What happens in a privatised forest? Whatever it is, most organisation that can afford to buy a forest will be aiming for profit; the forest must be made to pay. This probably means shooting, logging or charging people to visit. In England, without the universal right-to-roam that we enjoy in Scotland, one thing that isn’t guaranteed is public access.

If the government in Westminster sells off the public  forestst, and it is suggests that they may sell all of them, they will be open to these forms of exploitation. The new owners are hardly to blame, they will only buy if they can make a return on their investment. So the governments plans must not be allowed to make it into law.

First off, forests provide a huge social benefit. This is how way policy-makers might say that forests are amazing places, that plenty of people enjoy them, and that more visitors should be encouraged. Secondly, David Cameron and Chris Hune promised to be the greenest-government ever . This includes a commitment to tackle the loss of biodiveristy (pdf document) . In many cases there are conflicts between environmental policy and other goals that government is pursuing. For example, new housing is needed in this country is needed. The building of new estates will often confict with the aim of retaining natural habitats and bio-diversity, politicians difficult job is to arbitrate beetween these goals. With forest privatisation, this is not the case. There is no conflict. If the forest are sold there will be no social improvement, and certainly no enviromental improvements, the only effect is likely to be reduced access for people, and a reduced environmental quality for wildlife. David Cameron is keen on reducing the size of the state, but our national forests forfill a key role that the state should retain. They provide experienced, and a sense of wellbeing available to everyone in the country, private forests may not take this goal onboard. Obvioulsly land owned by charties such as the The National Trust or The John Muir Trust do provide public access and environmental protection, but I doubt that they will be able to afford much of the land for sale.

Not that forests are, or have ever been, wildernesses in the sense of remaining uninfluenced by humans. Since before we evolved into homo-sapiens we have been changing the world’s wooded landscapes. In the UK hunter-gathers have used the woods and forest for 10,000 years. In the middle ages woodland was coppiced, dead-wood was removed for fuels and timber trees felled. If a privately owned organisation were likly to be trusted to manage forestry in a sustainable way many of the problems I have with this policy would be gone. But companies can not be trusted to do that. They exist, in our society,  to make profit, not to preserve woodland for coming generations. And the timescale for making profit is measure in years at most, by contrast forests eco-systems developed over centuries.

The coalition government must not be allowed to sell England’s forests. If you have read this please contact your MP ask them not to vote against the bill. The hands off our forest web site provides news of the campaign.