Public forests: seeing the trees, not the wood

The government's decision to increase public ownership of forests will be an investment with returns for everybody

The decision to place the future of England's public forests in the hands of a new independent authority represents a double U-turn. Having in 2010 announced an "everything must go" policy, ministers changed their minds and have now called for even more public ownership. And having demanded a "bonfire of the quangos", ministers have announced a new one. But rather than derision, last week's announcement about the future of the nation's greenest assets has been welcomed by groups as diverse as country landowners and birdwatchers, the biofuels lobby and forestry scientists. There are two reasons for this. One is that the proposal is so imprecise that there isn't much to disagree with. Another is that you can't go wrong with a policy that calls for more trees.

Just for once, try to see the trees and not the wood. Phrases such as "natural capital", "green assets" and "ecosystem services" imply that society should conserve, manage and exploit woodland for its monetary or recreational value. That might be to miss the most important point: that everything about the human economy depends either on things that grow in the ground, or stuff we take out of the ground, and most of that, too, was once living foliage.

The vegetable world is the economy's primary producer: photosynthetic cells capture a proportion of the sun's radiant energy and from that silent, diurnal act comes everything we have: air to breathe, water to drink, food to eat, fibres to wear, medicines to take, timber for shelter, fuel for bonfires and even stakes for stakeholders. The enterprise is truly global, but trees are the most iconic generators of wealth and guardians of security: from the high woodland canopy to deep beneath the forest floor, trees directly or indirectly provide for all creatures of the terrestrial wild, humans among them. There are, according to Forestry Commission estimates, more than a billion substantial broad-leafed trees in Britain and each one is a marvel of energy conversion and hydraulic engineering, lifting water to the highest shoots at the rate of 50 metres an hour, making hard timber out of little more than air.

They are, of course, also beautiful. So, like high-speed rail links, they are a public good. As with high-speed rail links, there will be arguments about where they would be welcome, where they would best flourish, where they would be most valuable and whether the existing plans go far enough. And, as with high-speed rail, there is a long wait for any payoff: even longer, because it takes at least a century to make a mature forest. There will certainly be many challenges for future management, but this promises to be an investment with returns for everybody.