New Forestry Commission Agreement

[greywolf]

Any Scottish agreement (with FCS or any other land manager) will have to take account of the access rights enshrined in the Land Reform Act. However, whilst individuals have a right of responsible access, event organisers are urged to liaise with (that is, to speak with and listen to) relevant land managers, and in some circumstances* must specifically ask for the land manager's permission - and in these cases land managers may impose conditions and make an appropriate charge.

* "if the event needs new or temporary facilities and services (such as car parking, fencing, signs, litter bins, marked courses or toilets); or due to its nature or to the number of participants or spectators, is likely, to an unreasonable extent, to hinder land management operations, interfere with other people enjoying the outdoors or affect the environment."

There are no numerical thresholds attached to the permission conditions, so i guess depending on your interpretation of "marked courses" it's arguable that small events using existing facilities don't need FCS (or other landmanager) permission - and it's worth noting that the SOAC says explicitly that "Group outings by club members are not classed as events" - however it's pretty obvious that big events will need landmanager approval, and may well be subject to charge.

As to what those charges might be, the guidance says: "Where a land manager’s permission is required, they may choose to make an appropriate charge. For events that are not commercial, this will often be closely tied to the cost of drawing up any written agreements, management time or facilities that the land manager will need to provide."

In any negotiation with FCS I'd assume that Freefall/SOA will be emphasising the non-commercial (= non profit distributing) nature of orienteering clubs, whilst liberally quoting all the Scottish Forestry Strategy commitments to promote outdoor access and recreation...

For those who want them: the full Scottish Outdoor Access Code and the Guidance on Outdoor Events

[frog]

Maybe in Oldman's club you need to sit a test on the finer points of access agreements to become club chair, in ours you only have to be willing to do the job.
I did say in my post that I thought Scotland had had a separate agreement in the past which is why I was surprised that I was sent info about this agreement. There was also no info in my email or on the BOF website about which countries the agreement did apply to other than "British clubs". We are a British club.
I asked the person who sent me the email and got no reply.
I'm sure club chairs in England wouldn't expect to get an email about an agreement that only applied to Scotland from BOF without being told this, or for BOF to post a Scottish only land agreement on the website without clarifying that it only applied to Scotland.
Things never happen this way round though so people in England don't realise how irritating it is when it happens.
Forestry access is becoming more onerous locally, mainly through them handing out long lists of "stakeholders" to be contacted before an event. I was asked to contact about 60 people for one of our recent events where we only had about 40 competitors. Mad.

[AndyO]

frog, there is of course nothing wrong in BOF sending info about this Agreement to all British Clubs, because the Agreement will apply to all British Clubs - if they are accessing FC England land. TAY may not often wish to organise an event in Englandshire, but there is nothing to prevent them doing so.

What should be made clear (maybe it is, I haven't looked) is that the Agreement applies only to England's forests (and Wales, if indeed it does).

pedantic? moi?

[Clive Coles]

Sorry Jon ~ here I have to differ

If FCS want to make money they can charge everyone who uses their massively expensive facilities rather than penalising a tiny minority of users.

We cannot as a sport argue that because we are in a "tiny minority" we deserve to be exempted from access ( or any other) FC imposed fees or increases in existing fees. Refusing to pay will backfire on us. Like all Forest users we have to make our contributions.

We have to accept that both FC Scotland and FC England have to recover the costs of running the Public Estates and that revenue from Forest users is one way they can help balance the books.

I don't envy anyone from within BOF who is charged with negotiating with either FCE or FCS at this present time. The Forestry Commission is under significant Government pressure ~ in England they are imposing a 25% cutback in their budget ( not sure how this directive applies in Scotland).

FCE are being encouraged to pursue plans to sell off more of the Public Estate, to restructure and reduce headcount , and to increase revenue from Forest users. Caroline Spelmans "U" turn has gone full circle and DEFRA is still pressing ahead to meet her Departmental targets.

In this context BOF have done well to negotiate an extension of the existing access agreement in England for a further year. Good luck Freefall ~ I don't think you are in for a nice comfortable "Evening out".

