Forest For Sale? - January 2011

The publication of the Government’s proposals for new models of ownership or management of the publicly owned forest estate, has unleashed a torrent of hostile emails. It is as if the Government was planning to sell and fell every tree in the land in order to adulterate the people’s strawberry jam with wooden pips.

I do not share the passion of my correspondents for state control. The Forestry Commission only owns 18% of England’s woodlands, and the other 82% appear to be getting along fine. As far as commercial forestry is concerned I see no reason for the state to be a producer. Indeed, given that the Forestry Commission is responsible for regulating and licensing forestry, it seems to me that there is a clear conflict of interest if it remains one of the largest suppliers: it is being poacher and game-keeper at the same time. What is really important is the establishment of forceful legal safeguards and guarantees to protect public amenity and access, along with biodiversity and habitats.

The New Forest is not for sale under the Government’s proposals. What we are offered, however, is a discussion of the possibility of different models for managing the Forest. Most, but not all, of the Forest is currently managed by the Forestry Commission, but there are private commons within it. The National trust owns Hale Purlieu and Bramshaw Commons, they are doing okay. With the reaction to the published proposals however, you would think that the Forestry Commission had been ordained at the Creation to be stewards of the Garden of Eden. Well it just isn’t like that.  I think it does a good job, but there is plenty of grumbling: I recall disputes about the impact of forestry operations on archaeological sites and  ancient & ornamental woodlands;  complaints that maintenance and drainage are being neglected; arguments over the increasing commercialisation of the campsites; disputes about the sale of important properties; a furore over proposals to restrict dog walking; accusations that the bylaws are being flouted and not enforced; complaints that the expertise and role of our magnificent Keepers and Rangers are being downgraded; and so on it goes. I lay no blame at the door the local Forestry Commission management locally for this. They do an excellent job with the resources they have, but they are subject to the targets and directives of a national organisation headquartered in Edinburgh where the needs of the New Forest are remote.

When Keepers tell me about the sorry state of things, they often have innovative and enterprising ideas about how to generate more revenue to increase their numbers and enforce the bylaws. Unfortunately any money that might be raised wouldn’t stay here but would go to Edinburgh to satisfy priorities there.  Why not therefore, at least consider the possibility of a much more devolved stewardship of the Forest. The National Trust is already offering its services. I wouldn’t rule it out, but I am not enthusiastic, it is also a large national organisation with strategies and priorities. I think we need something for which the New Forest itself is the only priority.

I urge constituents not to look a gift horse in the mouth. There may be an opportunity here for a better managed and protected Forest. Of course, we need to explore the possibility carefully, we need to inspect the books to be sure that it isn’t a Trojan horse. It does deserve, however, more than the knee jerk response.