The coalition’s plans to privatise Britain’s woodlands have received what is
euphemistically termed ‘a mixed reception’. Caroline Spelman’s consultation document and accompanying
article in today’s Times (£) may change that fact. Both are historically conscious and upholstered with
reassuring pastoral interludes – an elegant departure from most ministerial rambles.
But, this government’s politics breaks well clear from the literary immersion. There is a dose of Thatcherism. Spelman is adamant that the state should not be managing forests, and she wants private companies to exploit commercially valuable forests. She writes: ‘It’s time for the Government to step back and allow those who are most involved with England’s woodlands to play a much greater role in their future.’
There is a much stronger measure of decentralisation. Local people, charities and campaign groups can use planning controls to ensure that heritage woodland and wildlife is protected. Or, better, they can manage woodland themselves on a freehold or leasehold basis, which is Spelman’s most radical proposal.
Lastly, she vows that the government is conscientiously green and will closely vet all takeovers and then regulate management afterwards.
These proposals will affect less than a fifth of Britain’s forestry: the other four fifths are already in private or charitable ownership. But, even so, trust is everything on this issue and the government already faces a celebrated opposition. As far as I can tell, the consultation contains no new guarantees; just a tightening of the Forestry Commission’s current powers and a pledge to end the anomaly whereby the commission regulates itself. Critics say that will be insufficient. So the government will be cautious; certain that the regulation must be crook-proof. For I doubt that it could recover from footage of disorientated badgers, scuttling from the agents of ravening oligarchy.
Comments