One thing we know that we didn’t know six months ago: the English really, really care about their forests. Railways and other public sectors have been privatised by successive governments, but the proposed sell-off of state-owned woodlands sparked a whirlwind of throbbing, white-knuckled anger on an unprecedented scale. An abrupt U-turn, announced back in February, has enabled everyone to pause for breath. But no-one is popping open the champagne just yet: the future of nationalised woodlands still remains uncertain and, as the whole saga revealed, the issue remains far from clear cut.

Immediate public backlash
The government’s proposals, first mooted late last year, suggested selling up to 15% of the estate (40,000 hectares) over the next four years as part of Defra’s spending review commitments. It was hoped this would raise £100million. The rest would be split up into different categories: forests classified as heritage and community woodland would be given to charities to run; some commercial forests would be leased to logging firms; and ‘mixed’ woods would be offered to community groups to buy at market value. If they could not find the money, then they would be sold on the open market.

Opposition began immediately, most publicly through the online group 38 Degrees, which swiftly secured 500,000 petitioners demanding the sell-off be scrapped. Once the small print emerged, outlining how leases, funding and access would be managed, mainstream organisations, such as the Ramblers, also opposed the plan. While Defra and the Forestry Commission (FC) insisted that no land would be sold off unless guarantees over public access were secured, very few people believed this would be the case in practice. “There were three nasty clauses in the [Public Bodies (Reform)] bill that gave the minister the ultimate power to dispose of any land that he wanted, without consultation,” said Ian Standing, secretary of Hands of Our Forests (HOOF), an opposition group in the Forest of Dean.

Critics smelt a very large rat. “The government held out an olive branch, talking about how heritage forests would be secure, but ‘heritage forest’ is such a wishy-washy definition. We don’t have any forests up here that meet that description,” said Mike Morton, a spokesman for Save Lakeland’s Forests. “Commercially valuable forests in the Lake District are tied up with leisure facilities – everything from the RAC rally to kids’ orienteering. If it was privately owned you would have no idea about what access was allowed.”

Morton points to the local case of Rigg Wood, by Coniston Water, which was sold last year and the gates padlocked. “The car park was the first thing to be closed. You are allowed to walk there, but there is no encouragement and you have to be fit to clamber over the gates and know your rights. That excludes most people.

“There is no guarantee that paths would be maintained if they fell into private hands. It doesn’t take long for the natural world to take over, cover paths and block streams –especially between spring and summer. Whether private owners would want to invest in maintenance, I don’t know. But I know that the Forestry Commission do.”

No safeguards for access
The Ramblers, along with other outdoors organisations, faced criticism for not immediately opposing the proposed sell off. “From the outset we came at this from the angle of access rather than ownership,” said Justin Cooke, the Ramblers’ senior policy officer. “The government said they were committed to access, but they did not show us the detail. We were left in the position of either taking the government’s word, or following the likes of 38 Degrees before we knew the facts. Everyone said we should be jumping up and down, but we had to know what the consultation said first.

“When it was published, it was full of holes, and up to 50% of the estate could be effectively sold off without any protection. But the government insisted they wanted to protect access and asked us what they should do. So we said they had to withdraw the clauses relating to ministerial powers for selling off land in the Public Bodies Bill.”

More positively, the campaign has revealed a side of the FC that many were unaware of. Although it continues to produce large commercially valuable forests and woodlands, it has spent the past 30 years winding back the clock, clear-felling many of the plantations it had itself originally seeded, and planting native broadleaf trees such as birch and oak, enhancing biodiversity and encouraging and promoting access. “It has highlighted some of the work that perhaps people didn’t know that we did,” said a spokeswoman.

“There’s a continuity about what the Forestry Commission does,” said Cooke. “You know when you visit one of their sites you will be encouraged to enjoy the access and the woodland. There’ll usually be two or three signed routes, accessible gates, and a welcoming, protected feel. That feeling is what we were most worried about losing. Most of these woodlands are used by local people living on the doorstep.”
That sense of loss was palpable in areas such as the Lake District, where campaigners rallied, particularly around Grizedale forest. “The Lake District is full of communities, villages and towns surrounded by little Forestry Commission woodlands – 39 of them – which are widely, intensely used by local people,” said Morton.

