Pitiable

"What can you say about people who walk on places like this in such depressing conditions?"



"Why bother? There is nothing whatever to see. It's wet under foot. The fog just gets thicker the further you go."



"Mind you, it's just what I've always said about that man. He's completely mad. You would have to be mad to go across the moor on a morning like this, supposedly for pleasure!!. Pitiable really. It must be some kind of obsession. As I say there's absolutely nothing to see."



".....absolutely nothing. You're better off in the office planning the Christmas shopping."

Not Natural and Not Transparent

Those agreeing with the argument that we should know how much of our money is going into farm subsidies should visit the website Farmsubsidy.org and read the piece here.
This campaign is linked to another cross European initiative EU Transparency.org which is a non-profit organisation aiming "to shed light on how European Union institutions and policies are working." They have written to the European Agriculture Commissioner - excerpt below....

"In line with the objectives of the European Transparency Initiative, we call on the Council and Commission to agree new regulations to require the publication of information on beneficiaries of CAP funds in a way that improves public oversight of public expenditure and does a better job at explaining who was paid what, and why. As well as contributing to greater public accountability and legitimacy, budget transparency is a powerful safeguard against waste, fraud and abuse of EU funds."

It's important to bear in mind that it's not just traditional big landowning farmers that are beneficiaries of these subsidies. Increasingly the conservation sector has realised that it too can get a share of the cake by going in for more and more farm style management with plenty of livestock. The temptation is there to get grants from anywhere they can bringing the inevitable question - is this option being taken for the good of the land or to help secure our jobs and pay the mortgage on our smart headquarters?

Unnatural Individuals

When they are not planning the laying waste of more natural aspects of landscape at Blacka Moor, Sheffield Wildlife Trust's managers are poring over claims forms and grant applications and engaging in self-promotional activities on their own behalf. Those claims forms are now the target of the latest FoI requests this blog is sending in. Back in September a request was sent in to the Rural Payments Agency hoping to establish just how much public money has gone into the management (and laying waste) of the natural vegetation here. This is proving an ongoing education. If you thought you knew what bureaucracy means, think again. The first response that came back was deficient in that it failed to give information about the grassy pasture land (unit 70 of the SSSI, the moor area being unit 69). It also indicated payments made for claims in 2010 when there were no cattle on the land which was then queried. A second response has now been received acknowledging errors in the first response but adding more confusion into what should be a simple task. An excerpt:

"Following a further search of our records we have identified that unit 70 was claimed by the Sheffield Wildlife Trust in 2010. Previous payment amounts disclosed also included payments made for this area. Unit 70 was also claimed by Sheffield City Council in 2010. However as this area of land is in a Severely Disadvantaged Area and the Council do not hold any Severely Disadvantaged Area entitlements, they did not receive any payment for it.

One other applicant claimed on this land in 2010 however they are considered to be a ‘natural individual’ i.e. their business status is either a sole trader or a partnership. As the information constitutes personal data relating to a third party, we have decided that the information should be withheld under regulations 12(3) and 13(1) (third party personal data) of the Environmental Information Regulations 2004.

We consider that disclosure of this information is likely to breach the first data protection principle in Schedule 1 to the Data Protection Act, which relates to the fair and lawful processing of personal data, in two ways. Firstly, disclosure would not constitute fair’ processing of the personal data and, secondly, disclosure would not satisfy any of the conditions for data processing set out in Schedule 2 to the Data Protection Act."


So why did Sheffield City Council and Sheffield Wildlife Trust and a certain 'natural individual' all claim for unit 70 in 2010? And why is this a Severely Disadvantaged Area? The obvious answer to the last question has to be that any land managed by clowns in the conservation industry is having a pretty hard time but I suspect that is not the determining factor.

But the big question is this: why should it be so difficult for a member of the public to be given accurate information showing just how much public money is being spent making a mess of public land? More Freedom of Information requests on the way.

Pussyfooting

Is the Blacka management problem down to the fact that some people in management jobs just don’t think the same way?

It was instructive to watch the BBC Tales from the National Parks documentary about the plucky villagers of Great Longstone and their struggle with the PDNPA. The park officers simply did not want to deal with the problem of off roaders on their local quiet lane.

At the start the programme looked as if it was to be about the clash between the off-roaders and the locals. But, it turned out, as the presenter said, to be something else. The off-roaders themselves, frankly, were just doing what they wanted because nobody was stopping them – like a child with his hand in the sweetie jar (albeit one who had been told by a calculating lawyer that mum and dad were in the wrong.)

