The Big Forestry Sell-Off... Good or bad...Thoughts

[Rob Stringer]

Notwithstanding this I have a question if I may ...............................

Where has all the protests been for the last 5 years, maybe more, whilst the forest at Guildford has been gradually dismantled each winter.

Do you know that if you walk to the far side of the once forest at the M25 fence it has been totally cleared and you can see the car park on the far side adjacent to the A3!!!. It is criminal and the only people profiting from it is no doubt the peoples pocketing their Christmas bonus from the sale of the wood each year!!.

Please just look at some aerial photos from say 7 years ago and ones from today there are hundreds and I mean hundreds of trees cut down and why?. It all started with some signs on a small heather area saying do not walk on the Heathers, next came a sign saying the non native trees were being cleared to make way for the heathers and butterflies, would you believe.

/QUOTE]

 

I live around Gulldford and drive up the A3 all the time and i'm not sure what you're talking about. Theres been a lot of heathland restoration work locally which involves clearing areas of birch scrub etc. It sounds like this is what you're talking about but the land will have far more protection as SSSI heathland than the scrubby birch etc. which has been replacing it on the poor soils where its found.

[Kiwi climber]

I've got a bad feeling about it... It may be that the first wave of new owners are responsible and restricted by certain clauses, then they sell on and the restrictions are lessened and so on and so forth.

The government could raise far more capital by removing the tax law which exempts people from paying any income tax if they own a woodland (not the most egalitarian reason for purchasing either!) Oh but wait, thats mostly wealthy Tory voters who'll lose out, not people that can't afford a woodland....

[Kraftinwood]

Rob thanks but that is exactly my point people do not relaize just what is going on. I do mean devastation, if you next pass by park up in the car park where the cafe is and walk towards the far side M25 you will be amazed it's 75% cleared.

I am not talking brush but many Scots pines, plus Ash and a few Oak etc all gone you wil be amazed.

We have been going there for the last 15 years and my wife longer than that and bits not a pretty site now, certainly no longer a forest!!.

Kraftinwood

Woodturning Large Bowls and Hollow Forms, Australian and Native Burrs.

[TRADITIONAL LOGGERS]

How many tree surgeons cut down trees for the monies when the trees could be improved and left standing. I refused to take down a large Cedar of Lebanon a long time ago because the home owners did not want it. In the time I called the local council TPO man and him attending a rogue firm (so called professional) had started to dismantle it.

 

The people making all the fuss at present about the FC show start supporting the firms who care about the woods we work in and intend to leave them there for the future. Some of us do have a consideration for the woodlands.

[john burgess]

Just a thought how many of you know how much of the forestry commission ground is on a lease. In Sussex I can name several thousand acres so I would presume that the ground will be offered to the leaseholder first and considering the forestry commission was set up to grow timber I believe it should have nothing to do with building car parks cycle tracks and other things not to do with forestry

[john k]

Just a thought how many of you know how much of the forestry commission ground is on a lease. In Sussex I can name several thousand acres so I would presume that the ground will be offered to the leaseholder first

 

Isn't most of the FC land leasehold with 999 year leases? Effectively not very different from freehold.

 

I have heard that some of the Forestry Commission land in West Sussex will be reverting back to the Duke of Norfolk's estate, but I've also heard of the Forestry Commission selling leasehold land previously. There was some on sale in East Sussex via Clegg & Co recently, but that was withdrawn from sale for with no reason given.

 

Do you know any more about it?

 

considering the forestry commission was set up to grow timber I believe it should have nothing to do with building car parks cycle tracks and other things not to do with forestry

 

It was set up to grow timber, but has developed over time and has been involved in conservation and amenity work since the 1970s, increasingly so in recent years. Car parks, cycle tracks, visitor centres and the like are all part of what "forestry" has become.

 

I think that it's going to be interesting to see how this pans out. My guess is that if the sale goes ahead then the flagship forests will end up with the National Trust, some more will end up with other charities, and some will end up with private investors and people with an interest in forestry and woodland management. I think it's very unlikely that we'll see wholesale felling and development across swathes of forest land.

