This public consultation ran until 27th February 2004. The full original consultation documents to which this is a response can be accessed from The Forestry Commission website. However, the questions posed in the consultation have been included on this page for reference.

Introduction

The Mountaineering Council of Scotland (MCofS) is the representative body for hillwalkers, climbers and off-piste skiers and receives core grant funding from sportscotland in recognition of this status. We are a membership organisation with over 2,000 individual members plus 139 affiliated clubs that contain over 7,000 members. Our committee structure is entirely voluntary and appointments are the result of a democratic process. The professional staff complement is made up of four posts at our Perth office.

The MCofS welcomes the opportunity to respond to this consultation, which concerns an important element in the management of Scotland's exceptional natural heritage. The Forestry Commission manages a significant proportion of land in Scotland, and this carries with it a responsibility for the associated landscape and recreation values that make up an important contribution that this land makes to the Scottish economy and the well being of the Scottish people. We will therefore provide answers to the consultation questions that relate to landscape and recreation issues.

Question 1.

We propose a vision for Scotland's national forests. This is that they will benefit everyone in Scotland, promoting vibrant and healthy communities, enriching natural environments and creating opportunities for economic development. Do you agree with this proposed vision? If not, what changes should be made?

We agree with this vision, but feel that it is a difficult one to achieve. We believe that the key to achieving it lies in ongoing consultation and maintaining the involvement of a wide range of stakeholders over a prolonged and continuous period. If this current consultation is viewed as a one-off opportunity to engage with the public, then it is unlikely to provide sufficient momentum to achieve this vision. If on the other hand, this consultation marks the beginning of a long-term continuous dialogue with all those with an interest in Scotland's forests, then this exercise will have been worthwhile.

Question 2.

Should Forestry Commission Scotland do more to encourage local community involvement in the management of national forests? If so, how?

Yes. The most fundamental aspect of community involvement is for that involvement to be continuous. One-off and sporadic consultations are inadequate and quite often leave individuals and communities feeling disenfranchised. A sense of ownership and involvement in the decision-making process is of great importance.

Question 3.

Should local communities be able to purchase or lease woodland (or other national forest assets) that are not identified as “surplus”? If so, what criteria should apply?

Yes. The Land Reform (Scotland) Act applies to the Forestry Commission just as it applies to any other public or private sector landowner. Forestry Commission land is therefore subject to the same legal requirements in terms of the access and rights to buy sections of this Act. Furthermore, it is important that the national interest is built into any criteria that are put in place. As a government agency, the Forestry Commission has a duty to protect the public interest, and in selling or leasing its woodland it should seek to safeguard the ongoing public interest in that land.

Question 4.

Should Forestry Commission Scotland seek to provide new opportunities for recreation in national forests in and around towns and cities? If so, how should priorities be set?

Yes. Whilst we support this aim, we recognise the difficulties that could be faced, both in terms of securing the necessary land and in managing the kind of urban fringe problems that are likely to be experienced in forests close to major cities. Despite the problems that developing forests around towns and cities might present, the positive benefits must make it a worthwhile policy to pursue. The health benefits to large numbers of people is the most obvious benefit, but there are many other benefits that would make easily accessible forests very popular with the public, and hopefully also with politicians who would welcome the considerable social inclusion opportunities.

Question 5.

Should Forestry Commission Scotland undertake a number of large-scale, long-term environmental projects (such as forest landscape restoration, or water catchment or wilderness projects) on the national forest estate? If so, how should priorities be set?

Yes, the MCofS would support the Forestry Commission wholeheartedly in taking on long-term environmental projects like landscape restoration and the re-wilding of land. The key to such initiatives would be in identifying appropriate land and then working with the relevant stakeholders to manage the project effectively. Scotland's pool of land that feels wild is shrinking, and a vital part of our national identity is being eroded. Organisations like ours would welcome the opportunity to work with the Forestry Commission to work on improving our forest landscapes and re-wilding areas that have been tamed over the last few years.

Question 6.

Should Forestry Commission Scotland become more ambitious in its environmental work on the national forest estate, including - in particular - delivery against Biodiversity Action Plans, improving the biodiversity of conifer forests and enhancing the contribution that national forests make to Scotland's landscapes? If so, how should priorities be set?

