Historically the structure of the forestry profession in Britain, and the training or education available, copied that developed in Germany (and elsewhere in continental Europe). Essentially in both countries there was an "officer" class, educated in the old universities, and a "technical cadre" who were trained within the state forest service. Apart from a few individuals who were employed to manage the forests of the larger private estates, both officers and technicians looked to the state forest services, including those in the British colonies, for employment. This state hegemony provided the definitions of what was expected of foresters, at both levels, to which the educational institutions in Britain and Germany responded; a situation that was to remain virtually unchanged for the first seventy or eighty years of the twentieth century.
The reduction in the dominance of the state forest services was rapid. In Britain employment opportunities overseas was to dry to a trickle through the 1960s, although students from the newly independent countries were to remain important until very recently. Within Britain the rise of investment forestry in the 1970s and 80s (driven by tax relief on moneys used to create plantations) saw the appearance of private consulting or contracting forestry companies and these were soon to become more important employers of new graduates than was the state. However, the removal of the tax advantage in 1988 seriously curtailed such opportunities, a difficulty that was partly offset by increasing job opportunities in arboriculture and urban forestry and to a lesser extent with environmental NGOs. Meanwhile the state Forestry Commission was to be required by Government to implement important cost savings that in 1980 lead to a major restructuring of the service, and there has followed a number of early retirement schemes and other staff reduction measures.
Nonetheless, the Forestry Commission and the Northern Ireland Forest Service, the two state forest services in the United Kingdom, have continued to recruit, if only in small numbers, virtually every year. In 1985 the Forestry Commission unified the old posts of Forest Officer (university trained) and Forester (forestry school trained), there now being a single entrance point for graduate from both types of institution and further progression is based solely on merit. Recently the Forestry Commission has expressed concern that the number of "good graduates" interested in joining them has fallen to less than the number of places that they have available.
Reorganisation of the state forest services, with consequent reduction in staff numbers, came rather later in Germany, but was in full swing throughout the 1990s, if not slightly earlier depending on State. Shrinkage in the state sector, of course, was to be most severe in the old Eastern Germany following reunification. The structure of forest management in Germany has not traditionally included a large private consultancy sector equivalent to that found in Britain although private consultancy firms are now increasingly taking over responsibility for forest inventories and forest management, indeed even for nature conservation issues and landscape management. As in Britain, these developments are offering increasing opportunities for self-employment. Other new employment opportunities are in urban forestry or, unlike Britain, increasing opportunities in aid work overseas or in the countries in transition, often with environmental NGOs.
The decline in the hegemony of the state forest services, and the increasing diversity of employment taken by forestry graduates, has meant that the old certainties of what was expected of a forestry curriculum, at whatever level, had now gone. In Britain the Forestry Commission even withdrew from providing the education of technicians in1965, this role being transferred to the education sector. The first to take on this task was the National School of Forestry at Newton Rigg, in northern England, and a little later the Scottish School of Forestry, a constituent part of Inverness Technical College, was established. Since then training at various sub-degree levels has started at a number of land-based colleges, of which the two most successful are at Sparsholt, in southern England, and at Myerscough, both of which are included in this survey.
The problem now was how to establish the academic requirements of a graduate forester in the absence of a well defined market. In 1982, at a time of great change, professional foresters in Britain applied to Government (in the form of the Privy Council) for permission to convert the old Society of Foresters of Great Britain into a chartered institute (Institute of Chartered Foresters - ICF) with responsibility for defining and monitoring standards and ethics within the profession, equivalent to the professional bodies that control accountants, bankers etc. Attainment of the status of "Chartered Forester" was at that time by means of two diets of ICF examinations (university graduates in forestry were usually exempt the first), the second designed to assess professional competence after a period in practice. This second examination is essentially equivalent to the state examination of professional competence required, and organised, by many of the state forest services in Germany. Thus the profession in both countries, by rather different routes, is attempting to indirectly influence the contents of forestry curricula.
