1) Use their forests to produce wood.
2) Use their forests as an environmental resource.
3) Use their forests to improve public health. This is the one that MTBing gets in under.
As (1) has become less profitable, (2) and (3) have become more important.
The reality is that FC are very inefficient at 1. They get approximately 50% less than the private sector achieves. They have been very chameleon like in pinning their hat to whatever political peg is available at the time to justify their existance. It is very easy to show the cost to the taxpayer of every tonne of timber that leaves the forest, but contributing to the wider public health agenda is something more open to smoke & mirrors accounting.
Going back to the original thread:
For a private company dealing with FC tendering is a very unsatisfactory process. There is no loyalty and they have no understanding of either the costs or hassle of running a business. They put out framework tenders, time consuming to complete, for which no work materialises for the majority of “successful” tenderers. Importantly for the Hub, it is much harder for a new organisation to win the tender than the encumbent one, as they can promise the earth in the tender.
We are very selective about what FC work we would consider now – we have the scars to show for it!