Yes. This would be a good time to take a more ambitious approach to these environmental aspects of forestry management. Previous forestry policies have led to significant negative landscape impacts in Scotland, and the time is long overdue to reverse the damage caused by these policies. We believe the priorities should be set by partnership working and involving the relevant stakeholders.

Question 9.

Should sustaining and developing local economies be a key objective for the management of national forests? If so, how should this be done?

Yes. National forests should play their part in contributing to local economies in many different ways. Whilst timber production may seem to some to be the most obvious way in which forests contribute to the economy, the interaction with local tourism economies can be just as significant in terms of the forest generating income for local businesses. In setting an economic objective like the one suggested, we would like to see recognition for the wider benefits of forests, and not the more narrow timber production approach.

Question 12(a).

Do you have any views on the creation of a challenge fund for special projects aimed at significantly increasing public benefits from the national forest estate?

There is the potential to carry out some much-needed environmental work, but this section of the consultation paper suggests that there are significant problems in funding such work. The creation of a challenge fund could be one means of surmounting these problems, but the idea would require a lot of thinking through to determine whether it would be an effective delivery mechanism. Once again, we feel that an inclusive, ongoing debate with stakeholders would be a sensible way of making this determination.

Question 13.

How should Forestry Commission Scotland take forward its approaches to working in partnership in order further to develop the national forest estate?

In terms of consultation, discussions with stakeholders need to begin at an early stage before decisions have been made. A culture of ongoing involvement with early involvement and shared decision-making is vital to successful partnership working.

Question 14.

How should the national forest estate be used to take forward wider Executive priorities, for example in relation to renewable energy, rural housing, health and tourism?

A strategic approach to these issues will be very important. Renewable energy schemes are a topical example in this list, in that there is little in the way of a strategic approach to their development from government, and developers are working in a policy vacuum without locational guidance. The Forestry Commission has the opportunity to develop its own strategy, including locational guidance, so that mistakes being made across the country are not repeated on Forestry Commission land.

Again, the importance of working with all stakeholders cannot be emphasised enough. The kind of developments listed offer benefits to one community, but represent a threat to others, so ongoing discussion to work through the issues is always going to be worthwhile in the long-term.

Question 15.

How should we ensure that everyone is aware of what Scotland's national forests have to offer?

A mindset change will help to ensure a higher public awareness of Scotland's national forest. The public are more interested in their own use of forests and in the wildlife aspect of forests, than they are in timber production and export figures. The Forestry Commission should work to ensure that more news about the people and wildlife aspects of forestry are reported and that the public are encouraged to engage with forests and enabled to feel welcome in forests.

Question 16.

Given the long-term nature of forestry, the proposed vision will largely be delivered through gradual, evolutionary change. Is there a need for a more rapid approach to bring about some elements of the vision and, if so, what are they?

The shift to a more inclusive and ongoing form of consulting should be rapid, and the other evolutionary changes should follow from there. Having said that, the threat to our landscapes from renewable energy schemes, especially wind turbines, is considerable and imminent, so a strategic approach to their development and a form of locational guidance is required as soon as possible. A rapid response to this threat is urgently needed.

Question 17.

Is it useful to try to express the proposed vision in more detail, perhaps quantifying the size, mapping the geographical distribution and describing the nature of Scotland's national forests at some date in the future (say 2025, or 2050)? If so, how should this be done?

There should be few if any long-term targets at this time. These should be discussed and decided by an ongoing public process over the next few years. Nevertheless, a long-term vision should be devised, and targets for 2025 and 2050 should be agreed. We believe that landscape, recreation and tourism interests should be involved in this process, and inspirational targets should be set in these areas.

Question 18.

What approaches might be adopted to strike a balance between local and national interests?

The best way to resolve disputes between local and national interests is going to be through ongoing consultative processes, backed up where necessary by research capability. There does need to be a strong government policy steer in terms of protecting designated sites from inappropriate development, and also strong internal policies for locational guidance on renewable developments for example.

27 February 2004