Examination of Witnesses (Question Numbers
121-139)
MR PAUL
HILL-TOUT
27 JANUARY 2010
Q121 Chairman: Could I welcome Mr
Paul Hill-Tout who is the Director of the Forestry Commission
for England. I am glad you were able to be here for the earlier
session so at least you know what the Minister has said and you
have some idea of the areas of interest that we are involved in.
Could I ask you at the outset, you are a body with a long and
honourable history of work in the field of forestry in this country
and you have to fight very hard for the resources that you have
to do the excellent work that you do, but do you see in any way
The National Forest as a rival or strictly as a partner and a
friend?
Mr Hill-Tout: Very much, I would
stress, as a partner and a friend, a very novel development prompted
and led initially by the Countryside Commission where, in all
honesty, our focus was elsewhere at that time in terms of bringing
the value of woodlands closer to where people live and we have
evolved a very close working relationship which is one of building
upon their strengths—the networks that they have created
with local people—so that we can add value to them in terms
of the various skill sets that we have and the range of delivery
mechanisms that we have available.
Q122 Chairman: You have a memorandum
of understanding which defines the relationship between the Forest
and yourselves. Can you just give us an insight as to what that
actually covers?
Mr Hill-Tout: That looks at the
whole range of our interactions in terms of supporting each other
in achieving The National Forest strategy which we work through
in terms of the different kinds of roles that we play. We provide
support and guidance in terms of taking forward the England's
Trees, Woods and Forests strategy; the regional forestry frameworks
for East Midlands and West Midlands in terms of how The National
Forest can play its part there; what role we should be playing
in terms of our grant-giving functions, our regulatory functions
and, increasingly, the role that we have been playing through
the Forestry Commission Public Forest Estate in helping to deal
with some of the more complex issues of landholding and provide
a critical mass of landholdings to support them in their wider
work.
Q123 Chairman: Could you clarify
one thing. You are obviously involved in management issues of
the Forest and you do do certain work in the Forest. Do you receive
an income from the Company in respect of that work? Are they,
if you like, a customer of yours?
Mr Hill-Tout: I can say we do
not receive any income from the National Forest Company, no.
Q124 Chairman: I was talking about
the Forestry Commission, not you personally.
Mr Hill-Tout: Indeed. We are clear
with the National Forest Company what their roles are and what
our roles are and under the concordat over the years with their
evolving grant scheme we have committed certain elements of the
grant schemes that we are responsible for to invest alongside
them. We have also committed to make funds available where we
can for acquisitions, running costs on the Estate and our staff
time. All of that comes as free, gratis, you might say, as part
of our partnership. That is what we bring to the table in areas
in discussion with them where we feel we can add value.
Q125 Chairman: In terms of appraising
what has happened over the last 15 years, as the sort of big brother
in terms of forestry, do you think that the project has been successful,
particularly from the forestry standpoint. If so, why?
Mr Hill-Tout: I think it has been
extraordinarily successful. Looking first of all at one very basic
statistic, the total area that The National Forest occupies is
a fraction of less than 1% of the land of this country, yet it
represents 10% of all woodland creation taking place in England
over that time. It has taken place in a manner which has had full
public support and co-operation from all the public agencies as
I think you have seen and local people. Historically—and
we have experience of this—it is very difficult to manage
that scale, intensity and speed of land use change and maintain
public support. They have subsequently adapted to the growing
strategy priorities over the last 15 years so, for example, they
have been a very, very active partner in the development of the
England's Trees, Woods and Forest strategy over the last few years
and the specific areas where they are going to provide leadership
in for the coming years.
Q126 Chairman: Let me ask about differences.
You have alluded to the fact about how important the area is in
terms of forestry creation. In terms of the way that forest is
created within The National Forest, what are the things that differ
in the way that they do it from other areas of afforestation?
Mr Hill-Tout: I would say the
single most important role that the Forest brings to bear is a
dedicated team that is working long-term with local communities,
local landowners, local businesses and local authorities where
they understand and translate national policy priorities into
terms that work for that locality and get local buy-in. They are
not unique in that respect. We have similar examples with the
Community Forest Programme that was launched roughly at the same
time, also initially led by the Countryside Commission. I would
say the National Forest is the single largest example and best
example of that kind of approach. As we look into the future,
I can see no way in which major woodland creation or integrated
land management strategies could be taken forward in a concentrated
manner without that sort of dedicated local team.
Q127 Chairman: You would be a strong
advocate of having, if you like, a forest company because obviously,
as you will have gathered from our previous line of questioning,
we asked if you need the company, could you not do it by co-operation,
and in a way you have hinted that there are other models of co-operation
in terms of the Community Forest Project which parallels some
of the achievements, but the sense I got was that you thought
the NFC, because of their focus, was the best of the models.
Mr Hill-Tout: I think what is
important is that there is a dedicated, long-term team there.
