| Examination of Witnesses (Questions
1 - 19)
TUESDAY 21 JULY 1998
MR ANDREW
CHRISTIE-MILLER,
DR STEPHEN
HOWARD and MR NIGEL
DUDLEY
Chairman
1. Good morning and welcome to all three
of you. Thank you very much indeed for sparing the time to come
and see us this morning. As you may be aware from your discussions
with the Clerk, what we are trying to do is to have some exploratory
sessions on two or three different topics, of which trees is one,
to inform us better (which we ought to be, quite clearly, as an
Environmental Audit Committee) on the subject and allow us to
make some decisions about which particular subjects we choose
for investigation next—although it does not mean to say
that they will all ultimately be investigated. We are delighted
you are here and thank you for sparing the time. Is there anything
either the World Wide Fund or the Forestry Council want to say
by way of an introductory statement before we start the process
of cross-questioning you?
(Dr Howard) Just briefly. First of all, we welcome
this opportunity to talk about trees and forests. They are obviously
a subject that is very close to our heart.
2. Indeed.
(Dr Howard) And something that should have central
attention from Government. The new UK Forestry Standard, with
support from Tony Blair, is a good indication of Government commitment
towards forests in general, but that has to be followed up by
a series of actions in some areas that, hopefully, we can draw
to the Committee's attention today, where we think there should
be more progress over the next year or two. As an organisation,
we work in 90 countries on forests—with forest projects
and forest policy—so we have an international perspective.
However, I am aware, as I work both in the United Kingdom and
internationally, that at several meetings I have had people have
actually questioned the United Kingdom, looking historically at
some of the situations which have gone on here. So I think it
is very important that we show leadership in the United Kingdom
on forest issues, and do not just look to the big forested countries—Brazil,
Canada and Congo Basin countries—to act on forests; that
we act strongly, because we have a good opportunity. There has
definitely been a lot of progress in many areas, but there are
some areas we need to concentrate on.
(Mr Christie-Miller) I am delighted to come and
speak to you today. The Forestry Industry Council, of which I
am Chairman, represents the whole spectrum of the forest industry,
from the forest nurseries to the growers, to the managers of woodland
right through the industrial process—saw millers, the paper
makers and panel board manufacturers.
3. You represent the paper makers as well?
(Mr Christie-Miller) They are members of our organisation.
So we are an umbrella organisation for the forest industry. Forest
cover in this country is, as we know, pretty low—at 10.5
per cent. we are pretty well below the European average—but,
of course, we are very big consumers of timber and forest products
(currently about 47 million cubic metres) of which only 12 to
15 per cent. is home-produced. So, obviously, there is this very
important international dimension, because we are importing vast
amounts of timber from various countries in the world. The consumption,
as I say, is very high. We have seen a quite considerable increase
in use of recycled fibre and reclaimed wood. This may be a subject
which you may want to investigate, and is something we are currently
looking at very closely ourselves because it clearly has an effect
on the demand for timber from our forests. Steve Howard has mentioned
the whole question of sustainable forest management and the whole
debate on certification. I think, as he has said, there has been
tremendous progress on this over the last year. The launch of
the UK Forestry Standard by the Prime Minister at the beginning
of this year was a major landmark in British forestry. For the
first time, standards have been set and, following on from that,
we are working closely with an initiative launched by the Forestry
Comission which certainly the NGOs in the industry have been very
closely involved with to see how the UK Forestry Standard can
be subject to an independent audit process which will result in
the certification of British timber. This, again, has become a
very emotive and important issue because some of our major customers,
namely the DIY and retail sector, who use quite considerable quantities
of wood, have been looking for a quality assurance—a sort
of audit trail—so that they can tell their customers that
they are buying wood from properly managed forests, whether in
the United Kingdom or throughout the world. We have made tremendous
progess on that and I would certainly be confident now that we
will be in a position to have independent auditing of the UK Forestry
Standard within the next six to nine months. There is quite a
lot of work to be done yet, but we are moving down that road very
rapidly. The one area which the Forest Industry Council has been
pursuing for a number of years, without enormous success, is the
whole question of a national forestry strategy for British forests.
