You are probably aware (if you live in the UK) that the Government proposal to dispose of the bulk of the Public Forest Estate has itself been disposed of. I really didn’t expect the government to cave in so quickly. Only last week I received a letter from my MP, in response to my concerns, attempting to reassure me that these would be addressed (not that it reassured me in the least). The minister responsible was forced to eat humble pie and decided to confess saying ‘I’m sorry, we got it wrong’.
Now call me a cynic, but………..it seems that no one can quite get to the bottom of what the minister got wrong and is apologising for. What is the ‘it’ she refers to? Under intense questioning she refuses to say it was wrong to plan for the disposal of the public forests. I can only assume that what she really means is ‘It was wrong to try to do it this way’. That’s really not the same thing and it worries me, it’s a recipe for disaster, if the public think she is apologising for one thing whilst the politicians mean entirely another – though of course it has become rather the norm. Somehow, I fear, we have not heard the last of this.
Attempts to flog off something of long term value to pay for short term improvements (meaning before the next election) are nothing new. Our woodlands are generally amongst the first in the firing line as a fascinating programme on Radio 4 revealed earlier this week, The Long View, discussing the public revolt over Epping Forest in the 19th Century. You can still listen to it on-line for a few days at this link here
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b006s7d6
I suspect the real reason the disposal was abandoned so abruptly is quite simple, cash! The disposal was conceived by civil servants and ministers as a way of balancing the books in a department facing a 30% cut in its budget. But with increasing promises of access and biodiversity in response to public alar,m the cost of regulating the disposed of forests started to increase whilst the likely sale receipts shrank as ministers started to talk warmly of ‘transferring’ and ‘leasing’ and of course the Big Society (or BS for short?).
It is not hard to see that the costs of the public consultation, increased regulation and the ‘cost’ of our access to these woods soon outstripped the probable receipts and bingo – disposal cancelled. Or is it? The 15% sale of some of the forest is currently ‘on hold’ and I wait with interest to hear what happens to this programme. Think ‘Yes Minister’ and I don’t think you will be far wrong!
Before I end this rant, let me return to the subject of the 30% cut in the DEFRA (Department of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs) budget. If the civil servants aren’t allowed to flog off a few forests (yet) then you can be sure that they are even now looking to find savings elsewhere that will make our environment, food and rural affairs 30% cheaper overnight.
This is the department that brought us ‘naked jumping from filing cabinets’ and has paid £200million in fines to the EU over the last 5 years because it’s so bad at paying farmers. One thing is for sure. They have learned from their mistake and they won’t make it so easy for us to figure out what we are losing next time around! So if I was you I’d keep an eye on your beaches, footpaths, nature reserves, rivers and even your woodlands while Natural England is well on its way to becoming Homeopathic England. You might just see them getting cheaper in front of your eyes.
Disclosure – I am biased. All photographs in this article are taken on the Lynchmere Commons, a mixed woodland and heathland formerly in private ownership, but in 1998 was bought by The Lynchmere Society, a local community based charity http://www.thelynchmeresociety.org
[…] my thoughts that we had saved our national forests were a bit premature. As Mark Allery points out, this was all a bit too easy and noone is quite sure what the minister means when she […]
Good point Mark – it was unclear excatly what ‘we got wrong’. That said I have to confess to being a little confused by the numbers and statements being bandied about.
Now admittedly I have not read the consultation document which I’m sure makes everything crystal clear. But two interesting statements caught my ear from BBC Radio 4:
1. There has been a kind of ‘standing order’ legal allowance for the government to flog off a certain percentage of Forestry Commission land each year. Apparently we have been quietly doing so for years and years – long before this abandoned proposal was even a twinkle in a Ministers eye – and this will most likely continue for some time – was the implication in the programme I was listening to.
2. At least some of the land under consideration was, on further investigation, found not to be ours to flog. Rather it was leased by private Landowners on a very long lease and peppercorn rent to the Government. The arrangements were set up at the creation of the Forestry Commision – perhaps that could explain some of the statements changing from ‘selling’ to’ leasing’ it off, but in the end, it was deemed too legally complex (or simply not permitted in those leases) to transfer at least those parts to anyone else.
Just wondered if anyone had come across similar information or could confirm if/how they fit into the whole picture.
Rich,
confusion abounds. Definitive answers to your questions are locked up in the Forestry Commission and for obvious reasons they have been kept fairly well muzzled. But I will try to help.
Under current legislation the government has authority to sell upto 15% of the PFE – I think that is in total, not every year. You are quite right sales have taken place at a low level for years, but the extent tends to be taken out of context according to the argument being made. Since 1997 25,000 acres or thereabouts have been sold off (or so my MP tells me in the letter he wrote me). What he forgot to mention is that in the last few years the previous government also bought land though less than was sold (maybe around 10,000 acres) – as a result I am unsure of the actual nett level of sales in any given period but it’s probably less than stated.
The letter from my MP also mentions that these sales were often made with few protections. I am not aware that these sales were with any less protection than the current government was proposing – in one case the commercial company that bought the land did so with CRoW (right to roam) access in place. They immediately banned bike and horse riding and then managed to revoke the CRoW access claiming health and Safety considerations!
It is ironic that the governments attempts to flog off the whole lot may have actually caused them to stop selling even small amounts! Though this programme is only currently ‘on hold’ and I imagine ‘Sir Humphrey’ is busy planning how to resurrect it as we speak. His bonus probably depends upon it, whereas his pension of course depends upon him doing absolutely nothing!
You are quite right about the leased land. I think it might be around 10% of the estate. This apparently explains why some of the PFE is not dedicated access land under CRoW. I imagine that there would be problems trying to sell on these leases and maintain access and environmental benefits. What a mess!
What i miss in the general objections / discussions out there is the FC regulates wood owners (like me) granting licenses, giving advice caring for the UK trees. Now it is being reduced (already cut by 30%) will it have the resources to do this properly?
Chris