Are we ready for a priceless loss?

Analysis on the British government's plans to sell off state-owned forests

Following a growing trend that has been characterising recent years, an ever-increasing number of people have steadily left the urban areas to move back to the countryside.

For the last century and a half, the British population has abandoned rural towns and villages to move into quickly-developing cities searching for luck and opportunities. The time has come, however, for many to go back to their roots.

Rural areas have a lot to offer: fresh air, quiet, and acres of forest. Britons have recently been re-discovering a close relationship with their woodland, where they can lose themselves in quiet and beauty.

Forests around the UK are home to a precious habitat of flora and fauna. Many species that were on the verge of extinction have seen their numbers increasing thanks to these protected and conserved environments.

A few weeks ago, however, the coalition government released a letter issued by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) announcing its plan to put on sale part of the state-owned woodland in England.

This letter, addressed to all British MPs, outlined the intention of the ministry to “fundamentally reform the public forestry estate, with diminishing public ownership and a greater role for private and civil society partners”.

The Forestry Commission is the official government body that is directly in charge of the woodland owned by the state. The institution manages 2.5 million acres of land (one million hectares), spread across Britain. More than 800,000 hectares of the total land are covered by woods and forests.

Early reports said that up to a third of the woodland may be put on sale.

Among the British forests on sale could be the Forest of Dean in South Wales and Cardinham Woods near Bodmin, in Cornwall. There are plenty of others around the country, popular among Britons for sport and long walks outside the stress and noise of the cities.

In England, woodland estates amount to 250,000 acres.

Are we saying that our woods and forests will be given away to the highest bidder, who will then be entitled to raze every plant, bush and tree to make space for gas stations, shopping malls and McDonalds?

Well, not exactly. At least, we do not know at the moment. What we do know is that since the first announcement of the plan, protests have rained upon DEFRA from environmentalists, conservation groups and the public.

A petition opposing the sale, organized by the conservation organization 38degrees, has gathered more than 63,000 signatures so far. Comments from the people who signed read: “Forests are important for everyone,” and “We have already enough Centre parks”.

“The woodlands are part of our heritage. Don't sell off things that give enjoyment to others,” read another comment.

The Fresh Outlook talked to DEFRA about the sale, and what it would mean for the people and the environment:

“Most woodland is privately owned anyway,” said a DEFRA spokesman. “The Forestry Commission currently owns only 18 per cent of the English woodland estate. Most lands are owned by conservation groups, such as Woodland Trust and others.

“There is no reason why the government should own this land.”

The sale will only apply to the English woodland, and will not include state-owned estates in Scotland or Wales – also because that would mean a direct clash with the local governments.

Why does the government want to get rid of these lands so much?

“The Forestry Commission has an ongoing program of disposal. It sells and buys parts of woodland every year. This plan wants to increase this disposal,” said the spokesman.

The revenues that will be generated by the sale of the land will be kept by the ministry, as part of its budget, although DEFRA said the aim is not “to make money”.

Despite assurances that the habitat and the trees would be preserved with specific regulations, many critics and concerned citizens remain worried about the result of such a sale.

“We are committed to shifting the balance of power by giving individuals, businesses, civil society organisations and local authorities a much bigger role in protecting and enhancing the natural environment and a much bigger say about our priorities for it,” read the letter.

“We will not compromise the protection of our most valuable and diverse forests. Full measures will remain in place to preserve the public benefits of woods and forests under any new ownership arrangements. Public rights of way and access will be unaffected, statutory protection for wildlife will remain in force and there will be grand incentives for new planting that can be applied for.”

The DEFRA spokesman said: “The government's plan is not going to lead to a destruction of forests. The conservation status will be maintained. The tree felling system is – and will be – regulated by the Forestry Commission.

“This would only be a change in ownership. It won't affect the regulations on the land.

“[There will be] no environmental impact, because the protection [regulations] will be maintained.”

 
Possible buyers

Woodland has been attracting a growing number of investors over the last 15-20 years.

They see it as a stable sector for good investments, especially for timber production – which offers several benefits. Revenues derived from the sale of timber are exempt from income tax and corporation tax, and there is no capital gain tax on the raising value of tree crops. With an annual return of about 5 per cent, investing in woodland has become more profitable than shares or commercial properties.

