Tag Archives: forest leasing

Scottish Government backs away from forest leasing

Posted on by

Sitka SpruceThe Scottish Government has announced that it is not to pursue the forest leasing scheme. The plan was to lease 25% of Scotland’s forest estate for 75 years an to use the revenue generated to pay for climate control measures.

Highland MSP, Jamie McGrigor, says: ‘Having attended the packed forestry public meeting in the community centre in Lochgilphead in Argyll earlier this year where I listened to points made by many concerned constituents and having seen the published responses to the government’s consultation on this matter, the vast majority of which were against the leasing scheme, I believe this to be the right decision by the government’.

Fellow Highland MSP, David Stewart says: ‘“I lodged a series of parliamentary questions on the subject and also raised the issue a number of times, including in the recent parliamentary debate. From the answers that I have received, the bottom line is this: the idea came from City of London bankers Rothschild, which was Margaret Thatcher’s favourite privatisation bank. The proposal has been widely condemned across the political fold and the vast majority of consultation responses were extremely critical’.

It is fair to say that the proposal generated much heat rather than much genuine debate. The only debate worthy of the name was in Holyrood where facts actually did enter an exploration of the issues involved.

Apart from that, the parties opposed to the current Scottish Government seized the chance of political gain at the expense of reason and of properly informing their constituents.

The then Environment Minister Michael Russell repeatedly issued unequivocal assurances that jobs would not be lost, access to forest amenities would not be affected, the role of Forestry Commission Scotland would not be diluted and monitored wildlife protection would be part of any deal. These assurances were so absolute that the Minister’s credibility would have been irretrievably damaged were they not genuine.

However, opposition politicians ignored the assurances, did not trouble their constituents with facts but engaged energetically in low rent scaremongering devoid of information and evidence.

And it has worked.

No one emerges from this with any credit.

  • Voters have allowed themselves yet again to be mindless pawns in other people’s political games
  • Politicians have shown themselves to be more interested in their own party political gain than in Scotland’s future and in its ability to pay for what it needs to do
  • The Scottish Government has failed to carry the debate to the people and, in accepting the political reality that scare tactics succeeded, it has retreated from a considered policy with no clear alternative in place.

The result is a mess to which we have all contributed.

It is a serious concern that one of the possible options new Environment Minister, Roseanna, Cunningham is touting, would see Scotland going back to the very bad old days of tax incentives for tree planting. This left great swathes of the countryside hidde from view, cloaked in commercial pine forests which, when harvested, leave the landscape looking like a post-Hiroshima disaster area. But hey, it lined the pockets of investors like Cliff Richard, Terry Wogan and the Queen.

This pre-devolution private enterprise afforestation ruined several of Scotland’s significant natural environments-  like the flow country, now in long term rehabilitation. A post-devolution reintroduction of this scheme would see Scotland willfully inflict this sort of damage on itself.

The simple facts are that we have to capture carbon and we have to find the money from somewhere to pay for this and other vitally necessary measures to counter climate change. Scotland does not have the devolved powers for an adequate control of its economy. The money for environmental protection has to come from somewhere.  This was an intelligent option which was irresponsibly undermined and has now been summarily abandoned.

Why was it not given another year of consultation, with the Government carrying the debate seriously and with commitment to the people?

It’s easy to understand a minority administration bowing to real politique, given the extent of the opposition raised. It’s also easy to understand a new Minister’s reluctance to face rabble rousing before she is in command of her brief.

Backing away from the proposal, however, is a political mistake.

  • It allows it to be said that the proposal was ill thought.
  • It leaves supporters of the proposal now wondering if in fact this accusation was right all along.
  • It puts petrol in the tank of the old politics of fact-free scare mongering.
  • It leaves Scotland prey to alternative measures with very real negative impacts – like tax incentives for tree planting.

And it leaves Roseanna Cunningham looking like a weak Minister, not a wise one and not a force to be reckoned with.

The photograph above, of sitka spruce forest, is reproduced here under the Creative Commons licence.