In turn, this sentiment goes some way to explaining the most striking phenomenon of the whole saga: the fury that the proposals invoked. “So many people are against it, right across the social spectrum – from the lady on her horse to the mother from a council estate pushing her buggy through the woods on a Sunday afternoon,” said Morton. The Forest of Dean proved another lightning rod for opposition, with HOOF up and running almost within hours of the announcement. “The biggest fear locally was that if the forest fell into private hands it would be cut down and built on,” said Standing. “The government said the forest is protected but my experience is that planning laws are never really helpful. This forest has been so ‘got at’ over the centuries that it’s at a crucial point – any more development could tip it over the edge. The Forest of Dean is lived in by so many people, who have done so for generations. People here enjoy ancient privileges to graze sheep, freedom to roam, access. It’s almost a little country and they don’t like being told what will happen to it.”

Intriguingly, Standing also suspects the nationwide opposition hints at a primordial link to our ties to the earth. “I think there may well be some folk memory at play. The British do feel very deeply about their woods, they have some residual love of freedom of access, and that made them very uppity over this. It’s not so long ago that our ancestors were kicked off the land by the enclosures.” This sentiment is echoed by Caroline Lucas, the Green MP, who campaigned against the sell off.  “Forest are still hugely valued, even by people who cannot access them very often. There’s a sense that they have been handed down to us,” she said.

Numbers don’t add up
The initial argument put forward by the government was that the sell-off would make money. But in 2009/2010, the FC made a loss of £20.6m, despite a profit of £12.3m from timber harvesting. The major losses were £13.8m from forest regeneration and £17.2m from recreation, conservation and heritage – prompting fears that the profitable timber arm would squeeze out recreation.
Campaigners believe woodland sales attract private buyers because no inheritance tax is payable on forest holdings – something which saw Terry Wogan, Phil Collins and other celebrities fund Caledonian pine plantations in Scotland in recent years.

It’s pretty clear that the challenge for any charity taking on a forest would be maintaining an income. Woodlands typically sell for £1,300-£8,000 per acre, according to John Clegg, at John Clegg & Co chartered foresters. Like other organisations, the Wildlife Trusts made no secret of their interest in buying or leasing woodlands, but not on the scale envisaged by the government. “There were some parts of the consultation that we thought did have real value,” said Julian Roughton, chief executive of Suffolk Wildlife Trust. “The reality is that we and organisations like us could only ever buy a very small number of these woods. The costs were enormous; it wasn’t feasible.”

Meanwhile, proposed cuts to the FC may, campaigners warn, leave the prospect of a sell-off very much alive. A government-appointed panel will report back next spring on the future of policy for forests and woodland in England. In the meantime, the Forestry Commission faces 25% cuts and the prospect of 250 job losses in England – 29% of the workforce – and 100 more in Scotland.  And the existing plans to sell off 40,000 hectares of woodland a year, around 15% of the Commission’s land in England, have only been temporarily suspended.  “I wonder whether the government isn’t setting the Forestry Commission up to fail, so that it can have another crack at this,” said Standing.

Everything appears to hang on the composition of the expert panel, which was announced in March. The 12 members include Ramblers Chief Executive Tom Franklin, along with the heads of the RSPB, National Trust, Wildlife trusts and Woodland Trust, as well as the Confederation of Forest Industries, the Country Land and Business Association, and Clinton Devon Estates, a farming and forestry operation. There are no places for cyclists, horsed riders, or local community action groups on the panel, which is headed by James Jones, the Bishop of Liverpool.

Standing worries that it will be dominated by “tub-thumping privateers”, and points out the panel is not being given the option of retaining the status quo. Lord Clark of Windermere, a former chairman of the Forestry Commission, who was involved in the Save Lakeland’s forests campaign, added: “The panel is stuffed full of people who represent organisations that could benefit from the Government disposing of public forests. That means they have a potential conflict of interest.”

Like everyone else, the Ramblers are unable to pick much out of the runes at this stage. “The Forestry Commission has always bought and sold land – it has been good at protecting some, not so good with others. The only certainty is that, given the public spending review, Defra still has to sell some woodland some time in the next four years,” said Justin. “How they do it and when they do it, nobody really knows.”