The programme was really about the mental chaos within the PDNPA professionals who had got themselves utterly tangled up within a flawed cultural mindset and unable to see the thing in perspective. The main responsibility had to be with Chief Executive (yes another one,) Jim Dixon, for his leadership built on an unsound philosophy which led to his Rangers getting themselves into unnecessary difficulties. Consequently a message had been communicated to the off-roaders that they were in the right. I summarise Dixon’s attitude as it came across as this:

1 The National Park is for all.
2 Therefore everyone should be allowed to do his own thing more or less everywhere in the National Park.

Dixon’s attitude seemed to be that 2 followed from 1. He was shown at the end bemoaning the fact that the National Park was about access and here they were setting about restricting access. With thinking like that in a major decision maker what chance do we have of getting a rational approach, perhaps to anything? There can never be any blanket allowance that everybody can go down every peaceful lane doing absolutely what they want and the law as it stands should not be an excuse for failing to think that through. A law that’s stood for years can never be foolproof at least in times of considerable change. And a body like a National park is in a position to get laws and regulations changed. It was so painful seeing Dixon and his two managers puzzling this out that I almostfelt sorry for them - but not quite. The problem for them seems to be that they have adopted certain guiding principles which amount to a few words each, almost a slogan, and ‘the park is for all’ is one of them. Many people these days do think in slogans; it’s a symptom of growing up in a world of advertising. But slogans are no substitute for reflection based on observation, evidence and values.

As far as inclusiveness and everyone doing their own thing is concerned I personally enjoy making bonfires. I could get so far as saying I’m passionate about them, getting enormous satisfaction over building one,watching the flames and hearing the primitive crackling sounds as it flares up. I might call myself a bonfire lover and get a group of similar bonfire lovers together who obsessively each lit a fine smoky fire in their back gardens a couple of times a week. So why don’t I do that? I’ve got enough wood in the back garden to do so. The answer’s simple. It would cause annoyance to my neighbours and if everyone did it life where I live would become intolerable. So I’ve exercised some self discipline and made it my business to develop many other interests, so many that there are not enough hours in the day. Hence I hardly miss my passion for bonfires and restrict my fire making just to the weekend nearest November 5th.
Why does this approach not get followed by other anti-social obsessives? If that’s an argument Jim Dixon doesn’t see, well we are in trouble.

All in all I’m now beginning to wonder if some of the problems we’ve had on Blacka are rooted in the same slogan-style ideology or dogma that may be endemic in publicly employed conservation workers and land managers in the PDNPA.

Orange Pick-Me-Up

Now GMT has returned, the gloom of some November afternoons can be depressing. But a walk though the beeches is a tonic. Even when skies are overcast the leaves appear to glow from within.

Half-Light

Time of sunrise is only relevant if the sun is actually seen to rise. These days it's around ten past seven and getting later by a couple of minutes each day. Heavy cloud makes it feel there's another hour or two to wait. On the more open parts of the moor it can seem gloomier than when you're among trees. But that can be the time of day when the herd of deer has ventured out to browse. Once our eyes get accustomed they're quite clear. But you wonder how well they themselves see. It's often scent rather than sight that sets them running off.

Vision: What You See and What You Don't

The emerging cartel calling itself Sheffield Moors Partnership, marshalled by eager officers of the local National Trust, wanted each of the officers attending early meetings to get agreement 'at director level' in their respective bureaucracies for the statement called the 2025 Vision. This is not, as might be assumed, the result of an awayday trip to Specsavers but a rather gushing collection of sentences designed to tell the outside world that the partners are just what the doctor ordered for Sheffield's outer countryside. The content should have appealed to the director concerned in Sheffield City Council whose agreement was entreated. His remit at the Town Hall is not just environment but also 'culture'. He will therefore have been interested to note the similarities between the language of the 2025 Vision and that of a second-rate estate agency.

As the following meeting of SMP was to be in October and presumably has already happened it was necessary to get that agreement and indeed I'm told it has now been granted and therefore some responsibility rests with the Director of Culture and Environment alongside the Cabinet Member for the same. I've asked if any reservations were expressed or amendments requested but that question was ducked when I received only a brief not very informative reply. (These annoying questions! Whose idea was all this transparency?)

Other documents such as the Terms of Reference and the the Draft Project Plan seem not to have been agreed or at least I've not been told that. Looks like another FoI request is called for.

Just to be clear, the default position is a presumption on management and thus on managers jobs. Prioritising nature in any serious way will never be an option with those presently involved who come with predetermined ideological baggage complete with spun and twisty justifications as seen in the Vision. Oh and cows of course.