Here's how another, more well-informed, blogger sees it:
At the moment, the whole of the public forest estate is independently certified by the Forestry Stewardship Council – the Forestry Commission being the first forest service in the world to achieve this status. New owners will not be required to certify their forests, and the likelihood is that most of them won’t. Only 16% of private woodlands are currently certified. All Forestry Commission woodlands are managed under a Forest Design Plan, which determines the balance between commercial value from the timber, public benefit and environmental protection – the essence of what is known as ‘multifunctional forest management’. There’s more in those forests than money alone. However, there will be no requirement for new owners to maintain any kind of forest design plan, and their track record in this area is hardly encouraging.
And as to access, anyone who buys land freehold from the Forestry Commission is indeed required to allow access on foot, under the Countryside and Rights of Way Act, and indeed to keep open public rights of way. However, there will be no requirement to maintain forests walks in good condition, or to provide any kind of parking facilities.
And here’s the rub for Mrs Spelman and her chums in the Forestry Industry. Treasury’s principal concern here is to maximize the financial value of any forest disposals. The harder Defra tries to protect the conservation and amenity value of the forests that are being sold, the lower the sale price they will be able to command on the open market.
Having signed the petition (click here for petition) I've looked up my MP (using this link) and shall be emailing to register my concern that if this has to be done at all, that it be done well.
I love the fact that in Britain there is so much free and easy access to land that is green and in its natural state. The fresh air and the break from city life is a great plus to living in this country and the ancient woodland is our birthright; a living legacy. This is an issue that is much more than about earning some money in the short term; and if we're in such dire straits that we're forced to consider this then we should impose restrictions on how the land can be managed post-sale; thereby lowering the value as Jonathon makes in his final point and rendering the whole thing useless. Surely we could be doing better things with our time and effort than attacking such and important natural resource?