Middle image by Jim Champion from geograph.org.uk

Meanwhile, campaigners are celebrating after a recent e-petition successfully persuaded Transport Scotland to commit to a vital underpass for walkers, cyclists and horse riders as part of their A9 expansion plans. The major route between Perth and Inverness has been hazardous since it was built in the 1970s, but when plans to upgrade it to a dual carriageway emerged without offering any new crossing points, an e-petition was launched, supported by Ramblers Scotland.

Image by Sarah Q.

Mark Thomas
£11.99, Ebury Press,
ISBN 978 0091927806

For a comedian who relishes causing political controversy, it seemed inevitable that Mark Thomas would one day be drawn to explore the world’s most controversial and politically fraught country, Israel. But what’s surprising is that his initial motivation to walk the 750km length of the Israeli-built wall around the West Bank is born out of a genuine rambler’s desire to discover the region’s ‘perfect walk’. At one point in this angry, funny and frequently moving account of his journey, the comedian imagines that the wall will one day become the route of The Palestinian Way – one of his many brazenly subversive jokes. Humour aside, the book is an ingenious, humane and well-researched insight into an impenetrably messy situation. Dominic Bates

What do you think the recent impassioned protests over the Government’s plans for forest ownership say about the English public’s relationship with its woodlands?
The Government underestimated how people felt. It’s a shame the debate became so politicised, but people do feel strongly about a state-owned industry.

What is the Woodland Trust’s position on the sell-off of Forestry Commission (FC) woodland in England? Should it remain in public hands?
We want to see enhanced protection, we don’t want to get involved in the political debate about ownership. In the end, I don’t think ownership is the critical factor on whether woods are enjoyed or well managed. For me, the resources available for improving access and designation is the big issue. By avoiding political debate, I’ve been on the receiving end of a lot of criticism. I feel there are wider issues than the forestry estate – that’s why I’ve tried to keep to the debate on having good woodland heritage. There’s no one black-and-white answer. People assume that as a green organisation you’ll be involved in whatever political debates are going on. But we’re a ‘doing’ organisation and are coming to the question of whether the Forestry Commission estate stays in public ownership with a blank sheet of paper.

If the sell-off were eventually to go ahead, how much of the FC estate could the Woodland Trust realistically afford or want to purchase?
We don’t want to buy lots of woods. As a practical organisation, our impact is through increasing the enjoyment of woods and planting trees. I don’t want ownership to be a distraction on key issues such as the FC’s work on tree diseases and forest research.

Would you encourage more community ownership of forests?
Community ownership is a good aspiration, but you need a lot of help to build capability and resources. It would be wonderful if every community – along with every school and every hospital – had accessible woodland on its doorstep.

Should we be less concerned about ownership of woodland and more about its conservation, improvement and accessibility?
Absolutely.

You’re now part of the Government’s expert panel reviewing the future of the FC in England, along with the Ramblers, National Trust, Country Land & Business Association, two forestry industry bodies and one independent expert. Are you looking forward to serving on the panel?
Yes. It will be an opportunity to talk about issues the Trust feels passionately about. There’s not a lot of time, though: we have to produce an interim report by November, so we’ll be working hard this summer.

What do you think of the balance of the panel? Should the Government have allowed a place on the panel for the Forest Campaigns’ Network, for example?
It’s good to see the commercial and conservation sectors being well represented. The panel needs to consult really widely, so there will be plenty of opportunities to engage with us.

The Woodland Trust began in 1972, at the Devon kitchen table of retired farmer Kenneth Watkins. How does this homely history inform your work today?
The Trust stays at the practical end of things. We’re about doing it – not just talking about it – which is what Kenneth Watkins wanted. Our roots are in creating, protecting and visiting woods.

What ambitions do you have for the Woodland Trust in the long-term?
Protection and access are the key issues from our point of view. Planning reform is a big part of protection: some of the 850 planning applications we’ve fought were in state-owned forests and it’s the major political question we’re lobbying about. My long-term ambitions are to make sure ancient woodland is protected, to double woodland cover in the UK, and make sure every child has a chance to plant a tree.

Just 3% of the UK is ancient forest. Why are these pockets of land so precious?
Ancient woodland is our most biodiverse habitat. The species who live there are fragile and immobile, and like particular conditions. Ancient woodland has been there for 400 years or more, with no ploughing or pesticide use, so the soil is pristine. The ecosystem is a complex web of fungus and lichen, and very fragile. This undisturbed soil gives us the likes of bluebells, wild garlic and wood anemones.

