Don’t be fooled by the Government’s delay of forest sales today till after the consultation. This may well be a diversionary tactic to steer attention away from the critical Public Bodies Bill. We must stop them having the ability to sell our woods. The risks are too high and the benefits are negligible, indeed it’s likely to cost us all in may ways.

Visit www.38degrees.org.uk to sign the petition. Get your timing right and you could get a free Living Woods sub.

• Communities able to buy or lease local woodlands, but only if they proof ability to raise funds and manage the woods. It should be difficult to achieve, not easy.

• Creation of an experimental regional network of woodfuel supply, with investment in processing plants.

• Grants for planting more trees for woodfuel.

• Defined role of Forestry Commission in Heritage Forests so that trusts within those forests can officially take on more responsibilities in partnership.

• Objective for Forestry Commission to reduce imports of timber.

• Promotion of local sawmills and mobile sawmilling services.

• Restore more Plantations on Ancient Woodland Sites (PAWS), with the support of the public and help from Woodland Trust and those that support ancient woodlands. Currently too few people understand the concept.

• Use of public forests to run pioneer programmes, possibly even a National Forest Service, to engage disaffected young people.

• Continued use of public forests to experiment with trial tree crops, like eucalyptus, and seeds from warmer climates to prepare for climate change.

This is our first draft. If anyone has further ideas on how the Public Forest Estate can be used, do please comment.

By not categorically coming out against the Government’s proposals, and by offering solutions to the aftermath, they can be used as pawns by the Government to add credibility to case for disposal. Just that happened yesterday when David Cameron said the Woodland Trust would be able to manage woodlands better than the Forestry Commission. In almost all cases this is obviously false, and the Woodland Trust will agree that they are not in the position to manage those woods.

If there is a fear that a public campaign to stop the proposals will be perceived as shallow and limited to access and emotive issues, the Government may be able to say that the consultation responses are media-driven. We need the conservation NGOs to add some specialist weight to the debate. The more I talk to people the more I feel the proposals raise significant risks for very very little likely gain. The Government are playing divide and rule with the NGOs, and we should be wary of this.

The trouble is nobody trusts them, and eveyone knows that once the forests are sold off there will be no redress. It’s one thing OfAir complaining about the price of oxygen, but the public knows that trees are a resource you can’t mess around with, and are far too valuable. We need a mixed tree economy/environment that balances NGO, state, long-term estate, and investment ownership.

However this is not possible everywhere. In fact there are very few places that offer the range of socio-demographic factors Wilderness Woods enjoy. We should not assume this can be done everywhere, and there are plenty of similar woodland enterprises scraping by elsewhere in the country that would endorse this view.

We have spoken to lots of folk from all sides in this debate. For some groups the sell-off is attractive, and some trees and woods might benefit, but the sustainability depends on a long view. We’re not convinced the market can be trusted with such long-term planning, nor that charities have the resources to manage woodlands and provide the sort of access and inclusivity that the Forestry Commission currently offers.

1. That the Forestry Commission is undermined in any way. It is responsible for a huge number of initiatives that benefit people and wildlife that could be at risk if their assets are sold. The loss of assets could put the future of the agency at risk: baby and bathwater!!!

2. We desperately need an agency to guide woodland creation and management long into the future, to produce timber, fuel and space for amenity for an urbanised society. It is difficult to imagine the private sector and the market meeting those needs.

3. Just because the FC was created to fulfill a brief after WW1 that proved to be inappropriate to modern times, with cheap imports of softwood, doesn’t mean it has failed and that the market would be better. There are plenty of poorly-managed private woodlands. Some of the best private woodlands have thrived because they are part of huge estates, with the benefits of semi-feudal tenure that guarantees a long-term view through inheritance. The Forestry Commission is possibly the best alternative to that.

The first of Roger Day's innovations for green woodworkers. A champagne flute.

We mentioned a couple of posts ago that the Surrey and Sussex Coppice Group have given Roger Day the job of devising innovative products for green woodworkers and coppice workers. He’s going to be writing about this in the next issue of Living Woods. His first product is a carved and bored champagne flute. Roger uses a stock knife (not a lathe) to shape the champagne flute and a reamer for hollowing. See more of his amazing work, including remarkable sculpture, at rogerday.eu. He’s is working on other innovations for green woodworkers which could open up interesting new markets for their work at shows and demos etc…