I previously expressed some exasperation that billions went to farmers to subsidise intensive wildlife damaging farming (£400 per UK household), yet others such as woodland owners were on there own when it came to managing for wildlife, with little or no net income and minimal subsidy or recognition.
It appears the government is confused. The urban population are perhaps more sympathetic to pro-wildlife politics as they have a romanticised view of what the countryside should be and as such are anti-hunting, pro badger, pro wildlife and anti intensive farming. The government tries to offer lip service to the wildlife / eco lobbies with 'ah yes, we must protect our wonderful fluffy wildlife and get the urban tree hugger vote'. Partly recognising the damage intensive farming causes, they proposed to switch some 15% of agricultural subsidy paid to farmers for intensive production to 'wildlife and rural regeneration'. Consequently the farmers are protesting, saying it will put them at a disadvantage compared to fully subsidised continental competitors. At the same time though, the government was happy to push through the badger cull, which appeased some farmers but had the wildlife lobby infuriated.
I wonder if the government has any understanding at all of wildlife and the workings of the countryside, or whether they throw odd crumbs to the various lobbies to try and keep as many sweet as possible, without a clue.
Would anyone care to suggest what a balanced approach would be, which keeps the farmers in a healthy profitable production, but also gives wildlife a chance, and what official government policy to forestry and small woods should be? If you recall, they were going to sell off a load of FC land, then backed off when pressure groups suggested it would lead to 'exploitation of our forests'- I wonder if private owners might have done a better job than the FC?
Forestry policy currently appears to be a hotch-potch, there are various disjointed initiatives with short term funding, tax breaks for large plantations, but as far as I'm aware no firm sustainable pro wildlife woodland vision with funding to back it up. There's also no coordinated market with advice and support for growing native hardwoods (other than tax relief on forestry income)- we have an underused potentially wonderful resource but 'the market' is allowed to be lazy, importing damaging fossil fuels and cheap foreign hardwoods with untold consequential damage caused to forests in countries with no environmental protection.
All a bit frustrating. We need a clear vision of sustainable beneficial woodland and farming land use, with the right long term structures and funding in place to see it through. Thoughts?
