Future of the Public Forest Estate - chapter 4

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...