Britain has the lowest percentage of forest cover in Europe (less than 5%, compared to almost a third of France and Germany). What kind of forestry cover would you like to see here?
France and Germany have stronger cultural associations with woods. Ideally, I’d like to see Britain with 1 million hectares of forestry cover, so we need to plant thousands of hectares of new native woodland every year. Planting has declined in the past five years because grants have been reduced; we aim to persuade the Government that grants are needed.

Woodlands can be magical to walk through, but at their worst walkers are corralled into wire tunnels, with ditches and ‘Keep Out’ notices on each side. How can forest owners be more walker-friendly?
Owners need to be shown that walkers don’t damage woodland. Equally, subsidies for providing and enhancing access need to be more extensive for woodland owners. But access isn’t just about linear rights of way: it’s about volunteering and education, too.

And how do you think walkers can be more forest-friendly?
Walkers need to be careful where they walk, because some species are fragile – especially ground flora. With game cover, landowners can be nervous of people wandering around. Always respect the owner’s activity, whether it’s game cover or coppicing.

The Woodland Trust is keen to protect public access in its woodlands, but decided not to dedicate its woods as open access land under the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000. Why?
All our woods are open anyway, so why go through the administrative and cost burden of dedicating them? We’re not suddenly going to close access to them, so we’d rather put our efforts into opening woods up and educating the public to visit them.

What’s coming up for the Trust in the next 12 months?
We’re trying to get different datasets together from the National Trust, Forestry Commission and ourselves, so we can put them on the www.VisitWoods.org.uk website. We also want the public to put woods on themselves and send updates. Our major campaign is the Jubilee Woods – we want to plant 6 million trees in a year, and find 60 diamond-shaped woods of 60 acres. The Country Land & Business Association, county Lord-Lieutenants and Crown Estate are seeking landowners to host the diamond woods. There will also be community woods and individuals who plant trees; many people have happy memories of the tree they planted back in 1976 for the Silver Jubilee.

What’s your favourite…

…city walk?
Hainault Forest on the edge of London, for the pollarded hornbeam trees.

…countryside walk?
Forest of Dean, where a string of woods – Bigsweir, Cadora and Highbury – make for the most amazing walking.

…piece of walking kit?
Merino base layer, warm scarf and boots.

…view?
Borrowdale – there are so many stunning trees.

…post-walk tipple?
A real ale: Black Sheep, Jennings, Batemans… there are too many to choose from.

Soon after he left school in the early 1930s, a weekend’s walking in the Surrey Hills opened Len Clark’s eyes to the great outdoors. “And thanks to my new YHA card,” he says, “I went on to explore most of Britain’s national parks before they were even invented!”

A member of the Ramblers for 60 years, Len’s enthusiasm was undimmed by the Second World War: he cycled around the Brecon Beacons while stationed in the Welsh borders. Then one lunchtime, shortly after the war, Len picked up a 1945 report by the former Ramblers President John Dower, proposing the creation of national parks in England and Wales. “As I tucked into my macaroni cheese,” he recalls, “I found to my amazement that this chap had discovered the same exciting places as I had. What’s more, he had the right ideas about opening them up for all whilst protecting them from despoliation.”

Yellowstone, in the US, had become the world’s first national park way back in 1872, but the idea was slow to cross the Atlantic. Throughout the 1920s and ‘30s outdoor recreation became increasingly popular, and more and more walkers were frustrated by the denial of public access to the Pennine fells. Hundreds took part in the legendary Mass Trespass on Kinder Scout in 1932, which saw five walkers jailed after scuffles with gamekeepers. The Ramblers was founded three years later and quickly joined forces with other groups already pressing for national parks. But it was only after the hiatus of war that Attlee’s government established the Hobhouse Committee, which finally proposed 12 national parks in England and Wales.

Len Clark got involved with the campaign and, on a first date with his future wife, listened to the second reading of the 1949 National Parks Bill from the public gallery of the House of Commons. “It was a mixture of enthusiasm and polite debate,” says Len. “Although the initiative came from the left, virtually no-one was against the national parks. But the Lords were a bit miffed at losing their traditional rights over land that they’d managed for generations.”

