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.
What you suggest sounds very good to me Mark. Some points, as mentioned previously, the commercial forests originally planted by the FC on or in key habitat, eg heaths and downland, ancient woodland need to be removed as per the FC's "open habitats" plan of early last year. The Forestry part of the Forest and Wildlife Service needs to have biodiversity written into remit. The Forestry part of the new proposed Service should continue to provide permits for activities for all the country's woodlands/forests such as the issuing of felling licenses, as the FC currently do.
I gather the likelyhood is that the Government will set up a "panel of experts" to study the issues, I'm sure the RSPB will be involved in some way either talking to it or perhaps part of it.
Lastly, on the politics front, Caroline Spelman is taking a fair bit of hulabaloo this morning but on the whole she seems to be doing a not unreasonable job in difficult circumstances with, I'm sure, the Treasury always hovering in the back ground, so the key thing here is to move promptly forward from here. She should take consulation from that fact that every great President (or Minister!) has their Bay of Pigs!!
redkite