Examination of Witnesses (Question Numbers
140-157)
MR PAUL
HILL-TOUT
27 JANUARY 2010
Q140 Mr Williams: Can you tell us
about the partnerships that the National Forest Company has for
delivering its economic objectives?
Mr Hill-Tout: I do not know them
in detail but I would say, on a broader front, is that the way
we see the economic objectives building up the woodland resource,
the timber producing capability, its work on promoting The National
Forest as a destination and really good work in term of a focal
point for tourism which would have been inconceivable 15 years
ago, that people want to visit this area in significant numbers
based around the Conkers Centre and centres we have at Rosliston
and elsewhere. So you have the timber work and the tourism work
and also, I think, the other side of the coin is regeneration
work that has been transforming the landscape, so from areas that
looked quite blighted, quite run down, they have been transformed.
I think there is good evidence that we have seen in The National
Forest and elsewhere where that this simply improves values and,
is attractive to inward investment, providing places where people
want to live. I think we have all seen examples of significant
new housing taking place in the area and areas have been identified
as growth zones. I think it would be inconceivable to have imagined
that to have taken place 15, 20, 30 years ago in some of the areas
of The National Forest.
Q141 Mr Williams: In amongst those
partnerships what role does the Forestry Commission play?
Mr Hill-Tout: If you look at the
tourism aspect, some of the largest landholdings now in The National
Forest are owned and managed by the Forestry Commission. We have
built up a portfolio of just under 800 hectares, so we are engaged
with some of the biggest centres. Beyond that we are also working
very closely with the Company in terms of building up a more integrated
recreation corridor, so longer distance routes be they for walking,
cycling, horse-riding, et cetera, so that as part of an integrated
landscape approach to recreation and tourism we are all collaborating
with each other to make that come to pass.
Q142 Mr Williams: As the Forestry
Commission, you are building up partnerships with the local authorities;
are they successful?
Mr Hill-Tout: Yes. I would stress
in The National Forest we work through and with the National Forest
Company. Their key value-added is that they are on the ground
all the time with a significant skilled team and so they have
a lot of the local intelligence and networks. We work through
them rather than setting up our separate links. Elsewhere in the
country we have very well developed partnerships with a whole
range of recreation providers, tourism providers and particularly
regional development agencies who have placed a great deal of
store on the role of woodlands in tourism.
Q143 Mr Williams: Would you
like to take over that National Forest Company?
Mr Hill-Tout: It occurs to me
many times, but we are very, very content with the existing arrangements.
We have very similar relationships with the Community Forests
and we believe it works very well whereby they provide the platform
and the networks and we can come in with our distinctive skills
and delivery mechanisms and add value to that alongside them.
The bottom line is that the arrangements work at the moment and
change has to be justified; I do not see the need for any change.
Q144 Mr Williams: Do you think the
National Forest Company have adopted the right approach in allocating
resources such as grants in order to provide maximum regeneration
benefits to get real value out of public money?
Mr Hill-Tout: Picking up from
the Minister's evidence earlier on, we all recognise that the
rates of grants available for The National Forest are higher than
available elsewhere but we are certainly satisfied, when justifying
it elsewhere, that we are dealing with some particularly complex
and intractable areas and if I look at regeneration issues we
have really good benchmarks elsewhere, for example with our work
with the Newlands Project in the Northwest, our work in East London
as well in the Thames Chase Community Forest. We are dealing with
these sorts of sites and it is comparable sums of money that are
getting involved so it is important to compare like with like;
much more expensive, you might say, than the average grant scheme
in England but comparable for areas of similar complexity. Also
I think the team is being able to add value to that so the proportion,
for example, of woodland owners who have a long-term commitment
to public access, for example, is much greater than we have elsewhere.
That is not just because of money, it is because of the effort
that the company puts in to building up a sense of confidence
and trust with the landowners that public access is something
they can live with and will not harm their wider interests.
Q145 David Lepper: You talked about
recreational tourism in answering Roger William's questions just
now and you also mentioned the issue of working with landowners
to perhaps allay some of their fears of greater access to the
countryside. I spoke earlier when the Minister was here about
what we heard of the work in The National Forest to attract people
into the Forest itself who might not otherwise come to a wood
or a forest or any open space. Do you feel there is more that
the Forestry Commission could do to work with The National Forest
to encourage that work?