Thriving despite challenges
When the Peak District National Park opened in April 1951, it was the first tangible product of the new legislation. Ten parks were up and running within eight years, but it would take another half-a-century to secure the remaining two on Hobhouse’s original list (the New Forest and South Downs). National parks were only a part of the 1949 Act, though, which also brought in new definitive maps of public rights of way, laid the foundations for National Trails, and introduced protection for other important landscapes and wildlife sites.

Today, Britain’s national parks are thriving. Walkers account for well over half of the 10 million visitors to the Peak District each year, contributing nearly £225m to the local economy and making it one of the UK’s top rural tourist destinations. Like areas of outstanding natural beauty (AONBs), national parks must conserve and enhance the area’s scenery, wildlife and heritage. But they’re also obliged to promote education, recreation and (since 1995) the economic and social well-being of their local community. It’s easy to see how these difficult and diverse duties can often conflict. So extra resources are made available to help cope (national parks are funded by Defra; AONBs depend on an annual grant from their local authority), and where problems do arise, the ‘Sandford Principle’ maintains that priority should always be given to conservation.

Overall, it seems to work. “National park countryside has definitely improved over the last 60 years,” says Kate Ashbrook, a trustee for both the Ramblers and Campaign for National Parks (CNP). “The independent park authorities are a good thing: more robust and less parochial. And there seem to be fewer big threats now, such as MOD ranges and china clay workings on Dartmoor.” Nevertheless, national parks aren’t immune from a range of modern pressures. Quarrying remains contentious, especially in the Peak District and Yorkshire Dales where large-scale mining rights dating back to the 1950s are technically still valid until 2042. And the Government’s recently proposed new planning guidance could make it easier to drive major electricity lines through national parks. There are administrative changes under debate at Westminster, too.

Park management changes
In a bid to increase local accountability, Defra is reviewing the structure of English national park authorities. “Local people must have a say in running their national park,” says Ruth Chambers of the CNP. “But the parks are also national assets, and any changes shouldn’t upset that balance.”  In a separate move, the proposed new Public Bodies Bill would give ministers wide powers over national park authorities’ work. “It’s right that the parks are accountable to Parliament,” says Ruth Chambers, “but ministers shouldn’t be able to micro-manage their work. We think that these changes go too far.” Issues like these are meat and drink to the voluntary societies that support each national park, such as the Snowdonia Society. “We monitor strategic decisions and take part in consultations affecting the park,” says the Society’s director, Gareth Clubb. “We also organise practical conservation work, such as litter picks and footpath improvements, as well as visits and social events.”

Scotland, meanwhile, had to wait for its own Parliament before national parks made the leap north of the Border. After that, things moved fast; Loch Lomond and the Trossachs was designated in 2002, closely followed by the Cairngorms National Park in 2003. Although the small print differs slightly, the Scottish parks have broadly similar aims to their cousins further south. Last autumn, the Cairngorms brought Highland Perthshire within its borders, creating an enlarged national park twice the size of the Lake District. “Highland Perthshire was part of the original Scottish Natural Heritage proposals, but was left out for political reasons,” explains David Green, convener of the Cairngorms National Park Authority. “There was huge support for righting this wrong.”

Not surprising, perhaps, when you consider the benefits. The park is attracting more young residents, unemployment has fallen, and tourism accounts for almost a third of the growing local economy. A recent survey also highlights mounting prestige for the Cairngorms brand, with twice as many visits prompted by national park status as there were in 2003.

Growth and cutbacks
In the future, Scotland could see a new national park on the island of Harris. While south of the border, Natural England is considering proposals to link the Yorkshire Dales with the Lake District. Yet the spectre of economic cuts looms large. Just before Christmas, Defra announced a 21.5% reduction in national park authority budgets over the next four years – and the effects are already being felt.

In the Peak District, the national park authority is disposing of its extensive land holdings and transferring its Losehill Hall education and conference centre to the YHA. Nevertheless, Andy Tickle at Friends of the Peak District takes a pragmatic line: “For some sites, new forms of ownership and management could be key to meeting new challenges such as climate change, enhancing biodiversity and encouraging wider access for all. Many people may be uncomfortable with the politics, but if the end result is that land is better managed for everyone, then is that necessarily a bad thing?”

