Sherwood Forest up for sale: What would Robin Hood say?
Many of Britain's forests belong to the crown, much as American national parks belong to the people. As part of Britain's new austerity, they propose selling them.
The Sunday Telegraph yesterday reported that ministers intend to privatise – or transfer to community groups and mutuals – about a third of Britain's forests. The country's government, struggling to contain huge budget deficits, needs the money of course. Even so, it is very much the right thing to do.Skip to next paragraph
The Adam Smith Institute is the UK's leading innovator of free-market economic and social policies. Politically independent and non-profit, the Institute promotes its ideas through reports, briefings, events, media appearances, and its website and blog.
Subscribe Today to the Monitor
You could guess as much from the fact that the trade unions instantly denounced the plan. They say that private ownership would mean less public access to forest land. They could not be more wrong. For decades, Britain's state-backed Forestry Commission has smothered the hillside of Scotland and Wales in particular with blankets of unattractive, dark, and completely inaccessible conifer forest. Private owners, on the other hand, have a financial incentives not only to manage the forest stock better, but also to open up forest land to paying tourists, and to develop forest resorts for tourists and hikers. And rights of public access can be guaranteed, even extended, as part of the sale process.
New Zealand, for example, developed a leasing system to combine the benefits of private-sector management with the guarantee of public access and amenity. Forests are an important environmental resource in New Zealand, where natural and commercial forests cover around a third of the land area. In the 1980s, the then Labour government wisely separated its state management authority from the actual ownership of the forests, and identified those forests which should be reserved and managed principally for amenity rather than commercial use. The changes led to immediate beneficial returns, reversing the need for state subsidies, and in fact encouraging a sharp rise in new plantings and timber production.
The Christian Science Monitor has assembled a diverse group of the best economy-related bloggers out there. Our guest bloggers are not employed or directed by the Monitor and the views expressed are the bloggers' own, as is responsibility for the content of their blogs. To contact us about a blogger, click here. To add or view a comment on a guest blog, please go to the blogger's own site by clicking on the link above.