I have an open mind as to the exact institutional arrangements
and, for example, the Community Forests have quite a variety of
different models that have evolved over time in their relationship
with local authorities, their relationship with ourselves, regional
development agencies, but a team on the ground with a long-term
perspective connected locally is vital.
Q128 Chairman: Do you use it all
as an exemplar of good practice when you are trying to move forward
the Forest's agenda in other parts of the country? Obviously there
is so much that comes out, but I suppose the biggest difference
is also the add-on of the economic regeneration side rather than
the strictly forestry gains. Do you use it as a beacon of good
practice?
Mr Hill-Tout: We have a number
of examples where research is taking place there. We have a Forestry
Research Agency so we have links there. Across the various themes
of the England's Trees, Woods and Forests strategy The National
Forest is playing a role in hosting events, sharing experience
with others and the Company has shown itself to be very, very
open in sharing experiences, providing platforms for others and
disseminating new techniques and practices.
Q129 Chairman: Could we find somewhere
else examples of what the Forest had done and, through the processes
you have described, those ideas being adopted outwith of the Forest?
Mr Hill-Tout: Yes, absolutely.
Q130 Chairman: Are there any examples
you might be able to give us?
Mr Hill-Tout: Some of the work
in terms of community engagement and community participation has
been particularly important, I think, and also some of the work
in terms of the more complex regeneration issues too. I would
cite those as examples of where they have been on the leading
edge.
Q131 Chairman: Is there anything
being done which is what I might call novel, almost from the test-bed
standpoint—perhaps even something you are doing within the
Forest—which would have wider application?
Mr Hill-Tout: I think probably
you have picked up evidence here of some of the work with local
industry and bringing in private finance. We do a lot of this
on the Forestry Commission Estate in terms of bringing in private
finance, but certainly what we are striving to do all the time
is find market-based mechanisms for delivering public goods in
the long term. We believe that that is the right kind of sustainable
course. There is a role for public finance, but if we can find
ways to bring market funds, that is very helpful. I think there
are some good examples; we have seen examples of sponsorship from
Jaguar and other areas where the Company has brought that in.
I think that is good experience which will bode will for some
of the challenges we have ahead in terms of tacking some of the
issues to which, I think, in the discussion with the Minister
earlier on you were alluding in terms of the challenges of woodlands
across England and the challenges in a difficult public expenditure
environment.
Q132 Chairman: Does the model have
wider application? Obviously our inquiry is focused on England,
but is there the possibility of doing this kind of thing in Wales
or Scotland with such focus as the NFC have got within the East
Midlands?
Mr Hill-Tout: Today my scope only
lies within England, but in a former life we have equivalent models,
the Central Scotland Countryside Trust for example, working to
tackle regeneration between Edinburgh and Glasgow, which has a
number of similar characteristics and we have some not dissimilar
work with partners in the Valleys in South Wales.
Q133 David Lepper: You heard the
discussion earlier initiated by Roger Williams about the role
of our woods and forests and carbon reduction. From the Forestry
Commission's point of view, which environmental priority do you
think should be the top priority, carbon reduction or biodiversity
improvement?
Mr Hill-Tout: Neither; they are
the same. I will expand on that. We have done single objective
forestry in our first 60 years. For the last 20 years we have
been working through what sustainable forest management means
and how to work through the reconciliation of economic, social
and environmental objectives which are expressed through the UK
Forestry Standard and a whole suite of environmental and social
guidelines for forestry that we have built up over the last 20
years. For example, as we look at the work we are doing now with
the Low Carbon Transition Plan, we are very clear that there is
no conflict and there is no need for great prioritisation here.
In taking those principles forward we can find ways in which woodlands—both
existing woodlands and new woodlands—can make a really positive
contribution to climate change mitigation, adaptation and carbon
and, at the same time, sustain and enhance our environment.
Q134 David Lepper: One of the issues
that Roger Williams also touched on was the standard of management
of our woods and forests nationally. From what you have just said—and
I welcome what you have just said—it does suggest widespread
good management which perhaps may not be the case. What is the
role of the Forestry Commission in working with The National Forest
and others in trying to improve standards?
Mr Hill-Tout: If we look at what
standards mean and the extent to which, for example, the UK Forest
Standard is satisfied, first of all we can say the woodlands of
England are very well protected. With the regulatory framework
we have here there is a negligible amount of illegal felling taking
place and what we have is followed up very, very rigorously. I
have no fears on that front. The challenge has been not to stop
people doing bad things but to get more people doing good things.
We have been very successful with the larger forest areas and
the coniferous woodlands over the last century and I think they
are in very, very good heart. In terms of the smaller, more fragmented,
broadleaf woodlands, the mechanisms that we have used up to now
in terms of the Public Forest Estate and the range of grants have
not been totally successful in tackling some of those challenges.
