PDA

View Full Version : Forest Service Options For Forestry meeting- Belvoir


MTBrider
03-12-2005, 10:27 PM
It’s no secret that off road cycling in Northern Ireland is severely behind the rest of the UK: Whilst Forest agencies in England, Scotland and Wales have fully embraced the recreational aspects of their forests, Forest Services Northern Ireland have lagged behind, seeing the 70,000 hectares of forest land they manage primarily as a source of timber, with little budget available to exploit the recreational side, and so unleash the vast health benefits a forest can offer.

http://www.mtbrider.com/images/fs_meeting/FS-meeting-6.jpg
Club MTBrider warms up for the meeting

It is presently estimated that whilst 77% of the population visit a forest at least once a year, fewer than 2m actual visits are made to our forests. Roughly translated these figures mean just over a quarter of the population visit the forests on average 3 times a year. But this could be about to change as Forest Service (FS) have acknowledged this short fall and have plans to address the issue by reviewing the 1953 Forestry Act, specifically with the aim of increasing public access and recreational use of our forests.

Today in Belvoir Park, Forest Services held the forth of thier public meetings to discuss their document "Options for Forestry (http://www.forestserviceni.gov.uk/consultations/index.htm)".

http://www.mtbrider.com/images/fs_meeting/FS-meeting-4.jpg
Attendance at the Belvoir meeting was good with over 50 concerned users making the effort

Obesity is becoming as big a drain on the health service as smoking so it’s little wonder that governments all over Europe are looking at ways they can encourage their respecteive populations to become more active, likewise almost all officials have realised that open land and specifically forests have an important role to play in this quest. In this respect Northern Ireland has a greater hill to climb than most as only 6% of the country is forest land, compared to 10% in the rest of the UK and over 30% in mainland land Europe.

Along with lots of positive changes proposed which will see our forests grow in size over the coming years, it is proposed that the responsibility for access and recreation should be handed over to the local councils. On the face of it, this appears to make a lot of sense: Local councils are already accountable to their rate payers, they have local knowledge and the people on the ground to understand the publics demands and implement their needs. However there is another side to this proposal: If it goes a head 26 different organisations will be in charge of our forests and implementing our right to access to these forests. Each individual organisation will have their own strategy for developing the forests that fall within their boundaries and they will have their own unique policies in respect of who can and can’t use the forests. Moreover any plans they draw up for the development of access and recreation in our forests will have to be put before the Forest Service for approval before implementation, that’s the very body who wishes to relinquish the responsibility in the first place!

http://www.mtbrider.com/images/fs_meeting/FS-meeting-1.jpg
MTBer's were well represented with 15 MTBrider regulars turning out
Regards funding, FS have said in the proposals that the portion of their budget set aside for access and recreation will be taken from their overall budget and split between the local councils, to help fund their new responsibilities. However it is widely known that this budget is already inadequate so when that pot of money is split between the 26 local councils, even FS agree that this would result in a higher administrative cost and so less funds being available for facilities to the general public in our forests.

Over the previous week MTBrider has spoken with many officials and councillors from most of the local councils and so far 25 out of 26 have said they have already, or intend to formally opposed the proposals, some on the grounds of lack of funding, some on the grounds that they feel this is the responsibility of Forest Service.

Said one official we spoke to “Castlereagh Council unanimously decided to reply to the document stating that they had no desire to become responsible for managing our local Forests, and Ratepayers would not want their rates increased to do so.”

However at Saturdays public meeting in Belvoir Forest to discuss the proposals Pat Hunter Blair (FS Director of Policy) said in his presentation that “at least 12 councils have already agreed in principal to take on their local forest”.

http://www.mtbrider.com/images/fs_meeting/FS-meeting-5.jpg
FS Director of Policy chats with MTBrider after the meeting

When asked after the meeting about this discrepancy another council official commented that whilst those in middle management can see the long term impact of such a move and would oppose it, some senior councillors are “empire building” and so would welcome any additional responsibilities irrespective of the negative impact this might have on the public.

So what next?

The public meetings are now over and the consultation process finishes on March 31st, however Forest Service have stated that this is purely a consultation process, no decisions have yet been made and they are still keen to hear the views of forest users. If you have a view on this, or any other aspect of the Options for Forestry consultation paper we strongly urge you to write to Forest Service and make your feelings known.

Without your input FS have no way of knowing if we, the forest users agree or disagree with their proposals, so click the link (http://www.forestserviceni.gov.uk/consultations/index.htm), and get writing.


All pictures copyright and courtesy Reac Photography.

tankslapper
03-13-2005, 12:31 AM
Steve

FS would have me believe that my opinions are ill founded! Yet here we are with other people concerned about their direction? Very odd!

TS :confused:

Steveb
03-13-2005, 10:07 AM
The important thing here is that this is a consultation process, nothing so we're told is yet set in stone.

If others feel the same most everyone else present at the meetings, that handing over the role of access to local council, is the wrong move then they MUST make these feelings known by writing to them.

At the meeting FS made it very clear that this is a consultation period, whilst they beleive this is the way forward they more than accpet that the general public might feel otherwise, hense the meetings. It's now up to the people. If you feel FS have got it right, do nothing. If you think they should re-think things, get writing. If people disagree but don't bother to write, then they can blame no one but themselves.

For their part I beleive the FS are genuine in what they say at the meeting. They have publically said, on the record, that if enough people disagree with their plans, they will change them. So it's up to people to make themselves heard.

Steveb
03-13-2005, 10:08 AM
I should also say that I think in general the FS are doing the right thing by looking at the way our forests are managed and run, and I think they should be supported in this. They just need more input from us the users as to how we want them managed.

