by Michael Smith (Veshengro)
The British coalition government between Tories and Whigs is putting forward the framework for legislation to sell off much of the government-owned forests and despite much protests seems to be going ahead with it. Truth is they have to raise money somehow to bring the country back from bankruptcy.
While everyone in the green sector seems to be up in arms about this suggestion I wonder whether it may not actually be a good idea.
Claims and comments such as this one “The government is getting ready for a huge sell-off of our national forests to private firms. This could mean ancient woodlands are chopped down and destroyed. Walkers and endangered animals, like red squirrels and owls, would have to make way for Center Parcs-style holiday villages, golf courses, and logging companies” by 38 Degrees ( http://www.38degrees.org.uk) are not helpful as they more than likely are very misleading.
“We need to stop these plans”, 38 Degrees say, and continue “ancient forests like the Forest of Dean and Sherwood Forest are national treasures - once they’re gone, they are lost forever.”
I am well aware that to many my suggestion is tantamount to treason and betrayal of green principles but allow me to play the Devil's advocate, for a while at least.
The claim of “ancient forests” which always, in the minds of the public conjures up forests never touched by the hand of man and never managed for forest products, etc. are entirely wrong. There are no “ancient” or “untouched” forests and woodlands in Britain or elsewhere in Europe bar one or two in the East of the continent that were so inaccessible that timber extraction was not possible. All other forests and woodlands have been used and managed.
The great forests mentioned by the 38 Degrees group were, once upon a time and that not all that long ago, privately owned or owned by the crown and administered by Agisters and other forest officers and the usage rites were “owned” by the so-called “foresters”, much like “commoners” that had rites to the common of a village.
Originally British forests were the hunting reserves of the crown and thus had special protection. Other forests and woods were owned by the landowners, the Lords and the Lords of the Manor and the Lairds in Scotland. The state has not been the owner of our forests for long.
The Centre Parcs-style holiday villages – oh mt G-D what eyesores – are not necessarily on the horizon and that simply because there is no money for building those and there are no customers either. So let's stop with silly claims and scaremongering.
The management of our forests – the state-owned ones – via the Forestry Commission (most of the British woods and forests are in fact privately owned though most people tend to forget that) – leaves much to be desired, as does that of the majority of our privately owned woodlands and especially of those owned by local authorities and local governments.
The Forestry Commission was not, in fact, established to protect our forests. It was a commercial government operation to ensure that enough wood was available for the use by the military and especially “vital” industry such as props for the coal mines. That was its primary task. The rest just sort of developed later when amenity had greater value than the pit props. You don't need pit props when you haven't got any pits left.
Afforestation was the main reason for the creation of the commission in 1919. Britain had then only 5% of its original forest cover left and the government at that time wanted to create a strategic resource of timber. Since then forest area has more than doubled and the remit of the commission is now much more focused on sustainable forest management and on maximizing public benefits. Establishment of new forests and woodlands has gone out of the window, unfortunately.
The Forestry Commission claims also to be the government body responsible for the regulation of private forestry and claims that felling is generally illegal without first obtaining a license from the Commission. Having worked in forestry, private forestry, for many years this is something rather new to me.
Apparently the Commission claims also to be responsible encouraging new planting and while it is true that the Commission used to provide grants in support of private forests and woodlands, new planting is something that any forestry estate and forest owner who manages his or her forests and woodlands properly would do without the interference of the FC. In the current climate I am sure we shall see this support of grants fall drastically. Not that, to all intents and purposes, it should ever be needed.
So, let's not loose too many tears and sleepless nights over the FC losing a couple of its forests.
As long as the woods are not just clear felled by the buyers for a quick buck – and legislation could prevent that from happening – and are properly managed for future timber and other forest products, which everyone on his or her right mind buying such assets would do, then privatizing many of those forests and woodlands might just be a good idea.
People could band together and buy their own local forests and then manage them and thus much better use could, maybe, made of them than are currently be made by the FC and local authorities.
Thus many proper community woodlands and forests could be created and the forests products could be marketed primarily for local use, which could encourage local industry regeneration.
Personally, I wonder whether the FC itself, which is not a ministerial department but, to all intents and purposes is a Quango, should not be gotten rid off itself.
While, and I am the first to admit that, its research arm is a most valuable one as far as tree diseases and such go the rest of the operations may not be as useful as claimed.
I told you I was going to play the Devil's advocate here...
What we really must get down to is to get the management of our local authority owned woodlands and forests to be put under proper commercial management – somehow managed by the councils – to (1) clean them up and (2) bring in some revenue from the forests products that could be created and (3) by the same way also encouraging the creation of local industries making use of those products. It can be done and must be done, if only to keep the woods and forests in good shape.
Britain's forests and woodlands are in a mess and we need to, urgently, revitalize their uses. In the West Country there are coppice woodlands that, due to pressure from misguided greenies, have not been managed for decades now because those greenies made claims that those woods were ancient woods and must return to their original state.
Unfortunately none of them has a clue about forestry operations and those coppice woodlands are in danger of breaking apart, literally, with the thousand or more years old coppice stools simply falling over and that is the end of it. No more woods at all. Shame there are so many in the green movement who do not want to understand that.
You want woodlands and forests? Make sure you own them and not the state even. If the community and people feel strongly enough there should be ways and means that could make real community woodlands and forests possible. But they then also need to be managed properly.
© 2010
