felling small conifer regen to waste

[Wood wasp]

Unfortunately the FC have positioned themselves as another environmental body and abdicated responsibility for commercial woodland a long time ago.

[Gareth_elms]

Forestry commission through their commercial wing still manage the tendering for timber production on their sites, for instance in thetford forest, Dalby forest, sherwood pines, kielder forest, all of which are predominantly timber production forests owned and tender by FC.

 

Unfortunately although costly and yes maybe more draining than if we turned every spare parcel of land to forestry to keep forestry professionals happy, the environment and the ecosystems that come with it are as important, healthy timber production realise heavily on the right environment to grow a healthy crop. So although taking up parcels of land and meaning organisation focus on the environment it is as important as the production of timber for products.

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

Unfortunately the FC have positioned themselves as another environmental body and abdicated responsibility for commercial woodland a long time ago.

 

 

I like the cut of your jib Sir!

[Wood wasp]

Yes, FE as part of the FC are harvesting timber, trees which were planted anything from 40 to 70 years ago. The fact the vast majority were never thinned or managed in way during their lifetime says it all about the FC

 

So as stated we have all these bodies pursuing the environmental agenda and no one is planting commercial timber, in fact top quality commercial timber for today is already scarce.

 

Of course environmental issues have their place but there is no balance these days and hasn't been for a long time. The environmental agenda will be reined in as doesn't matter who wins next election there will no longer be funding available. However, that doesn't answer my question - who's planting tomorrow's timber?

[Gareth_elms]

Large areas of felled forest are replanted every year. Mainly by contractors. So I guess a direct answer to your question is contractors are planting "tomorrow's" timber as funded by the forestry commission and if on private land by those with a stake in its production.

 

Funding will be reined in on all sectors environment and timber production alike. The forestry sector is equally as vulnerable as the environment sector as it all comes under land management. The environment agenda remains a large focus of much of the globe.

 

The balance between timber production and the environment may need to be re addressed as funding gets tighter. The forest commission are still however the largest land owner in the uk and whether that lands used for commercial enterprise, recreation or environmental agenda it still must be managed sustainably. Ultimately it is not the fault of the environment agenda why the quality of timber is going down or sparce that is clearly down to the quality of the areas it is grown on and clearly the way in which it's been managed through its 40-70 year growth cycle. The answer to none of these problems is therefore to stop the management of other parcels of land not suitable or not currently within forestry because that will not aid the quality of timber, it will just make the money be spread further and quality decrease even further. The pot comes from the same place DEFRA if it's not spent on the environment the money won't go to the production of timber it will go to a different pot probably for development of housing and further decrease the land available for forestry and other land management operations.

[Wood wasp]

Well the planting figures don't really back that up unfortunately.

[Gareth_elms]

Then the Forestry industry is not suistanable and will eventually nail it's own coffin shut unless dealt with. The environment agenda would allow that as chunks of funding can be directed towards aforestation. None of this however points towards the cutting of funding to the environment agenda as it all is intertwined and needs each other to function successfully.

 

If the forest commission don't plant the trees because they don't manage their forests, point the finger at those owning the woodland and not the environment agenda.

[openspaceman]

Then the Forestry industry is not suistanable and will eventually nail it's own coffin shut unless dealt with.

 

Economically the new plantings post 1919 have never been sustainable the FC has always been a drain on the exchequer and the establishment costs of private planting under the dedication schemes were truly staggering in terms of lost revenue. Work we did in the 70s was some of the most wasteful one could envisage, poplar in farmland which was never harvested as well as lodgepole pine across heath and moorland that never produced a harvestable stick.

 

These costs were borne because of a perceived need for a strategic reserve of timber the need for which has never been realised.

[Gareth_elms]

I couldn't agree with you more. I also agree that more land may need to be set to forestry to meet possibly demand or a need to plant more to meet the employment demands of the timber industry, however having worked on both forestry and peatland sites (from a conservation point of view) a peatland does not having the ability to be turned over to timber production. They are too wet and are used elsewhere for alternative reason, draining it would be a bigger drain on funding than any other process as the need to continue to drain it 24 hours a day 365 days a year would be economically disastrous.

 

So as a conservationist who both works on conservation sites and as someone who works smale scale within forestry I'd still believe an abandonment of environmental agenda in favour of a forestry only agenda would be unrealistic so better cohesion between the 2 is a better solution.

 

And if that means the FC must have an environmental agenda as well as other organisations then so be it.

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

I couldn't agree with you more. I also agree that more land may need to be set to forestry to meet possibly demand or a need to plant more to meet the employment demands of the timber industry, however having worked on both forestry and peatland sites (from a conservation point of view) a peatland does not having the ability to be turned over to timber production. They are too wet and are used elsewhere for alternative reason, draining it would be a bigger drain on funding than any other process as the need to continue to drain it 24 hours a day 365 days a year would be economically disastrous.

 

So as a conservationist who both works on conservation sites and as someone who works smale scale within forestry I'd still believe an abandonment of environmental agenda in favour of a forestry only agenda would be unrealistic so better cohesion between the 2 is a better solution.

 

And if that means the FC must have an environmental agenda as well as other organisations then so be it.

 

 

Are you a public sector employee?