We have to see those, like with The National Forest, in an integrated
landscape scale approach. Grants and associated bureaucracy by
themselves are not going to motivate landowners, so our focus
is coming very strongly onto the woodfuel agenda because it is
a means of bringing income very tangibly into the hands of owners
and it can also work at a great variety of scales; it can work
simply in a one-hectare little copse for a farmer to power all
their fuel requirements, or at a large forest scale. It works
with the grain of the woodlands and the landscapes of this country
which, again, The National Forest now typifies. We see that as
a really exciting opportunity to bring income to landowners in
a flexible, adaptable way, motivate them to manage those woodlands
more actively and, at the same time, contribute to national objectives.
Q135 David Lepper: I am glad you
went on to the woodfuel issue. Just concentrating on that specifically,
does the Forestry Commission actually provide support to The National
Forest and/or elsewhere in the country to help develop that both
local and national strand of woodfuel policy?
Mr Hill-Tout: We conceived and
are leading the development of England's woodfuel strategy and
for that we have identified the potential to generate two million
tons of extra wood from our existing woodlands per annum by 2020.
In order to do that we would need to double the area of private
woodlands that are being actively managed, many of which have
progressively gone out of management since the industrial revolution
when the products they used to produce were no longer required.
In terms of the support we are putting in place, we have been
putting together a package with the regional development agencies
around Axis 1 and Axis 3 of the Rural Development Programme, working
very closely with them to build our partnerships and support systems
in each of the regions and we have started doing work with the
East Midlands region as well. It is quite a long haul because
there are quite a lot of woodlands that we have not been engaged
with in an active way for a long time and we are starting it again.
Chairman: We will have to adjourn our
proceedings now for the division and when we come back I would
just be interested as to how wide an area you can contemplate
this smaller scale use of woodfuel because obviously there is
the carbon footprint of transporting it; in the context of the
Forest you can see the intermingling of the forest areas with
habitable areas and therefore there is proximity but over longer
distances there is a haulage element. We will come back to that,
if we may. The Committee stands adjourned for the division.
The Committee suspended from 4.15pm to 4.35
for a Division in the House
Q136 Chairman: I had been asking
a question about the carbon footprint of the use of woodfuel in
the various ways that it manifests, because obviously within the
context of the Forest one can see that a localised source makes
sense but if one is looking at it from a more general point of
view, there could be some difficulties, so would you like to pick
up the thread from there?
Mr Hill-Tout: We see the focus
in terms of the role of wood in renewable energy very much around
the issue of local heat. Our vision is that the wood fired central
heating system you have, and the warmth you are experiencing can
be enjoyed while looking out at the woodland that has provided
it; that same woodland where you might walk with your dog at the
weekend is providing you heat and warmth. Local supply chains,
local contractors and local markets are working with the grain
of your local woodlands.
Q137 Chairman: We had quite an interesting
exchange when we went to the Forest on this. One of our witnesses,
Mr Neilson, said (I will quote from the evidence): "Supply
is a tricky one because if you get some big users they will take
most of the supply that is there and will leave the smaller users
finding it difficult sourcing enough timber. I think some work
needs to be done on how much wood chip could be produced from
the woodlands; it very quickly runs out and does not grow again
for another 25 years. That is quite a long time to wait for a
delivery really. I think it is something one has to be wary of.
There is no doubt that any woodland there is will go on producing
for its lifetime."
Mr Hill-Tout: That is a very,
very fair point. Most of the forest industry in this country for
the last 50 years has been built up around larger forest areas,
particularly coniferous forest areas, geared to large pulp and
paper, pallet board mills and saw mills with long distance haulage
and large scale mechanised operations. That has worked well for
the forests created in the middle part of the last century; it
does not work well for the great majority of the woodlands of
England which are, on the whole, small scale broadleaf woodlands.
The drive that we are now pursuing is about establishing a business
and delivery model that works with the grain of those small woodlands,
broadleaf woodlands whose yields and scale are smaller and where
the economics, machinery, systems and access are different at
that point. Likewise in terms of the work we do on the Public
Forest Estate, we are making more timber available in smaller
quantities to foster local, smaller scale players that can work
in with the woodfuel markets.
Q138 Chairman: Does that type of
enterprise lend itself to a sort of embryo wood pellet system
because in places like Austria it has become almost pan-European
in the business that it does? I just wondered if there was any
merit in gathering together the available resource, turning it
into pellet which is highly portable which gets around some of
the distribution problems.
Mr Hill-Tout: Wood pellets tends
to be viable if one looks across the continent and work that is
going in Scotland in association with a saw mill where the residues
of the saw mill can be utilised in a large scale operation. There
are a number of examples around the country now where saw mills
are investing in pellet plants, but without that saw mill the
economics of setting up a pellet plant are really not cost effective.
Q139 Mr Williams: It is quite a long
time since I have looked at the Forestry Commission stuff, but
can you just tell us how does the Forestry Commission relate to
Forest Enterprise?
Mr Hill-Tout: Forest Enterprise
is part of the Forestry Commission. In England we have an agency
called Forest Enterprise that manages the Forestry Commission
Public Forest Estate and it is staffed by Forestry Commission
staff. It is basically just an internal administrative arrangement
which is governed by a Next Step's agency framework document.
| 
