FC access 2013

[King Penguin]

Just found this on BOF website :

http://www.britishorienteering.org.uk/i ... eement.pdf

[AndyC]

Read it, don't like it.

[graeme]

Access costs directly linked to the B/C event level. Be careful what you wished for.

[Scott]

Worth pointing out that these (FC England) charges are the same as they were in 2011 and 2012.

[Clive Coles]

This is the key statement

Due to a busy year for FC and British Orienteering we have agreed to roll over
charges for a further year but hope to launch a new agreement during 2013

.


A new agreement will eventually be introduced which sadly will I believe result in higher charges for orienteering in England.

The Forestry Commission receive limited funding from Government to balance their books. This year the Public Forest Estate received £20million: next year it is due to be reduced to £18million: in 2014 this will reduce again to £13million. Ouch...

Another FC funding component is the income they receive from timber sales. This too is now reducing year on year. Even if you take inflation out of the equation, FC Income is likely to drop by 30% over the next 20 years as there will be insufficient trees becoming ready to harvest to maintain current income levels. There is nothing anyone can now do to redress this decline ~ it takes 80 years to grow a tree to a harvestable size. If they don't have the mature tree you cannot chop it down. Ouch...

So the funding of our Public forests is challenging. If we as a nation want to retain and expand forest cover in England we have to find a way of paying for our recreational areas. That I am afraid is where we Forest Users come into the picture. We provide a source of income.

It is unrealistic in this context to expect access charges to be retained at current levels for ever. BOF have done well to retain the current agreement for a further year.

So enjoy your orienteering at current costs for one more year.

[Jethro]

Clive Coles wrote :
It is unrealistic in this context to expect access charges to be retained at current levels for ever.

Why is it unrealistic? It would be unrealistic if the FC were actually providing a service, other than just simple access, which justified a charge. Rallying obviously does considerable damage to forest roads so quite rightly pays considerable charges for their repair. Mountain bikers get provided with constructed trails, even walkers get signposts. It appears to me that orienteering gets nothing other than a letter of permission to use an asset which we as tax payers in effect own. In my experience FC do not even contact other forest users to warn them about an orienteering event taking place. A recent Scottish O League even had contractors working in the forest on the day of the event after having trashed many of the tracks in the preceding weeks. Now if FC were for example thinning unrunnable areas, removing brashings, repairing rides damged by timber extraction, clearing brambles and bracken then they could justify greatly increased charges. It would obviously be realistic to pay the going rate for car parking and use of toilet facilities but in many forests used for orienteering even these aren't provided.
I hope Clive you are not part of the negotiating team as you seem to have already thrown in the towel.

[Big Jon]

Its only referring to Forestry Commission England, not Forestry Commission Scotland. I'd have thought someone in BOF could mention this in the press release.
The only indication that this refers only to England is in the Title of Paddy Harrop - "FC England".
Why no clarification - or do the BOF people involved not realise that Scotland does its own negotiation with FC Scotland?

[Clive Coles]

Jethro

You make me laugh...

Now if FC were for example thinning unrunnable areas, removing brashings, repairing rides damaged by timber extraction, clearing brambles and bracken...

Anyone would think the Forests are maintained so that orienteers can have a nice time.

FC have more pressing things to so with their resources than worry about the ease of passage for orienteers through the forest. Be real ~ we have minimal influence.

FC is a multi-functional forestry business. Timber is harvested at times determined by the maturity of the tree and the market conditions prevailing at the time. Some orienteers seem to like to think they are important stakeholders in this business ~ sadly the opposite is true.

Don't worry I do not negotiate on behalf of BOF so my views have no effect on the outcome of orienteering access charges. But I am fighting hard to keep our forests and protect access. If you remember it was this Government who tried to offload our English forests to the highest bidder. Had the enabling Bill got through Parliament private owners and multi-national logging companies were mobilising to move in.

There was a public outcry at this suggestion and the Government made a tactical "U" turn. But the problems regarding financing the public forests did not go away ~ this still has to be resolved.

The Government response to the Forestry panel's report (that was tabled in the Summer) is due to be published in January. That statement will determine how the Public Forest estate is managed and financed in the future.

I, along with representatives from other Forest user groups, did actually sit round a table last week with the DEFRA/FC staff who are drafting the response. I read the signs ~ difficult time ahead.

