I promised last week to give you an update on the debate over the future of the Public Forest estate in England.
It is over two years since the furore over government plans to sell off of public forests (let's call this chapter 1), roughly a year since the Independent Panel on Forestry published their recommendations (chapter 2) and six months since Defra responded (chapter 3). Things seemed to be going well. The Bishop was happy, ministers content and grass roots supporters felt upbeat about the future.
However, the latest plans (see here), which signal the latest chapter in the saga, outlining government intention feel like a step backwards. In fact, I think they miss the point entirely in some cases. Defra have stated, to their credit, that there is still time to improve it which is a relief as there is more work to do.
This is a classic example of where the devil is in the detail. It is remarkable the difference a few changes in policy wording and emphasis can make.
One of the key principles that appear to have been lost in translation is that around the value of the estate. The principle set by the panel, is that the main value is not in its land sale value or income generation potential, but the benefits we all get from the estate in the form of access, recreation, cultural heritage and of course wildlife.
The figures are stark, the relatively small (£20million at present) government investment needed to plug the annual gap in the estate’s accounts delivers services to the public estimated to be worth £350million. This excludes the spiritual and cultural value which are harder and (probably) wrong to moetise. However you look at it, investing in the estate is fantastic public value for money in times of austerity. The panel called this a “golden opportunity”.
The Panel recommended a remit to “maximise” the public value of the estate. I now note, in the latest government plans, the subtle but important change in emphasis which is now to “maximise” economic opportunities whilst maintaining public benefits. The newly outlined mission and objectives only bear partial resemblance to the more visionary recommendations from the Panel. What happened to Government’s agreement that the estate should be an “exemplar” in wildlife conservation, ancient woodland and open habitat restoration?
Is the priority to reduce the already limited government funding further, by offsetting costs through income generation, or maximising the estate's value to society? It would be wrong to think the estate can cover all its costs through income generation, without also compromising its future value to people and wildlife.
Don’t get me wrong, income generation is really important, but only as a means to providing even more good things for society, such as improving areas for wildlife or opening up access. The Panel made this clear. Income generation and economic activity needs to be repositioned in this way, so that it enhances and does not harm the current or potential value to people and wildlife. Government funding is a fundamental part of the equation.
Take the New Forest as an example. It is an internationally important site for wildlife with an amazing mix of restored woodland, heath and mire. It also provides gold standard public access and supports a £200 million local tourism industry. This requires public money which if not forthcoming, means that compromises will have to be made which is likely to be bad news for wildlife and for people that love the forest.
The fight to save the forests has always been about much more than just the land, but the value that land can provide to people and nature. It sounds like Government needs a reminder. We look forward to working with government, the grass roots groups, NGOs and other partners to get this back on track and look forward to better things for chapter 5 of this saga...
Martin, thank you on behalf of everyone who supports our national forests for this brilliant contribution. You have hit the nail firmly on the head - if FC gets cut we all lose because the public money it spends is not, as some people try to portray, being wasted by an inefficient business - it is being spent on some of our finest landscapes and wildlife, including the example of the New Forest, the largest surviving area of lowland heath in western Europe, and as I'm sure you'd agree, one of the most challenging conservation management tasks in the UK.
Forest Enterprise is in fact perhaps the most 'enterprising' part of Defra - it has already made enormous strides cutting costs not by reducing services but by working with businesses providing things people want like mountain biking and Go-Ape - and given the chance it will go on developing, reducing the cost to Government at the same time as increasing jobs & benefitting the rural economy.
But you are right that Defra just haven't got it because, were it a department really interested in the economy and not just where the next cut is coming from, it would be focussing on the opportunities from developing our wood energy resource - not the big biomass RSPB rightly opposes, but the Government's excellent and environmentally sensitive policy for local use of local, sustainable wood: current estimates suggest the wood from unmanaged woodlands could generate £500m per annum of new business and 15,000 jobs - now that really is growth, isn't it ? The real beauty is that RSPB and its partners have identified lack of management as the single biggest challenge to our declining woodland birds so making that money will benefit birds as well !
Again this is disappointing from DEFRA, yet another environment and wildlife disappointment from this Government Department of which there have been many recently. Having, as I understand it, largely accepted the Panel's report they are now "changing their tune". I am afraid it is another example of how the general public are quite right not to give too much credence to politicians. As you say Martin there now seems to a lot of work ahead to bring this issue back on line. The added problem is, that there are now a good number of other current environmental and wildlife issues that require major efforts to try to make this Government see sense. It is a long hard battle and there is no way around that I am sorry to say but I know the RSPB does have the qualities of perseverance that are needed..