January 21, 2011

Public Forest Estate disposal – position statement

Public Forest Estate disposal

download the position statement

A position statement by the Sylva Foundation

The Government announced in October 2010 their intention to dispose of a large proportion of the public forest estate in England. Our position statement has been prepared in advance of the public consultation that is anticipated in 2011.

The Sylva Foundation holds the view that current proposals for the disposal of the public forest estate in England present both positive and negative implications for our forests, the environment and wider society.

A flexible approach matched to specific circumstances could overall be welcome. Where the purpose of a forest is primarily the commercial production of timber, especially if there are few wider public benefits provided at the site, then its sale to the private sector may be a positive step. Likewise, if a forest has the potential to be a viable model for community ownership, then this could be encouraged. Our principle concerns are in relation to the potential loss of public benefits that may arise as a result of the transfer of ownership to the private sector, particularly where there are high social and environmental values associated with a forest. We believe that woodlands affording the greatest and most concentrated public benefits, specifically England’s heritage forests and forest parks[i], should be exempt from the current proposals.

Main issues and uncertainties:

Sustainable Forest Management standards The Forestry Commission is an exemplary manager of the State’s woodlands, or public forest estate (PFE), representing 18 percent of England’s woodlands. We are concerned that the transfer of these woodlands to the private sector does not lead to the degradation of sustainable forest management standards. Specifically that the sustainable production of timber for the home timber industry does not diminish, and equally that the provision of wider environmental and social benefits are not lost. We have few concerns that private forestry stakeholders (e.g large estates employing professional foresters, landowners receiving professional advice etc.) represent a risk in this regard. However, among certain ownership categories among the third sector (e.g. charities with narrow interests), community groups and hobby owners, we believe that action will be needed to encourage and support sustainable forest management.

Bringing more woodlands into management There are estimated currently to be 625,000 hectares of unmanaged woodlands in the private sector and, at most, only 40 percent of the annual growth in England’s woodlands is harvested and utilised within existing markets[ii]. A large proportion of the owners of these woodlands are unknown, further weakening any attempts to encourage sustainable forest management and undermining attempts to meet emerging societal needs such as bioenergy provision and carbon management. There is also compelling evidence that the lack of management in woodlands is a major cause of declining woodland biodiversity[iii]. We are concerned that the sale of the PFE does not accentuate the unsatisfactory state of England’s woodlands further, and we would wish to see new measures introduced that would seek to ensure both quality and continuity of sustainable forest management.

Protection of public benefits The degree of uncertainties surrounding the level of protection that can accompany a sale and that can be guaranteed long term, in particular beyond the first purchaser if and when a woodland is resold, are very significant and represent a level of risk that we consider unsatisfactory. The area of public forest estate within AONBs and National Parks is 115,474 ha or 45 percent of the PFE. The PFE is managed to a high environmental standard with 26 percent designated as Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs), 98 percent of which are in “favourable” or “recovering” condition. In relation to social benefits, although the PFE represents 18 percent of woodland area in England, it provides 44 percent of public access provision[iv]. For these reasons, we would support any proposal that woodlands delivering the greatest public benefits should be exempt from the proposed sales.

2 Comments »

A) Depending upon the current and potential timber volume to be harvested of a PFE wood/forest coming to the private sector and with special reference to smaller woods, from experience the marketing aspect would be far better managed within the private sector, which in turn would provide much more certainty to the timber using industry in terms of planning and competitiveness, not now existing within the private sector. Having said that any new owner of such a forest/wood must be willing to implement this commercial aspect with vigour and skill for this to succeed in the short and long term and co operate for all to succeed.

B)However, It is agreed that with so much unmanaged woodland already in the private sector in England, it hardly bodes well to add more woodland ex. PFE woodland,albeit better managed than some. Of course woods transfered from the PFE to private ownership (with special refeence to your 3rd category) may by a percentage have adjusted those objects of management incurred under the PFE to suit the owner, i.e. public recreation and increased biodiversity, unless a condition/mandate passes with ownership, which may not be acceptable.

C)Upon transfer from PFE to private ownership, would there be available sufficient manpower/staffing within the private sector to satisfactorily cope? To what extent would ex PFE staff (made redundant as a result of transfer) would or could be absorbed into the private environment, depending of course on private owners willingness to take them on and of course pay for it all? We are not exactly over provisioned with professional foresters/woodland managers public or private.

These are few thoughts which no doubt have been considered already!

Comment by Richard Coombs — January 21, 2011 @ 2:47 pm
[...] long-awaited public consultation that is expected to be published today. We released our own position statement on this issue last [...]

Pingback by SYLVA • reviving Britain's wood culture — January 27, 2011 @ 8:38 am