We do, of course, have devolution, which has now put a slightly
different slant on it, but we still believe that there is a need
nationally to have a coherent strategy for our forests: what sort
of forests we want, where they should be, the sort of demands
that are put on them in terms of public access, recreation, landscape,
etc. We think this is important. It is something that has been
supported strongly by people like Sir Crispin Tickell, as Chairman
of the Government Panel on Sustainable Development, and it is
something that we have highlighted and pressed for over a number
of years. Again, it may be an area which you could be interested
in. So, generally, we welcome the opportunity for the Environmental
Audit Committee to look into the contribution forestry and trees
can make, and look forward to your questions.
4. Thank you very much indeed. What you
have both had to say is interesting. The World Wide Fund, I think,
in its scorecard that evaluated progress, has placed the United
Kingdom 12th out of the 15 European countries. Why do we score
so low?
(Dr Howard) There are a number of reasons why
we score low. The glass is either half-empty or half-full, when
you look at the scorecards, because the average score across Europe
was about 50 per cent. The way we developed the scorecards was
to look at various inter-governmental commitments which have been
made—the Rio Forest principles, the Helsinki process and
all the various agreements that have been negotiated over the
last five or six years—and then to try and make them scoreable—quantifiable—in
some way. We came up with 93 criteria, in total.
5. Quite a lot.
(Dr Howard) Yes. It was an intensive study done
over two years. It obviously came from an environmental perspective,
but we tried to make it so that this was achievable. One hundred
per cent. was achievable but the average score across Europe was
about 50 per cent. So although some countries were delighted to
come in the top two or three countries. The UK scored fairly low,
or just over halfway down. If you look through the scorecards
there were areas where progress has been made. Recreational use
is one area where the United Kingdom has done particularly well.
We have, in total, 300 million visits a year in forests, with
about 50 million visits to Forest Enterprise land alone. So there
are areas where we have done well and made progress, but there
are other areas where we have done fairly badly in the United
Kingdom. I think we have highlighted some of those in our written
submission, but one is data quality, where the general data quality
has been poor. If you are going to sign up to an inter-governmental
process and make commitments that you are going to try and do
these things, there has to be ways of monitoring progress. So
data is fundamental to doing that. The last full Forest Inventory
was conducted in 1980, but that is too long ago. That is now on-going
by the Forest Resource Assessment for 2000, which is coming to
completion, but it does not cover all the variables that have
been signed and committed to. Of the other areas where we have
not done very well, one, obviously, is forest cover. You can say
that the current government is not responsible for 6,000 years
of deforestation in the United Kingdom, but what you can do is
have quantifiable targets for increasing forest cover. You can
say "Okay, we have a modest starting point"—as
Andrew pointed out, we have 10.4 per cent. forest cover (depending
on the statistics you use)—"but we can have quantifiable
targets for increasing that and including different forest types".
Those are the areas I would like to see developed. Another one
is actual forest protection, in terms of having designated protected
areas. There are some concerns over both the mechanisms for protection
and the representiveness. Forests are not just forests; forests
cover a broad range of forest types. Even in the United Kingdom,
an area of moderate diversity, we still go from native pinewoods
to oakwoods, flood plain forests and limewoods—there are
at least eight forest types which can be sub-divided ad infinitum.
We need to make sure that all our forest types are restored and
are adequately protected. One last area where we have done poorly
is air pollution. We have the worst ranking in Europe on per capita
emissions of a broad range of air pollutants. Hopefully, an integrated
transport policy should begin to address aspects of that, although
there are other areas where it needs to be addressed. Air pollution,
although it is not as topical as it was—with acid rain just
a decade ago—still goes on. It does not, largely, impact
on our forests, except on roadside verges, but it does impact
on the forests of our neighbours. So there are some areas for
us to move forward with and work on. It paints a gloomy picture.