Enterprise Minister Jim Mather challenges Alan Reid MP to say where he stands on part-privatisation of the Post Office

Posted on by

Argyll’s MSP and Enterprise Minister, Jim Mather has fired a range-finding shot at Alan Reid MP, Argyll’s representative at Westminster. He has effectively challenged Mr Reid to come out and say exactly where he stands on the issue of the UK Government’s determination to part privatise the Post Office.

For Argyll has already reported on a significant contradiction in Mr Reid’s behaviour. He has been active in making supportive statements of Post Offices in the fastness of Argyll from where news of his words is unlikely to get back to Westminster. He has not, however, yet signed the Early Day Motion lodged at Westminster by Labour MP Geraldine Smith, opposing the planned privatisation.

Mr Mather now says: ‘I am surprised at the lack of public response from Labour and LibDem sources in Argyll & Bute to what is a genuine threat of privatisation to a vital public utility.

‘Some weeks ago there was a great deal of furore raised about legislative proposals to lease a part of the Forest Estate to private operators and the unions and political opponents were quick to suggest that this was some form of privatisation. We are in the process of arranging a local public meeting that will enable the very newly appointed Minister for the Environment, Roseanna Cunningham, MSP,  to elaborate on what is proposed,  to rebut misrepresentations and to explain how the consultation process will contribute to the debate.

‘In the case of the Westminster Government’s plans for the privatisation of part of the Royal Mail business no such  debate is envisaged and there could be no mistaking the intentions of Lord Mandelson of Foy when he introduced the proposals in the House of Lords.

‘Far from any scrutiny from the elected chamber of the House of Commons far less a local public meeting, the stark facts were spelled out. The effect that this will have on rural mail services and the preservation of the Universal Service Obligation can all too easily be projected. We can be confident that the private operators will be much more interested in delivering mail to Derby than to Dervaig and to Colchester rather than Colonsay’.

With forest leasing and Royal Mail privatisation polarising opinion, Mike MacKenzie offers some balanced thinking

Posted on by

‘Nothing is either good or bad but thinking makes it so.’ (William Shakespeare)

The recent Scottish Government consultation on the forestry provisions within the Climate Change Bill have been largely welcomed except for some fears expressed about the proposals to lease around 25% of the forest estate to private companies. Understandably some people have reservations because the term ‘privatisation’ has earned such negative connotations although what is intended is to sell off leases rather than outright privatisation.

The Westminster Government’s plans to part privatise the Post Office again touch this raw nerve although here the worst fears of both politicians and people are merited. Privatisation of public utilities has been very profitable for some, at the expense of the public and of quality of service, and most people see this as the start of a slippery slope where the Post Office is cherry picked for profitable activities.

Both of these issues are important for Argyll and Bute but they are also part of a wider debate about public versus private. In Scotland the PFI flagship was the new Edinburgh Royal Infirmary. This should have cost £180million but under PFI will end up costing the taxpayer more than £1 billion. It is important that we find alternative funding methods for such projects that offer better value.

Private procurement of public projects and of service delivery seems to be characterised by inordinate profits and greed whereas public procurement is often beset by delays, cost over-runs and inefficiencies. In truth neither one is good nor bad, although for Scottish sensibilities, public provision of monopolistic services somehow sits more comfortably.

This is reflected in Professor Allyson Pollack, the leading campaigner against NHS privatisation, having moved from England to Scotland where the creeping privatisation of the NHS has not progressed so far. She feels the battle has been lost in England but may yet be won in Scotland.

The emerging ethos of ethical business has been given fresh impetus as we have seen what damage a banking system bent on inordinate profits has done, both to themselves and to the economy. Private business can at times be more innovative and less risk averse than the public sector but a place remains for public provision and procurement especially where a monopoly exists or where the democratic ideals of equality of service are otherwise impossible to provide.

This is why public sector reform is so important. If we are to continue to afford public services they must be modern, streamlined, efficient and customer focussed.

Allyson Pollack is quite correct to discern a different set of values in Scotland, forged as they were by both Adam Smith and Robert Burns. First Minister, Alex Salmond, expresses this as ‘soft hearts and hard heads’ and having both, we know just where, in this middle ground between public and private, we ought to be.