Such professional examinations are undoubtedly important in establishing standards, particularly at a time when, in the name of efficiency, universities and colleges are anxious to reduce subject specific teaching. However, there remain problems. In Germany relatively few students aspire to work for, or perhaps anticipate working for, the state forest services, with their long in-service training. Therefore, many do not wish to be prepared for the professional examinations. Rather, it would seem, they are seeking a wider curriculum offering more choice, even at the expense of being denied the traditional employment route. Curriculum planners have had to respond to this. In Britain the ever widening envelope in which foresters practice has lead to an exceptionally unwieldy first diet of ICF examinations, comprising many optional papers, and the decision has recently been taken to drop this in favour of a list of approved first degrees or diplomas. The remaining diet of examinations, taken after a period in approved employment (including a submitted diary of work performed), will concentrate only on professional competencies in the area of forestry in which the candidate is employed or wishes to specialise.
In both countries the past decade has seen considerable pressure on universities and colleges, driven in large measure by government demands that there should be an increase in student numbers without a commensurate increase in resource. In addition universities, particularly in Britain, have to find an increasing proportion of their resource through research contracts, with internal funds for research having virtually dried up. This has lead to a drive for "efficiency" in teaching and administration. With respect to teaching this means essentially maximising class sizes and minimising any duplication, or perceived duplication, in teaching across the institution. For subjects where student numbers are small or declining, as in forestry, it is becoming increasingly hard to justify specialist teaching to small groups. With respect to costs of administration departments or faculties have to expand to reach some critical size or face being merged into larger groupings.
The past twenty years has seen considerable erosion of the independence of the old university forestry departments in Britain. The first change was the incorporation of the department at Edinburgh University into a wider Institute of Ecology and Resource Management, in which forestry education is now a very minor component. At Oxford forestry was first merged with the Department of Agriculture and then, with the abandonment of agriculture teaching in 1985, with the Department of Plant Science. This lead to the closure of the undergraduate degree in forestry but a significant MSc in forestry, designed as a conversion course on top of some other qualification, remained in existence until 2001 when even this was closed (hopefully only temporarily). At Bangor forestry was merged with Agriculture in 1988 but as forestry was the larger of the two partners this had little adverse effect on the teaching of the subject. Only Aberdeen retained a separate Department of Forestry to the end of the century, but in 2000, at a time when many staff were retiring, it was merged with the rather larger Department of Agriculture. Then in 2002, for administrative purposes, the new department was joined with Zoology and Plant Science in a School of Biological Sciences. The place of forestry in this does not look very safe as dedicated staff numbers are now rather few.
Meanwhile significant changes were taking place in the provision of technical tertiary education in Britain. Many of the former technical colleges (often termed polytechnics) aspired to, and were given, university status over the past two decades. Some of these new universities introduced new courses in forestry, most of which have since closed. The two main existing colleges of forestry, those at Newton Rigg and Inverness, sought to protect their positions by offering degrees as an addition to, or as a top up on, their existing technical diplomas. Such degrees have been validated in various ways but the position has now been secured by the merger of Newton Rigg with the University of Central Lancashire (formerly Preston Polytechnic) and the incorporation of Inverness college into the University of the Highlands and Islands (a network of technical colleges in the north of Scotland and on the adjacent islands). The entrance requirements for courses at the new universities are rather different to those at the old so by and large the do not compete for the same applicants. Their graduates, however, are at least in theory competing for the same jobs.
The four long established faculties of forestry in Germany were always larger than the four departments in Britain but nonetheless they were to be facing considerable pressure by the 1990s as part of a general discussion of the reorientation of universities. Student numbers were falling and traditional job opportunities were few, although graduates seemed to be finding plenty of opportunities in areas adjacent to main stream forestry. Furthermore, politicians were seeking savings and pointing to the much lower unit of resource devoted per student in British universities than in German. All of the institutions, therefore, entered a period of extensive curricula review with the object of widening the appeal of their degrees; even, as already mentioned, abandoning the orientation of training to the traditional job outline. One consequence of these reviews was a considerable increase in the choice of courses/modules offered, essentially increased emancipation of the students. As in Britain the new dimensions of forestry, such as socio-economics, rural development , remote sensing etc. were given increased emphasis. However, in Germany choice was further widened, something made possible by the greater number of staff in German faculties than in British departments.
In the event all the faculties continue to survive as independent entities; although that at Munich has been moved from the city centre to Freising to form part of a rural studies campus.
The organisation of technical level training in Germany seems to have been little changed. As in Britain at least most establishments have successfully aspired to upgrade the qualifications they offer to degree level.
