The Sunday Telegraph seems to have got wind of a massive sell-off of State-owned forests which may involve a third of Forestry Commission land in England over the next four years and as much as half of its land by 2020. 

Both the National Trust and the RSPB are quoted on this subject, and we both sound fairly relaxed about the principle but concerned about the detail.

It is a bit difficult to see why the State is the best organisation to grow our trees when their are plenty of commercial organisations in this business - as opposed to the fact that nobody makes money out of managing National Nature Reserves!  The Forestry Commission was set up after World War One to ensure that we would always have a home-grown supply of pit-props in future conflicts - things have moved on.  We don't have State farms growing our food, or State fishing fleets catching our fish, so we may not need State forests growing our trees.

But the FC does so much more than 'just' grow timber.  Many of the sites owned or managed by them, such as large parts of the New Forest, Forest of Dean, Sherwood Forest and the less well-known Breckland forests of the Norfolk/Suffolk border, are very valuable for their landscapes, recreational opportunities and their wildlife.

The FC is a major player in the conservation of woodland butterflies (wood whites, purple emperors etc), heathland reptiles (sand lizards, adders etc) and heathland and woodland birds (nightjars, wood larks and goshawks etc).  Much of the FC estate is designated for its nature conservation interest and importance. The fate of those species and the iconic sites which they occupy will be a source of concern to us as these plans unroll.

The number of alarming tree diseases that now seem to be constraining forestry in the UK may also be a factor in determining the long-term commercial value of these forests too.

So the devil is in the detail, as always, as some FC land is of high commercial value, some of high nature conservation value, some of high value for both and some, probably, of low value for either.  But land always has some value depending on its commercial potential, character and the constraints that apply to it.  It may not only be foresters who cast an eye over our forests - housing and other commercial developers may see the land beneath the trees as being the value in any disposal plans.

And to end on a naked plug!  Back in 1990 I co-authored with Roderick Leslie (a forester - but a birder too!) a book called Birds and Forestry.  Now back in print, and as an ebook, it is of historic interest to anyone who is thinking of buying up our forests!

  • As you say Mark, the principle of selling off the FC forests would not seem to be a fundamental problem but it will depend very much on, how it is done, the detail, the forests involved,  the wildlife protection provided,  recreational requirements and overall safeguards. The the planned 10 year span of sell off seems a reasonable time to "get right". I would hope that main nationally important forests like the New Forest, Forest of Dean, Breckland Forest, Savernake Forest and the other forests which essentially comprise "Ancient Woodland" would not be privatised, that would not seem appropriate. I also trust that the the FC will retain its role of regulation, for example, and in particular the permitting of felling licenses. That seems to me to be  very important. Notwithstanding it looks like it would be wise for RSPB, the Woodland Trust, and the Wildlife Trusts to start saving a few pennies for the day when a particularly worthwhile piece of woodland comes on the market.    

  • At a time when Britain should be expanding its forests a sell off will not do anything for Carbon capture. In fact it will add to the problem as these new land owners try and draw back money from their purchase. Most will end up being clear felled and new wind farms will take their place. This will then take back the money which the government thought they had gained!!