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.
Showing posts with label conservation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label conservation. Show all posts
Saturday, 15 October 2011
Wednesday, 2 December 2009
Right to Plunder
Time to roll up the sleeves and get serious.
Our attitude to this Planet has to change, it is not an infinite resource that can be plundered at will and used as a stock-pile to make money out of. We know enough now to understand it is limited and our greed is, or already has, taken us to the point where the end of the earth's resources can be counted.
Already we are talking of running out of oil but that is just a for instance. Whichever way you look there are just too many of us all wanting our share in these limited resources. Gas, rare metals, water, fish, unless it is renewable, it is under threat and has to be in doubt.
So we are not just talking about the buried minerals nor just the flora and fauna that feeds on the surface of our planet but the atmosphere we breath and depend on to create our climate. All is finite, limited and under threat from our continued abuse of our globe. Too many of us expecting more than our share. We have to change tacks. Time for us to accept that we are mere custodians of this planet we live on and we have a responsibility and obligation to our sons and daughters that will inherit the Earth we pass onto them.
It is for us to make sure the Earth we pass on is in no worse a condition than the Earth we inherited. We don't own it we are just temporary custodians.
In principle, if we take something out of our planet that will not replenish itself, if we spoil part of the planets infrastructure that cannot repair itself then we have to make amends to the future generations. If we take out from the planet a resource that will need time to recoup or we spoil virgin soil, these are not free commodities, they have to be paid for, upfront before the event, not a reluctant minimal gesture after the event and after the profits have been taken. Want to take a non-renewable, fine but first pay the full costs of reinstatement to as was beforehand. Even the renewables replacement will have to be paid for first. So pay for the cost of conserving stocks and attendant enforcement before you take your 'free' fish.
Nothing is perfect, so we don't know the full implications of a spoilt or lost resource 50 years down the line but we can best guess the implications as of now. Nor can we fully monetise all the implications but again we can best guess, taking a median position between extremes and all out in the public peer-reviewed. That's a better starting point than the present free-for-all. This conversion into money for the act of spoiling some aspect of our planet for future generations is not a government get out of jail free card. The money has to be ploughed straight back into a relevant conservation or remedial project. To make some amends for the mess we are currently living with. We have to take serious now this planet we live and on start to look after it in a meaningful way.
This principle spreads wider and relates not just to the planet, its biosphere, flora and fauna but also to the accumulated history of man's activities on the earth. The rich mosaic of artifacts we inherited needs to be conserved for future generations, for it explains what we are. Not every single scrap that has history marked on it, but those that are lodged as relevant and significant to the place, time or progression. Most of our vast accumulation of detritus from the past will fail the test suggested leaving some room to move forward.
If a property passes the test and is relevant and significant, then those features and their setting deemed so must be preserved, repaired and a new apt use found, with all costs carried by the custodian owner or forfeit their claim. Once every avenue has been explored and there are no viable options, only then can the owner opt for demolition or significant change. As a pre-requisite the owner to pay up-front for a complete 3D and physical archive of those deemed features and settings, reclaimation of all re-usable materials and payment for future proofed archiving of such records, in consideration of the history lost to later generations.
Just to loop back to an earlier post, to turn green soil into a building plot is not a free right that can be issued by the government. It belongs to our future and the least is an up-front payment to remove all evidence of mans intervention and return the soil back to its prior condition. As above such money not trickling into government coffers but put into immediate use to rescue land or a building in peril.
Nothing is for free and an appropriate contribution to the loss for future generations must be made before commercial gain can be taken.
Our attitude to this Planet has to change, it is not an infinite resource that can be plundered at will and used as a stock-pile to make money out of. We know enough now to understand it is limited and our greed is, or already has, taken us to the point where the end of the earth's resources can be counted.
Already we are talking of running out of oil but that is just a for instance. Whichever way you look there are just too many of us all wanting our share in these limited resources. Gas, rare metals, water, fish, unless it is renewable, it is under threat and has to be in doubt.
So we are not just talking about the buried minerals nor just the flora and fauna that feeds on the surface of our planet but the atmosphere we breath and depend on to create our climate. All is finite, limited and under threat from our continued abuse of our globe. Too many of us expecting more than our share. We have to change tacks. Time for us to accept that we are mere custodians of this planet we live on and we have a responsibility and obligation to our sons and daughters that will inherit the Earth we pass onto them.
It is for us to make sure the Earth we pass on is in no worse a condition than the Earth we inherited. We don't own it we are just temporary custodians.
In principle, if we take something out of our planet that will not replenish itself, if we spoil part of the planets infrastructure that cannot repair itself then we have to make amends to the future generations. If we take out from the planet a resource that will need time to recoup or we spoil virgin soil, these are not free commodities, they have to be paid for, upfront before the event, not a reluctant minimal gesture after the event and after the profits have been taken. Want to take a non-renewable, fine but first pay the full costs of reinstatement to as was beforehand. Even the renewables replacement will have to be paid for first. So pay for the cost of conserving stocks and attendant enforcement before you take your 'free' fish.
Nothing is perfect, so we don't know the full implications of a spoilt or lost resource 50 years down the line but we can best guess the implications as of now. Nor can we fully monetise all the implications but again we can best guess, taking a median position between extremes and all out in the public peer-reviewed. That's a better starting point than the present free-for-all. This conversion into money for the act of spoiling some aspect of our planet for future generations is not a government get out of jail free card. The money has to be ploughed straight back into a relevant conservation or remedial project. To make some amends for the mess we are currently living with. We have to take serious now this planet we live and on start to look after it in a meaningful way.
This principle spreads wider and relates not just to the planet, its biosphere, flora and fauna but also to the accumulated history of man's activities on the earth. The rich mosaic of artifacts we inherited needs to be conserved for future generations, for it explains what we are. Not every single scrap that has history marked on it, but those that are lodged as relevant and significant to the place, time or progression. Most of our vast accumulation of detritus from the past will fail the test suggested leaving some room to move forward.
If a property passes the test and is relevant and significant, then those features and their setting deemed so must be preserved, repaired and a new apt use found, with all costs carried by the custodian owner or forfeit their claim. Once every avenue has been explored and there are no viable options, only then can the owner opt for demolition or significant change. As a pre-requisite the owner to pay up-front for a complete 3D and physical archive of those deemed features and settings, reclaimation of all re-usable materials and payment for future proofed archiving of such records, in consideration of the history lost to later generations.
Just to loop back to an earlier post, to turn green soil into a building plot is not a free right that can be issued by the government. It belongs to our future and the least is an up-front payment to remove all evidence of mans intervention and return the soil back to its prior condition. As above such money not trickling into government coffers but put into immediate use to rescue land or a building in peril.
Nothing is for free and an appropriate contribution to the loss for future generations must be made before commercial gain can be taken.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)