The Great Halloween Sell-off: Some Questions Remain

by Muizing1 | Nov 8, 2010 | British Forests, Environment, Forests, Green and Blue

2011 has been declared the “International Year of the Forests” by the United Nations, for good reason and it would seem a great pity considering their sub-title: “Celebrating Forests for People” if it proved to be the year in which the British people lost their own forests.

This may well come to be remembered as the “Great Halloween Sell-off”, as it was around about the time of Halloween in which the government announced it plans to sell off at least half of the land in England that at present belongs to the British people and which is being maintained under the stewardship of the Forestry Commission.

150,000 hectares of forest and other land owned by the state in England are to be sold within three years. The original idea of selling off forests right across Britain was dropped when the Scottish and Welsh governments said they were not willing to sacrifice their forests (presumably realising the Scots and the Welsh are not stupid enough to let them get away with something like this).

In today’s climate of austerity and cut-backs is this something we should be at all concerned about, or is it an issue of little importance?

We are only just beginning to realise the value of trees and forests to ourselves, and that once they have gone we lose assets that are irreplaceable. It is worth doing some serious research regarding the facts and issues involved in order to make an informed choice as to whether we are happy to allow the forests to be privatised, or whether keeping the forests as our own is something worth fighting for.

This may be the last time we have any say in the matter and there seem to be some people who are very keen to get their hands on at least certain areas of our forests and they have their own agendas which may have little to do with good stewardship of forests or wildlife or maintaining public access to the places “where the wild things go”…

Petition

Some of the points brought up by environmental writers, various organisations as well as members of the general public in response to this issue are quoted below. There is plenty of food for thought. If you think the issue is important enough to be worth at least being allowed the dignity of a comprehensive evaluation before decisions are made regarding the future of the British forests, consider adding your name to the petition at www.38degrees.org.uk

———————-

DÉJÀ VU

This is not the first time a Conservative government has tried to privatise the nation’s forests. Maggie Thatcher wanted to sell off the forests along with the National Railways, Water, Gas, Electricity etc. We still pay the price for the things she did manage to sell, or practically give away.

John Major tried to privatise the Forestry Commission in 1992

An article in the Independent, by Duff Hart-Davis published in July 1993 could easily have been written as a response to the current Government announcement of its intentions to privatise publicly-owned forests.

“In its desperate search for assets to sell, the Treasury has been casting hungry eyes on the Forestry Commission, the state organisation that, with more than 2.5 million acres, is by far the largest owner and manager of land in Great Britain. This is the moment, therefore, for a clear statement of the belief that privatisation of the commission would be a national disaster.

The simplest argument against a sale is purely financial. Estimates of what the commission’s woodlands are worth have varied sharply. An early figure of pounds 2.7bn is now thought to have been a wild exaggeration; the latest suggestions range from pounds 1.4bn down to pounds 700m. At this rate the gain to the Treasury would be derisory: it would staunch the current budget deficit for three or four days.

Not only that: a sale now would lose the Government very considerable revenue in the future, for, after a slow build-up during the 70 years of its existence, the commission is scheduled to break even for the first time in 1995. Its timber production is rising fast as woods planted in the Thirties and Forties come to maturity, and output will double by the year 2022, with only small extra production or administrative costs.

Finance, however, is only one consideration. More important to ordinary people is the fact that the commission’s forests have become a recreational asset beyond value, offering a general freedom to roam not available on private land. Simply because access is so open, nobody knows precisely how many people enjoy the state forests, but the commission’s own estimate is that they receive more than 50 million visits a year from walkers, joggers, picnickers, campers, caravaners, bird- watchers, orienteers, riders, mountain- bikers, scientific researchers and others, not to mention hordes of schoolchildren in field-study groups.”

Previous attempts drew such outrage and resistance from the public and environmental organisations that they failed.

————–
Assurances

Caroline Spelman, the Environmental Secretary gave assurances when questioned in parliament about the planned sale of forestry land that “not one tree can be felled without a licence being issued by my Department. In the last analysis, we are committed to forest biodiversity and to enhancing biodiversity. Our forests are among the richest of our genetic resources and we have every intention of protecting them”

When considering how likely the government is to keep these kind of promises, it is worth keeping in mind that  the government department in charge of environment faced some of the greatest cutbacks of  all. DEFRA – Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs had its annual budget cut by 30%, including the effect of inflation, which is considerably higher than the government average of 19%.