Mike Mackenzie is one of the Prospective Westminster Parliamentary Candidates for Argyll and Bute

Alan Reid seems to see Roseanna Cunningham as a lesser force than Michael Russell on the forest leasing scheme

Posted on by

There has been a highly politicised and fact-free campaign against the Scotish Government’s quite sensible proposal to lease 25% of Scotland’s forest estate to raise the money to pay for climate change measures – which the taxpayer would other wise have to find.

For Argyll has noted with some amusement that Alan Reid MP, a minor player in this campaign, has issued a statement to the Argyllshire Advertiser welcoming the appointment of Roseanna Cunningham as Environment Minister, replacing Michael Russell who has been promoted to Culture Minister with responsibility also for Europe, External Affairs and the Independence Referendum to be held in 2010.

In his statement, Alan Reid says: ‘I am delighted that former Minister Michael Russell has been replaced (note: this is phrased to suggest failure – Alan is a spinner with the rest of them). He simply was not listening to the strong opposition of the people of Argyll to the SNP plans (note: not the ‘Scottish Government plans’ but the party political phrase: ‘SNP plans’) to sell our forests to private investment companies (note: the plan is not ‘to sell our forests’ but to lease 25% of them for 75 years).’

Mr Reid goes on: ‘I have sent her a message of congratulations and asked her to come to a public meeting when she is scheduled to be in Argyll on February 23rd to meet Councillors’.

It is instructive to compare some facts here.

Alan Reid has made contact with Roseanna Cunningham, at least 11 days in advance, to ask her to attend a meeting in Lochgilphead on 23rd February. In contrast to this fairly prompt action, he emailed Michael Russell about the previous meeting (itself held after the consultation period was already over) at 11.23pm on 27th January on an event scheduled for less than three days later on 30th January.

Interestingly Mr Reid addressed that midnight email not to Michael Russell but to ‘Government Ministers’ – which is the Holyrood ‘pool’ address. This receives hundreds of emails daily from the general public – to any and all Ministers and on every conceivable subject. It is staffed by an admin team who simply plough their way down the incoming deluge and issue general responses as a holding operation while they draw matters to the attention of the ministers concerned.

There is no way that an email sent at this notice to the general sink email address could have reached the Environment Minister in time – and it didn’t. The email pool staff did not even get to Mr Reid’s dead letter until 2nd February. The meeting was then told that no response had been received from the Minister to an invitation to attend or to send a statement.

Mr Reid’s fulsome and early welcome and invitation to Roseanna Cunningham would suggest that he sees her as a pushover where he was clearly running scared that Michael Russell – a combative debater on top of his brief – might actually come to his meeting. His actions in ‘inviting’ the Minister in an email sent this late speaks of a man havering out of fear.

Havering might be construed as an unfair judgement, as would procrastination, perhaps the Member for Argyll and Bute would like to comment below on what his reasons were for sending out the invitation at such a late juncture and to such a generic email address.

Alan Reid’s  judgement is no more secure on this occasion. Roseanna Cunningham is a formidable and well informed politician and Mr Reid is unlikely to find her rolling over when faced with however many anxious, angry and under-informed Argyll folk he can muster.

In clarification, we should state that our sight of the emails from Alan Reid to Ministers on the occasion of the belated Lochgilphead meeting arose from material supplied to us by Alan Reid himself.

For Argyll has found Alan Reid largely to be a conscientious constituency representative at Westminster. His behaviour in this devolved matter has been uncharacteristic, disappointing and has let him down.

Scotland needs to plant new forest 25 times the size of Edinburgh to meet CO2 capture targets by 2050

Posted on by

Scotland’s forests currently lock up around 10 million tonnes of CO2 each year. If we can double our woodland creation rates we could be locking up another 4.4 million tonnes per year by 2050.

The rate at which Scotland created new woodlands was high before 1990 but has declined since. It is now urgent not only to halt the decline but to change gear into serious new forest building.

Environment Minister Michael Russell, announcing a woodland expansion strategy paper today, saying that an increase in woodland planting must happen and innovative proposals are needed to allow it to happen.

One option is the leasing of 25% of the national forest estate to allow other companies to manage the forests. The income from this could generate around £200 million. This income would enable woodland creation rates to more than double to 10,000 hectares a year without the cost to the taxpayer that would otherwise be incurred.