I think I had nine letters of complaint from fairly senior individuals
across the forest debate, with our forest scorecards. I did not
apologise for the scorecard per se, but the press coverage was
particularly damming. I think it is just something in the press
that people do not like to say "There has been some progress
in these areas but we need to concentrate here". So the press
was damming. I think we can move forward on some of those areas
and look at how we can deal with restoration, with protection
and begin to have effective measures on air pollution. Certainly
we can deal with enhanced data quality to say where we are doing
well and where we need to do some more work.
Chairman: Thank you
very much indeed. That does lead us on to government strategy,
and I know Mr Blizzard wants to ask you some questions.
Mr Blizzard
6. As we know, forestry policy is the responsibility
of MAFF, the Secretaries of State for Scotland and Wales, the
Department for Agriculture for Northern Ireland, and the Forestry
Commission itself is divided into different bodies—the Forestry
Authority, Forest Research and Forest Enterprise. Do you think
those institutional arrangements work well? Do you think there
are good inter-departmental arrangements? Do you see devolution
of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, having any impact on
those arrangements?
(Dr Howard) I think, inevitably, you will end
up, however you do it, with a complicated structure. So it comes
down to who is the lead agency and how the liaison works. In some
aspects it seems to work well. When the Forestry Commission is
the lead agency it has had good consultation and good liaison
with governmental departments and with the non-governmental sector—whether
industry or environmental—generally. There is the Whitehall
Forestry Group for liaison purposes, because, as Andrew pointed
out, we have between 85 and 87 per cent. imports so we have a
major impact on inter-governmental negotiations. Where, perhaps,
the liaison between the various, multitude of departments that
impact on forestry policy falls down a little bit is in the inter-governmental
process where, I believe, although the lead agency is responsible
in a given fora they tend not to represent the whole government
policy but that particular department policy. How this can be
co-ordinated better I do not know. One process could be to allow
more openness and transparency to the Whitehall Forestry Group,
where you could have NGO liaison even if it was only observer
status. You could allow that, so that people were aware of discussions
there. Myself and my colleagues who go to many of the intergovernmental
fora could ensure that there was a full brief represented. A sort
case in point is DfID tends to over-emphasise poverty alleviation,
and while we think poverty alleviation is laudable is had to go
hand-in-hand with other objectives that were in the White Paper
on environmental protection. We do still have a major impact in
intergovernmental fora in negotiations. We are one of the countries
that can bring things together and really move processes forward.
So it is important we give a balanced approach, which other government
departments do. We have not got a magic solution to that yet.
7. Are you happy with the way the Forestry
Commission itself is organised? Do you think that is appropriate?
(Dr Howard) Generally, the Forestry Commission
has played an increasingly good role, and the work of the UK Forestry
Standard—which was generally a well-received document—was
a case in point. There is still a very tangible relationship with
Forest Enterprise, so you have the largest forest landowner together
with the body which monitors regulations. It has been managed
reasonably well in recent times, but you would not generally have
the watchdog and the watched right next to each other like that.
How devolution impacts on the Forestry Commission, in particular,
and the other arrangements, is obviously going to take some time
to settle down. Having talked to colleagues, one of the concerns
in particular is that although we have highlighted some areas
where we need better research, better data quality—and Andrew
has pointed out the need for a national forest strategy—if
you weaken the central role of the Forestry Commission it will
have to make sure resources are available to make sure that there
is adequate central co-ordination and that the devolved powers
and the devolved bodies can deliver in those areas. That is something
that we really have to focus on because it has worked well when
it has happened, but it could easily cause a problem.
(Mr Christie-Miller) Can I just make a point as
well? The ministerial structure is very cumbersome, undoubtedly.
It was, perhaps, best highlighted to me after the gales in 1990,
when I was Chairman of the group that was looking into repairing
damage, etc. Obviously, not only did we have MAFF, the Secretary
of State for Wales and the Secretary of State for Scotland, but
the Department for the Environment itself has a very major interest
and, of course, the Forestry Commission itself is a government
department. So you have got four or five government departments
there, for a start. Currently, we are having a lot of interest
in our industry from the DTI as well, because we have had something
like £1.6 billion of investment in the forest industry in
this country over the last ten years, and a lot more coming on-stream.