In addition to this, these cuts are likely to affect the Environmental budget more than those of the Food or Rural Affairs Department – conservation experts are worried that the bulk of these cuts are likely to be made to projects and policies to protect the natural world.

Cutbacks in staff and funding will also make it increasingly difficult for environmental policies to be enforced and any promises made now may prove to be as empty as this government’s original promise to be the “greenest government ever”.

Initial Response to the Announcement of Forestry Sales

“If this means vast swathes of valuable forest being sold to private developers, it will be an unforgivable act of environmental vandalism. Rather than asset-stripping our natural heritage, government should be preserving public access to it, and fostering its role in combating climate change and enhancing biodiversity,” –  Caroline Lucas, Green MP
—————-
“We are concerned developers will cherry pick the most profitable land and we will see huge pressure for development in sensitive places. The environment is going to pay a high price for its settlement in the recent spending review.” – Mary Creagh, Shadow Environment Secretary
—————-
“The observation I would make is that Great Britain is miles behind any other country in Europe in making use of its forest resources. Everywhere else in Europe has lots of small biomass-generation plants. We don’t have that network, which makes me question whether it’s the best time to be selling our forests.

As an environmentalist, I very much hope they won’t think of selling off the biggest and best of our forests, like the Forest of Dean. I hope that remains in public hands.” – Ben Goldsmith, Financier and Environmentalist
—————
“This sale is likely raise a tiny amount but could do immeasurable damage and cost the nation dearly. This land will not be sold for anything like its real environmental and social value. There is no way the private sector is going to provide the same level of care [as the commission],” – Paul Hetherington, Spokesman for the Woodland Trust.
—————-
“The Forestry Commission (FC) owns a substantial amount of land which is of high value for wildlife – a tremendous national asset. Transfer of such land should not take place before a clear policy has been established (Forests sell-off plan is ‘asset-stripping our natural heritage’, 25 October). This policy should ensure areas of high wildlife value – including sites of special scientific interest and local wildlife sites – are secured in the long term. If such sites are to be transferred, the best way to guarantee their future would be to give priority to nature conservation bodies. We hope our strong partnership with the FC will continue, so we can make the most of our strong local presence.” – Stephanie Hilborne, Chief Executive, The Wildlife Trusts
—————–
“I have no doubt that this is something our members would be interested in. What we would be concerned about is if the land is put on the market all at the same time. This would enable industrial landowners to buy them all up and aggressively control the market” – Mike Seville, Forestry and Woodland Advisor for the Country Landowners’ Association.
—————-
“The future ownership and management of land that has high public value should be carefully considered. The proposed land sales are driven by the need to generate quick cash, but they must not be at the expense of protecting our natural capital, which is irreplaceable.” – Mark Avery, Conservation Director at the RSPB
—————-

Some of the Questions

On his blog on the Guardian website, John Vidal includes a list of questions to address regarding the forestry sales. These have been “distilled from Foot’s Book (a new book by David Foot on the history of British forests  over the last 100 years), the Ramblers, Caroline Lucas and others concerned enough about the sale to have written to the Guardian in the last few days.”

1. Will the Forestry Commission itself decide which woods are to be sold?. If not, who will?

2. How will the taxpayer benefit?

3. Will charities and conservation groups be allowed to buy woods by negotiation, or will it be a straight competition?

4. Will employment be guaranteed to former commission workers in socially fragile areas?

5. How will the government ensure that the forests are not simply asset-stripped?

6. Will the government guarantee that no sale or transfer is completed until the buyer has committed to preserving and maintaining access?

7. What effect will the sale have on biomass energy, paper and other companies who need to be able to guarantee supplies of wood?

8. Will the forests be sold on the open market?

9. Where access is currently not secured in law, will this be remedied through the Countryside and Rights of Way Act?

10. How will public access be guaranteed?

11. What guarantees can the government give that conservation will be practised or woods will stay in sympathetic ownership?

12. Will conservation bodies be given privileged opportunity to buy the woods?

13. Will the government still have to pay out to whoever takes over the forests to ensure that the commission’s conservation and recreation policies are maintained?

14. How much revenue-earning potential will the sell-off leave the commission?

Other points raised by Guardian readers:

•Surely the most fundamental question of all for the government to answer if it wants to make sales is WHY sell Forestry Commission woodland to ANY private operator? Why should this vital human need as well as national asset that the government says is only 18% of our pitifully small national forest estate be handed over to anyone? There must be plenty of land then for private operators to start planting on?

•Why not hand it all to conservation groups or better still some of it to a kind of woodland federation perhaps titled the National Forest Trust – with an endowment of course since governments on behalf of the population have for years plundered our natural environment it is well past the time when something should be put back into the environment?