The strategy paper describing this proposal, The Scottish Government’s Rationale for Woodland Expansion, has been finalised after public consultation closed on 27th January.

Making the announcement today, the Environment Minister said: ‘To reach our vision of 25 per cent of Scotland being covered in woodland we need to create 650,000 hectares of new woodland, roughly 25 times the size of Edinburgh. We need a new way of doing this and it will cost more money.

‘More woodlands can help tackle greenhouse gas emissions and importantly supports local businesses and farm diversification. If we can raise new funds from leasing our forests then it will kick start a massive expansion in woodland creation and this could provide new jobs and significant investment in the biomass sector. Woods also provide recreation and conservation benefits so it is a win win situation.

‘The strategy paper issued by Forestry Commission Scotland offers a valuable insight into why new woodlands are so important, not only in economic terms, but also in providing social and environmental benefits’.

The details of Forestry Commission Scotland’s paper on woodland expansion are available online.

For Argyll referenced by Environment Minister in closing argument of Holyrood Forestry debate

Posted on by

ReforestationThe Scottish Government’s Environment Minister, Michael Russell, referenced For Argyll in his recent closing of the Holyrood debate on the proposed forest leasing scheme. The debate, with the Minister’s leading and closing statements for the Government – including the reference to For Argyll with the Minister’s quotation from one of our articles on this matter Continue reading →

Council calls for meeting with Environment Minister over forest leasing scheme

Posted on by

Argyll and Bute Council has clearly been affected as much as many by the politically generated alarmism circulating on the Scottish Government’s forest leasing proposal. The Council of course needs to show anxious constituents that it is getting the answers to their queries – although all of these have repeatedly been placed in the public domain by the Environment Minister and reported by For Argyll.

The Council has now called for a meeting with Michael Russell, the Environment Minister, to clarify a number of issues relating to the Government’s consultation on forestry provision in the forthcoming Scottish Climate Change Bill.

The consultation is seeking views on a range of proposals, including the potential to lease the management of 25% of the National Forest Estate to private companies for up to 75 years.

Due to the lack of information in the consultation paper, the Council is also requesting that the deadline for responding is extended.

Council Leader Dick Walsh rightly says: ‘Argyll and Bute and Dumfries and Galloway are likely to be the two areas subject to the 75 years leases as they contain the highest proportion of fast growing commercial forest plantations.

‘Although we fully support further action to combat climate change, given that over 30 per cent of Argyll and Bute has forest cover it is vital that the needs of our communities are taken fully into account before decisions with long term implications are taken’.

For Argyll has been reporting pretty exhaustively on this issue and on the irresponsible political chicanery manipulating public perceptions of the proposal and reponses to it. The facts are out there and have been put out there again and again by the Minister concerned but people are easily swayed by fact-free scaremongering – as this saga has shown.

Let’s say it again. The Environment Minister and the Scottish Government have been unequivocal in their assurances that:

  • there will be no compulsory job losses
  • there will will be no loss of forest amenities and access to the public and to the various leisure businesses that use them
  • there will be no loss of role to Forestry Commission Scotland

The political reality is that if they are being economical with the truth in any aspect of this they are finished. And of course they know that each time they issue yet another plain and robust assurance on these matters.

Scotland’s forest estates currently require a subsidy of £28million per annum.

The income generated by the 25% forest leasing scheme will cover this annual deficit which is a continuing burden on the taxpayer; and it will pay for the measures to combat climate change – which would otherwise require to be paid for by the taxpayer. With the unambiguous assurances given – what’s to lose?

There is a debate on the issue on Holyrood on Thursday which the Enviroment Minister will lead for the Government and which For Argyll will be covering.

A tale of two protests – and a tale of none

Posted on by

A protest rally was planned for Holyrood for this afternoon (21st January) by the Liberal Democrats against the Scottish Government’s proposed forest leasing scheme. This is one of the lowest points in the history of an honourable party embedded in Scotland’s political culture. It has been one of the worst examples of a campaign aimed at political advantage, run in flagrant misuse of the facts and counter to the inerests of the taxpayer.

