Just a taster for the reasons that RSPB and NT should not extend their empire by taking over Burbage Houndkirk and the Hathersage Moors. There are and will be others. These reasons are purely on the basis of accountability.
A council is a public body. It is answerable to the public for what it does in particular its council tax payers but also the wider public. Anything that it does is subject to laws and regulations that have evolved over many years. These include requirements that guarantee transparency and fair dealing. If I ask for certain information from Sheffield Wildlife Trust they do not have to give it to me and what they might give has no standard requirements for accuracy. The same applies to the Eastern Moors Partnership who have simply ignored some of my requests in the last months. Transparency for the conservation industry is sending out a press release with a slanted story telling what they want people to think at a time to suit them. Sheffield City Council has to respond within 20 days. For a council, fair dealing is subject to challenge through agreed complaints procedures and with the possibility of reference to an ombudsman service. None of this applies to NT or RSPB or SWT. Recently even the Charity Commission has been taking a back seat in regulatory matters and only gets involved when serious fraud etc is suspected.
Handing land over to NT/RSPB takes away important and guaranteed rights just at a time when local people are supposed to be receiving more power over their neighbourhoods via the localism bill. Very timely, I must say.
4 comments:
Wouldnt the NT, RSPB and SWT be more suited to mange and improve the landscape?With all the council cuts and the lack of resources SCC have at the moment, wouldn't it be better for the above organisations to manage the land. There in a better position to claim monies from government bodies and have a better resource of in house knowledge?
It's my understanding that the council will still own the land, they are just renting it out?
Also money used to manage and improve the area will be coming from central government pots and not SCC, so not taking a heave impact on Sheffield tax payers and spreading the cost nationally?
This is by no means a counter statement, I just open it up to debate, more constructive questions than unconstuctive argument.
The information I base these questions may not be right just from what I hear.
Thanks for the comment. Though I wish you would give a better identity than 'anonymous' even a pseudonym. Most who go for anon never return to carry on a discussion.
Actually the idea of this blog has always been to open up a debate. It's just sad others who disagree with what I say rarely if ever want to engage in discussion.
Anyway, most of the grant money available to charities is also available to councils. But of course the problem is that we are now getting a plethora of these charitable bureaucracies which all have costs to maintain offices and publicity departments et al.
Also a reading of more posts on this blog will reveal that I don't think it's necessary to spend lots of money on these places. The trick is to allow nature to do what it wills. Too much public money is going into stopping natural succession which if it were allowed to happen would improve the natural beauty of the landscape and bring in a much wider range of exciting wildlife.
Thank you for your reply.
Why have SCC handed the land management of these moors over to NT SWT and RSPB ( eastern moors partnership and Sheffield moors partnership)?
It is an interesting point: natural succession is something that appears to be lost in the obsession of hitting targets and unnaturally speeding up the possess of improving biodiversity and natural value. It is rather ironic that the plan to improve natural value often seems to mean unnatural intervention.
Although the public have less control over the management, did SCC do anything to manage the moors in the correct manner? Whilst i am all for natural succession the moors are not in a natural state. They have been miss manage and abused in the past and some moors are in that bad condition that some form of intervention is needed.
My view is that SCC are not capable of doing this mainly due to under resource of staff?
From first glance sheff moors and eastern moors plans look reasonable. But i do agree spending money isn't always the answer. However these organisation do certainly in my eyes have a good reputation.
Has there been or going to be any public consultation?
Although not answerable to the public the organisations are charity and need public support in order to survive, surly they are, and need to be honest open and willing to listen?
Thanks,
Ben.
Ben,
I'm delighted you've returned. But I'm reluctant to get started on answering all your questions now as it's a long story and is covered in one way or another on the blog.
We did have a website which gave a fairly full narrative but the host stopped doing that business and I've not had time to set a new one up.
You mention that the EMP and SMP plans and say they seem reasonable at first glance. Well alot of careful presentation has gone into the wording. Finding the paragraphs which really mean something takes more careful examination.
Farming the land is at the heart of these plans. Our country is mostly farmed and farmland has been where most natural life and biodiversity has declined becuase of farming practices over the last 100 years. This land does not need to be farmed because it is publicly owned. It has the chance of being allowed to go its own way unexploited (farming for good or bad is a kind of exploitation)and developing a character of its own. It would then attract a wider range of wildlife from trees to mammals and birds.
But all the conservation charities are keen to use farming because it enables them to claim farm subsidies. They also like to stay friends with farmers and grouse moor owners. That's a very, very simplified answer but the best I can do in a short space. For a lot more information and a long long read try Mark Fisher's website by googling the words 'self willed land'.
Regards
Neil
Post a Comment