•Who will control the tree diseases introduced by the free market over many years that are devastating timber stocks?

•What about a couple from the DEFRA question and answer session in Parliament yesterday like the forestry industry has stated that the supply and quality of timber from the FC is good – I think that’s a tick for the FC.

•What guarantees will the government give that NONE of the land won’t be chipped away by developers or be turned into theme parks?

•Does the government really believe that timber corporations will manage land sustainably for wildlife and people as well – if so how will it ensure that?

•Will the government guarantee that woodland will not be managed for millions of stupid non native pheasants for city guns and excluding people during the shooting season or killing species that prey on their precious pheasants?

•Many people do not see the need for significant profits to be taken from our countryside, just reasonable ones that give jobs and opportunities to people who will manage our countryside benignly and will actually increase its extent for everyone’s enjoyment as well as help to provide natural resources that we can use sustainably.”

•There is a principle or assumption underpinning all land ownership in this country to the effect that if someone owns land, the landowner should be able to do more or less what they like with it. The planning system broadly supports that principle. That planning system is demonstrably only normally able to delay a determined landowner but not stop them. Why then should the public agree or even remotely want to see, the sale of our already disappearing landscape that we hold to be held in trust and protected for the benefit of us all, to one person or company?

•Will the government prevent fragmentation through a condition of sale and ensure through a well defined process that a site is improved and not degraded? How much will this cost to monitor?

•Will the government incorporate a guarantee that none of the land can be sold for development, or not without the agreement of conservation groups?

•Will small sustainable businesses such as charcoal makers and woodland products producers and educationists have a place?

•Many local authorities manage public open space badly. Spending priorities are focussed on the built infrastructure because it gets votes. What requirements will be made of local authorities and what will this cost?

•What kinds of businesses will be permitted in woodland? What impact does the government think these businesses will have in terms of; numbers of people, disturbance to wildlife, built infrastructure, access roads, solitude.

•What changes will the government make to inadequate wildlife legislation and to existing failing planning policies to protect these woodlands from exploitative landowners?

•What net financial benefit does the government envisage from these sales? What are the calculations that have been used?

•What are the public benefit improvements that we will see from selling off FC sites?

•What precisely are the public benefits that will be retained and, what new public benefits perhaps currently received from the FC will be added to these?

•What accountability and monitoring is envisaged of private woodland and by whom, for example to determine; quality of timber management, biodiversity management, quality of all public benefits, disease control. What will this cost? Will the government retain the option of taking back land that fails to meet expected standards?

•Why not hand management of some land only, to national conservation groups? Given that successive governments have permitted and actively encouraged biodiversity to be destroyed and used any revenues earned for political purposes how much will the government award the conservation groups to repair the massive damage inflicted on the environment?”

•What is going to happen to the English Woodland grant Scheme?

•Will there be any changes in the tax statutes of woodlands?

•Will there be any amendments to the Forestry Act 1967 in regards to felling licences?

•Will the current planning status of woodland within PPG9 be changed within the new proposed changes to the planning legislation?

•Will the value of the woodlands that will be put up for sale reflect the amount of grants and taxable benefits that they will be available to the new owners of the woodland?

•How many Forestry Commission staff will lose their jobs?

•What will happen to Forest Research?

•How are the Tories going to fulfil their manifesto pledge to plant one million new trees in the next Parliament?”

——–

There are lively discussions across the web on the issues.

An anonymous 17^th poem which an online reader posted on the Telegraph website could have been written for today… Do we ever learn?

“They hang the man,
and flog the woman,
That steals the goose from off the common;
But let the greater villain loose,
That steals the common from the goose.”

Anonymous, 17th century

———-
The American Indian quotation below seems to me to make a lot more sense than much that is spoken by “leaders” in our society, whether political leaders, or leaders in industry.

“We must protect the forests for our children,
grand-children and children yet to be born.
We must protect the forests for those
who can’t speak for themselves
such as the birds, animals, fish and trees.”

Qwatsinas (Hereditary Chief Edward Moody), Nuxalk Nation

————–

Once again: If you feel the future of the forests deserves more attention and they should not be sold off and perhaps lost to the public forever before a comprehensive evaluation has been made of the best  , consider signing the petition at: www.38degrees.org.uk

(38 degrees is apparently the angle at which an avalanche happens. Members “take simple, powerful actions to weigh in at critical moments when our values are at stake and we can make a difference.”)