For Argyll has reported on this matter regularly and has named and shamed the perpetrators – which now incude rhe Leader of the Scottish Liberal Democrats, Tavish Scott.

The flag of protest has been run up the poles of loss of jobs, loss of authority for Forestry Commission Scotland and loss of forest amenities and access for the general public.

None of these are true. Environment Minister Michael Russell has given the most secure and absolute guarantees on all of these matters to everyone concerned.

But in these times of economic hardship and fears for the future it is easy to raise anxieties and protest by disinformation and by frightening the vulnerable by groundless claims that their jobs are at risk. This is dishonourable and stains the already shabby fabric of political life.

The guarantees have been specific, repeated, public and recorded. Michael Russell’s and the Scottish Government’s integrity could not more clearly be on the line. It is inconceiveable that the assurances so resolutely given are less than the facts. But hey, who cares about the facts when there might be votes to be grubbed for.

Elsewhere, in Iceland, when their parliament reconvened today, thousands protested outside the building, demanding that the Icelandic government step down and that early elections be held. The demonstration began at noon yesterday and ran into the small hours today (21st January).

This is a country which is in serious financial crisis and against whom the UK used anti-terrorist legislation to seize the UK-held assets of the troubled Iceland banks. Kaupthing Bank is suing the UK’s Financial Services Authority over its actions in this respect, claiming that its actions forced the bank into administration which might otherwise have been avoided. The Kaupthing action has the backing of the Icelandic Government which is prepared to take the matter to Europe if necessary.

While Icelanders protest at a financial crisis they are living through, the depth of which we cannot imagine – yet – Scots are romping around making idiots of themselves at Holyrood protesting on false premises.

And it’s not as if there aren’t enough causes just now crying out for committed and selfless protest:

  • The UK Government is about to send substantially more troops to Afghanistan
  • It is keeping a minimal military presence in Iraq for no reason than avoiding the holding of a public enquiry here into why we went into Iraq in the first place. The Government has decreed that such an enquiry will be held but will not take place as long as we still have soldiers (of an unspecified number) in Iraq.
  • And there’s Gaza, where new tungsten Dime bombs have been used unnecessarily against the Palestinians, inflicting injuries which are currently untreatable.

These are real things to protest about rather than be gulled into playing the part of pawns in schoolyard political games.

Comment from Environment Minister, Michael Russell MSP, on political scaremongering on forest leasing scheme

Posted on by

For Argyll has reported several times on uninformed and irresponsible political scaremongering on the Scottish Government’s forest leasing proposals. The latest example of this – and the subject of a very recent report – was unfortunately perpetrated by former Argyll & Bute MSP, George Lyon at the opening of his campaign to go to Brussels as an MEP.

Michael Russell has now himself sent For Argyll a comment on this matter – and please note his invitation to put forward any suggestions and ideas which you think would improve the proposed scheme.

Mr Russell says:

‘The Liberal Democrat  campaign of disinformation about the forestry proposals is now a matter of serious concern. People have a right to expect their elected representatives and their potential candidates to tell the truth but alas on this occasion the Liberal Democrats have preferred to peddle downright lies.

‘I suspect it will rebound upon them but for any party – or any individual – to seek a few extra votes by means of deliberate deceit is a disgrace to democracy.   And when the issue goes to the heart of the greatest challenge facing humanity – that of climate change – then most of us will only have contempt for such people.

‘I  remain open to all views on the forestry proposals, including ideas that can improve upon them or present viable alternatives.   All I ask is that such a debate is conducted using fact, not fiction. On that criteria the Liberal Democrats have excluded themselves from the discussion’.

Today’s Scotsman carried a factual piece underlining just how falsely based is the convenient alarmism of the moment.

It reminds us that Scotland has 1.1 million acres of state-owned forest (460,000 hectares), making the ninety year-old Forestry Commission Scotland biggest landowner. It needs an annual subsidy of £28million, some of which is used for non-commercial activities, leaving the forest estates still losing millions of pounds each year.

The Scotsman goes on to say that Jim Hume, the Lib Dem’s Environment Spokesman, has implied that:

  • local businesses will lose contracts
  • outdoor activities the Forestry Commission supports will be stopped
  • hundreds of jobs will be at risk
  • Forestry Commission Scotland’s income will be ‘severely diminished’

- all if state forests – 25% of them – are leased to the private sector.

