Supplementary memorandum submitted bythe National Forest Company (TNF 4A)
EFRA Committee - Follow-up questions
A) What was the level of underspend against the forest creation budget for 2008-09? What was the underspend on the CLS scheme (are the two the same?)?
The original target for
The respective indicative budgets for the CLS and land acquisition were £600 - 800k and £800k - £1m.
Actual expenditure on CLS in 2008/09 was £388,068, an underspend of £212,000 against the lower end of the target and budget range. It delivered a creditable 51ha in its first year of operation.
The additional problem was finding land to acquire at a price which represented responsible use of taxpayers' money. Only 14ha of land for new woodlands were acquired, the lowest annual total since the NFC's first year of operation, 1995/96. The average rate of land acquisitions for the previous 10 years has been 66.5ha. Expenditure on land acquisitions in 2008/09 was £366,842, an underspend of £233,000 on the lower end of the target range.
A range of other activity was
therefore funded including a key acquisition of existing woodland in the Heart
of the
B) What are the comparative figures for the grant provides (by hectare) under CLS and under the Forestry Commission/EWGS grants?
The average cost per hectare of CLS last year was £12,365 per hectare, considerably above the English Woodland Grants Scheme level of £1,800 per hectare at the standard rate for mainly broadleaf planting outside The National Forest plus a further £1000 for access and interpretation. Farm Woodland Payment is also available alongside ewgs on ex agricultural land. Inside The National Forest, community forest areas and some other areas, £3,800 per hectare is now available through additional contributions, although in The National Forest the option of CLS means that a non ewgs route is preferred by landowners. The Natural England HLS rate is £3,150 per hectare for woodland creation outside less favoured areas.
The additional cost reflects the ability of CLS to pay 100% of costs for creation and subsequent management for the whole 10 year period. This not only includes woodland creation but the wider public and environmental benefit of schemes, which include other habitats, (eg new water bodies), public access and a contribution to the major ecosystems and landscape gain of The National Forest. The schemes offer the integration of habitat and conservation measures, sometimes intensively, but unit costs for work are standardised and are the same as those used by FC and NE: FC costs are aligned with NFC through the FC Standard Working Costs Steering Group which includes membership from NFC.
Higher costs under CLS are reflected in the comprehensive coverage of costs over the 10 years, not just the creation costs as in ewgs which tend to focus on initial establishment works. Some of these costs relate to fencing, to protect individual management compartments.
C) Since the project's inception, what proportion of forest creation has been through land acquisition compared to providing grants for landowners to plant trees? What would you consider to be the ideal balance?
In the 14 years 1995 - 2009 5,425ha of new Forest creation have been secured. Of this 3,455 (64%) has been through grants to landowners (Tender Scheme, CLS and small scale schemes), 759ha (14%) has been via land acquisitions and the balance of 1,211ha (22%) via other means e.g. mineral/derelict land restoration.
The ideal balance depends on capacity to maintain quality in land owned by the Company and more effort is now going into this in terms of immediate management and long-term mechanisms. It also depends on the level of disposals of land acquired by the Company: this may reduce if it is preferable in the short to medium term to retain more land for corporate sponsorship.
The balance above is right for now and will be kept under review.
D) How does NFC decide to whom land will be transferred and who then assesses on an ongoing basis how its management is meeting objectives for The National Forest?
Ownership depends on the future management objectives for the site: for example, where these are wildlife related, it would be expected that a Wildlife Trust might take on the site: where a mixture of commercial and amenity, the Forestry Commission.
The NFC's Land Acquisition policy states: "In all cases of disposal, the NFC will ensure that land is only released to appropriate and competent organisations. The new land owner/leaseholder will be subject to conditions aimed at protecting the public interest and to ensure that the long- term objectives of The National Forest are met. These will include the need for the following: - ● A management agreement covering site development, management and long term use in accordance with an agreed plan ● A positive covenant requiring the completion of agreed works within a specified period and the incorporation of requirements set by sponsors and/or external funders ● A restrictive covenant, including appropriate clawback, whereby a proportion of any increase in value following disposal or development is returned to the NFC"
Compliance with such management agreements and covenants is monitored on an ongoing basis by NFC officers.
E) What mechanisms are in place for collaboration with the Forestry Commission on environmental approaches, such as biodiversity improvement and sharing management best practice?