Mr Hill-Tout: I think a good start
has been made both by The National Forest and in the relationship
we have, but I think that can go further. As we see it, one of
the big objectives is to realise the full social objectives of
the Forest as it matures. Right at the heart of that is building
the connections with people who live in the area to the next stage,
drawing others in and ensuring that the woodlands are benefiting
a full cross-section. For example, as part of our wider performance
measures—and we are doing work with The National Forest
on this—we have identified a suite of places around the
country where we are doing really in-depth studies looking at
the catchment area for that woodland, the diversity of ethnic
groups, for example, and disability group, then establishing to
what extent the people who are coming to the woodland are representative
of the local community, and if they are not coming why are they
not coming? I feel that the Forest Company and ourselves can take
that to another level. If you look at the catchment area of the
Forest there are many disadvantaged groups and a great variety
of other ethnic minorities, and more progress can be made by both
of us in ensuring that that catchment population fully benefits
from the public expenditure that has been invested here.
Q146 David Lepper: Can you tell us
where those five areas are?
Mr Hill-Tout: I can send you a
note on those. It is being taken forward by our Forest Research
Agency to make sure the whole methodology is sound.
Q147 David Lepper: When do you expect
that work to be completed?
Mr Hill-Tout: It is an on-going
process. What we are establishing at the moment is the baseline
of where we are and how that relates to the catchment areas, and
then that challenges us to address the gaps—because there
are gaps—and we are not just here to cater for the As and
the Bs; we are looking to cater for the whole cross-section of
our community.
Q148 David Lepper: There is no particular
timescale?
Mr Hill-Tout: No; it is a baseline
work at the moment and then we can show the progress we are making
in the coming years in closing that gap.
Q149 David Lepper: Could I return
to what you mentioned in reply to Roger Williams just now about
allaying the fears of landowners. When the Countryside Access
legislation was going through Parliament I think a very real worry
was about balancing the conservation aspects of that legislation
and conservation more generally with wider access and with 10
million people living very close to The National Forest you feel
that there that balance has been struck.
Mr Hill-Tout: I believe so. Both
in terms of work in the Company and our own work on the Public
Forest Estate I think we have built up sufficient experience to
recognise really sensitive habitats, recognise how one can channel
and zone the more intensive public use so that these two areas
do not come into conflict. I think, reflecting back, a lot of
these woodlands were arable land or were brownfield land, so I
do not think we should load them with saying that these were incredibly
endangered habitats. They are incredibly resilient with good guidance
and good practice and I think that is what the Company is providing
Q150 Chairman: One of the issues
that we raised earlier with the Minister was this question of
land availability and the juxtaposition between land for forestry
and land for agriculture. I think the Minister gave a clear view
that if there were problems in the Forest they were not just typical
to the Forest. I think there was a bit of concern that the rate
of re-afforestation had slowed down and there was a dialogue about
persuading private landowners to come to the party because from
their point of point it represents a long term and almost irreversible
commitment to using a piece of land for afforestation. Would you
like to give us what I might call a critical but expert appraisal
as to how you see the situation within the Forest in terms of
availability of sites, the attitude of private landowners making
their land available and the question of the rate of progress?
I picked out the table from the annual report and, whilst again
we received a perfectly rational explanation as to why the Forest
at the moment had slowed down, you do need some critical mass
if you are going to achieve a significant increase year on year
of the afforested area.
Mr Hill-Tout: As the Minister
alluded to, clearly we are all subject to macro-cycles in relation
to agriculture and the demand for land. I know that prices for
land in The National Forest area have increased dramatically and
obviously landowners look at that very acutely in terms of the
various alternative uses they have. I think in any long term initiative
of this kind there are only so many years you can actually work
with the landowners. You have the low hanging fruit, the slightly
higher fruit and then you are really struggling. I think one has
to stand back and say that unless one comes up with a radically
new proposition that attracts landowners that were not attracted
first time round, there is a law of diminishing returns. The company,
Ministers and the strategies are being very pragmatic in recognising
that. There is a slowing of the trajectory; it is still making
progress but it is also very responsibly recognising there is
a fabulous new resource that is coming on stream. This presents
new challenges and I think one of the leadership roles of the
Company is actually to make sure that once one has created a woodland
that is not the end of it; to realise the full benefits you have
to invest in those woodlands and create the connections. I feel
it is right for them to be shifting the emphasis more to that;
we are doing the same thing nationally. Coming back to the issue
of under-managed woodlands, I was saying to ministers some years
ago that I could not justify the amount of public money going
into the creation of woodlands when people were challenging us
as to whether the existing woodlands were in good health and shifting
the emphasis. I would say is that for the Company and ourselves
nationally I talk about a next leap forward; I do not believe
that leap forward is going to be achieved just through more grant
or higher levels of grant. We are already talking a 100% and more
than a 100%. I think we have to work together to find new opening.