So you have all these different government departments which,
as I am sure you know, do not always talk to each other in the
way they might do. A major step forward has been, as Steve has
mentioned, the Whitehall Forestry Group, which is beginning to
draw together a number of these issues. We very much welcome that.
Devolution itself poses threats and opportunities. The major threat,
which I think we have averted for the moment, was that the Forestry
Commission itself might disappear, and we would just have forestry,
we think, downgraded in each of the three different countries.
We think the Forestry Commission plays a vitally important role
nationally; it is the major spokesman for British forestry when
talking in Europe and when talking on the international stage,
and it has a major strategic role to play in the future. So I
think we accept that within the national strategy there will be
individual national policies for England, Scotland and Wales,
which can have different emphases inevitably, but we see the important,
central role of the Forestry Commission as something we would
be very loath to see disappear.
8. Talking about strategy, the 1994 "Sustainable
forestry, the UK programme", is still in force. As you know,
it directed the sustainable management of existing woods and forests,
following the Helsinki definition, and, also, the steady expansion
of tree cover. We hear regularly of concerns over the need for
the statutory protection of ancient woodland and calls for more
spending on planting and conservation, access to Lottery money
and so on. The Comprehensive Spending Review we have just had
announced seemed to indicate a whole further sales band, but looking
at all that do you think we need a new forestry strategy?
(Dr Howard) There are elements that we need to
work on. Whether you call it a new forestry strategy or not is
not the real issue to us, but we would have to say that—highlighting
the major points I made on restoration, protection and data quality—we
need to address those, and they could form the principal components
of a new forestry strategy. So it would be a good area to work
on. If you think about it, at the moment we have got no quantitative
goals for restoration. The previous government, in "Rural
England", set quantitative goals for restoration, and
I do not know if those remain the DETR targets but the new Government
has not endorsed them or, certainly, established how they are
going to be delivered upon. So we say that those should be reviewed,
really, and form a central strand of how we can have a growing
forest industry, growing environmental benefits and the growing
social and recreational benefits that an increased forest area
could bring. In addition, of course, one of the issues now is
the climate benefit from forest woodland as well. The UK Biodiversity
Action Plan has no specific targets for key habitats, apart from
native pinewood and upland oak wood. As I have mentioned already,
there are many different woodland types and, as part of a new
forest strategy, we should be able to identify woodland types
and have targets. These should be quantitative and qualitative
targets, not just general targets, and we should spell out how
we are going to deliver them. Ideally, a new forest strategy,
if that is the line we took, could look at the impacts of the
agricultural/forest interface and put forestry on an equal footing
with agriculture, which it has not been in recent decades in the
United Kingdom. So I think the strategic approach to that could
actually draw out a lot of areas that need to be highlighted within
CAP reform, and how we can deal with it on an interim basis.
Mr Grieve
9. Could I just pick up on that? I was interested
in your comments about quantitative and qualitative targets. One
of the problems—widening the discussion a little—is
that when one is dealing with broadleaved woodland, which is seen
as one of the great desirables, historically, the United Kingdom,
or the British Isles, lie at the rather northern end of productive
broadleaved woodland for commercial purposes. How does one reconcile
that? What are you trying to achieve when you talk of qualitative
targets—in the sense of qualitative for wildlife purposes
or qualitative for commercial purposes?
(Dr Howard) One thing we emphasised in our forest
scorecard was that forestry had to be economically, environmentally
and socially viable. The scoring included components of production
as well as environmental and social issues. So qualitative targets
means we should work on all three. The rhetoric is all about multi-purpose
forestry for multiple benefits. Those have to cover those three
areas. We can have extremely productive, high-quality broadleaved
production in the United Kingdom in some areas—it goes on—but
there are many areas that are not managed, at the moment, because
of marginal profitability. This is an area that needs to be focused
on as much as the environmental issues.
