Reading the minutes of other people’s meetings is not my natural habitat or habit. However, you never know what you might find. The trouble is, most minutes are written to hide rather than expose any interesting parts of the meetings they purport to summarise.
Briefing paper on badger cull – it’s interesting that the areas suggested for culling were suggested by the farming community (para 2.4). I hadn’t appreciated how much in charge they were. But the whole paper is interesting.
Engagements of Chair of Natural England – you wouldn’t envy him the job would you? Simon Jenkins and lots of farmers! And the Red Squirrel Survival Trust (that wasn’t Prince Charles by any chance was it?).
Dedication of NE’s NNRs for open access – quite interesting, and I had missed this. Why are all NNRs (owned by NE) going to get open public access? Is it a good idea? How well will any appropriate assessments be done? What are the motives behind this? I note that the Minister is content with this proposal (what a good delivery agency to ask!). It couldn’t be, could it, that this is in preparation for another move to sell off some public land and recognises that access was a sticking point for forestry? Or could it be a move which would aid the merger of FC and NE? Some hope! What do you think it means – if anything.
[registration_form]
It’s amazing the walshaw public inquiry never made it onto the agenda isn’t it? Or was it decided that discussions with ministers was best left un-minuted?
Perhaps not that amazing. I suppose that there was no much point in the NE Board discussing a fait accompli that Defra alledgedly presented them with.
Given that NE’s back down over the Walshaw affair, effectively revealed the extent to which NE have been neutered by Defra, I could understand the embarrassment that the NE board members might have felt. I mean what is the point of sitting on the board of an organisation that has all the big decisions made for it by another organisation ?
Ernest – welcome and thank you!
An interesting excerpt from the May 2012 NE Board meeting that was passed to me by a colleague:
‘Concern was expressed by one member, and respected by others, around the implications of changes for fulfilling Natural England’s purpose. Terms had been lost which went to the heart of Natural England being a Non-departmental Public Body (NDPB) including ‘ independent champion for the natural environment’ and ‘holding the Government to account for the environment’ that reflected a different role from the one Natural England had been set up to pursue at Vesting. The Board member concerned considered this to be a significant loss of role and voice to the natural environment movement.’
Mark, Is it me or is the NNR link meant to go straight to the Red Squirrel Protection site
Bob – no it wasn’t you, it was me! Sorry. Fixed now. Pity I was out all day (saw 16 spoonbills) so couldn’t do it earlier.
16 spoonbills?! Happy days!
Pete – and they weren’t, as they usually seem to be, asleep!
Thanks for this, Mark. Fascinating stuff – a few thoughts: I’d be prepared to bet that Board member won’t be invited back – and hopefully he or she wasn’t planning a career as a quango- crat: the fatal flaw in the whole system, now so many people are making quangos their career, is that go against the Civil Service/establishment view and that’s you out. Which largely invalidates the whole concept of a degree of independent advice.
Did you notice something about the Chair’s engagement ? Not one single meeting with a conservation NGO – and a programme which looks increasingly like an NE devoted largely to delivering agri-environment on behalf of a Defra which is a wholely owned subsidiary of the NFU.
And it must be a morally difficult time for some NE staff over Badgers – but I would stick firmly to the line that noone is forced to be there and it is the duty of public servants to carry out the wishes of the elected administration. Just one crumb of comfort: putting your best into this increasingly crazy policy is probably the best way to damage Defra and its Ministers its possible to imagine !
There was a classic comment from Brian May on Titchmarsh today. “We know it comes from cattle because it’s called bovine Tb.” – He repeated the claim to the farmer present in a very condescending way.
The farmer responded that May was peddling deliberate falsehoods. I think he may have had a point in this instance.
We are often lectured about ‘the science’ – is it a scientific position that because it is called ‘Bovine’ Tb it originated in cattle? I very much doubt it. Can we use the same logic to other diseases. Must Spanish flu have originated in Spain? Maybe someone on this blog could tell us if there is any evidence that it originated in cattle? It would be interesting to know if there was.
May also claims that he ‘knows’ most road killed badgers are killed before they got to the road. Apparently he knows this because he over hard two farmers saying they had killed badgers. Ah well that proves it then!
Whatever ‘the science’ is behind the issue of TB in wildlife it does no good for people with a scientific background to present supposition as fact.
Giles – to be fair I think Brian May’s background is slightly more ‘guitarist’ than ‘scientist’. And his PhD was in astrophysics wasn’t it? My PhD in ecology and behaviour doesn’t brilliantly equip me to talk about black holes – though if i did, maybe I’d get it right.