The area that we are looking at is in the Low Carbon Transition
Plan published back in July. It is about developing an operational
model for our carbon markets which we believe could attract a
whole new strand of interest in terms of not only an income stream
for people just looking at the bottom line but for those individuals
and businesses who are interested in their corporate reputation
and corporate social responsibilities et cetera, and if they have
a scheme which has real integrity, backing by government and has
international credentials and wish to be associated with it.
Q151 Chairman: Am I not right that,
for example, in the context of the Kyoto agreement within national
boundaries you cannot count against your international obligations
carbon sequestration which you do yourself, which always seems
to me to be bit sort of cockeyed because any increase in carbon
sequestration on a global basis seems to me to be better than
none at all, and whilst I understand the point you make that from
the corporate standpoint this block of forest is sponsored by
X and retaining Y tons of CO2 is a good thing, we are living in
a new world now, Copenhagen et al. Do you think there is
a need for government to re-examine the international accounting
for carbon to allow a more flexible approach which builds on what
you have just enunciated?
Mr Hill-Tout: Absolutely. There
is a dialogue in government at the moment and there is a dialogue
internationally—as we have seen at Copenhagen—of people
really reflecting on the existing accounting arrangements for
carbon: are they helpful, are they supportive? From a domestic
point of view we will no doubt take some time to resolve all of
those matters. What we are focusing on is making sure that as
and when that is resolved we have a credible, respected approach.
That is why the Forestry Commission GB-wide has been developing
a code of practice for forest carbon projects so that any of the
baggage of slightly dodgy, if I may say so, schemes that may have
taken place around the world can be cleared away and that there
is very transparent, very credible, very respected ways of doing
it that is consistent with our regulatory framework and that those
are then ready to roll as and when government is able to be confident
about the wider international agreements because one of the great
things of climate change and forestry is that it is very long
term. We have to make investments in new models that are going
to serve us in the decades and generations to come.
Q152 Mr Drew: I do not know how much
this relates to The National Forest because I did not go last
week, but I have been there in the past and there were things
that worried me about forestry. You will remember in the 1980s
we have various schemes which involved enticing entrepreneurs,
pop stars, footballers and so on to buy up forestry, has that
all worked its way through?
Mr Hill-Tout: Absolutely.
Q153 Mr Drew: So that has all gone,
but we still have these scam operators out there. I have had this
in other respects with pockets of land that have been bought up,
split up, sold off to very gullible people who think they are
going to get development on that land. Is it a worry that there
are people who are not all doing it for altruistic reasons; it
is useful thing to own a bit of forestry.
Mr Hill-Tout: I would be glad
to pick up on both of those and certainly the latter one could
be relevant to The National Forest and the way it develops. First
of all, just to clarify things, there is a kind of formative period
in my career back in the 1980s, all the activities you are referring
to in the 1980s in terms of the tax arrangements, et cetera, they
came to an end in 1988 with the tax changes which took woodlands
out of the tax system, as alluded to earlier on. The big difference
since then is that in addition to our regulatory responsibilities,
we have worked through the full implications of Rio in 1992 and
what sustainable forest management means. We have now a whole
suite of guidelines in the UK Forestry Standard so that can never
happen again. If anybody is not compliant with the UK Forest Standard
they will not get any grants and they will not be allowed to fell
trees. That is the first thing. In terms of your reference to
Woodlands for Sale, I know people have a variety of views around
there. Another way of looking at is that Woodlands for Sale and
the majority of people involved in selling woodlands now are tapping
into a level of interest that people have in woodlands. It is
a lifestyle choice and people are saying, "Well, actually
I would like to own a woodland rather than buying a yacht".
We could look upon this as being a really negative trend and it
can lead to fragmentation. But if we look at it in another way
we have new money and new people coming into woodlands showing
interest and passion for their woodlands, many of them very active.
It is a strong trend in Kent at the moment and it is conceivable
that it could become strong in The National Forest if we look
to the decades ahead. What we would like to do instead is to work
with them to try to get forest plans for the whole forest area
and get the various lots all buying into that big package so things
like deer management, for example, could be done in a coherent
way—it would not be possible with little one acre plots
in amongst the woodlands—and that there is an integrated
forest plan and if you look on their website, for example, you
will see a whole series of references. If anybody wishes to buy
a wood, here are the sources of expertise and advice and they
do actively encourage people to contact the Forestry Commission,
contact the Small Woodlands Owners Association, et cetera, to
learn what they need to know about owning and managing a woodland
responsibly.