10. My constituency is actually chock-a-block
with disused, disregarded woodland, which has no commercial value
to the owners, is often low-grade and is just there. Something
has to be done about it, it seems to me, because it is not even
very good for wildlife and it is not managed. There are all sorts
of problems.
(Mr Christie-Miller) Quality, certainly, is a
central aim of my organisation because a lot of my members are
utilising the timber that comes from our forests. I think it goes
back to the question of forest cover. If you go back to 1919 we
only had 4 per cent. forest cover, partly because over hundreds
of years we had raped our own forests to build ships, buildings
etc. Then, at the end of last century, we tended to rely on imports
from the colonies and we neglected our own resource. So the base
was a very low one. What British forestry has done over the last
seventy-five years is more than double that forest cover, but
it has come, generally, through plantation forestry. I think British
forestry is one of the leaders in the world in their expertise
on plantation forestry—but that usually means softwoods
rather than hardwoods. So, in many instances—unlike a country
like France, where there is a very good tradition of management
of broadleaved woodlands and their standards of management are
much higher—we have not necessarily had the expertise to
look after these types of forests, and it has certainly been a
concern of ours that there has been a big initiative since 1985
to plant more broadleaves. I think a lot of us feel that the quality
of management that has gone into planting these trees has been
pretty poor, so we are going to end up with yet more firewood
down the line rather than a quality product which is always strongly
in demand. I think the Forestry Commission are well aware of that,
and we are working to try and improve the quality standard.
Mr Shaw
11. You mentioned targets and indicators.
You also mentioned necessary CAP reform. The last government set
some targets in This Common Inheritance to double England's
coverage in the next 50 years and similarly in Wales. There are
no targets to address sustainable management—biodiversity,
productivity, regeneration capacity, etc. You mentioned having
new targets and a new strategy, but do you not think the last
government's was sufficient? What sort of new targets are required?
Has there been any progress since This Common Inheritance
was published? Are we going down the right track?
(Dr Howard) In some ways, yes, but you have pointed
out the lack of targets in many areas and I think it is generally
very good if you can quantify what you are aiming for. We were
reasonably supportive, and the environmental community was reasonably
supportive, of the previous government's targets, but they did
not go into detail of how they were going to be delivered. Also,
there has not been a thorough survey of what is the scope of opportunity
for woodland creation, and forest creation, in the United Kingdom.
We need to know, realistically, how much woodland can we support
and how viable is that with our agricultural needs? What sort
of woodland area do we need to meet future recreational demands,
to have adequate cover of our different forest types, and to meet
future industrial needs as well?
12. How do you think they arrived at this?
Plucked out of the sky, do you think?
(Mr Christie-Miller) I think we have had this
problem of targets for a number of years. The previous government,
for a long time, had a target of 30,000 hectares of new planting.
We never achieved that, so suddenly we got targets from both Labour
and Conservative parties of doubling the area of forest cover.
That would mean a fairly significant investment. No one had actually
decided where it was going to go or what sort of trees they were
going to be. I think we are now needing to get down to that sort
of detail, and I think the strategy that is going to come out—particularly
for England—is going to begin to address how much we want,
where we want it, what sort of trees there should be and how we
should be managing the existing resource.
13. And then have the target?
(Mr Christie-Miller) Yes, and then have the target.
You have got to get the strategy straightened first. We have a
clear view, from the industry point of view, of the sort of sustainable
yield of productive forest that we need, which we believe is somewhere
between 15 and 20 million cubic metres per annum. We are currently
producing about 8, and it is forecast to rise to about 15 to 20
by the year 2025. So we have some quite clear views on that, but
there are a whole range of other multi-purpose benefits from forestry
that need to be evaluated as well.
Mr Baker
14. In terms of targets, people always think
about planting. However, if you pour water in one end and there
is a hole in the bottom you do not necessarily make much progress.