The NFC has 3-year national level concordat with the Forestry Commission, which sets out common goals under 10 themes. This includes the sharing and promotion of best practice in all aspects of site management.
The concordat
forms the strategic foundation for the partnership between the two
organisations, manifesting itself in the close working relationship that exists
at officer level. FC officers sit on many of the NFC's Working Groups, making
significant inputs into how we deliver biodiversity enhancement, community
engagement, public access and tourism development. This leads to a healthy
exchange of new information and for partnership delivery of specific projects
(e.g. the family cycling centre and management of sites in the Heart of the
In addition, the NFC and FC have an annual management agreement at a regional level, setting out agreed partnership working on site development and management, the development of the woodland economy, the control of pests and diseases, the promotion of woodland management and community involvement, environmental education and healthy living programmes, all in the National Forest.
This is in addition to collaborative research eg on climate change adaptation and species choice which contributes to best practice in the long term.
G) Given that 10 million people live within an hour and a half of the Forest, are there any risks of specific sites being overwhelmed by visitors to the detriment of the habitats?
The Forest's
creation is helping to 'spread the load' of visitor pressure at existing,
well-established recreation attractions such as
This sensitivity
is also reflected in the Changing Landscape Scheme, the scoring criteria (published
on the NFC website) stating: "There is an expectation that access is provided with every scheme but there are instances when access does not have to be provided to parts or all of a site e.g. important conservation & habitat feature(s), reasonable privacy or security considerations, isolation and/or impracticability in terms of public access/connection to existing routes, or public safety next to roads, railways, waterways, hazardous industrial operations."
However, given
that not all sites within the
Outside individual
sites/woodlands, it is however imperative to continue to promote the
recreational value of the wider countryside. The National Forest covers 200
square miles, within which are large areas of land accessible via footpaths,
bridleways and other public rights of way. By promoting and enhancing this
network, visitors and residents will be able to enjoy hundreds of miles of
varied countryside beyond the promoted 'sites'. This is a vital part of the
green infrastructure of the
It is important to
note that no-one would have been visiting the
H) How much will it cost to develop the long-distance trail? What additional benefits will this bring in terms of extending access beyond those groups who are traditionally forest users?
The cost of developing the trail will be determined in autumn 2010 when the initial design and infrastructure needs have been determined.
The trail is certainly
intended to bring to the Forest a large number of people who would not
otherwise consider it for weekend walking and it will have spurs to enable the
urban populations to get into the
However it is also the case that the trail will naturally attract those already with an interest in reasonably sustained physical activity; intensive work will continue to be undertaken elsewhere by the NFC and partners to continue to promote widening use, including in the Heart of the Forest Park, eg via community based projects, the cycling centre and training and social enterprises for land management.
I) As habitats become established are there programmes for reintroducing specific species to habitats - could you give examples if so please. The reintroduction of species is a complex (and often controversial) topic. Within the Changing Landscape Scheme, there is the option for planting of Biodiversity Action Plan species such as black poplar and bluebell. However, it is tenuous to describe this as a reintroduction as the site involved may never have previously supported either species. In addition, it raises questions of where the reintroduced plants have been sourced from as well as whether the site has suitable conditions (e.g. soil types, aspect and water levels) to support them. More broadly,
people tend to think of reintroductions in terms of larger animal species, with
examples being the much-publicised reintroduction of beavers to The NFC is not averse
to the concept of reintroductions, but would need to consider many factors
before proceeding with such a project. Firstly, it is vital that the correct
habitats and/or conditions are available to allow the reintroduced species to
flourish. In 2009, the NFC was contacted by an organisation to see if there
were any suitable sites within the In short, while there are no such projects currently underway, the NFC is open to the concept of reintroducing species to The National Forest as long as they are the right species, in the right place for the right reasons. Meanwhile ecological site surveys also confirm that new woodland sites of 10 - 15 years are now supporting a range of common and some rare species which were not present in these locations previously. This shows that if habitat creation is right then species will return of their own accord, even if over a long period of time. This is another example of The National Forest being a long-term project.
J. Please give a further note on the discontinuation of the Tender Scheme.
The Tender Scheme
ran for 12 annual rounds to 2007 and was the pre-eminent means of
However by the mid
2000s, forestry and in particular co-financing of forestry by the EU had come
to the fore, partly through its inclusion in the Rural Development Programme
for
The view of the EU
was that a successor scheme was necessary which was based on standard costs and
allowed no premium for overall value to the
January 2010 |