[Big Jon]

Clive

I think you do not understand the situation in Scotland - I am talking about car parks and toilet blocks that FCS have built in many Scottish forests - for which the casual visitor pays nothing. Why should orienteers, as an organised activity, be charged when Joe Bloggs does not. I am asking for a system that treats all visitors equally, not one that penalises one small group simply because the FCS feels it can.
If we use/need special facilities then we can pay for them, but not for the same facilities as everyone else uses free.

[Clive Coles]

Big Jon

The debate about how you finance a public asset is complex ~ you cannot however just point the finger at the bits we orienteers don' t need and use that as a justification for paying a smaller contribution towards running costs.

There is a growing trend in our part of England for Forest Car parks to be charged. Perhaps the idea will be followed in Scotland in due course. Then you could argue that users of a facility are paying for the upkeep of that facility.

In our local forest our Jo Bloggs's are charged £3.20 per car per visit. And we don't even have a visitor center serving teas ! It has not been a popular move. I for one, being a regular forest visitor, hate the experiment. A sign of the times.

When we hold orienteering events there so far we have been able to avoid such fees by negotiating with our local FC team to utilise Forest rides. I hope this position can be maintained for as long as possible.

But frankly car park revenue is small beer when compared with the actual costs of running a public Forest and I don't suppose Scotland is any different from England when it comes to managing escallating costs.

You cannot manage a public asset without staff and equipment (and fuel) . Public facilities do generate some revenues which help to balance the books. Managing trees and the wider landscapes however incur costs over a long period until the trees reach maturity and can be harvested.

If the Commission does not manage "our" forests adequately during the lifetime of the forests they will decline as a recreational amenity. That surely is not what orienteers expect. The Commission need the services of many people that orienteers never encounter. You have the Foresters and their staff who, as well as managing and supervising harvesting activities, also drive thousands of miles around their respective estates ensuring that rides, paths, fences, drainage ditches and fire breaks are maintained. You have the scientific officers who manage pest control over the woodlands in their sectors and the wild life rangers who manage, and cull browsing animals such as Deer. And then there is the back office staff ......administrators, accountants, legal types need I go on ? Forestry is a big enterprise.

I actually think we orienteers get more benefits out of our Forests than we are prepared to admit. We enjoy the freedom to compete across large estates which cost us very little. These do however require managment which in turn incur costs which like it or not have to be met.

We may have access rights but we also have responsibilities. If we start to play games like staging events without kites we will be rumbled and this will undermine any negotiating stance we may try to adopt.Let's negotiate hard to get a fair deal for our sport but accept that once we have an agreement we have to pay our contributions.

[Wayward-O]

...... need I go on ? Forestry is a big enterprise.

Quite agree, but these costs are incurred whether we orienteer or not. If no orienteering took place in the FC woodland for year, the FC would not become uneconomical. Revenues from events should not subsidise the core activity of the FC (farming trees), but should contribute towards enhancing the woodlands for recreational purposes.

The question should be what is the marginal administrative cost associated with managing the diary of events and also what contribution should orienteering events contribute towards maintaining and enhancing public access to the woodlands.

[Big Jon]

Clive, In Scotland there is a right of access - for anyone to almost any land, if orienteers go for a run in a forest they do not pay, if I go orienteering training on my own in a forest I do not pay, if a small group of orienteers plan some exercises and run round hanging and collecting tapes over the period of half an hour they do not pay, why should an event with a few dozen people pay?
You appear to be acting like an apologist for the coalition government who seem to believe that everything can be solved by charging people more for everything they do, whether it costs anything to anyone or not.
The only cost that FCS incur with an O event is some time processing paperwork - and they seem to do this incredibly inefficiently. If they let orienteering happen without any need for asking permission (just like all running clubs, cycling groups, horse riders etc) then they would save this cost. The only time they need to get involved is if the event is a huge one and needs commitments about felling etc (though from past experience the FC are clueless and incompetent when it comes to agreements about felling before major events.

[Red Adder]

Big John, knowing Clive as I do I can assure you that he is not an apologist for the current Tory/ LibDem government - far from it. He is however being realistic about the situation that FC finds itself in and the need for BOF to negotiate sensitively.