Time will tell if cheap access for orienteers can be maintained.

[Jethro]

I may be sending Clive into fits of laughter but I stand by what I say, whether it applies to FC England or Scotland. Any business has to justify what they are charging and if all FC are doing for their fee is issuing a standardised letter of permission then all they should only be charging for is a few minutes of office time.

[Lard]

I work for FC Scotland.
It is clear to me that FC staff see permissions as a major hassle for them.
It is also clear to me that those making the policies are singling out group forest activities as something they can make money from irrespective of the major health benefits of some of these activities and minimal costs to the FC for agreeing access and use.

I can only see orienteering going underground in the future, unless Ministers and policy makers see common sense (not something such people have much of).

[King Penguin]

Cave-O ! Wonder if we could get permission for Dudley limestone caverns. Night-O in mid-summer anyone ?

[AndyC]

I think I have one comment to make "He who pays the piper calls the tune" if we're paying substantial sums for access we should at least get appropriate service levels -not disclosure of extra OOB in the final week before the event and other events conflicting with our access for example.

[Clive Coles]

Yes ~ the processing of permissions is a hastle for FC. It actually costs more to process an application for small events than it raises by way of revenue. That's why FC are simplifying their process for the smaller event.

But Lard, as an employee of FC you will be well aware of the Financial constraints that FC faces. We have already seen staff redundancies and the withdrawal of public facilities in East Anglia. I guess other area are experiencing similar losses. This sadly is a way of reducing costs. Do we really want more staff redundances and the resulting loss of experience and expertise.

Government Ministers have however given a definite indication that they intend to reduce the cost of forestry to the tax payer. That's not nice but it in line with cuts in other departments of Government.

Spending review 2010 (SR10) indicates that Treasury funding will reduce from current levels of £20million pa to just £13million pa in two years time. The Forestry harvesting model indicated a reduction of income of 30% over the next 20 years.

FC have three options to redress the financial balance given both the income from Government and timber sales are set to reduce.

1)They can sell off the forests and cut more staff ~ the public have made it very clear this is not what they want to see. Once the forests are sold access may not be guaranteed. They may even be felled.

2)They can cut Forest research and services such as pest/ disease control ~ given the current situation regarding Ash Die back this is most unlikely at the curent time. The identification of new pathogens and development of new hybrid tree species that are resiliant to such infections is a vital FC function

3) They can raise more revenue from forest users and other visitors.

I agree organised sporting activities are a softer target as fee structures are already in place. Many folk can just wander, or cycle in to a forest and enjoy themselves without paying a penny.

But car drivers will have noticed that FC car parking charges have increased this year. The costs of public concerts and other forest activities are on the rise.

Access for all comes at a price ~ it's not just the cost of processing access permissions that has to be covered. Revenue generation, based on usage, is likely to become increasing important across all activities if our public forests are to remain a public amenity.

Sadly I still believe it is unrealistic to expect that Orienteering access fees will be maintained at current levels when the new FC agreement is negotiated next year.

[graeme]

I work for FC Scotland.
It is clear to me that FC staff see permissions as a major hassle for them.

And, as per Fairy Knowe, "permission" doesn't seem to mean exclusive access. Or even telling us what else is going on fellingwise.
So could we scrap the permission thing for small events? If it's of no benefit to us and a hassle for FC that seems like a win-win.
Except that...

... policy makers see common sense

[dch]

Several years ago I organised a Scout activity involving about 200 people on FC land, and when doing so looked through the permission paperwork for that activity for a number of previous years.

Normally there was no charge for this activity, however in one year (probably around 1985) the application had erroneously been treated as for an orienteering event. As a consequence of this the FC initially stated that a charge would be payable (and offered to invoice BOF for it). When it was explained to them that it was not orienteering they agreed that no charge was applicable.

The FC paperwork for orienteering events which was provided suggested that there was varying levels of support from the FC according to the level of event. I don't remember the details, but I think that for the higher level events it included things like providing advance notice of any forestry work due to take place before the event likely to require updates to the map.

Although things have changes significantly and so the situation above is not directly applicable now, it does raise some questions in my mind about the current situation.

How do the charges for orienteering compare with those (if any) for other activities with comparable impact?

Is the difference in charges according to the level of event (separately from the size) carried over from support the FC used to provide for higher level events (even if that support is no longer provided).