Forest sell-off

[Piers]

Yes Nick, you're right it could.

But that doesn't alter the fact that I want to know the percentages involved. What % of British woodland is at risk?

You may not be interested to know, but I am. I'm not going to apologise for that..!

[Jack Harrison]

Felix cleared that up:

As I said, the principle involved does not bother me, nor does the thought of less public access.

I beg to differ.

Jack

[Piers]

Thanks Jack.

I take it you do not know how much (if any) of British Woodland shall be directly threatened by this policy as it stands, bearing in mind the facts as we know them (i.e. FC owns 18% and a quantity of this is commercial conifer plantation, a quantity is Heritage Woodland, and a quantiry shall be scooped up by various conservation bodies).

Can anyone else help..?

Felix.

[Gruditch]

If this government are determined to sell of FC land, one way or another they will. Maybe not in this term in office, if they are ousted from power at the next general election, then maybe not untill they get back into power. But some when, and probably in my life time, FC land will be sold off.

I would rather that the public & conservation bodies involved in consultation with the government, get the very best protection, and public access deals they can, and get on with it. I would much rather it be done now, in one go, in the full view of the public, and press, rather than stealthily, divide and conquer, sell a bit here, a bit there, with no protection/ terms and condition for sale in place.

Sorry Felix, I can't help with your question. Like you I'm not in principal opposed to the sale, and I for one am glad that BC haven't come out, untill every fact and figure is laid bare before us, with some aggressive alarmist stance, in opposition to the sale.

Kind Regards Gruditch

[Piers]

I for one am glad that BC haven't come out, untill every fact and figure is laid bare before us, with some aggressive alarmist stance, in opposition to the sale.

Well said.

[Matsukaze]

[quote="Felix"]

...I am trying to establish the following stats:

What percentage of this FC woodland is commercial conifer plantation (i.e. of little conservation value).

What percentage of this FC woodland shall be classed as 'Heritage Woodland' and thus relatively safe (certainly no more threatened than it is today)....[quote]

Hi Felix,

I'm another one that can't help with the stats, unfortunately.

I think we're confusing "heritage woodland" with "woodland that is of value to conserving butterflies". Arguably the most important FC woodland for conserving butterflies is Kielder Forest - a commercial conifer plantation if there ever was one - because it holds something like half the English Large Heath population; it was mainly blanket bog before being coniferised and I believe there is a mire restoration programme in place at the moment that should help the butterfly. The next most important woodlands would be the scattering of woodlands in the Midlands - Herefordshire, Northamptonshire etc - that support Wood White. Again, these are woodlands that are not especially famous and not especially used by the general public.

[Matsukaze]

...I would rather that the public & conservation bodies involved in consultation with the government, get the very best protection, and public access deals they can, and get on with it. I would much rather it be done now, in one go, in the full view of the public, and press, rather than stealthily, divide and conquer, sell a bit here, a bit there, with no protection/ terms and condition for sale in place.

This has already been happening it seems - Pontesbury Hill in Shropshire:

http://www.shropshirewildlifetrust.org.uk/News (see 14 October entry).

I hear rumours that Stockhill on the Mendips, which supports a colony of Grizzled Skippers, is going the same way. Whether these are the actions of the current government or the legacy of the last I am not prepared to comment...

[Piers]

In fairness, it's difficult to find an uncultivated part of The Mendip Hills that doesn't support a colony of Grizzleds...

There's no confusion from this quarter regarding Heritage Woodland. It just strikes me that an awful lot of people have made strong statements without knowing how much woodland will be sold, to whom, and with what result.

Felix.

[Matsukaze]

Hmmm....I rarely get that far west, and in the eastern Mendips the species is basically confined to the quarries now.

[NickB]

There is no doubt that the ordinary members of our conservation bodies (those that pay their subscriptions and legitimise their agenda) have not been privy to the discussions that these august bodies have been having with senior civil servants and members of the government on our behalf! It has certainly been a softly-softly approach from our conservation organisations; one can almost hear the government starting the conversation with something like:

" ....So, don't make any noise, we'll give you the best bits we can; just don't oppose the plans....."

...and so, the members of these organisations are left guessing what is going-on, as these behind-the-scenes discussions continue.
No doubt, if they asked their public, BC and the like may not like the answer they got
Hence it is very quiet!

To be fair, reading between the lines of their statement, "Principles to inform delivery models for public benefit associated with public sector land", the various organisations have admitted that it is unlikely, following the sell-off, even when these areas have been set-aside and put into local community hands, that the funds or expertise necessary will be available to make it a successful transition. But I think that is as far as they will go!