Chairman: We are coming towards the end
of our formal questions but I just wanted to put one person in
the room on notice that if they had time we have one further question,
Sophie, to put to you, if you do not mind, at the end, about 10
minutes. We had some response to the public evidence session and
there is an issue which I would like to put to you on the record
if you are able to answer about matters connected with equestrian
activity in the Forest. You may want to reflect on what we have
heard, but I would for the sake of the fact that we have had a
submission on it at least like on the record to put it to you.
So that is a forthcoming attraction which I hope is convenient
to you, Sophie.
Q154 Mr Williams: In promoting the
expansion of wooded areas, how much does the Forestry Commission
do in terms of actually buying land and how much in terms of encouraging
other land owners to plant?
Mr Hill-Tout: Over the last decade
we have acquired some 3,500 hectares of land and created new woodlands.
That is in comparison with an estate of a quarter of a million
hectares in England. That work has been concentrated on brownfield
land and urban community woodlands where we feel the Public Forest
Estate can add real value. In the similar period of time we are
looking at about 10 times that, probably around about 30,000 or
35,000 hectares of woodland in total that have been created over
the last decade. So I suppose the Public Estate has been contributing
about 10% to woodland creation in this country over the last decade,
which is actually about the same amount as The National Forest.
Q155 Mr Williams: The Forestry Commission
have been selling land off as well and there has been criticism
of the Forestry Commission from private forest owners and woodland
owners that it has all got a bit out of hand and now it is all
this biodiversity and access stuff and landscape quality and actually
the hard business of producing timber which is important to this
country has been left behind altogether. How do you answer that?
Mr Hill-Tout: I think one has
to take a long term perspective on this. You could say in terms
of the issues that we were alluding to earlier on in the 1980s
that we had a singular focus on timber production. What we have
been doing is getting a long term sustainable perspective on this
which is ensuring that the creation and management of woodlands
support and enhance other objectives and trying to take landowners
with us on that journey. I am very alive to the kind of comments
you have just been making, but what I would say is that as we
look over the years the grant schemes have been taken up and landowners
are working with us in terms of legal felling. We have been working
through a recent Hampton review of our regulatory arrangements
and there seems to be broad support for the approach we are taking.
As I alluded to earlier on terms of developing new markets, we
give as much attention to the development of new market opportunities—new
income generating opportunities—as we do to ensure responsible,
environmental and social standards. I hope in the next few years,
now that we have got those environmental and social standards
sound, that through things like woodfuel, maybe carbon markets,
et cetera, we can bring forward new sources of income which reassure
landowners who might have felt that we have lost the plot.
Q156 Mr Williams: One of the criticisms
that is made in Wales is that you are trying to move to this continuous
felling thing rather than clear felling, and that you will never
ever produce enough timber by doing this.
Mr Hill-Tout: We are now fully
engaged with devolution arrangements and we have some interesting
developments in England, Scotland and Wales that are different.
I am very conscious that continuous cover movement is very, very
strong in terms of the objectives of the administration in Wales.
That is not so strong in England. It does take place but it does
not have quite the same strategic emphasis and you will not see
it mentioned with quite such prominence in the England Trees,
Woods and Forest strategy.
Q157 Mr Williams: Before the Chairman
rules me completely out of order for going completely away from
what we should be talking about, could I just finish by asking
how are the decisions made between the National Forest Company
and the Forestry Commission about which land acquired by the Company
is going to be transferred to the Forestry Commission and who
then assesses on an on-going basis how its management is meeting
The National Forest objectives?
Mr Hill-Tout: First of all almost
everything starts with National Forest Company here who have tremendous
intelligence in terms of opportunities to acquire land in the
first place. We often have a discussion about whether land should
go into the National Forest Company's holding or go straight through
to us. We have always said that in the context of the wider remit
of the Company if they want to pass landholdings on to us then
we are prepared to take that forward as long as we have the appropriate
resources to do so. I am not aware at the moment of any kind of
pressing issues there, but we are ready and willing, if it is
appropriate, to take on elements of the National Forest Company's
holding and to incorporate them with the Estate that we have built
up. These would however, still be managed in accordance with the
wider strategy in The National Forest which the Company leads.
Chairman: Thank you very much indeed;
I think that has been a very useful juxtaposition in terms of,
if you like, big brother might create the wrong impression but
in terms of forestry you are the big organisation compared with
The National Forest, but I am very grateful to you for putting
an important perspective onto the work they are doing and I think
importantly from our standpoint explaining the relationship that
you have with The National Forest which I think, from what you
are saying, is a very healthy one but which is also forward looking
in terms of the challenges and strategies which will have to be
adopted in the future, particularly in the context of carbon sequestration
to carry on making progress. Thank you very much indeed for giving
evidence.
| 