I am interested in your views on the protection which exists for
existing trees—as to whether you believe that it is sufficient
or whether you have concerns (as I do) that trees are sometimes
removed for reasons which are not justified and, therefore, reduce
our overall tree cover in the country? In my constituency the
district council spent a lot of time securing a Tree Preservation
Order for about three trees in a particular place, only to find
that English Nature had given permission for 5,000 to be felled
just half-a-mile up the road, with no consultation with anybody.
So (1) is the protection sufficient for existing trees and (2)
what is the position of English Nature—and how do you liaise
with them?
(Mr Christie-Miller) Forestry regulations and
standards are very strict in this country. You cannot fell a tree
without getting a felling licence. So the regulations are there,
it is a question of how they are interpreted. A classic example
happened on my own farm, where Rail Track decided they were going
to cut all the trees down. There were some wonderful mature trees
right on the edge of the railway line which, one day, someone
came in and cut down. I contacted the Forestry Commission, saying
"What is going on?" They said "It is not our problem.
Rail Track/British Rail can do what they want, they do not have
to get a felling licence from us." So there are loopholes
there which clearly need plugging. I think, generally, the regulations
and standards work pretty well. Many local authorities have a
woodland officer and I think, since the Forestry Commission started
publicising much more openly applications for felling, management
plans, etc, they have been much more closely scrutinised by the
general public and any other organisations who are interested.
We have strongly supported that sort of openness. The regulations
are there, and we do not see that there is any need, at this point,
to strengthen them. It is a question of how they are interpreted
on the ground.
15. But the loophole is still there and
Rail Track's position is the same?
(Mr Christie-Miller) I believe it still exists,
but one of the outcomes of that incident was that we were able
to put the two organisations together so that, at least, one agreed
they would inform the other as to what was happening, and why
they were doing it. However, I think, probably, the Ministry of
Defence and other government departments have similar control
over their own programmes.
(Dr Howard) On the general protection point of
view, with Tree Preservation Orders there are exemptions for dead,
dying and dangerous trees, and those create a loophole, in many
cases. Obviously you do not want dangerous trees around, but if
you can get a local expert to say that a tree or a row of trees
are dangerous, if you want to clear them, it can occasionally
be misused. There was a recent case in the Lake District where
there was a lane of beech that were applied for to be exempt from
Tree Preservation Orders, to be declared for precisely those reasons.
There was nothing wrong with the beech, but a local expert had
said they were technically dangerous and branches could possibly
fall on people—which is how you could describe most trees.
If you look at other protection, from a forest point of view rather
than an individual Tree Preservation Order, the principal mechanism
for protection in the United Kingdom has been the status of Sites
of Special Scientific Interest. There was a recent Joint Nature
Conservation Committee survey in England which found that 12 per
cent. were unfavourably managed, and a further 24 per cent. where
management could be improved. When you think, this is the principal
mechanism for protection and this is one place where we do need
to strengthen it—it must be strengthened—and there
has to be some form of compulsory protection that can be used
in cases where management is not up to scratch. It would be fine
if it was not our principal form of protection, but with all the
SSSIs we do not even know how representative they are. We know
they are important and we should be able to make sure we are delivering.
One thing we are doing currently with the Forestry Commission
is a joint survey on the extent of protection for forests in the
United Kingdom—the different mechanisms and the effectiveness
of these mechanisms. We found out that, really, coming back to
the National Forest Inventory, we do not know the make-up of all
the ownership of different forest types in the UK; we do not know
how much is protected by voluntary associations, how much by local
authorities, how many SSSIs are also national nature reserves,
etc. So there is a lot we have to find out, but one thing we are
certain of is that it is not actually representative; there is
an attempt, at a regional level, to make Sites of Special Scientific
Interest cover representatives of vegetation of that region, but
it has not been done on a national level. There is a way to go
yet in this area before we can say that we are actually fully
delivering protection.