Wood estates are also exempt from inheritance tax after the first two years of purchase.

A large part of the English woodland is used for the production of timber. A huge number of people visit woods and forests every year, for a variety of outdoor activities and sports.

According to DEFRA, these opportunities of generating revenues will be among attractions for potential land buyers.

“We will consider all sorts of ownership modules, but I think they are likely to be mostly conservation groups, or also local groups that wants to be more involved with keeping their lands,” said the departmental spokesman.

“There are plenty of potential buyers.”

Not everybody, however, seems to share DEFRA’s optimism.

Paul de Zylva, senior campaigner from Friends of the Earth, said: “I don't think there's one single buyer out there. Some bodies or charities, such as Woodland Trust, may be able to buy some of it, but that's all. The charities don't have deep enough pockets to buy anywhere near the amount of land to provide a decent revenue to the government.”

Land managing costs for the Forestry Commission amount to some £10m a year – a considerably low figure compared to other public costs. “That's what, 20-30p per taxpayer per year? Not that much money,” said Mr de Zylva.

“What is the value of the Forestry Commission estate, £2bn pounds? [Buying woodland] might look nominally attractive but, practically, who has the money to buy and turn it into a money-making environment?”

“I'm sceptical if the government think this is a great money spinner.”

Asked if he fears that the delicate habitat would lose out from the sale, Mr de Zylva said: “When the government came to power, they claimed they will be the greenest government ever. They cannot say that and then go on scrapping our precious woodland. We will put the government on hold about this, making sure that the conservation status is maintained.”

According to DEFRA, the sale is not about generating revenues. Still, someone has to buy this land. And if the potential owners would not be able to tear down trees to make space for any of their projects, it seems likely that many would think twice before buying.

Lord Clark of Windermere, former chairman of the Forestry Commission, shares this belief in an article on the Guardian, where he wrote that “selling off large areas of our forests would risk so much while paying off a small fraction of the national debt”.

The ex-chairman also warns about the environmental impact of the sale, despite DEFRA’s promises about maintaining the current regulations:

“The sustainable management of woodland requires a lot of work,” he writes. “All the Forestry Commission's woods are independently certified against the internationally recognised Forestry Stewardship Council (FSC) standard. A new owner would not be required to certify their woodlands.

“A private landowner needs a licence to fell trees but it is essentially up to them how they manage their woodland, when and if they fell, what areas they fell and what types of trees they plant.”


An historical achievement

The process of replenishing our woodland and enhance its conservation has been recently praised at an international level.

At the beginning of October, the UN published a report on the state of woodland in Britain. It shows that national land covered by trees has reached its highest levels since 1750 – 11.8 per cent of the total land area in the UK (11,200 square miles) is now covered in woods.

During the 18th century, entire forests were chopped to give way to progress and industrialisation. Before, wood was largely used for the naval industry – to sustain the fleet of the Empire – and in times of war.

Trees continued to be steadily logged well into the 20th century – a practice stimulated by an increasing population. The two World Wars brought about a high decrease of the already little territory covered in forests. By the end of World War I, woodland in Britain was recorded at less than 5 per cent of the total territory.

According to Brian Lennon, planning manager for the Forest of Dean, the establishment of the Forestry Commission, back in 1919, was aimed at replenishing forests in case of another war. This process has continued despite changes in warfare techniques that mean wood has little importance in war times. More attention towards the environment and the birth of green movements in the last 40 years allowed the conservation of woodland to reach today’s levels, hailed by environmentalists and much appreciated by everybody.

Although many of the criteria have still to be set, it looks like selling woodland would not, on the one hand, bring in much money for the state’s pockets. On the other hand, it also seems unclear if the environment and habitat of the woods will be maintained to the high standards that they have been up to now.

A statement recently made by Friends of the Earth in relation to the sale read: “Forests are worth less in hard cash to the government than their value to the nation, which is priceless.”

Priceless. That is the value of what we might lose, if anything were to go wrong.

Are we ready to lose something priceless? 

(Read the full article on The Fresh Outlook)

05.11.2010