Examination of Witnesses (Questions 220
- 239)
TUESDAY 23 MAY 2000
MR RICHARD
SMITHERS AND
MS HILARY
ALLISON
220. Can I try to get clear in my own mind,
is there any conflict between yourselves as the Woodland Trust
and other NGOs? We heard in earlier evidence that some of them
were a little upset about planting trees on Salisbury Plain.
(Mr Smithers) I think tree planting is a jolly good
activity but in the right place. In terms of habitat creation,
we would see the opportunity to use woodland creation to actually
buffer other semi-natural habitats from the impacts of intensive
land use in particular. We have already heard that many semi-natural
habitats are very small and unsustainable. The average ancient
woodland in England and Wales is less than five hectares; really
very tiny. So the priority in terms of habitat creation we feel
is to actually buffer our existing semi-natural habitat, and there
really can be no excuse for simply trying to create one semi-natural
habitat at the expense of another. So planting trees on lowland
heath, for example, would be abhorrent to us.
221. Given that we have a fairly large majority
of people in the UK living in urban areas, is there any difference
in your emphasis between semi-natural habitats in urban areas
or are you just looking at these things in rural areas?
(Mr Smithers) As an organisation we are very much
urban and rural-focused. Clearly semi-natural habitats in urban
areas are, again, small, and suffering impacts from their surroundings.
Perhaps in different ways but every bit as much, it is important
to try and reduce those external impacts, so actually where possible
increasing the size of urban sites would be a useful exercise.
222. Can I ask whether you are satisfied with
the UK's implementation of the Habitats and Birds Directive?
(Mr Smithers) We commented in detail—
223. You cannot give a simple yes or no to that?
(Mr Smithers) No.
224. No, you are not happy or no, you cannot
give a simple answer!
(Mr Smithers) No, we are not happy. We commented in
detail some three years ago and one of our major concerns was
actually buffer zones. We have already heard from WWF that Member
States do have the ability to designate buffer zones but we as
a country have very much designated sites with boundaries tight
up against the area of existing interest. That has a number of
problems associated with it. It means that that designation is
doing nothing to actually address the threats external to the
sites, it is not actually promoting positive management of surrounding
land, and it probably limits us as a country in our ability to
gain EU LIFE funding whereas other Member States can apply for
EU LIFE funding more readily for buffer zones which are designated.
225. Do you think there is a real problem? I
hear what you say and most people would probably applaud the principle
of what you are trying to achieve, but in reality there is a difference
between the geographical size of the UK as compared to France
and Spain and a number of these places where they can through
their land mass have buffer zones which perhaps we cannot get.
(Mr Smithers) Our resources for conservation are always
going to be finite; resources both in terms of land area, which
is what you are talking about, and also in terms of money and
goodwill. We would argue that it is therefore crucial that activity
is targeted to greatest effect. Given that we believe conservation
is not so much about the past but creating a more sustainable
future for biodiversity, that really means seeking to focus activity
on those areas of the country where biodiversity actually has
the greatest potential to be placed on a sustainable footing.
In effect that actually means targeting areas which already have
the highest density of semi-natural habitats.
Chairman
226. Buffer zones: how do you regulate them?
(Ms Allison) I think there are a lot of ways in which
regulation can be brought into play and a lot of it can also depend
on goodwill. People have touched in previous evidence on the planning
system and I think the whole mindset of planners in terms of understanding
the impact of some of their decisions, for example, needs to be
changed so they fully appreciate that decisions taken in relation
to individual sites or outside designated areas, for example,
have an impact on the quality of the habitats.
227. So a buffer zone, you could say, could
be a wish list?
(Ms Allison) It would certainly be very, very high
on our wish list of conservation strategies—
228. On your wish list but actually in enforcement
terms it could be a wish list? Or is it going to be second eleven
SSSI?
(Mr Smithers) If it were possible to actually accommodate
the thinking behind buffer zones within SSSI designation and indeed
within the thinking about local wildlife sites, then there would
be a great deal to be gained.
Christine Butler
229. What are the main problems which exist
because of the lack of co-ordination between the national and
the local Biodiversity Action Plans? Where are we heading if we
do not improve?