I actually think it is fair to contribute for organised use of forests - why should the general tax payer - most of whom never go the forest - subsidise my leisure activity ?
I just hope that the cost is fair and reasonable - not a rip-off like the figures nearly imposed last year. If Scottish Orienteering adopts a very negative "won't pay" attitude it can only be detrimental to the sport in other parts of the UK

[Freefall]

The Forestry Commission Scotland Corporate Plan includes a Scottish Forestry Strategy which includes Access and Health with the priorities to:
• Make access to woodlands easier for people
• Improving access to woodlands where people live and work will help increase physical activity levels and have a positive effect on mental health & wellbeing in Scotland
• Provide a greater range of ways for people to enjoy woodlands

This seems very much at odds with charging to use the forest - I can accept a fee for use of facilities if they have them and we need them e.g. toilets but not a fee per head to run in the forest.

If you think of the big pot of money in government surely we are saving money through more active lifestyles, reducing the risk of obesity etc. They should be paying us not us paying them!

[mappingmum]

why should the general tax payer - most of whom never go the forest - subsidise my leisure activity ?

Why then should the general tax payer NOT subsidise my use of the english forest when I walk/run/cycle for free in it? Why should orienteering pay when dog walkers, runners, mtn bikers and joe public get it for free?

[Red Adder]

Because we are organised we can be charged - and in many English forest just to walk you will face an extortionate parking fee if you use offical sites.

Of course there is never any logic to government charging - just look at the farcical situation whereby if you attend a Scottish Uni as a resident of Scotland and any other part of the EU you pay no tuition fees, unless you live in the rest of the UK you will pay full whack.

[AndyO]

just look at the farcical situation whereby if you attend a Scottish Uni as a resident of Scotland and any other part of the EU you pay no tuition fees, unless you live in the rest of the UK you will pay full whack.

It's only farcical because the Scottish Government chooses to make students pay no tuition fees, because it sees it as investing in the future, while the UK Coalition doesn't.

[Clive Coles]

This ,Wayward, is the core of the argment ~ how do we fund the running of the Public Estate. Something we want to use and which we believe is ours by right.

What some folk call a subsidy, others like myself call it a contribution. The Government is quite determined to reduce the costs of running the Public Estate to the central exchequer. In England they are striving to reduce the FC budget by a massive 25%. I am sure there will be similar objectives in Scotland though possibly not at the 25% level

So where else is the money coming from if it is not to come from the forest user in the form of access fees ? They could of course just sell off the Public Estate to international logging companies: That would raise instant funds ~ is that what we want ?

The Government can either tax you more and stop raising revenue through forest user contributions or they can raise revenue through access fees and hold tax down. Either way we pay for it. Like Red I ask is it fair for taxation to subsidise a sport such as ours ?

In the end we have to strike a fair balance between central taxation and revenue generation sources. If every organised sport and more casual user tried to cherry pick the bits of the FC service they used and only contribute to the bits they wanted, the mechanisms for raising revenue would become farcical. There are some services that nobody wants to pay for. You would end up with coin operated dog mess bins ,( which dogs and their owners would choose not to use) !

I think we orienteers have done very well over the years to limit the costs of orienteering. When I started twenty something years ago the average Sunday morning entry fee for an adult was between £3 & £4 ; this season I look to be paying just £8 a run. That's pretty impressive given the financial changes over 25 years ~ due in some measure to our BOF officers who over the years have successfully negotiated national agreements. I was amazed that FC England have allowed the access fees in England to roll over at current levels for a further year. That's fantastic news. Well done to the negotiating team.

But the world is in recession; it's not just the UK. All Governments are looking to reduce costs of Central Government. Where is the money to come from our current public amenities? There has never been such thing as a "free Lunch".

We may have to be realistic and accept if we want continuing access to our Forests we have to be prepared to make a contribution. I don't like where we are but we have to adopt a positive attitude to negotiations.

Good luck Freefall.

[Big Jon]

Read Adder - as far as I am aware "B"OF is only negotiating for England and Wales, SOA is negotiating for Scotland. So good luck to "B"OF in its negotiations, but don't make the error or conflating this with the situation north of the border where land access is very, very different.