www.ukbutterflies.co.uk

I'd be interested to know what forum members think of the Government's plans to sell off half the woodland currently overseen by the Forestry Commission, as reported, for example, here:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/countr ... rests.html

Guy

Personally I'd be horrified if we lose any of our forests to development. We don't have enough as it is.

From what I've read this year the FC get it just about right with regards to business and conservation.

I appreciate we are a growing population in a small island but it will be a sadder place to live if we lose any threatened or rare species because of this.

Lee

This is the worrying part:

Legislation which currently governs the treatment of "ancient forests" such as the Forest of Dean and Sherwood Forest is likely to be changed giving private firms the right to cut down trees.

Private organisations aren't going to purchase woodland for aesthetic reasons. They'll be doing it to develop the sites commercially, which means motor-biking trails, logging, paintballing activities, etc.

Any of these would be wholly detrimental to nature in general, and obviously butterflies by association.

Evidently the current government believe destruction (probably irreversible) of the natural landscape to save a few million is a worthwhile and responsible thing to do. I personally do not agree...meanwhile, we are increasing aid to overseas nations by some 37%, including countries like India, which is a nuclear power and has its own space programme!

You couldn't make it up, could you? What a twisted sense of priorities some people possess.

Unfortunately, they are the ones currently in power.

Now, where's 'Swampy' when you need him?

There's not a great deal of FC owned land local to me, apart from the New Forest that is, and I doubt they would put a national park on the market, would they . For some of the woodlands that do get sold off, it will inevitably be a disaster, Center Parcs etc. But others may end up in the hands of body's like the wildlife Trust, or Butterfly Conservation, who knows. Whatever happens, it's important that conservation body's get involved as much as possible, with the development of the sold off land.

Regards Gruditch

While the Forestry Commission don't always get things right, they do understand the relevance of conservation. My concern is that this understanding will be lacking in any organisation or individual that purchases woodland for whatever purpose. The thought of Center Parc-style sites horrifies me; their main objective is to make money (like any business), not conserve. Let alone golf courses and the like.

The amount of "spin" in quite incredible: "We are looking to energise our forests by bringing in fresh ideas and investment" and "by putting conservation in the hands of local communities".

I've yet to see any forest that needs energising, or any local community looked upon for their conservation expertise!

Cheers,

- Pete

I have had my arguments with the Forestry Commission in the past and whilst they still remain a personal hate object I was inspired enough to dash off a letter to my MP .


The Rt. Hon. J.R.S. Hunt M.P.
The House of Commons
London
SW1A 0AA

25 October 2010

Dear Mr. Hunt,

I recently read a newspaper report quoting the usual Whitehall sources suggesting that the government is about to sell off forest and woodland owned by the Forestry Commission for development and for conservation.

Development and conservation do not make bedfellows. Britain already has the lowest density of forests in Europe and it is almost entirely due to the efforts of the Forestry Commission that both our native and conifer woods have expanded and flourished since the war. Admittedly the Forestry Commission used to be cursed for its miles of serried ranks of evergreens but they have been educated and now they are responsible champions of conservation; they consult with local interests regarding wildlife and they gain the support of civilian interests. This is something that no company will do, for they have an over-riding business interest.

I strongly urge you to oppose any attempt to sell off our woodland. Be it apparently owned by a government department or some ancient royal demesne, it is not a government asset to sell, it belongs to the people who pay for it and use it. There is Forestry Commission land in your constituency and I doubt that you would want it turned into a golf-club, or holiday park, or simply cropped and then sold off for housing - I certainly do not. We do not need changes in our forests nor in our forest laws.

Yours sincerely,



C.J. Rees

I'm fairly pragmatic about it; surely it depends upon what parts are sold off and to which bodies or organisations..?

Personally, I don't object in principle to the FC being scaled down.

I wouldn't really want to see any more Center Parcs as I loath them and everything they stand for, but I am in the minority. The 'Great British Public' love 'em and sadly they seem to get a say in everything these days.

It always seems to be about what the majority of the public want these days.

Felix.

This government like the last, have no interest in conservation, and they should rightly be condemned for this. And their terminology like Pete says, is a joke.

But I tend to agree with Felix, as I said earlier, there is an opportunity for conservation body's to snap up some prime sites here. Sites that then won't come under threat with every change of government, or during every down turn in the economy.

My local site which is County Council owed, fell in to wreck and ruin during the last recession. Only the threat of legal action, for not maintaining a SSSI, made them snap into action. Now with the funding cuts, all that hard work over the last few years, that resulted in the return of Chalkhill, and Adonis Blues, will probably be undone.

Regards Gruditch

My friend Nigel Cooper,the Chaplain of ARU, gave a talk recently in which he likened the "development of eco-system services" (ie. the Natural World) to the Enclosures; an opportunity for the rich to get richer and the poor to be made poorer....
Plus ca change...

It's an interesting one this one. My natural instinct is to think it's a bad idea, as despite it's faults, the Forestry Commission does at least have multiple motives, not just the profit motive.

However, it really does depend which woods they sell off. I can think of vast tracts of monoculture woodland in Wales that has hardly anything particularly special in it. Owned by a private company, there would be little loss.

Of course, if the woodland sold off is varied broadleaf and currently managed for wildlife, then we need to worry.

selbypaul wrote: However, it really does depend which woods they sell off. I can think of vast tracts of monoculture woodland in Wales that has hardly anything particularly special in it. Owned by a private company, there would be little loss.

If there is hardly anything special in it, then it probably won't appeal to private investors, sadly.

At least the developers who like to create the adventure sites where you can swing from tree to tree like a monkey tend to favour the areas of woodland where telegraph poles (and little else) grow...