(Mr Smithers) It is something which actually is flagged
up in other people's written evidence and it is probably one of
the areas where the biodiversity action planning process has not
worked quite so well. There has been enormous enthusiasm within
local BAP groups in some areas and the result is that they have
often got well ahead of the game, that national plans have not
actually been developed to the point where they can properly inform
local priorities. If you look at the woodland habitat action plans,
I suppose there is a danger that as the national work programme
develops what we seek to do is to set top-down targets so at a
national level we seek to identify targets for people at a local
level. I think there are very real dangers there in developing
a dependency culture and in not empowering people, not giving
them an opportunity to develop a common understanding and commitment
to what they need to do locally in the context of a national picture.
So what we would propose is that it would be much better for the
national plans to focus on setting criteria, parameters, guidance,
within which local BAPS can then make informed decisions about
what is important within their locality in a national context.
The danger is, if you do not do that, people at a local level
seek to apply the national target locally, so for example 10 per
cent restoration and expansion of woodlands applied everywhere
across the UK would not actually be of greatest advantage to biodiversity
for the reasons I explained.
230. Why is that not happening? Who is to blame?
(Mr Smithers) I do not think anybody is to blame.
I think it is a product of the fact that local plans and national
plans really started at the same time.
231. Somebody has to get a grip of it. Who?
(Mr Smithers) The problem is that local plans and
national plans started at the same time and therefore it is inevitable
that local plans have got ahead of the process. Clearly now those
organisations who are lead bodies for national plans actually
need to create the link and create that guidance for local plans.
232. Could it be done at regional level better
or should it stay where it is?
(Mr Smithers) I think it needs to start at a national
level. We heard from WWF the need always to put things in a global
context, then nationally and then regionally. The danger of starting
at a regional level is that you may end up weighting things inappropriately
by region just every bit as much as by local area.
233. Do you think we have enough civil servants
who are up to it? Is the understanding there?
(Mr Smithers) If you think of the progress which has
been made by the Biodiversity Action Plan process over the last
few years and you compare it with what was happening before then,
you have to say there have been really very great advances in
biodiversity implementation and thinking. So it is easy to always
argue for more resources, we certainly need them but we would
suggest the priority needs to be how those are targeted. In terms
of the biodiversity action planning process, we feel to some degree
the complexity of it is increasing and is likely to continue to
increase, and we really need to keep things as simple as possible.
There should not need to be justification for simplifying, the
justification should always be for making things more complicated—sorry,
the other way round. Shall I say that again?
Chairman
234. No, we get the message!
(Mr Smithers) You know what I am saying! In terms
of the sheer number of plans there are at the moment, we are talking
about hundreds of species action plans at the moment, and quite
a large number of habitat action plans and it is important that
they are drawn together. If you look at woodlands, there are six
broadleaf woodland habitat action plans at the moment, in the
context of climate change broadleaf woodland really is all one
continuum in a dynamic state of flux, and it is questionable whether
one could actually give a strong argument for splitting those
habitats into six woodland types. In terms of species action plans,
there are a very sizeable number of species action plans associated
with broadleaf woodland, and if all those could be brought under
one umbrella, not to lose the work which has been done but bring
the thinking together and bring that co-ordination together, I
would suggest it would lead to a greater targeting of resources
and more focus being given to action. We need to get on and we
need to deliver and we need to make a difference; planning in
itself does not get us anywhere.
Christine Butler
235. If I understand correctly, it is the people
involved at the top who need to be doing a bit more about this
co-ordination? You are not saying it is necessarily a complete
lack of resources but the deployment of those resources.
(Mr Smithers) It is both of those things.
236. Can I move on to ask you about agricultural
practices? Are you satisfied that the changes announced by the
Agriculture Minister in December last year are adequate to address
the problems posed for biodiversity on farmland?
(Ms Allison) I think we were very pleased to see Mr
Brown's proposals in December last year, in particular in relation
to modulation and releasing more funding into agri-environmental
measures, and that is a very welcome step. There are two issues.
One is there is still a long way to go, I believe, in terms of
securing more resources. Let me use an example. We are going up
to 4.5 per cent of the total CAP budget which is able to be modulated
by 2006 and the EU limit is 20 per cent so we still have a long
way to go in that respect. Using the particular example of farm
woodland, because the Farm Woodland Premium Scheme is one of those
agri-environment measures which we know most about, there is £85
million allocated to that. That may sound a lot of money but a
lot of the money does represent payments to early entrants to
the scheme back to 1992. The scheme runs for 15 years and those
payments have to be provided over 15 years.
