No matter what the outcome of the vote today, the process of a rapid and radical change to the structure of land based management in the UK as a whole is forthcoming. All involved in the industry from the periphery (scientists, academics et al.,) through to the sole trader practitioner will be affected.
Avoiding the arguments with regards the ‘Public Bodies Bill’, the concerns about access and other mainstream issues, which are the current base of opposition to the plans principally from public or political quarters, there remain four very serious wider reaching issues that will result in collateral damage to the industry as a whole:
Existing guidelines and management techniques will become void. The diminishment of the FC has to occur in some form to allow the proposals to become more accountable financially when its major income source is sold. Not only will any reference to values of trees in ecological, environmental, amenity value, which allow for continued research, be removed by the sole recognition of trees for timber value alone based on the proposed sales but also all of the work by the FC and others will be simply discredited and thus a complete halt in progress towards ‘sustainable forest management’ in the UK will occur.
The ideals of Sustainable Forest Management are borne out of international liaison, the subsequent treaties and obligations were then ratified by the UK. Read any documentation, guidelines and principles with regards global forestry and the fact that sustainable forest management is only achievable with community interaction or ownership, is regularly quoted. State funded forestry provides the example for a sustainable structure to proceed in all forest management, be it plantation or primeval. State funded forestry allows for a secondary income which aids the internal timber market as well as allowing for all relevant sustainable factors to be achieved by self financing. The UK parliament will be allowing England to become the ‘miscreant’ example – the exact opposite model to the ideals established after over 20 years of intensive global academic research, (which the UK contributed to funding).
It is a fact that whoever purchases ex FC woodland, from NGO through to International business, will reduce management and maintenance. Not only will this reduce the biodiversity recognised in well managed woodlands. It will produce a large surplus of qualified personnel into an already disenfranchised private land based management industry. There is simply not enough work for these practitioners and the overspill into horticulture and other sectors will be difficult for all existing practitioners. Many of those that have worked in public estate will have been able to gain the most up to date qualifications and certification against those in the private sector, who have had to pay for updates. This imbalance will have drastic consequences for the incumbent private sector
The reduction of future management and maintenance comes at a time of extreme pressure on the natural ecology of our landscape from various ‘introduced’ threats: Grey Squirrels, Deer, Rhododendron & Other non native plants and last but most significantly the emergence of Phytophthora and other diseases. There is little doubt that the spread of forest pests will become an increasingly significant issue and will assuredly isolate the UK timber industry further and increase demand for imported timbers. Measures to ban timber from non sustainable resources or even illegally felled timber have not been adopted by either the UK or the EU to date. Timber prices will thus be prone to foreign influence beyond the control of the relatively UK timber industry.
Anybody working in land based industry will have to re position themselves and adopt a protectionist measures over their business interests at a time when the private land based industry sector is already suffering from the financial crisis and low esteem from a deflated image of the industry as a whole, (further compounded by public critics of the forest sales targeting private industry as being in the ‘Pro’ camp). This will eventually lead into a reduction of taxes through revenue from the private industry, thus further reducing the economic benefits of the ‘disposal of public forest estate’.
Comments
good post
thanks pip this is a sale for political dogma not for the good british woodland i find the whole thing rather egregious
Thanks Chris,
Last nights vote has helped to depoliticise the issue, thus perhaps debate on the real issues will be forthcoming. I am still utterly bewildered that the economics of the sale are flippantly disregarded, which will ultimately lose the government huge amounts from the private sector in tax revenue etc., and the NGOs will simply lap up grants through necessity costing us all much more money!?!
Cameron's statement yesterday left me reeling: "Of course I'm listening to all of the arguments that are being put on this issue. But I would ask is it the case that there are organisations like the Woodland Trust, like the National Trust, who could do a better job than the Forestry Commission? I believe there are." This is just wrong. He has not only denounced the FC at a stroke without any knowledge of what they have accomplished but also placed the WT and NT in the firing line. And there is a lot to fire at them, particularly from the practitioners angle - the wage structures imposed by these NGOs will have repercussions for us all - minimum wage if you are lucky.