Potential forest sell off

[kay]

Looks like the government have been scared off - temporarily at least.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12428814

Not really:
"Ministers say the 15% sale - which will raise an estimated ?100m - will still go ahead over the next four years but they wanted to ensure 'the necessary protection for all public benefits of the public forest estate are in place'.

It has no impact has on impact on the ongoing consultation on the remaining 85% of the public forest estate, the Department of the Environment stressed. "

In other words, this is a delay for the small proportion whose sale was already in the pipeline, but the big intent, to dispose of ALL forestry commission land, is still there.

 

[AndyF]

Bit of PR spin.

They'll do it anyway...

 

[graham]

Bit of PR spin.

They'll do it anyway...

or maybe they won't.

 

[RobinGriffiths]

Similarly in the Standard http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23923984-david-cameron-signals-end-to-forest-sell-off.do

 

[RobinGriffiths]

Maybe shift the topic to Idle Chat now, -- but what the bloody hell happened there then ? Talk of ministers off the leash formulating policy on the hoof. It appears Dave is now reigning them in with his newly formed and soon to be deployed central policy machine.

 

[owd git]

Not yet Robin, wait to see the underhanded legislative changes to allow a surprisingly similar result!! :read:
I shall refer to this post when i say " told you so!". 
O.G.

 

[RobinGriffiths]

Point taken. We shall convene again at the appropriate juncture.

I think what was so surprising was the public show of 'we got it wrong' in the face of basically an online pertition rather than 16-20year olds pissing against monuments,  and throwing fire extinguishers off the roof.

 

[AndyF]

Not sure what has changed... they are still going ahead with the 15% sale AFAIK, its just the consultation on the rest that has been halted. Next year they can sell another 15% I gather etc. etc.

Still don't know why the government should be invloved in growing trees 

 

[graham]

Not sure what has changed... they are still going ahead with the 15% sale AFAIK, its just the consultation on the rest that has been halted. Next year they can sell another 15% I gather etc. etc.

Still don't know why the government should be invloved in growing trees 

'cos we can't trust the private sector to manage them properly, given that their shareholders will only be interested in this year's bottom line and not what is happening over the next 50 - 100 years.

 

[AndyF]

Not sure what has changed... they are still going ahead with the 15% sale AFAIK, its just the consultation on the rest that has been halted. Next year they can sell another 15% I gather etc. etc.

Still don't know why the government should be invloved in growing trees 

'cos we can't trust the private sector to manage them properly, given that their shareholders will only be interested in this year's bottom line and not what is happening over the next 50 - 100 years.

I think the huge number of private forests and large plantations in existance would contradict that view. Masses of private forests around, just near me united utilities run Macclesfield forest, with visito centres, car parks, waymarked walks etc...  No problems. The Woodland Trust manage o.k....! Why the need for govt. ownership.

Forests are tax efficient for inheritence tax, so are best managed in the "long term"

Still if the public want to pay more tax instead of this sale, who am I to argue...

 

[graham]

Still if the public want to pay more tax instead of this sale, who am I to argue...

Note that the reports state that the sale would not have saved any money.

 

[kay]

One of the ideas behind government ownership was so that the commercial part of the forest holdings could help pay for the heritage part.

What I have read has suggested that the sale wouldn't make that much money, once you take into account the grants and tax breaks available to private owners of forests and woodlands, so it's actually not costing the taxpayer that much to keep them.

 

[AndyF]

One of the ideas behind government ownership was so that the commercial part of the forest holdings could help pay for the heritage part.

:-\ No it wasn't it was to create a strategic reserve of timber for the UK after the forests had been chopped down to make crates to ship munitions to the front in WW1. The resulting timber shortage forced timber prices up and the idea was to hedge ('scuse pun) against a repeat.

The shortage of wood and high resultant prices also put up coal prices due to the high price of pit props.

We aren't going to do another WW1 and we don't mine coal using props anymore, so the need for a strategic forest has gone. It is a left-over that everyone forgot to close down when it had done its job.

 

[Les W]

We aren't going to do another WW1

Are you sure?

 

[kay]

One of the ideas behind government ownership was so that the commercial part of the forest holdings could help pay for the heritage part.

:-\ No it wasn't it was to create a strategic reserve of timber for the UK after the forests had been chopped down to make crates to ship munitions to the front in WW1. The resulting timber shortage forced timber prices up and the idea was to hedge ('scuse pun) against a repeat.

The shortage of wood and high resultant prices also put up coal prices due to the high price of pit props.

We aren't going to do another WW1 and we don't mine coal using props anymore, so the need for a strategic forest has gone. It is a left-over that everyone forgot to close down when it had done its job.

Yes, that was the origin of it, but in more recent years the rationale was as I said.

 

[robjones]

The huge irony was that the forests planted in the 1920s were still too immature by 1939 to be of use in WW2; there has not subsequently been a wartime need for FC timber. Nowadays we are so depemdent on an intricate web of global trade for all manner of strategic commodities that timber would be a minor concern in the event of a war even vaguely resembling WWs 1 and 2. It is, on relfection, a matter of some surprise that none of the governments from 1979 to 2010 sold off the FC - maybe it was too far down the list and its only now, that the bottom of the barrel is being scraped clean, that it has risen high enough up the list.

[I'm neutral on the sale though access issues do give concern]

 

[AndyF]

One of the ideas behind government ownership was so that the commercial part of the forest holdings could help pay for the heritage part.

:-\ No it wasn't it was to create a strategic reserve of timber for the UK after the forests had been chopped down to make crates to ship munitions to the front in WW1. The resulting timber shortage forced timber prices up and the idea was to hedge ('scuse pun) against a repeat.

Yes, that was the origin of it, but in more recent years the rationale was as I said.

In other words, that was one reason they tried to justify their continued existance long after their actual need had passed...

Ancient woodland is already well protected, plantations don't really justify or require protection. Much FC land is now "Access Land", irrespective of ownership, I don't think that status changes with a change in ownership.

The greatest and most visited of our forests, the New Forest, is not FC managed. No access issues their, there is no problem creating an access model that meets any fears.

 

[Les W]

The greatest and most visited of our forests, the New Forest, is not FC managed.

Is it not? It was when I lived there (although that was some years ago now).

 

[AndyF]

The greatest and most visited of our forests, the New Forest, is not FC managed.

Is it not? It was when I lived there (although that was some years ago now).

Oh dear I was basing that on it not being marked FC on my OS maps... seems that quite a bit of it in fact is  :-[

 

[kay]

Ancient woodland is already well protected,

Are you sure? 85% of ancient woodland has no protective legislation. The only specific top-level planning policy which protects vulnerable ancient woods and trees is Planning policy statement 9. This is now under threat in the current review of planning policy.

We've lost over 50% of our ancient woodland since 1930