past, and through its commitment to sustainable forest management, much more aware of public benefits and public interest. On the other hand, land-based charities keep repeating the same old mistakes. A topdown policy of creating artificial moorland habitat according to a supposedly repeatable recipe whenever the opportunity arises, and whatever the locals think — is no more likely to result in a sustainable landscape than leaving it alone because it just continues a dependence on agricultural and environment subsidies, and is just wasteful of money. Why then should we imagine that transfer of land ownership to these charities will be in the public interest? The Forestry Commission has quite often proved itself competent to broker environmental decisions, in communication with local and national stakeholders, and so to establish what is most likely to be in the public interest. The countryside charities, on the other hand, have to pursue their charitable aims and please their members, and have no need to consider the public interest.
Useful to have your comment pointing out that there are some people in the conservation world who see the problems and have a wider perspective. Those locally choose to pursue a different line. Empire -building is an accurate description. They are secretive and keep their plans to themselves until they deem it in their interests to go public. The new Eastern Moors Draft Management Plan is about as interventionist as you can get. Pygmies when we need giants.
I wonder if there will be any change in SWT direction when it gets a new CEO in October?
News to me, but not surprising. I can think of a number of reasons for the departure of ND if this is true. One is that people like this are, as Mark says, empire builders. The options for expanding may be reducing. SWT failed to get their hands on the Eastern Moors and the same outfit think they are likely to get Burbage etc. I don't know how well the Greno Woods appeal is going. The strategy at Blacka Moor has proved pretty useless and controversial so chickens are coming home too roost. The reserves manager seems likely to be moving also. There may even be a central policy within the Wildlife Trusts to the effect that their 'CEOs' should move on after ten years. etc. But I'm sceptical that the conservation industry will throw up someone with a completely different approach to land management. Wouldn't it be good though if the council expressed an interest in encouraging public engagement in the appointment?
Pity the poor people who have to suffer ND where ever he moves to.
Post a Comment