The Government may have bought itself some time whilst the consultation on the future of our forests runs its course. I bet they are tempted to jack it all in and say that they’ll keep everything the same just to get out of the position that they are in. And if they do, then that’s fine by us.
Except surely we should use the consultation to think deeply about the future role of the state in forestry as a business, and land management as a public service.
The Forestry Commission is a fine organisation and it’s come a long way. But the question is – where is it going?
In the past, the fairly distant past, we are talking about the 1970s and 1980s here, the FC wrecked lots of wonderful places for wildlife by planting our hillsides and heaths with non-native conifers, and many areas of broadleaved woodland were converted to conifer plantations. It was a long time ago, and things have got much better since, but foresters, more than most of us, live with their mistakes a long time as the commercial rotation for a crop of trees for timber is likely to be over 30 years and even up to 50 years.
This is what the FC in England say they are for – provide a resource of trees, woods and forests in places where they can contribute most in terms of environmental, economic and social benefits - it’s in their Corporate Plan for 2010-11 which is worth a read.
That all sounds good. FC delivers a mix of economic, environmental and social benefits. But in the real world, the Treasury has a stranglehold and FC has to deliver a financial return which means acting like a business a lot of the time rather than a public service.
Let us recognise that many of the very best and most culturally valuable of our state-owned or state-managed forests cost us money, and always will, and let’s decide that is money we are happy to pay. But let’s fund the delivery of beautiful forests, which we can enjoy, from the sale of some of the ugly industrial conifer forests that are also ours. In the FC we have the business of making money from timber too mixed up with the public service of delivering beautiful forests. And too often the money wins out in the end.
There is a strong argument that the bundle of love for forests that has been released in this debate should lead the Government to a more radical position. Why not separate the truly commercial forests from the ones that are primarily of heritage value and change the remit of the FC to deliver those social and environmental aspects for which people are now crying out.
Once you have a state forestry service that is delivering for people and wildlife then it looks a bit more like Natural England which carries out a similar role for other iconic sites – the National Nature Reserves. If NNRs, planted ancient woodlands and planted open heaths were all managed by a single body with a biodiversity and public access remit then the public could expect to get more for our investment - more beauty, more wildlife and more opportunities to enjoy it.
A Forest and Wildlife Service which delivered natural beauty for the public looks an increasingly good idea. And it’s one that I believe many in the FC would support. FC staff are efficient and capable land managers with quite a gift for dealing with the public. NE staff have more of the scientific expertise, see a bigger environmental picture and have greater biodiversity expertise. Is this a marriage made in heaven?
Let’s emancipate our state lumberjacks – they have nothing to lose but their chainsaws.
I think it's a nice idea. The question is, how would it work out in practice? In practice I think the public access tail might well wag the nature conservation dog.