Forest sell-off

[STYRBJORN]

I'm posting this in General Wildlife to reach the maximum number of WABbers. The government is proposing to sell off all publicly owned forests to any buyers including building firms. 38* are running an online petition against it. I found the petition in the online Independent. No-brainer for WABbers surely.

Ric

[RKB]

This is a gross mis-represenation of the situation.

1. The proposed sale only applies to PART of the Forestry Commission Estate.
2. Any felling would STILL require a Forestry Commission permit, no matter who the owner was.
3. One of the stated intentions of the sale is to increase biodiversity and protection by diversifying and de-centralising ownership and management.

This a quote from the proposal, which can be read here: http://www.parliament.uk/briefingpap...SNSC-05734.pdf

The Minister, Caroline Spelman MP, said that the sale of public forests was not a “fire sale by a cash-strapped state”, “but the start of new approach to making their protection more local and less central”. The Minister stated that “we think it's much better to give individuals, businesses, charities and local authorities the chance of a much bigger role in protecting their natural environment—and, frankly, those who live closest are most likely to protect it”. She said that one of the main motives for a sale was the need to “enhance biodiversity”.

I'd advise anyone to read it before jumping to conclusions or being misled.

[STYRBJORN]

Track back to Johan Hari's article in the Indy. If you choose to believe government propaganda go ahead. Several of the potential bidders are timber companies who have stated that they will reduce the forests to monoculture.

[seamusagleann]

can you name any of the companies that have stated they will turn it into a monoculture?

[RKB]

Originally Posted by STYRBJORN

Track back to Johan Hari's article in the Indy. If you choose to believe government propaganda go ahead. Several of the potential bidders are timber companies who have stated that they will reduce the forests to monoculture.

Newspapers have agendas too. The Independent's particular agenda is that it has positioned itself for some years as the champion of the environment. Or, more accurately, what its readership perceives as being environmentally friendly. Which isn't always the same thing. They are in the business of selling newspapers, not public service.

The Forestry Commission is itself a timber company. Just one owned by the state that costs us £70m a year. Most of the estate is already monoculture of exotic conifers or beech, which will be felled when it reaches a marketable size, and exists to produce commercial timber. This will happen whether FC owns it or someone else does. The FC currently chops down 300 truck loads of trees every day.

Much of the Forestry Commission's timber plantations sit on what used to be moorland or ancient woodland. There is even a category for it: Planted Ancient Woodland Sites (PAWS), and the biggest destoyer of ancient woodland in the 20th Century was the Forestry Commission. That's what our £70m per year pays for.

[STYRBJORN]

OK. Just put it down to my automatic distrust of guvmint. You believe them. I don't. End of.

[seamusagleann]

i have worked for forestry commission scotland for over 30 years and i can assure you that if anybody with that attitude about monoculture would not be considered as a buyer.

[RoseStones]

My point would be that for the sake of the (widely quoted and I hope, accurately) 30p per person per year that it costs to currently maintain these forests in public hands, why risk the issues associated with private ownership at all?

[davecatt]

Originally Posted by RKB

This is a gross mis-represenation of the situation.

1. The proposed sale only applies to PART of the Forestry Commission Estate.
2. Any felling would STILL require a Forestry Commission permit, no matter who the owner was.
3. One of the stated intentions of the sale is to increase biodiversity and protection by diversifying and de-centralising ownership and management.

This a quote from the proposal, which can be read here: http://www.parliament.uk/briefingpap...SNSC-05734.pdf

The Minister, Caroline Spelman MP, said that the sale of public forests was not a “fire sale by a cash-strapped state”, “but the start of new approach to making their protection more local and less central”. The Minister stated that “we think it's much better to give individuals, businesses, charities and local authorities the chance of a much bigger role in protecting their natural environment—and, frankly, those who live closest are most likely to protect it”. She said that one of the main motives for a sale was the need to “enhance biodiversity”.

I'd advise anyone to read it before jumping to conclusions or being misled.

If you believe the government is selling off its land assets for the common good in the current economic crisis then you are politically naïve.

STYRBJORN:
"38 degrees" are not the ones to listen to if you really care. They are about sensationalist journalism designed to stir up those who have a conscience.

Time to be realistic. The country is under an economic crisis. If it takes the sale or transfer of land, be it forest or national nature reserves, to help the economy then what we should be concentrating on are the conditions of transfer of ownership.

Dont winge and and start talking about petitions against the changes,think about petitions to make sure the management of the land is ecologically acceptable.

The "No-brainers" are those who automatically object without giving consideration to the facts. (In my opinion )
Dave

[STYRBJORN]

Dave - accepted. I posted immediately after reading Johan Hari's article. I was angry and upset and my anarchist side kicked in big-time. I've now found that 38* are a far left group who are automatically against a right wing government.

I still recommend people to have a look. If some of these claims can be substantiated it is an unpleasant prospect. As RoseStones says, the gains are tiny. A lot of the cost goes to making the forests people friendly. Will a private company spend shareholders' money on footpaths, public loos, cafes, children's play areas, wardens to talk about the ecology of the forest? Ho-Ho. Slash and burn more like.

Ric