Should the New Forest Be A Charitable Trust? - February 2011

  The Forestry Commission has made a good job of managing the crown lands of the New forest. So why do I think it worth considering the potential advantages of having the Forest managed instead by a trust? Actually, to some small extent, this already happens: there are private lands within the New Forest, Hale Purlieu and Bramshaw Commons are actually owned by the National Trust.

  My reason is this, the Forestry Commission is a large organisation managed from Edinburgh with national priorities, it is not focused exclusively on the needs of the New Forest. I believe it is this fact that has led to many of the problems that have crossed my desk over the last decade: the impact of forestry operations on ancient ornamental woodlands and archaeological sites; the sale of important Forest land and property; the furore over proposals to restrict dog walking; complaints about inadequate drainage and maintenance; controversy about the flouting of bylaws without enforcement action; and worries about the downgrading of the Forest keepers. Part this is down to money, but if we were to generate more revenue, under the current set up it would be for the Forestry Commission in Edinburgh to determine where it was spent, and that might not be in the New Forest.

  Given that the Government is guaranteeing the subsidy to the New Forest, my ideal solution would be to keep the Forestry Commission in Lyndhurst to manage the Forest but instead of it having to report to Edinburgh, let it be accountable to a trust board here in the Forest, focused exclusively on the needs of the Forest. For this reason, I am not convinced that the existing charitable trusts like the National Trust, meet the bill. I would prefer to see something focused much more on the interests of the New Forest.

  I think this is an opportunity for those who love the Forest to think about very carefully. I hope we will not let it pass us by.