Rick
03-13-2005, 06:04 PM
We have told them already in a consultation in 2002 - obviously they didn't like that and consulted again - maybe if they keep consulting they will get the answer they are looking for - everyone will have given up responding because their views are NOT really being addressed. The CAAN proposals are a good example of this - how many times do Forest Service have to be shown what is possible if they would only give it a go... to date they have just come up with negatives, and more negatives - all the time raising the bar higher - the same principle - hoping eventually the mtbers will go away....

Shame really as if they are really concerned about their role as the largest landowners in NI they would be embracing such projects.

Palming off responsibility to the councils will not work - (the government is accountable for its actions as much as councils) - how can a council strategically develop recreation facilities in forests where they are not in control of planting and harvesting etc - too may excuses for forestry to not allow any developments to take place.

to quote a well known nursery rhyme - if you go down to the woods today your sure of a big surprise ..... If ONLY!

Steveb
03-14-2005, 12:33 PM
"to date they have just come up with negatives, and more negatives - all the time raising the bar higher - the same principle - hoping eventually the mtbers will go away...."

No, I don't believe that is the case. FS are saying very loud that the are willing to to move ahead with MTB trails and that they have accepted that MTBers are a legitimate usergroup that needs to be accomodated. I think they have said this too many times and too publically for it to be purely lipservice. I agree that they might not be as forward thinking, or willing to take risks, as we'd like, but I don't believe they are hoping we will go away. They know that ain't going to happen.

From where MTBrider stands everyone wants to move this forward, but no one is talking to each other, they are all just repeating the same old mantra over and over again. Oddly they are all saying they are willing to sit down and talk, but for some reason they're not.

The question people should be asking is not who is right oand who is wrong, or why FS refuse to implement the CAAN proposals, or why CAAN feel their proposals are the best way forward, the question that everyone should be asking is why are these two bodies not sitting around a table and thrashing this thing out?

skip
03-14-2005, 04:53 PM
I think that a lot of people just don’t have any confidence that the FS will do anything useful, being a civil servant im one of them... The meeting was very informative, and a first for me, one topic that was touched on was the issue of scrambling bikes and what was being done to police the issue... I was hardly in the forest on my way home when I was passed by two bikes tearing the place up...

andyh
03-21-2005, 12:11 PM
Forest Service want to talk about a strategic approach to mountain biking and CAAN want to talk about their strategic approach to mountain biking. They are both however talking about different things, I'm clear that communication (and that key to communication is how well we LISTEN) between the two bodies is very poor, needs to be improved and that improvement should be facilitated by IMBA.

Colin O
03-22-2005, 03:18 PM
What do those most active within MTBRider think about these policy proposals. I looked at the 40 page document, couldn't find an executive summary and declined to digest due to the amount of text and issues of which I know little and lack of personal time on my part. From previous postings I gather that handing over responsibility is a good idea in theory but there will be less money and a lack of willingness to take on the role, so whats the answer?

I, like others, want whats best for the development of trails in NI forests. What that is, I dont know.

I would like to add my voice to help our cause, but unless we are all singing from the same hymn sheet, I doubt we can make much of an impact.

andyh
03-22-2005, 04:52 PM
What do those most active within MTBRider think about these policy proposals. I looked at the 40 page document, couldn't find an executive summary and declined to digest due to the amount of text and issues of which I know little and lack of personal time on my part. From previous postings I gather that handing over responsibility is a good idea in theory but there will be less money and a lack of willingness to take on the role, so whats the answer?

I, like others, want whats best for the development of trails in NI forests. What that is, I dont know.

I would like to add my voice to help our cause, but unless we are all singing from the same hymn sheet, I doubt we can make much of an impact.

Colin I can pass you a summary of te points we took to the meeting if you like.

Can't see how handing over the responsibility for Public access and events is a good idea because:-

1. FS want final right to veto if the event/access impacts Forest operations, and lets face it anything that happens in the Forest could be construed as having an impact.
2. 26 Councils will share 1 budget, so we'll probably lose the whole budget in admin costs.
3. 26 organisiations replace 1 so every agreement/activity is liable to have different clauses because the local council has drawn it up differently.
4. The councils in general don't appear keen to get involved.
5. Forest Service should be proactively developing Public facilities for the good of the public and the environment themselves.
6. I suspect this is the beginning of a plan to hand over Forests to the Private sector (if you add in the regulatory measures they are proposing and then the promotion of subsidies for private landowners too)

The list goes on and although it may seem like a solution to Forest Services lack of will to develop mountain biking, as the proposals stand there is more potential to resist development. Oh and it will require new legeslation and a facility for Government Fubds to be allocated to Local Council.

Let me know if you'd like a copy of our objections.

AndyH

p.s. No we're the people's front of Judea ! we hate those posers in the JPF

Colin O
03-22-2005, 05:20 PM
Thats pretty helpful, and all those points seem sensible. It looks like everyone who supports sustainable trails in NI forests should be lobying the FS to keep control of public access and events in NI forests.

andyh
03-22-2005, 05:34 PM
perhaps we should send the PFJ Kamikazi squad along to protest ?

Colin O
03-22-2005, 05:42 PM
I have made my views known. Its seems pretty important that everyone one else interested in MTB in NI should do the same.
I hope to be a the next meeting, sounds like it will be pretty useful in keeping up to date with what is going on.

Good idea about sending the PFJ, what we need is to stop taking about it and just do something. Ok perhaps we could have a meeting about it, then perhaps a vote. Who is going to write and circulate the agenda?