Mr Thomas
16. As an aside, I am slightly surprised
that you seem relatively relaxed about the way Tree Preservation
Orders are working. I can think of a number of instances in my
constituency where developers have come in and "accidentally"
knocked down trees. My constituents are always telling me how
bogus these "accidents" are. I know my own local authority
are concerned about the loopholes within the Tree Preservation
Order system. We have had some comments presented to us indicating
that the Government has just brought out some new draft regulations
on Tree Preservation Orders. I wondered if you had had a chance
to look at those and make comments. Then, to shift focus entirely,
perhaps you would say something about the way in which the European
Union has an impact on trees in this country—you mentioned
CAP reform, for example. I wonder if you could go into a little
more depth on that.
(Dr Howard) On the first point, the Tree Preservation
Orders, we have not had a chance to go through the new draft regulations
yet, but I can find out if anybody in Wildlife and Countryside
Link has gone through it in detail, and give you some supplementary
comments on that. With the broader European question, which is
a subject very close to our hearts, it is a key issue for forestry
and forests in the United Kingdom that CAP has probably as much—if
not more—impact on forestry than the Woodland Grant Scheme,
or the various mechanisms for encouraging forestry. This applies
particularly with new planting: new planting is only viable in
areas which are not good agricultural land, partially because
of CAP. Any targets that are set, whether it is 15 per cent. cover
for the whole of the United Kingdom or 20 per cent. cover for
the whole of the United Kingdom, if there is significant expansion
it is going to be difficult without actually having an integrated
policy—not just a Common Agricultural Policy. Again, we
have got a fairly large amount of documentation on CAP. There
is one interesting aspect that could be revised fairly quickly.
If you look at—whether it is Tree Preservation Orders, Felling
Licences or whatever—the mechanisms for ensuring that there
is no actual removal of trees without some sort of regulatory
consent, they do not cover non-felling landuse changes. So, if
you have grazing, for instance, you do not need a Felling Licence
and you do not need to get exemption from a Tree Preservation
Order to make a area of land available for grazing. We have a
problem where we have livestock grants, which are given by area,
which is somewhat at odds with where we have also got grants available
to try and fence areas to protect them. If you are a farmer or
a landowner you are in a difficult situation where you are trying
to be profitable, but where you will, to some extent, be grant-driven,
and the agricultural grants are telling you to do one thing and
the forest grants are telling you to do another. We had a meeting
in Wales last week with a group of companies we work with, and
we went to visit Coed Cymru, which is a scheme which is looking
at how to bring neglected woodlands in Wales back into management.
The principal problem now to broadleaved woodlands in Wales is
grazing. In the areas where there will be no fencing in Wales
because of the large numbers of grazing animals—particularly
sheep—there is no regeneration whatsoever. So it might look
to the untrained eye like there is moderate woodland cover, but
if the same situation carries on unchecked then we will have increasingly
degraded woodlands. On much the same lines, we should have mandatory
deer control in restocking areas where deer are abundant. We have
some provisions, but not enough to prevent excessive deer grazing.
17. I think it would be helpful if you would
get in touch with the Wildlife and Countryside Link.
(Dr Howard) Yes, certainly.
(Mr Christie-Miller) Can I just say that the Common
Agricultural Policy is the major obstacle in the way of forest
extension, because the difference between the agricultural subsidy
and the forestry subsidy has inevitably meant that land values
have been at such a level that planting trees on that land, really,
has been precluded. So until we see some shift in the balance
between the environmental side and the agricultural side we are
not going to see significant planting on agricultural land. Also,
in the 1970s and 1980s, we saw a lot of the hilltops being planted,
which was clearly, in many cases, unacceptable. Forestry has come
down the hill on to the more marginal areas, but if we are going
to reach the sort of targets that we have all been talking about,
then it is going to have to move on to lower grade agricultural
land. As long as there is this subsidy imbalance we are not going
to see any significant planting.
Dr Iddon
18. Can I go back to local authorities,
for a moment, and mention the Unitary Development Plans? Do you
think that local authorities could be a bit more efficient in
protecting trees and encouraging planting by using this vehicle?
