It's not quite clear what the Prime Minister thinks about selling off forests. That's understandable - it's difficult to make a U-turn on a Big Society flagship issue.
It would be a pity though if the role of the State in forestry weren't looked at a bit more closely. And the consultation period should allow that to happen.
How about starting by looking at the inheritance tax treatment of forestry, the grants available for planting trees and the grants that are available for replanting land when a crop is harvested. How does our treatment of these issues in the UK match up with what happens abroad, I wonder?
And the argument keeps being trotted out that the taxpayer has to hang on to the commercial forests in order to have the heritage forests. So, for consistency, why isn't Natural England charged with buying prime wheat-growing land to pay for wildlife areas? And why don't museums run paint suppliers to pay for their collections? There have to be some places, which are valuable to us for their natural beauty which we pay for. What makes forests different?
And if it's right to have a Forestry Commission looking after forests and woods where is the Wetland Commission looking after lakes and rivers and mixing business with pleasure? And the Mountain Commission looking after red grouse and running ski-lifts? What makes forests and woods so different? History mostly.
I think that the sale of some existing FC owned land could pay for the running of the heritage forest estate for many years. If there is no value in selling off some of our forests then why has government even suggested it? We need to do the sums on this. However, many people run businesses which pay their salaries and allow them to spend money on the nicer things in life. They expect, if the businesses are good businesses, to be able to sell them off to retire on the proceeds. Can we do something similar with our forests? Let's do the sums.
A Forest and Wildlife Service's main purpose would be to deliver public benefit such as the conservation of biodiversity, public enjoyment and the provision of accompanying ecosystem services suich as carbon storage, good water quality etc. Timber production would not be a primary objective. Its main role would be to hold and provide for the management of the public forest estate and the National Nature Reserves. Such a body could hold Crown Forest, ancient semi-natural woodlands, planted ancient woodlands, FC open ground such as heaths, community forests, NNRs and multi-purpose forests. Funding could come from the sale of some commercial forests, the provision of services to the visiting public and a change in the way we look at this land - not, as the Treasury does at the moment, as a financial asset which must make a return but as a cultural asset.
That's just a starter for ten. We hear that some in the FC are quite taken by the idea.
A love of the natural world demonstrates that a person is a cultured inhabitant of planet Earth.
The idea for many local projects and I guess for larger public bodies is for them to be more self sustaining. Therefore it does make some sense for the Forestry Commission to produce commercial timber to support biodiversity and access benefits.
So why don't Natural England buy some suitable, mainly arable farmland to both provide profits to support other biodiversity work and through management help reduce the decline of farmland birds. I guess this is flawed due to the cost of land and machinery and how much profit can be made from cereals, but I guess that's OK at present. They would also probably need a good number of farms to make any difference.
However whilst this might be unrealistic it is still true that "self-sustaining" is the phrase being banded around and many small projects and organisations and even council departments are having to look at how to raise income. The Forestry Commission are ahead of the game. OK off to museum for some paint.