Today at 9.30 parliament will commence debate on the future of the Public Forest estate and thus the future of the Forestry Commission itself, which has already been subject to cuts.
Evidence that came to light during the campaign to oppose the sale of public forests was unearthed by the SOW team and further proved the ludicrousy of the plans, which although are now halted still allow for what many see is an unnecessary debate.
''The long-term role of the Forestry Commission Public Forest Estate in England'' published by Defra in May 2010 remains highly relevant and was contrary to all plans by the coalition government.
Many briefing papers are being forwarded by NGOs etc, but few have realised the need to protect the livelihoods of practitioners and all those associated with the industry. Asides from the recently formed SOW group, which have been able to attract many from within the industry. this is their briefing paper for todays debate:
Briefing - Future of the Forestry Commission Debate
Views: 9
Replies
Sooner or later the issue has to move on to the issue of access to land, and also educate the public about the issue without scaremongering that private ownership = deforestation.
The arguments used to stop the sell off were totally and factually incorrect, and tarred private owners as bad by definition. The arguments should now focus on the fact the FC provides a base-load of timber coming to market each year, ensuring their is a supply of timber to the sector, removing a degree of uncertainty for jobs and industry.
Private owners would not of cut trees down in the crunch - the FC did and would, which helps stabilise the industry.
Completely agree David, one aspect of the SOW campaign, which was why I happily joined in with them, was that it was one of the few groups who looked at the wider issues, particularly the need for felling and timber sales, which saw money going back to the FC to help fund other the wider issues that were comprehensively ignored.
This letter from the UKFPA - http://fctu.org.uk/SpendingReview/UKFPAletter.pdf was one of many from the timber and forestry industry, which I am sure added considerable weight in finally persuading the coalition to abandon their ill concieved plans.
There is real opportunity to educate all, (including the NGOs and Government itself), about the importance of the private sector and its collaboration with the FC - who have effectively been the chief supporter of small businesses in this sector in more recent years.
One identified problem has been the large dominant NGOs and the omnipresence of these NGOs has been partly responsible for damaging the image of private sector land based practitioners both prior to and during the campaign. During this campaign the NGOs were caught 'with their pants down' and heavily criticised for adopting a stance that was out of date and also completely at odds with real issues.
Pip - could not of put it better - Thank you.
THe 38 degrees campagin made me rather upset ot put it bluntly, not one of its assertions was true, and they all implied the result wouldf be golf courses or development, which was a flat lie, yet people belived it as they whipped up hysteria.
I've since learnt that nearly 40% of the private forests in this country are managed for sporting use as the primary income, sport second. This has meant native planting and wildlife friendly management - The exact opposite to what was claimed. This is especially true with the smaller (under 100ac) woods the FC has sold overf the past few years - they hold more value for shooting than timber.
Hopefuly people will now know that the FC is the largest single player, but not the most important in a very diverse and linked industry. It has its benefits as well as its pitfalls, the current system works well, but could be improved.
Credit to Saveourwoodlands - they doo appear to have presented the issue in an honest way without resorting to cheap plattitudes to whip up and make a hit against the govt.
It's really refreshing to see a balanced discussion:-))
I do feel that the government went about the sell-off badly but I've welcomed what's happened since.
Woodland has to be managed and management costs money and that money has to be expended a long time in advance of any crop becoming viable for harvest.
In most cases an owner/investor just becomes a stakeholder and would have actually sold on their ownership/shares well in advance of the wood yielding a profit - it obviously means that in the 5-10-20-50-80+ years the various crops are maturing, somebody has to maintain the rides, roads and tracks, control the vermin, plant or replace trees, provide or manage car parking and maybe toilet and picnic areas.
I do understand that the government felt it better to have to discharge this liability away from the taxpayer: after all, many people who use publicly accessible woodland for recreation purposes probably never contribute financially nor voluntarily toward their upkeep.
It's not just pedestrians who demand access, it's cyclists, horse riders, motorcyclists, quad-bikers and four wheel drive enthusiasts - this is potentially a lot of wear and tear and financial expense for the landowner - well in advance of pay day.
Fly tipping is also a serious issue.
I've carried out work and vermin control for both the Forestry Commission and English woodlands and in the case of the Forestry Commission, I've always felt they've been over-resourced and lacking morale.
Again well pointed out - another issue would be the fact the FC makes no moves to charge business for use of the land, such as Bike rental businesses etc, many of these are totally dependant on woodland, both public and private which they make no contribution to the upkeep of. The public walking in a wood have little idea of what it takes to keep it accesible, and viable. This lack of understanding is then compounded by people not understanding properly that the trees are a Crop, just like any other such as potatos, they just take 75years to mature rather than 1.
From personal experience the cost of planting up a WGS 5.5 acre paddock into woodland costs about 25k. That is after grants and aid. This woodland will not provide an income until I retire
Having just been watching the debate, which did not result in any real conclusions - as Jim Paice was adamant not to discuss the independent panel membership or confirm any particular direction. For me this is good thing - this will continue a 'real' debate about the future of the FC, which will have to deal with cuts of 25% and has swung the debate completly away from the public access argument.
As Phil identifies, there is a myriad of issues that need to be addressed and the practitioners and those with experience can form debate which will actually be listened to now as all campaigns have moved away from immediate public anger and non issues. The NGOs and in particular the Woodland Trust are genuinely worried their previous omnipresence has been criticised and their styles of managing by way of low salary, heavy volunteer usage and large proportions of their income spent on fundraising, (in the case of the WT > 45%), had always created a brick wall against which our voices were never heard. I left my background profession of silviculture when labour entered power over 13 years ago I can now return to it and with the added tools provided by social networking and the internet in general, be able to pass on experience and viewpoint which has been proven to be effective in changing policy.
I hope this opportunity will be ceased on by all land based practitioners to publish their thoughts and actually sway policy into their favour.