(Mr Christie-Miller) Certainly I know my own local
authority looked at the possibility of incorporating a sort of
woodland aspect into their Unitary Development Plan, but I think
either for a lack of resource or for a lack of interest from other
sources it did not seem to proceed. However, it did seem to be
a good opportunity for getting down to strategic planning at a
local level. We were very involved in the 1980s with the development
of Indicative Forestry Strategies in Scotland, and this involved
the then regional councils identifying areas within their council
area which might be suitable for forestry. They then graded them
red, amber and green. This was a helpful way forward in identifying
possible areas for forestry expansion. We would like to have seen
a similar thing develop in England and Wales, but it does not
really seem to have taken off. We have actually done quite a bit
of work ourselves in taking the Scottish model and identifying
areas in England for forest expansion. That is currently being
taken up by the English Forestry Strategy, and we hope it will
be taken on board. It would seem to me that the Scottish model
could be developed within England, but it does not seem to have
taken off.
(Dr Howard) Just directly on that, the study (and
we will submit a copy—it should be finished within a month)
on forestry protection in the United Kingdom—done jointly
with the Forestry Commission—has looked at efficiency and
protection, not only in terms of the delivery of protection but
in terms of financial efficiency. There may be question marks
there, if we are going to use various different mechanisms, both
for new forests and new planting, in relation to what are the
most financially efficient ways of doing it. I think we need to
look quite carefully at that, because, again, if we are going
to have challenging targets then we have got to use the most cost-effective
way of doing it. Although I think there is a lot of commitment
within local authorities, in terms of protection—protection
of local authority woodlands has generally been effective—it
has been one of the most expensive ways of delivering it, compared
with voluntary organisations.
19. Could I also ask, Chairman, what your
views are on the content of the UK Forestry Standard, which you
mentioned in your introductory remarks?
(Mr Christie-Miller) We have been closely involved
in its production. We were one of the major consultees and some
of our constituent members—particularly, obviously, the
growing sector—have been very closely involved, so we are
generally very happy with the content of the UK Forestry Standard.
It has brought together a whole range of initiatives that have
been going on over the last ten years. So, I think, as I said
earlier on, it is very much a landmark document and one which
we have given total support to. What we are keen to see now is
the independent auditing of the UK Forestry Standard, and we talked
earlier about quality. What we want to see is the whole quality
of not only new planting but of management of forests raised at
a steady level. We think this is a very good starting point, and
we are working with WWF and others to agree an audit protocol
for the UK Forestry Standard. If we can get that in place we think
it will lead to better and higher standards within our woods and
forests.
(Dr Howard) Could I just elaborate on that? I
think the UK Forestry Standard was well-received and it did have
pretty wide support from the different sectors. It is a consensus
document, which obviously implies a degree of compromise on all
sides, but it was generally well-received. When it comes to the
auditing of it, that is key, if you are going to have a good statement
of intent with a lot of detail in it on how to have sustainable
forestry in the United Kingdom, and you have to measure that.
There have been three years of work on a Forestry Stewardship
Council Standard for the UK, and these things developed in parallel
to some extent. Now, with this audit protocol process that Andrew
has mentioned, where its design is to meet the UK Forestry Standard
and to also meet the FSC's international prinicples and criteria,
there has to be a consensus in the forestry industry, the environmental
community, the growers, social interest groups, to make sure that
we have an auditable document, (and I think we are a matter of
about two months away from having an auditable standard that meets
the FSC international principles and criteria as well as the UK
Government Forestry Standard) and then this can be third-party
assessed in forests in the United Kingdom, whether it is Forest
Enterprise or private forest owners, to see "Are we meeting
both the international level of good forest management and the
Government statements of intent?" So when we get there (and
I am pretty convinced we will get there) then we can really see
that, yes, we are doing a good job, there is improvement and I
think that will be real progress in the United Kingdom, and we
will talk more about how the Government can support it in a more
broad sense.
|