[john burgess]

Isn't most of the FC land leasehold with 999 year leases? Effectively not very different from freehold.

 

I have heard that some of the Forestry Commission land in West Sussex will be reverting back to the Duke of Norfolk's estate, but I've also heard of the Forestry Commission selling leasehold land previously. There was some on sale in East Sussex via Clegg & Co recently, but that was withdrawn from sale for with no reason given.

 

Do you know any more about it?

 

 

 

It was set up to grow timber, but has developed over time and has been involved in conservation and amenity work since the 1970s, increasingly so in recent years. Car parks, cycle tracks, visitor centres and the like are all part of what "forestry" has become.

 

I think that it's going to be interesting to see how this pans out. My guess is that if the sale goes ahead then the flagship forests will end up with the National Trust, some more will end up with other charities, and some will end up with private investors and people with an interest in forestry and woodland management. I think it's very unlikely that we'll see wholesale felling and development across swathes of forest land.

 

I presume you're talking about rewell wood hundred acres plus of chestnut beach and softwood probably going back to the Duke in March the commission also has 600 acres on lease from the trust the commission has sold a large quantity of land over the years the trouble with the trust is they don't use the woodland that got one of their properties as a biomass heating plant and they by the woodchip from a local supplier even though they have 500 acres of woodland opposite the property

[europeantrees]

I'm new to Arb Talk and am somewhat removed from the UK industry having moved to work and live in France. From initially believing the sell of to be relatively harmless my stance has changed considerably, particularly afetr being enlightened by some European based practitoners, As such the wider implications of this sale are really scary and hope anyone can alleviate my concerns with regards the following:

 

Avoiding the arguments with regards the ‘Public Bodies Bill’, the concerns about access and other mainstream issues, which are the current base of opposition to the plans principally from public or political quarters, there remain four very serious wider reaching issues that will result in collateral damage to the industry as a whole:

Existing guidelines and management techniques will become void. The diminishment of the FC has to occur in some form to allow the proposals to become more accountable financially when its major income source is sold. Not only will any reference to values of trees in ecological, environmental, amenity value, which allow for continued research, be removed by the sole recognition of trees for timber value alone based on the proposed sales but also all of the work by the FC and others will be simply discredited and thus a complete halt in progress towards ‘sustainable forest management’ in the UK will occur.

The ideals of Sustainable Forest Management are borne out of international liaison, the subsequent treaties and obligations were then ratified by the UK. Read any documentation, guidelines and principles with regards global forestry and the fact that sustainable forest management is only achievable with community interaction or ownership, is regularly quoted. State funded forestry provides the example for a sustainable structure to proceed in all forest management, be it plantation or primeval. State funded forestry allows for a secondary income which aids the internal timber market as well as allowing for all relevant sustainable factors to be achieved by self financing. The UK parliament will be allowing England to become the ‘miscreant’ example – the exact opposite model to the ideals established after over 20 years of intensive global academic research, (which the UK contributed to funding).

It is a fact that whoever purchases ex FC woodland, from NGO through to International business, will reduce management and maintenance. Not only will this reduce the biodiversity recognised in well managed woodlands. It will produce a large surplus of qualified personnel into an already disenfranchised private land based management industry. There is simply not enough work for these practitioners and the overspill into horticulture and other sectors will be difficult for all existing practitioners. Many of those that have worked in public estate will have been able to gain the most up to date qualifications and certification against those in the private sector, who have had to pay for updates. This imbalance will have drastic consequences for the incumbent private sector

The reduction of future management and maintenance comes at a time of extreme pressure on the natural ecology of our landscape from various ‘introduced’ threats: Grey Squirrels, Deer, Rhododendron & Other non native plants and last but most significantly the emergence of Phytophthora and other diseases. There is little doubt that the spread of forest pests will become an increasingly significant issue and will assuredly isolate the UK timber industry further and increase demand for imported timbers. Measures to ban timber from non sustainable resources or even illegally felled timber have not been adopted by either the UK or the EU to date. Timber prices will thus be prone to foreign influence beyond the control of the relatively UK timber industry.

