Opposition grows to woodland sell-off

Things are heating up with the UK woodland sell-off debate. Actually, there is no debate. At least three-quarters of those surveyed did not want this legislation to go ahead. I think this is quite heartening – there is an obvious wave of objection to the idea of putting our woodland areas into the hands of private companies for “management”. For ‘management’ read ‘commercialisation’. And for ‘commericalisation’ understand that this means ‘profit’. How, exactly, does one make a profit from woodland by keeping it unchanged, properly managed and available for locals to wander around in? You don’t! That won’t happen.

What will happen is that woodland will be subjected to:

1. Being turned into some kind of theme park – by adding ventures such as ape-like climbing facilities, mountain biking trails, gift shops and food stalls.
2. Having ancient trees mown down and sold off, to be replaced by the faster-growing varieties of wood such as conifers, thus reducing the inherent biodiversity of what is left of our native primitive woodland.
3. Accessible public woodland being fenced off in order to protect the commercial investment.

Access to woodland will inevitably become more restricted – it’s just in the nature of people who make investments that they become territorial about land. Just look around you at the bigger detached houses in your area – are they open? Are you allowed to walk across their gardens? Of course not – they’re in private hands and fenced off.

These are just the inevitable consequences of the commercial mindset. There is no profit for commerce in preservation. It’s just not how they work. If the present system of woodland management is cumbersome and overwrought, then reform it. The current government’s answer is to sell the problem off to the highest bidder, and TRUST that they will “do the right thing”. Of course, it’s not the government’s fault if they don’t. Then it’s an issue for the individual citizen to take up directly with the offending corporation. That is called the devolution of responsibility, and it is a shameful act by any government who is supposed to care about our nation’s heritage. Our birthright, I would say.

The statement below is from the Department for Farming and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) website, and states quite categorically that 15% of the available woodland has ALREADY been given away BEFORE the consultation. The rest, it says, is open for discussion:

“The Government has already committed to taking 15% of the public forest estate out of state control over the course of this parliament, generating up to £100million of receipts. The consultation paper launched today invites views on a range of ownership and management options for the remaining 85% of the estate.  This will be an open consultation and Government will listen to all responses before publishing its response in the summer.” (source: DEFRA)

I recently wrote to my MP about the issue (with a helping hand from the ‘38 Degrees‘ protest site), and I received a response that was trying to be palliative and re-assuring, but which in fact just raised a number of deeper concerns for me. I will now be posting this response onto the 38 Degrees site to see just how pre-determined the response was.

Here is a link to the latest news about the swell of opinion about this issue. If this goes ahead I am going to take direct action. I really object to having the course of my life diverted away from my spiritual quest in this way because I normally try to stay out of politics, but this is a truly objectionable piece of legislation that MUST be stopped.

I hereby predict that the current public consultation “exercise” will be nothing short of a scam and a farrago. Nothing will be decided except the existing course of action – the commercialisation of (apparently) 18% of our woodlands.

The Government have today back-tracked in a major way, getting their prettiest speaker to release a statement that included the following stated safeguards. Here they are listed out, and my interpretation of what I think they really mean:-

“There are numerous safeguards in place which will ensure that public benefits provided by our woods and forests are protected if they pass into private ownership.  These safeguards include:

• regulations governing felling and replanting; [the guys with the chainsaws will have to wear hard hats and goggles]
• protection for biodiversity through the Wildlife and Countryside Act and Sites of Special Scientific Interest; [if your local woodland isn’t scientifically interesting and unique then it’s for the chop]
• incentives to protect ancient woodland; [companies will have to weigh up whether the measly ‘incentive’ from the Government outweighs the massive cash they will get from chopping it all down]
• guarantees for public access – the majority of the freehold areas of the public forestry estate are protected for access on foot by the Countryside and Rights of Way Act; [areas that are already well-trodden and full of mountain bikes will remain so – quiet woodland paths will be fenced off]
• protection of ancient monuments is overseen by English Heritage; [and what a fine job they’ve done of places like Silbury Hill – now inaccessible for the last seven years since they allowed its summit to collapse]
• any proposals for development would be subject to the Town and Country Planning process; and [planning applications will be dealt with by the usual ‘buddy’ system of back-handers on the gold courses and favours for companies that the planning committee have a stake in]
• Biosecurity – the Plant Health Act sets out a legal framework for the control of pests and diseases of forest tress and timber. [if the trees we’re selling are no use, it’s not our fault – it was sold as seen – just cut it all down and re-plant with conifers] “

Now, I’m not trying to tell you what to think, or how to react, but I am getting vocal and physical about making my own point of view heard and seen on this issue. I ask you to look at how you feel about this too, and then take whatever course of action you feel appropriate and worthy.

No polls. No petitions. No lobbying. Just action. Can you hear my anger? Good.

Gwas The Arborophile.