In late October 2010, to offset the projected reduction of 30% of the budget of the Ministry of Environment, the British government offered to sell 150,000 acres of forest - half the forested area owned by the state. The entire British press then denounced the project. "This sale, which represents the transfer of land to state the largest ever since the Second World War, could result in the construction of subdivisions, golf courses and holiday villages in places formerly protected," noted The Guardian .
On 23 January 2011, the group England's green Save Forests demanded the cancellation of the project in an open letter published by The Daily Telegraph signed by 100 luminaries. Over 80% of British citizens opposed the project. February 17, meet this discontent, the British government turned around and gave up the project.
"I'm sorry, we were wrong," said Caroline Spelman, Minister of the Environment to the House of Commons. However, on 21 February, The Independent, called for vigilance. The newspaper pointed the finger including a "revision of legislation which aims to consolidate twenty-five clauses in an attempt to delegate some decision-making power to local communities and forest areas could leave without safeguards." The newspaper was concerned that local authorities "may consider the benefits to be derived from the exploitation of forested areas to be more interesting than their preservation." 
On 23 January 2011, the group England's green Save Forests demanded the cancellation of the project in an open letter published by The Daily Telegraph signed by 100 luminaries. Over 80% of British citizens opposed the project. February 17, meet this discontent, the British government turned around and gave up the project.
"I'm sorry, we were wrong," said Caroline Spelman, Minister of the Environment to the House of Commons. However, on 21 February, The Independent, called for vigilance. The newspaper pointed the finger including a "revision of legislation which aims to consolidate twenty-five clauses in an attempt to delegate some decision-making power to local communities and forest areas could leave without safeguards." The newspaper was concerned that local authorities "may consider the benefits to be derived from the exploitation of forested areas to be more interesting than their preservation."
No comments:
Post a Comment