Anybody working in land based industry will have to re position themselves and adopt a protectionist measures over their business interests at a time when the private land based industry sector is already suffering from the financial crisis and low esteem from a deflated image of the industry as a whole, (further compounded by public critics of the forest sales targeting private industry as being in the ‘Pro’ camp). This will eventually lead into a reduction of taxes through revenue from the private industry, thus further reducing the economic benefits of the ‘disposal of public forest estate’.

 

European Trees

[john burgess]

I'm new to Arb Talk and am somewhat removed from the UK industry having moved to work and live in France. From initially believing the sell of to be relatively harmless my stance has changed considerably, particularly afetr being enlightened by some European based practitoners, As such the wider implications of this sale are really scary and hope anyone can alleviate my concerns with regards the following:

 

Avoiding the arguments with regards the ‘Public Bodies Bill’, the concerns about access and other mainstream issues, which are the current base of opposition to the plans principally from public or political quarters, there remain four very serious wider reaching issues that will result in collateral damage to the industry as a whole:

Existing guidelines and management techniques will become void. The diminishment of the FC has to occur in some form to allow the proposals to become more accountable financially when its major income source is sold. Not only will any reference to values of trees in ecological, environmental, amenity value, which allow for continued research, be removed by the sole recognition of trees for timber value alone based on the proposed sales but also all of the work by the FC and others will be simply discredited and thus a complete halt in progress towards ‘sustainable forest management’ in the UK will occur.

The ideals of Sustainable Forest Management are borne out of international liaison, the subsequent treaties and obligations were then ratified by the UK. Read any documentation, guidelines and principles with regards global forestry and the fact that sustainable forest management is only achievable with community interaction or ownership, is regularly quoted. State funded forestry provides the example for a sustainable structure to proceed in all forest management, be it plantation or primeval. State funded forestry allows for a secondary income which aids the internal timber market as well as allowing for all relevant sustainable factors to be achieved by self financing. The UK parliament will be allowing England to become the ‘miscreant’ example – the exact opposite model to the ideals established after over 20 years of intensive global academic research, (which the UK contributed to funding).

It is a fact that whoever purchases ex FC woodland, from NGO through to International business, will reduce management and maintenance. Not only will this reduce the biodiversity recognised in well managed woodlands. It will produce a large surplus of qualified personnel into an already disenfranchised private land based management industry. There is simply not enough work for these practitioners and the overspill into horticulture and other sectors will be difficult for all existing practitioners. Many of those that have worked in public estate will have been able to gain the most up to date qualifications and certification against those in the private sector, who have had to pay for updates. This imbalance will have drastic consequences for the incumbent private sector

The reduction of future management and maintenance comes at a time of extreme pressure on the natural ecology of our landscape from various ‘introduced’ threats: Grey Squirrels, Deer, Rhododendron & Other non native plants and last but most significantly the emergence of Phytophthora and other diseases. There is little doubt that the spread of forest pests will become an increasingly significant issue and will assuredly isolate the UK timber industry further and increase demand for imported timbers. Measures to ban timber from non sustainable resources or even illegally felled timber have not been adopted by either the UK or the EU to date. Timber prices will thus be prone to foreign influence beyond the control of the relatively UK timber industry.

Anybody working in land based industry will have to re position themselves and adopt a protectionist measures over their business interests at a time when the private land based industry sector is already suffering from the financial crisis and low esteem from a deflated image of the industry as a whole, (further compounded by public critics of the forest sales targeting private industry as being in the ‘Pro’ camp). This will eventually lead into a reduction of taxes through revenue from the private industry, thus further reducing the economic benefits of the ‘disposal of public forest estate’.

 

European Trees

 

the commission costs us the taxpayer approximately 15,000,000 a year . As for sustainable forests in the last few years they have been planting less acreage than the Felling they are also playing with natural regeneration ie a way of saving money. As for grey squirrels and deer the commission they do not control the numbers properly. As for qualified personnel some of them haven't got a clue.

[tractormatt]

Don't know if anyone saw the metro newspaper (was on the train and had nothing to read) but in the section where people can write in one person said that as they make some money back from timber sales and such like the money the government would get from selling the land off would be spent within 12 years don't know where he got his figures from though