Major organisations from every sector of Britain’s private sector forestry have established the Forestry Industry Committee of Great Britain with the objective of representing the whole spectrum of views within the industry. Concern that the present forestry debate sparked by the critical NAO report “lacks any comprehension of the totality of the forestry industry and consequently of the major long-term economic and social contribution of which it is capable” has prompted this initiative.
Under the chairmanship of James Galbraith, former chairman of Timber Growers United Kingdom (shown here), the committee intends to present a wider appreciation of the breadth and complexity of the forestry industry to government, the media and the public.
Hailing the formation of the committee as the “most significant step in the forestry industry since the inception of the Forestry Commission in 1919”, Mr Galbraith introduced the results of the committee’s initial task — a full appreciation of the recent National Audit Office report, a document that was highly critical of certain aspects of forestry policy, and which, in the committee’s view, has several serious shortcomings.
In fact probably the only aspect on which the committee and the NAO are at one concerns the report’s positive comment that afforestation would show a better economic return on more fertile land. This, says the committee, is “an important area of opportunity”.
Key criticisms of the NAO report are that no account is taken of the fact that forestry is still an emerging industry which has yet to show its full potential in terms of employment and added value in processing. By contrast the focus of the NAO report is upon “early returns”. The committee argues that the achievement of a real rate of return by forestry of between 3% and 6% might be considered creditable by any reasonable comparison.
Nor, in the committee’s view, are the linkages between the state and private sectors given adequate consideration; the essential contribution of the processing sector and the development of the UK forest products industry, equally, has been ignored.
The report refers unfavourably to the subsidisation of afforestation, but the capital investment of only £2bn over 40 years should, the committee points out, be seen in the context of the annual net import of over £4.5bn of forest products.
The Forestry Industry Committee is to be commended on its speed of response to the National Audit Office’s report, which might, in the absence of constructive criticism, form the basis of future policy. The NAO’s view is that, in large measure, state expenditure on Great Britain’s forestry industry represents a poor use of public resources, but the committee takes issue with this conclusion as one arrived at in an incorrect context.
“If a significant weakening of support for Britain’s forestry industry were to take place on the basis of the NAO review it would have important implications for a number of other policy areas, including industrial development, regional policy, rural communities, inward investment, the external trade balance, and recreation and tourism,” the committee declares. “These have not been examined in full by NAO or their advisers, and it is important that future forestry industry policy should positively examine the relationship and impact of changes in the industry on these other areas.”