[Matsukaze]

Hi Nick,

I dislike the proposed sell-off as much as you do, but I think you're forgetting that BC exists to conserve butterflies and moths, rather than engage in punch-ups about land ownership. There aren't many butterflies heavily dependent on English FC land - the Wood White being the species of most concern - and there is no evidence that the butterflies are going to be better or worse off one way or another at this point. That will depend on the regulatory regime, if any, that is put in place should the woodlands be sold off.

[ChrisC]

a couple of PDF's for some facts and figures etc

http://www.forestry.gov.uk/pdf/PFE_cons ... ionmap.pdf

http://www.forestry.gov.uk/pdf/nigreatb ... ritain.pdf

other points i found of interest
"•150,000 ha or 60% of the estate is located within National Parks, AONBs and SSSIs and is managed under plans agreed with Park officers and Natural England."

"•There are over 100,000 ha of priority habitats on the estate – mostly ancient woodlands, heathland and bogs. We are one of the largest managers of heathland in NW Europe. "

"•We look after 862 Scheduled Ancient Monuments which are protected through plans agreed with English Heritage."

"•We are the largest producer of timber in England with 1.4 million tonnes per annum or 60% of current production (this represents less than 5% of wood consumption in England which is dependent upon imports)." if 1.4 million tonnes is 5% in english consumption, you do have to wonder where the other 95% or 28,000,000 tonnes comes from.

"Public forest estate sales in England
On 2 December 2010, Ministers announced that approximately 40,000 hectares of land currently managed by Forestry Commission England would be sold over the four year period 2011/12 to 2014/15.
Criteria to select woodlands for sale in 2011/12 have been approved by the Minister and will be used to determine the sales programme for 2011/12.
Sales criteria for 2012/13 and beyond will be determined following the public consultation on the Public Forest Estate in England launched on 27 January 2011. The Government expects to publish its response in late summer 2011."

that last one is so open to interpretation, do they mean 40,000 hectares split over 4 years 10,000 per year? do they mean 39,000 could be sold in the first year prior to consultation? The devil is in the details as they say.

I have bored you enough so i'll let others carry on
Chris

[Piers]

So very helpful. Thanks Chris for that contribution, and the links.

Felix.

[Matsukaze]

This gives an indication of where the butterflies are on FC land:

http://www.butterfly-conservation.org/u ... rategy.pdf

[NickB]

Thanks Matsukaze; I think that makes it pretty clear what is at stake and answers some questions about the area involved.

Given that number of key sites, I think we do have cause for genuine concern, when read with the "Principles...."

http://www.butterfly-conservation.org/u ... 0logos.pdf

[Piers]

[The Forestry Commission]...are the largest producer of timber in England with 1.4 million tonnes per annum or 60% of current production

They are also the industry regulator I shall be pleased to see that particular quango demolished. It certainly wouldn't be tolerated if (for example) BT were the telecommunication industry regulator.

There is more to this policy than whether or not one shall still be able to walk the dogs in 'x' piece of woodland, which seems to be the major concern of the majority of the public whose opinion has been aired on the television and radio.

Felix.

[ChrisC]

As many have already said already so far reactions have been kneejerk and and i wonder how many people interviewed have actually read any of the criteria for the proposed sale or consultation. link here.
http://www.forestry.gov.uk/pdf/Selectio ... n_2011.pdf

what i do find interesting is that looking at the current forestry commision website it sates it owns 250,000+ and planning to sell 40,000 over 4 years and there is huge fuss.a table from one of yesterdays links makes interesting reading.

this inventory was published in 2003 and i'm sure that reads 880,827 HA so by my reckoning we have lost 630,827 HA already. hmmm perhaps this is the number that the press should really be concentrating on.

Chris

[JohnR]

For those of you dithering about the consultation paper over the Forestry Commission sell off, be warned that a similar consultation on the future of National Nature Reserves is just over the horizon. If the government get an easy run on the forestry sell off then they will be keener on flogging off our national nature reserves.

[Pete Eeles]

An interesting development, or perhaps pure speculation!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12377215

Cheers,

- Pete

[Piers]

This sort of business always makes me laugh.

A government (of whatever colour) propose a bill and a public consultation exercise.

An outraged general public condemn the proposition, accuse the government of acting outside of the public interest, and demand that the government rethink.

Subsequently the government pay heed to public opinion and revise their proposals or abandon the idea in the face of strong public opposition.

The media (and the opposition parties) then screech "U-Turn", or at best accuse the government of watering down their proposals.

The public (following the media like so many sheep) then perceive the government to be weak and accusations of dithering and lack of clarity of direction follow.

Who'd be a politician eh? not me for one, not on that salary...

Felix.