Dave

True, they would much prefer conifers, not those nasty trees that shed there leafs, and look ugly for half the year.

Regards Gruditch

Perhaps that's a compromise solution - just sell off the conifer plantations.

Having spoken to someone today, who's stayed at 3 of the 4 Center Parcs sites in the UK. And after checking out their website, I don't think their all that bad.

http://www.centerparcs.co.uk/discover/n ... /index.jsp

Regards Gruditch

My Union is onto this:

Plans by the government to privatise up to half of Forestry Commission land would deny future generations of our woodlands and forests, PCS says.

The union also fears that hundreds of jobs would be at risk as a result of the sell-off and vulnerable rural communities would lose out.

In 2009 a detailed study of the long term role of the public forest estate was carried out by the Forestry Commission. It reported that public forests were good value for money providing multiple social and environmental benefits and concluded that public ownership was essential in supporting the estate.

The union has pledged to campaign alongside other unions, environmental groups and communities to secure the future of our forests for our children and grandchildren in the decades to come.

PCS Forestry Commission group officer Allan Mackenzie said “Our public forests contain some of the nation’s most important natural treasures and any thought of selling these to the highest bidder would go against all the progress being made to secure our natural environment now and into the future.”

PCS general secretary Mark Serwotka added: “Public forests are a national asset enjoyed by all of us and selling them off to make room for golf courses or holiday parks would be a huge loss to the nation.

“Forests also play a major role in protecting the environment and this too would be under threat if they were sold off to private hands to chop down for profit.”

http://www.pcs.org.uk/en/news_and_event ... 31C2EBAACA

Having just got back from the Surrey BC AGM I find this reply from my MP. I don't think that it adds anything to our knowledge but at least one minister knows that there is concern out there in them woods.

Thank you for contacting me about forests. I appreciate your concern on this
issue, particularly with regard to the Forestry Commission land within the
constituency.

I am writing to explain the reason behind the inclusion of powers for
modernisation of the forestry legislation in the Public Bodies Bill, which has
just been introduced into Parliament.

Contrary to some beliefs, the Forestry Commission's estate covers only 18% of
England's wooded areas. Nevertheless it is of great importance in the provision
of access, biodiversity, carbon storage and many other public benefits. Some of
it is producing much of our domestic timber, other areas are almost entirely
devoted to public benefit and others are a mix of the two.

The Government are committed to shifting the balance of power from 'Big
Government' to 'Big Society' by giving individuals, businesses, civil society
organisations and local authorities a much bigger role in protecting and
enhancing the natural environment and a much bigger say about our priorities
for it.

By including enabling powers in the Bill we will be in a position to make
reforms to managing the estate. We will consult the public on our proposals
later this year, and will invite views from a wide range of potential private and
civil society partners on a number of new ownership options and the means to
secure public benefits. We envisage a managed programme of reform to further
develop a competitive, thriving and resilient forestry sector that includes many
sustainably managed woods operating as parts of viable land-based businesses.
The Government will not compromise the protection of our most valuable and
bio diverse forests. Full measures will remain in place to preserve the
public benefits of woods and forests under any new ownership arrangements.
Tree felling is controlled through the licensing system managed by the Forestry
Commission, public rights of way and access will be unaffected, statutory
protection for wildlife will remain in force and there will be grant incentives for
new planting that can be applied for. When publishing our proposals we will
explore further the options for securing and increasing the wide range of public
benefits currently delivered by Government ownership and how they might be
achieved at lower cost.
This will be a new approach to ownership and management of woodlands and
forests, with a reducing role for the State and a growing role for the private
sector and civil society. At the same time, it reflects the Government's firm
commitment to the continued conservation of the biodiversity and other public
benefits which forests and woodland provide. These aims are not incompatible
with alternative models of ownership, or our commitment to the natural
environment.

Please do not hesitate to contact me if I can be of further assistance.

Yours sincerely,

Rt Hon Jeremy Hunt MP
Member of Parliament for South West Surrey
Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport

I see.

I must make sure I see the Wood White next year, whilst I am still legally allowed to access its sites and there are still some there to look at.

I see more about public "benefit" being maintained, rather than public "rights"...
This always worries me, since it seems "benefit" = "value" = "money".....

As I said above and expand on.....

NickB wrote:My friend Nigel Cooper,the Chaplain of ARU, gave a talk recently in which he likened the "development of eco-system services" (ie. the Natural World) to the Enclosures; an opportunity for the rich to get richer and the poor to be made poorer....
Plus ca change...

This Forestry Commission land sell-off is akin to the Enclosures......
It is already Our land; we, the Nation, the great unwashed, ultimately own it, after all. Our Politicians should be mindful of that

...Monetising the "value" of the natural environment, as my friend Nigel said, is simply a chance for the rich to get richer and the poor poorer, on many levels.......whilst justifying it is as being better and more efficient use of the commonwealth of public land.

H'mm - that does sound rather similar to the Minister's Statement above....
Matsukaze - you may just be right....
N

From the Rt Hon Mr Hunt's letter it sound like the government's mind is already made up.

I shudder at the thought of what individuals, businesses, civil society organisations and local authorities might do to our woodland heritage, and the biodiversity he claims to want to protect, that lives within them. Perhaps local authorites may have a better idea, but the rest? Forget it.

At least there will be consultation. I hope conversation bodies such as Butterfly Conversation and the RSPB get involved as soon as possible and can be as fully persuasive as needed in any plans.

To me it sounds like the shift from 'Big Government' to 'Big Society', in this context, is a cost cutting excerise. Now, how much is that deficit??

Lee