The Scotsman dismisses such alarmism as ‘grossly misplaced’. It points out that virtually all facilities made available to the public in the forests could be safeguarded in the terms of the lease – and Michael Russell has guaranteed that they will be.

In fact such facilities cannot be other than safeguarded since they are all certified under the UK’s Woodland Assurance Scheme. This deals with issues like the provision of local employment, public access, biodiversity and health and safety.

As the Scotsman says and as For Argyll has ponted out on many occasions, it is only the taxpayer-funded annual subsidy which will be ‘severely diminished’.

Sorting out the facts on Michael Russell’s proposed forest leasing scheme

Posted on by

For Argyll has spent a fair bit of time and space on the Scottish Government’s proposed forest leasing scheme – which means we’ve done a fair bit of research on the proposals and a fair bit of thinking about them.

The proposal is to lease around 25% of Forestry Commission Scotland’s forests – in Argyll and Aberdeen, for up to 75 years, raising £200million to spend on creating new forests. The volume of planting proposed in these new forests – about 10,000 hectares – will absorb carbon by 200,000 tonnes per annum by 2020 and by a projected 1.2million tonnes per annum by 2050.

The proposals have been attended by some of the clearest examples of irresponsible political black arts we’ve seen in a while. Facts have not been worth garnering or have been kicked into touch in the interests of whipping up knee jerk opposition to the proposals simply for party political gain. Jobs would be lost… Forestry Commission Scotland would have no role to play…

As For Argyll has repeatedly stressed, both of these unfounded scares have been robustly countered by Michael Russell, the Minister concerned, on so many occasions that he must recite the facts in his sleep.

Now another matter has been raised and in the raising, more inaccuracies have been coined alongside some genuine concerns.

Saturday’s (17th January)  Press and Journal has an article disclosing that the Scottish Government has now confirmed that it is indeed to allow lessees of the forests to apply for grants to replant the harvested areas they lease. These grants are to come from the Scotland Rural Development Programme.

The paper then quotes Richard Baker, North East MSP, as saying about this matter: ‘This is a win-win situation for these private firms. They could chop down timber that has been planted at public expense, walk away with the profit and then get paid to replant more trees’.

This statement suggests that the private firms involved would be getting the taxpayers’ timber for nothing in the first place.

The fact is that the taxpayer has of course paid for the timber Forestry Commission Scotland have planted. It is also the taxpayer who would be selling the leases for their initial harvesting and for the ground. It is the taxpayer receiving the revenues. And it is the taxpayer applying those revenues to the reduction in carbon and the fight against climate change. There’s no give away involved in any of that.

However, the disclosure that the private firms will have access to Rural Development funding as an additional sweetener is a quite different issue. This has not been previously disclosed, as far as For Argyll is aware.

Peter Peacock MSP makes the very real point in the Press & Journal’s article that: ‘… the interests of farmers and other forestry organisations which compete for a share of funds under the Scotland Rural Development Programme..’  would be damaged. They would be competing for a smaller share of the Rural Development Programme’s funds, with a part of its budget probably topsliced to fund replanting by these private commercial interests.

The grants to be made available to the commercial forest lessees would have to be subtracted from the estimated £200million raised by the leases. Only then would there be an accurate picture of the much less substantial revenue the proposal would raise for the taxpayer to spend on reducing the level of circulating carbon emissions.

A commercial transaction is a commercial transaction. If there are private firms interested in long leases of parcels of Scotland’s commercial forests then they should themselves expect to bear the cost of replanting after harvest in the normal way.

What was – and is – an innovative and defensible, if controversial, strategy to combat climate change without additional cost to the taxpayer may well now fail. It may fail because of the volume of highly irresponsible scaremongering which has gone on. It may now also fail in the face of reasonable opposition to a very uncommercial element of what was presented as a commercial proposition.

The Scottish Government points out that all the issues raised in connection with the proposals will be addressed within the consultation now taking place. It has urged people to take part before the consultation ends on January 27. You can do this online at the Forestry Commission.