NATIONAL FOREST SELL OFF PETITION

[Little Mark]

Erm, I do have a key.........just in case you understand......

 

[highlandsflyer]

The problem with this issue is the scope and size of the organisation involved.

Perhaps there could be a review of the FC and an improvement in the strategy for future use of the assets they manage on the tax payer's behalf.

I feel a division of the amenity woodland and the forestry operation could result in better provision for the public, but either way the whole shebang should be kept under control at the national level, without that there is just too much room for bad practise to creep in in areas where the public don't have much clout.

Again I think fifteen million a year operating cost to the tax payer is rather good value for what we get, there is a huge amount of work involved in running forests and allowing public access. Huge.

Bargain.

The problem with bringing in private operators is that they will need to be policed at great cost to ensure they are providing the access, etc. that they will guarantee when tendering for control or purchase.

This would be an enormous task, much better to keep this all under the organisation briefed to follow those guidelines already and with little motivation to do otherwise.

The interface between the FC and the public has been massively improved recently, and access is improving year on year.

It would be a massive step backwards to allow a number of different agencies take control of areas we use freely at the moment.

There would be six months of the new owners finding their feet legislatively, and then we would start to see signs restricting access, for a plethora of reasons such as fire danger, work in progress, etc.

There would be nothing to stop the erection of fences, as owners would have legitimate reasons to restrict access permanently to nursery areas and currently worked areas.

Health and Safety would be used as justification, and some of the Rights of Way would lapse through non use.

Even passing it to local voluntary organisations would be troublesome.

I have been involved in similar schemes where a community trust have taken over, and appointed at great expense staff from outwith the area whose primary interest was in turning the forest into a carbon (sorry) copy of schemes they worked on elsewhere.

Here is my idea, take the FC staff and combine them with the Wildlife/Countryside Ranger's and other centrally funded Nature Conservancy workers and other environmental agencies, and get them working much more together without all the duplication of effort that goes on.

More than one way to crack a nut, or save money.

 

[Little Mark]

The problem with this issue is the scope and size of the organisation involved.

Perhaps there could be a review of the FC and an improvement in the strategy for future use of the assets they manage on the tax payer's behalf.

There are fewer people working for the Forestry Commission than you smallest unitary authority....and by the time the 450+ jobs go they will be down to around 2500 spread across the UK.
Successive governments of blue or red persuasion have baulked at amalgamating FC with Natural England or giving it a stronger identity. FC is responsible not just for the public estate but also grants and licences for private owners. Even National Trust admitted they could not better the job done by the FC - the reason for the coalition wanting to sell off is pure political dogma - put land into private ownership.
The FC makes about £30 million a year and pulls in funding from the EU. It is good value for the taxpayer and without it you would not have the trail centres we have today.
Having seen local evidence of what happens when forest go into private hand you have the parcelled up into smaller bits and sold off to someone looking to make a tax-free investment or for pheasant shooting. Try negotiating access with seven landowners to ride your bike through!
The phrase I would use is - if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

 

[Neil]

The problem with this issue is the scope and size of the organisation involved.

Perhaps there could be a review of the FC and an improvement in the strategy for future use of the assets they manage on the tax payer's behalf.

There are fewer people working for the Forestry Commission than you smallest unitary authority....and by the time the 450+ jobs go they will be down to around 2500 spread across the UK.
Successive governments of blue or red persuasion have baulked at amalgamating FC with Natural England or giving it a stronger identity. FC is responsible not just for the public estate but also grants and licences for private owners. Even National Trust admitted they could not better the job done by the FC - the reason for the coalition wanting to sell off is pure political dogma - put land into private ownership.
The FC makes about £30 million a year and pulls in funding from the EU. It is good value for the taxpayer and without it you would not have the trail centres we have today.
Having seen local evidence of what happens when forest go into private hand you have the parcelled up into smaller bits and sold off to someone looking to make a tax-free investment or for pheasant shooting. Try negotiating access with seven landowners to ride your bike through!
The phrase I would use is - if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

There are some, though that argue it is broke and needs fixing.

That's not necessarily my take - I'm playing devil's advocate - I've just seen it debated countless times.

What I would contend, though, like a lot of cases like these, is that the automatic proposition always seems to be privatisation is the silver bullet for all these types of situations - and I simply don't buy that is always the answer.

 

[Little Mark]

Viewed from inside, the FC has suffered with successive, incompetent governments who have tried to use the public estate for political ends and not thought about what the public expect of a national treasure. It's only been in recent times that the FC has been allowed to move things forward in the direction we see now.

For sure, the old school foresters have been moved aside and a new breed more interested in conservation and public access have come to the fore - for all the right reasons too.

We should all be thankful to the small number of FC employees who have pushed the MTB agenda in England, Scotland and Wales. Without them we'd still be languishing in the dark ages and putting up with the vagaries of National Park policies and by-laws such as those used by Dartmoor National Park to prohibit cycling on the open moor - apparently in the interests of conservation - yet perfectly OK to ride a half-tonne horse.