Forestry Panel report … like a curate’s egg – good in parts

The Independent Forestry Panel published its interim report today.  Whilst I can’t see this commanding anything like the level of media coverage that the proposed forests sell-off did, it is nevertheless an important milestone.

In our national press release, Paul Wilkinson, Head of Living Landscape for the Wildlife Trusts emphasises the importance of the value of our woods, saying:  If the Budget recognised the full range and scale of benefits our natural environment provided there would be no question of the Treasury pressing for forest sales, or reducing the investment it made in the Public Forest Estate.  We have to bust the myth that it is a burden on the state once and for all.

The report does gives some comfort that the Panel have recognised the intrinsic value of trees and woodlands.  It acknowledges that the “value of the wide ranging public benefits provided by the Public Forest Estate – including access and nature conservation – far exceeds that of the timber alone”.  

Managing the public forest estate is relatively cheap:  the net annual cost to the Treasury is under £20m.  However, the business model is based on timber production and not on the wider benefits provided by woodlands and forests.  The National Ecosystem Assessment  estimates the total value of social and environmental benefits of woodland in the UK alone as £1.2 billion per annum. 

New Forest woodland

Frustratingly, the report seems to have conflated and confused the positive elements of trees and woods with the harmful elements of some aspects of plantation forestry culture.  Generic references throughout the document to the value of trees and woods to biodiversity do not differentiate between the richness of ancient woodlands and the relative dearth of wildlife in densely packed plantations.

Our response to the Call for Views pointed out the need to prioritise the restoration of open habitats such as heathlands and grasslands in places where plantations had damaged biodiversity – such as in the New Forest. There is limited acknowledgement of this point by the Panel:  “In our final report we will explore how much habitat restoration and improvement should be taking place on the public forest estate, and where, within the context of the wider landscape, it should happen.  This needs to include the costs involved as well as the benefits.”  I hope this is more than a sop.  

I am also disappointed that the Panel has yet to visit the New Forest which is the largest tract of semi-natural habitat in southern Britain, rich in heaths, bogs, meadows, streams and wetlands – as well as ancient woods and forestry plantations.  The report makes no mention of the New Forest apart from showing it on the map of England’s “woodland”.   As the New Forest National Park Authority stated several months ago: ”It is vital that any changes resulting from the Government’s proposals for forests in Englandcontinue to safeguard the special qualities of this much-loved landscape including the ancient commoning system that sustains it.”  Understanding the complexity and importance of the New Forest is a vital task for the Panel.  I hope they honour their promise to visit next year.

We have long promoted the importance of having a state owned and funded public forest estate.  The report appears to acknowledge this by stating that it wants “the ownership of the Public Forest Estate in England to be secured for the future”.  We now need to make sure the Treasury accepts that the PFE represents good value for money whilst at the same time ensuring its business model is fit for purpose and not skewed to any one use.

The Wildlife Trusts have been pressing the Panel to articulate the numerous and substantial benefits drawn from our woodlands.  Enhancing wildlife is not a luxury for our nation – it is an essential.  Woodlands are just one part of the natural environment and a vital part of the ecological network we need for the future.   Taking the right approach to England’s public forest estate could help us to redress the vast declines in wildlife during the twentieth century.

***

Yet again the Government fail on their pledge to be the greenest …

Today’s Autumn statement by the Chancellor George Osborne amounts to a direct attack on nature and quality of life. 

Amongst the doom and gloom about the poor state of our economy were some astonishingly feeble assertions that environmental protection is placing unreasonable burdens on business and hence stifling economic growth.  

Declaring:  “we will make sure that gold plating of EU rules on things like Habitats aren’t placing ridiculous costs on British businesses,”  the Chancellor is clearly so desperate to kick start the economy he is willing to relax protection of some our most iconic landscapes.  In Hampshire this includes the New Forest, the Solent Coast, the north east Hampshire heathlands and the River Itchen.  On the Isle of Wight this includes much of the spectacular and unique coastline.

Spring in the New Forest

Today’s announcement of a Review of the implementation of the Habitats and Birds Directives is designed to “tackle blockages for developments where compliance is particularly complex or has large impacts”.  This is not only unbelievably short-sighted, it betrays the huge economic value of these natural areas. 

This is just the latest apparent u-turn on their pledge to be the ‘greenest Government ever’.  The Coalition made a promising start with the Natural Environment White Paper and the National Ecosystems Assessment – both recognising the fundamental importance of nature as crucial in underpinning the economy.  Sadly, it has all gone downhill from there.

A few weeks ago it was weakening of planning rules in the National Planning Policy Framework – then the backtracking on their pledge to designated Marine Conservation Zones.  The Government’s narrow-minded focus on the economy is risking the very things that underpin quality of life.

Does this Government want to go down in history as the Government that kick-started nature’s recovery or as the Government that tore down the long fought for protection for England’s richest wildlife sites?

The New Economics Foundation make a strong case for the need for a fundamentally different economic model that takes into account the depletion of natural resources.  Economic growth should not be achieved at the cost of our natural life support systems.  Risking our most iconic and beautiful natural areas surely cannot be part of a sustainable plan for Britain’s future.

***

Also see:

http://www.wildlifetrusts.org/news/2011/11/29/wildlife-trusts-lose-patience-over-new-attack-nature

http://www.thisishampshire.net/news/9397508.Wildlife_sites____under_threat___/

*****

Public Forest Estate

The government’s consultation on the future of the public forest estate has attracted a remarkable amount of interest and comment.  Opinions are being passionately and candidly articulated on both sides, and it has been fascinating to watch.  The Wildlife Trusts are fully engaged with the debates and we have already posted our main views and key concerns on our website.  

Locally, the inclusion of the New Forest has rather swamped the debate.  We have already stated on our website that the New Forest should remain in public hands and should be treated separately, given its special and unique nature.  I do not want to focus on the New Forest in this blog, but some of the other issues.  

The Trust is obviously concerned primarily about the impact on nature from these proposals.  Sites which already enjoy a level of protection such as SSSIs, SACs or those within National Parks will continue have that protection, so as long as the regulatory bodies uphold their functions, and there is funding available, it could be argued that ownership matters little. 

What fewer people seem to be focusing on is that these proposals could result in the loss of major opportunities to improve forest habitats to enhance wildlife. The recently published Lawton Review and the forthcoming Natural Environment White Paper advocate the need for landscape-scale habitat restoration for wildlife and people.   

Whilst many of the so-called Commercial forests are currently of limited interest for wildlife, it is also true that many of these have huge potential for habitat restoration – particularly where they fall into strategic areas – such as the Trust’s Living Landscape areas.  Selling these off now will limit these opportunities.

We have long been concerned by the damage inflicted on some habitats by state-funded commercial timber plantations. In some cases, a change of management could actually help wildlife, for example by removing plantations from open habitats such as heathland, or through restoring ancient woodlands which have been planted with non-native trees in the past.

We will push for an approach that protects nature and public access now and ensures that future opportunities to restore and improve habitats and wildlife are not lost. There is probably not a ‘one size fits all’ solution.  We will draw on our hands-on experience and local knowledge of the many public forests across Hampshire and the Isle of Wight to propose a carefully considered, case-by-case approach that works best for people and wildlife.