Baptism of Fire

Just a few months ago we started volunteering with a group helping to improve the local woodlands biodiversity and access. An opportunity to spend time in woodlands, in glorious locations, doing something useful and, as it turned out, amongst a varied group of nice guys. Vaguely knew that clearing scrub and creating opportunities for free foraging cattle opened up the floor flora to wider diversity encouraging a wider fauna to live and breed. Seemed all very simple and straight forward. I knew next to nothing about the whys, where's or hows of what we were doing. Trusted that there was a Master Planner somewhere who looked down and gave approval and that it would turn out right. From the odd discarded comments, picked up the odd gold nugget that revealed more than I knew of this my local habitat.

Then managed to get myself included in this outdoor conference, "the Woodland Edge" for all those wide ranging professionals whose work one way or another impacts on woodlands. So my mind-blowing journey began, opening me up to some of the wide range of issues that confront woodlands, their management, their financing and their future. You will have gathered from my previous post, Caged by Language, that I was uncomfortably thrown into a very touchie feelie world were emotional content was probably more important to the participants than identify and isolating problems so that tentative solutions could be aired. Maybe I got it wrong but that was my impression. But of course it was only the start of my journey. Well everyone has to be on a journey nowadays. I went with the expectation of coming away with some comprehension of the dynamics of woodlands. Why on earth would anyone choose to invest in planting trees, leaving them for the next couple of generations to cut down and make some money out of. Then there was the issue of conservation and special designated areas where trees just could not be cut down to produce income, willynilly. How did they fit into it all. As a backstory perhaps, who was really profiteering from all this free volunteer labour, the community or some other behind the scene's organisation whose motives I may not necessarily endorse.   

During the conference a great many issues were aired that explored degrees of these or similar issues. May be the professionals, (the salaried experts in their particular field) were well versed and brought an in depth understanding. It was not clear to me at all, as the discussions ranged across from forests, as I like to think of them, being mono-cultured planted stock, with a planned life and clear-felled for profit all the way across to the opposite side. A SSSI woodland where every decision to keep, enhance or remove has to be fully argued and justified in some balancing act between an existing living ecosystem and an aspiration to get back to some fixed in time aspirational ecosystem. With a whole range of woodlands falling between these extremes displaying more or less of one characteristics or another. So our professionals discussions were able to range across these woodland distinctions without feeling the need to clarify which aspect of woodland mix they had in mind. But then the conference was more about connecting with emotions than with the dross of practical distinctions.

After the conference I tired to share as feedback the confusion I took away with me but felt like a ignorant pariah pissing on the wonderful emotive outpourings. No really the conference mood was invigorating and uplifting it just did not give me answers that was looking for. Then I turn to "ECOS - a review of conservation" it seems as if it is an academic journal publishing researched papers. Then another world again opens up to conservation at a tipping point with government pushing in one direction. Localism with central direction of volunteer effort. In the opposite direction, that of communities, their 'ownership' of landscape feature which are significant in their daily lives and how their energies can be co-opted to help them to see and achieve their aspirations for their landscape. Irrespective of the extended technicalities of land ownership. At the heart of all these issues, is of course the big question. As a citizen of UKplc who actually owns and controls the land we stand on and live our lives within. When a special historic woodland is designated as something special, does it still 'belong' to the Crown Estates who hold the land deeds, the Forest Commission who hold a lease to manage and operate it within the constraints set by 'Government' who have prescribed what can or cannot happen, presumably for the benefit of all us citizens, so we can carry on enjoying and experiencing this designated unique space and habitat. There is a conundrum. Add to that mix profit and tax benefits for anyone who can show title to a piece of land and you have a potent heady brew with deep seated vested interests.. No wonder our professionals are baffled and confused as to who they serve and what the end objective is. There is no way the complexities of the issues they face can be wrapped up into simple 30 second sound bites capable of being understood by the legislators would make the changes. Equally how do we, as citizens of UKplc, relate, respond and make vocal our concerns for the environment we live in, care about and want to leave in good health for future generations? Have a look at Right to Plunder where I sketch out my thoughts on a self-financing way forward.