That’s true Mark. I don’t have a particularly scientific background (unless computer science is a science which I don’t really think it is). However even I can see that Mr May’s means of deduction is bunkum as I strongly suspect can you. He’s made this claim and been challenged over it several times. I’ve done a quick google and found nothing to suggest that there is anything remotely conclusive pointing to cattle as the origin of M Bovis. Maybe it did maybe it didn’t. Without strong evidence either way the only honest position is that we don’t know. Suggesting it’s name proves it’s origin is self evident twaddle.
I was listening to a professor in bio chemistry at my daughters prize giving and she said science is as much about acknowledging what we don’t know as what we do. Wise words!
Roderick – I did notice that the conservation NGO meetings were a bit difficult to spot. Funny that. i expect they are in and out of richard Benyon’s office the whole time though – or maybe not.
Rob – I wrote an article on exactly that part of the May 2012 meeting
http://www.endsreport.com/35106/no-clarity-on-triennial-review
(If you’re not a subscriber you can get a free trial, or email me at simon dot evans at haymarket dot com)
Interesting snippets from the more recent 26 September board meeting include only a very very brief mention of the triennial review. I can’t imagine the short paragraph in the chief exec’s report is all they discussed but will have to wait for the minutes to be published in a few months (!). There is also a very short mention of a dispute with the PCS union, which is now subject of ongoing discussions…
also – Mark, I thought I was cynical but was not cynical enough to detect the hint of possible nefarious dealings in the NNR review. I hope your suspicions are unfounded, but of course we still have to wait for the DEFRA response to the Independent Wood Panel report (they are only called that in my head but you know who I mean)
Mark, on the NNR access, my suggestion is that NE has largely failed on the people agenda and this was a bright idea for something cheap and easy – in that the NNR managers couldn’t object because they’d be told not to. It may also be an attempt to head off other access proposals – like to all woodland, which Ramblers raised during the forest sell off – which the Government’s landowning friends don’t like. It doesn’t really seem a very sensible idea, to be honest – wetlands will probably look after themselves, but open habitats like grasslands ? – I don’t think Stone Curlew & open access will mix too well and the resulting restrictions always risk putting up a big banner saying ‘rare birds here’.
ps your comment re FC/NNRs – were they to be managed together the brainless answer would be ‘they’ve all got to have the same access standards’. Hopefully the FC approach would be: the robust forests can absorb the visitor pressure, and because of that we keep or if anything reinforce the ‘quiet for nature’ access approach where its necessary.
Open access on ALL of NE’s NNR’s ? Sounds like a very silly and ill considered idea to me.
Perhaps Owen Patterson and a select group of Defra / NE dignitaries may care to personally trial this idea at Wybunbury Moss ?
http://www.naturalengland.org.uk/ourwork/conservation/designations/nnr/1006162.aspx
Rather strange but original comment not arrived your end obviously,no worries.Something like this.
Think Brian May most of the time talks more sense on badgers than almost anyone.Almost certainly cattle were the original culprits in infecting badgers bu that is now irrelevant as it is so widespread in both cattle and badgers we desperately need to get the disease cleared up before it gets even much worse.
If the vaccine is effective then think Brian Mays suggestion that vaccination is the only answer is spot on as to solve the problem with a wholesale cull that was likely to work would surely be unacceptable to everyone except blood thirsty people.
Unfortunately B May rather lets himself down when I understand at a meeting he said 9 out of every 10 dead badgers at the roadside in the south west were killed by farmers then dumped.
Can only think it was a bit of a outburst when he was riled and we have to forgive him one silly quote as for sure we have all done it at some time.
Dennis – sorry if a comment went astray (that is unusual). Thank you for your comment which was well worth typing again and reading for the first time!
“we have to forgive him one silly quote ”
But he keeps making them. Suggesting that Clarissa Dixon-Wright should be cooked and eaten wasn’t exactly out of the top drawer
“Suggesting that Clarissa Dixon-Wright should be cooked and eaten wasn’t exactly out of the top drawer”
Agreed. Given the amount of game she has probably eaten over the years, I suspect that one small portion of CDW would result in much more than a one whole point reduction in IQ.
Joe W
That would very possibly be true – and her opinions might also be difficult to digest.
“… one small portion of CDW” has something disturbingly Jethro about it, which I’d rather not contemplate
Filbert,thought we all agreed with him on that one.Am still laughing at that one,quite often have a job understanding your intellectual comments.Suppose that one shows my level.
Mark,no apologies needed as these things are bound to happen occasionally.You run a great efficient blog.