According to this article, DEFRA is planning to meet its 25% cuts target by measures including Natural England selling it off its Nature Reserves.

Plan to sell off nature reserves risks 'austerity countryside' | Politics | The Guardian

Nature reserves are not simply pretty places to visit or museums of natural history, they are living deposits of biodiversity vital to our long term future.

kay wrote:
According to this article, DEFRA is planning to meet its 25% cuts
target by measures including Natural England selling it off its Nature
Reserves.

'Plan to sell off nature reserves risks 'austerity countryside' |
Politics | The Guardian' (http://tinyurl.com/3x5mzjn)

Nature reserves are not simply pretty places to visit or museums of
natural history, they are living deposits of biodiversity vital to our
long term future.

I recall a remark about people who know "the cost of everything, and the
value of nothing".

--
Mike.

On Sat, 14 Aug 2010 20:33:17 +0200, Mike Lyle
wrote:

kay wrote:
According to this article, DEFRA is planning to meet its 25% cuts
target by measures including Natural England selling it off its Nature
Reserves.

'Plan to sell off nature reserves risks 'austerity countryside' |
Politics | The Guardian' (http://tinyurl.com/3x5mzjn)

Nature reserves are not simply pretty places to visit or museums of
natural history, they are living deposits of biodiversity vital to our
long term future.

I recall a remark about people who know "the cost of everything, and the
value of nothing".


There would be some advantages to the sale/transfer of National Nature
Reserves to suitable managers (local and national wildlife trusts) as they
could attract considerable European funding for their management,
something which a quango is not able to do.
--
rbel

Malcolm wrote:
In article , rbel
writes
On Sat, 14 Aug 2010 20:33:17 +0200, Mike Lyle
wrote:

kay wrote:
According to this article, DEFRA is planning to meet its 25% cuts
target by measures including Natural England selling it off its
Nature Reserves.

'Plan to sell off nature reserves risks 'austerity countryside' |
Politics | The Guardian' (http://tinyurl.com/3x5mzjn)

Nature reserves are not simply pretty places to visit or museums of
natural history, they are living deposits of biodiversity vital to
our long term future.

I recall a remark about people who know "the cost of everything,
and the value of nothing".


There would be some advantages to the sale/transfer of National
Nature Reserves to suitable managers (local and national wildlife
trusts) as they could attract considerable European funding for
their management, something which a quango is not able to do.

Correct.

What seems to be being suggested is an extension of ownership by other
organisations. I note that the article mentions selling "minority or
majority stakes" and wonder why not the whole of them. That would
raise money but still safeguard the sites. Every single NNR is also
an SSSI and, in the great majority of cases, has additional
protection under European legislation, e.g as SPAs or SACs. Actual
ownership matters much less than how the site is managed.

This from the NE website:
"There are currently 224 NNRs in England (and one Marine Nature
Reserve, Lundy)"

"Natural England manages about two thirds of England's NNRs, whilst
the remaining third are managed by organisations approved by Natural
England; for example, National Trust, the Forestry Commission, RSPB,
many Wildlife Trusts and Local Authorities. Of Natural England's NNRs,
about 30% are owned and almost 50% leased. The rest are held under
Nature Reserve Agreements."

Ah, that sounds good. But note that the OP mentioned "selling off": that
rings alarms.

--
Mike.

Agreed that sounds good. But are local wildlife trusts, wildlife charities etc likely to have the funds to buy all or part of such sites? Especially in a rapid sell-off? If no buyer is found, what then? Will there not be a danger that recommended management regimes will become flexible in order to attract a buyer?