Chairman
237. Some of whom planted pretty appalling species
mixes.
(Ms Allison) I was going to come on to that point
in a moment, Chairman. So we are not sure how much of that money,
although it sounds like an increase, is actually going to be available
for brand new schemes rather than just topping-up existing schemes.
That is the first point really on resourcing. The second point
relates to something Richard mentioned earlier, which is using
the resources we have got and targeting existing agri-environment
schemes to provide the greatest biodiversity gains in the shortest
possible time. From a woodland perspective you get more biodiversity
gain from your investment, if you like, if you start off where
there are areas of high density of ancient woodland, so you apply
your funds for woodland creation and tree planting in areas where
there is a high density particularly of semi-natural woodland
if you want to get biodiversity gain quickly. The Farm Woodland
Premium Scheme is a very good example of where I think some definite
improvements need to be thought through. We have a good start
in terms of more funds, what we now need is a strategic review
of how those schemes are actually working in practice. The Farm
Woodland Premium Scheme accounts for nearly half of the planting
by landowners in Britain—46 out of 96,000 hectares of new
planting is done through the Farm Woodland Premium Scheme—and
that is a huge amount. But it does not really deliver biodiversity
benefits at present because the scheme sizes are very small, a
quarter of them were entered in at the minimum area of one hectare,
the average size is only six hectares, and those woods are small
and they are isolated from other areas of woodland. So from the
particular point of view of the Farm Woodland Premium Scheme,
if you are looking for practical examples of how to get agri-environment
schemes working better for biodiversity, we would like to see
the Farm Woodland Premium Schemes fully in line with the new Woodland
Grant Scheme scoring, which is trying to reflect some of those
biodiversity priorities set out in the England Forest Strategy,
by trying to get the Farm Woodland Premium Schemes to create larger
woods, particularly giving priority and emphasis on linking ancient
woods together, protecting through buffer zones and actually extending
ancient woods through planting. At present a Farm Woodland Premium
Scheme is actually given a weighting because it is a Farm Woodland
Premium Scheme, so we feel much more scrutiny, much more review,
of the way in which that money is being deployed would be advantageous
in biodiversity terms, particularly when we are talking about
woodland creation.
238. That again implies more knowledge-led activities,
does it not; an understanding of the process? How important is
cross-compliance?
(Ms Allison) We think that cross-compliance is a very
useful and helpful tool. We are lucky within the woodland world
in the sense that we have a form of cross-compliance, if you like,
because the Woodland Grant Scheme is only given for woodland management
schemes which comply with the UK Forestry Standard which, although
it has some failings, is based on reasonable prescriptions for
management of important woods including biodiversity as an objective.
The question then comes in, how do you perhaps draw farmers who
are not currently entered into Woodland Grant Schemes into schemes
whereby they can actually manage those woods. There is a very
good example in Wales, Tir Gofal, which is a whole farm scheme
where environmental payments are dependent on the management of
the whole farm, including woodlands. So having whole complexes
of woodland and other semi-natural habitats all managed for biodiversity
benefit within a farm landscape seems to us to be a good idea.
Going back to my previous comment, if cross-compliance is actually
going to be used as a tool, and it does have great benefit, then
it needs to be used in a targeted way where there is greatest
potential for gain, and if it was done on a blanket basis those
resources would be spread very thinly.
Christine Butler: And it is not such a good
idea to relocate ancient woodland, as happened with Frith Wood.
That underlines the point I have been trying to drive forward
for you to respond to, is there sufficient understanding amongst
those at the top? It seems to say to me that there is not if they
are going to relocate an ancient woodland.
Chairman: What was wrong with Frith Wood?
Christine Butler
239. A lot afterwards!
(Ms Allison) Frith Wood is a very good example of
the point you are making about the need for—and I do not
wish to be patronising in any way—a much broader environmental
awareness and education of people making decisions. We are saying
biodiversity is now being translated across government and it
is part of the UK sustainable development strategy which is something
which all departments are meant to be contributing to—
| 
