Back in November a report was published called 'The Forestry Commission and the sale of public forests in England', which concluded that the sale of public forest estate was inevitable due to governmental spending constraints. What wasn't predicted was the current talk of selling off all land managed by the Forestry Commission, and it has split public opinion quite nicely down the middle.
The 'It's not so bad' Arguement
If the woodlands to be sold could be guaranteed a future, guaranteed appropriate management and guaranteed not to be sold off to developers, then the release of them from government control may not be such a bad thing. It could give greater control to local wildlife trusts and devolve power to those more in the know, perhaps, than a public body such as the Forestry Commission. Commentators sitting in this camp are also likely to mention the fact that many nature reserves are already privately owned and managed by individuals, or that businesses fund various parts of conservation measures in the United Kingdom. Unfortunately, for the writing of this paragraph, I do not hold these opinions so I'll swiftly move on to the counter-arguement.
The 'Up-in-arms about it' Arguement
Think about England. Imagine you've just met somebody abroad who has never had access to a television or the internet and you're asked to describe the place. It's an opportunity to sell this little country as best you can, and apart from an obligatory mention of London's sights, The Beatles and copious amounts of tea-drinking, you look for something else that epitomises our nation. Unless you're a city fanatic, surely you wouldn't fail to mention the English countryside? The coastline, the green fields, the woodlands...
The woodlands we have left are under threat if they're sold off. If these woodlands cannot be sold to one buyer then some of them will undoubtedly be lost. If they can be sold to one organisation with good intentions, then fabulous, maybe this can work out okay, but what sort of organisation has enough spare cash to buy 635,000 acres of ancient and royal forests, heathlands and woods? Non-governmental organisations do a wonderful job of managing natural areas in the UK, but even huge organisations like the National Trust and the RSPB have to think about how to manage their existing land; buying all of this extra forested land would be a huge commitment. If the government resort to selling to the highest bidders, who's to say that developers won't get their hands on huge areas of our precious forests? Nobody can promise that, and this is why I think that this is a very bad idea.
Yesterday, 3,000 people made their feelings known at a protest march in the Forest of Dean. Protesters worried that privatising Britain's largest ancient oak forest would result in limited access to the public and increased commercial activities within the forest. Other famous forests in the firing line are the New Forest and Sherwood Forest. Whatever would Robin Hood make of all this? He'd probably be backing something along the lines of 'steal from the rich and give to the poor', rather than 'steal our forests from future generations to make up a small part of the deficit'.
"We will not compromise the protection of our most valuable and biodiverse forests", said a spokesman for the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra). It's hard to take this entirely seriously when "We will not increase tuition fees" is a wound still fresh.
If you haven't gauged my opinion on this yet, then David Bellamy sums it up nicely: "The green heart of Britain is not for sale." You tell 'em David. It would be so very sad to lose even more of our forests.