For Len Clark, he’s seen it all before. “The national parks have had their ups and downs in the last 60 years, but they’re something we can be proud of,” he says. “They ensure public access, with strict planning controls discouraging developers from abusing the unique mixture of exhilaration and awe that makes them so special. They’re absolutely a success!”

Click here for more walk‘s recent coverage of Britain’s National Parks.

“We believe that if the Government can’t promise to guarantee current levels of public access, then Forestry Commission land shouldn’t be sold,” says Tom Franklin, chief executive of the Ramblers, which has published its key criteria for the sale of any FC land (right). “There are some positives in the plans, including protection of access to heritage and community forests such as the Forest of Dean, but there are also a lot of grey areas which are likely to lead to a reduction in public access.”

The FC owns nearly a fifth of Britain’s woodland, around 1 million hectares, but Defra plans to sell at least 40,000 hectares over the next four years as part of a 15% spending cut across the department. England’s most commercially valuable forests – such as Kielder in Northumberland – are likely to be leased long-term to private operators, with safeguards in place on existing public access. While woodland which Defra has identified as either heritage or community forest would be transferred to third sector ownership or management and continue operating as they are, with a gradual removal of Government funding over time. The remainder would be sold at full market value, with community groups offered first refusal. But the new owners wouldn’t be obliged to continue any access arrangements, potentially barring walkers from around 130,000 hectares of English woodland. “We could see access to half of the FC estate seriously reduced in the next few years,” says Tom. “We urge the public to get involved and tell the Government how important it is to enjoy your local woodland.”

You can respond to Defra’s consultation at tinyurl.com/6xpv828.
Image © Countryside Agency

The Royal Bank of Scotland pulled out of the Soteria consortium – favourite to win the contract – after military police were alerted to alleged improper conduct during the bid process. It comes after the Ramblers called on the Government to clarify its position on the privatisation plans.
“Today we have a superb search and rescue service in the UK, which is the envy of many other countries,” says Ramblers Chief Executive Tom Franklin. “Close co-operation between military, police and civilian interests is at the heart of this service and relies on the massive contribution of volunteer time and effort through our civilian mountain rescue teams. This is the Big Society working at its best, as it has done for decades. It is essential that the UK Government understands the full picture and does not take decisions on one part of the rescue service that undermine the service as a whole”.

One proposal that has come in for a significant amount of criticism, since it was first announced back in October 2010, is the sale of half the state-owned forests in England. The proposal, outlined on the Defra website outlines the government’s wish to encourage more private sector and civil society involvement in the ownership of this asset, the sale of which could raise and estimated £250m. Some 150,000 hectares of woodland would be under threat in what has been suggested is the biggest sale of it’s type for 60 years.

The idea comes as part of the governments “big society” strategy which, it is said, ‘aims to allow local communities to have a greater say in the protection and use of their local environments.’ What seems to worry many people is that with the increased likelihood of private organisations becoming more and more involved in the management and ownership of woodland, access to such important habitats could be restricted. The result is, as you might expect, a number of campaigns gaining momentum on social networks and at more local levels. One of the most vocal groups opposed to this selloff are based in and around the Forest of Dean where 3000 people have added their voice to many others, in other areas of the UK opposed to the sale.

At the time of writing the proposal was expected to be debated in the House of Lords shortly with Parliament bringing the ‘public bodies bill’ into law within weeks so time, it would seem, is running out. It would seem that anyone who enjoys walking in the countryside, especially in wooded areas, could see a significant reduction in access to such rich and diverse habitats. With felling and power production a likely use for a percentage of this woodland the restriction of access on safety grounds would be easily justified.

The UK economy, along with many others, is struggling with huge debits so it’s natural that those that govern us look to our assets to see if there is anything that can be sold to raise much needed revenue. With the NHS, education and other major and core elements of our society needing to continue to be funded it’s easy to see why something like woodland can be on the hit list. However this is a once in many lifetimes chance. Sell the woodland and destroy it and you can’t put right the damage overnight so maybe a little more consideration would be in order. It took many hundreds of years for much of our woodland to become established so maybe rushing headlong into legislation in a few weeks is too quick.

Phil Pickin is a writer specialising in the inland waterways, wildlife and the environment – his next wildlife column for Walk will appear in two months’ time.