The only Blacka consultation that came anywhere near being worthy of the name happened in 2006. It was 'independently' facilitated by a firm called Icarus. This independence was questioned at an early stage because the facilitators were engaged by and employed by SWT. Though it's not certain who paid the rumoured £8,000 bill; the council might have chipped in.
The process was dogged from the start by lack of trust shown to be fully justified when it was revealed that a meeting of all the conservation industry people involved had agreed in advance that the central item of contention and the reason for the process would not even be discussed!! A document surfaced that participants were not meant to see. It showed the intention to instruct the ‘independent facilitator’ just what should be discussed at each meeting. Strictly off limits was the decision to fence and farm land that had not been farmed in recent years (a key reason for the public enjoying its use) and the reason for a large petition being presented to the council asking for it not to happen. How they expected to get away with this is hard to get heads round. It says a lot about the people involved. There were other signs that the facilitator was doing what the wildlife trust wanted and a suspicion that the course of the process was being guided along a path favoured by the trust managers and their conservation allies. Despite this there was opportunity for making valid points and discovering that some of those who previously supported the wildlife trust uncritically were leaning closer to our preference for minimal intervention.
But it was always important for us to remain suspicious. Reports written by the facilitator after each meeting did not always square with our recollection and sometimes he claimed there had been agreement of the whole group when this certainly was not the case. By the end however he had become more balanced and fair knowing that we would challenge if we were not satisfied that he was being independent. The facilitator’s report at the end was more balanced than we might have expected at the beginning.
There is a need to deal with previous history and clarify what is open for debate and what is not – this produced some difficulty during the process. We feel strongly that progress will not be made unless all issues remain open for debate, including cattle and fencing.
He also suggested that a 5 year period of management the way SWT wanted it should be followed by a review, ‘Cattle in the Short Term’
When SWT wrote to those on the RAG mailing list a few months later they proclaimed their intention to go on with conservation grazing (Crop & Crap to you and me). But they too referred to 5 years:
From the very start of discussions/meetings about grazing 5 or more years ago and ever since, it was always seen as an option that would be a trial (for 5 years or so) and not one that SWT would necessarily commit to for the duration of the lease.
Word of mouth assurances between then and now have left us with an impression that they intended to stop and reconsider after 5 years. And their ‘advisory’ group would be part of that review.
So what do we learn from the draft management plan of this utterly devious outfit?
Two areas of the site, the inby land and the heathland compartment – are currently let for grazing. The grazing rights to these areas have been issued to a Mr Andrew Gray under Farm Business Tenancy, to run for 10 years from 2014.
Regular readers will realise that meetings of the RAG were put off again and again over several years specifically to deny a voice to local users of the site.
Trust? Better trust the wildlife
No comments:
Post a Comment