Written evidence submitted by the Woodland
Trust
1. The Woodland Trust is the UK's leading
woodland conservation charity. We have three aims: to enable
the creation of more native woods and places rich in trees; to
protect native woods, trees and their wildlife for the future;
and to inspire everyone to enjoy and value woods and trees. We
own over 1,000 sites, 20,000 ha, of which 20% is farmed. We have
300,000 members and supporters.
SUMMARY
2. The Woodland Trust welcomes the opportunity
to submit written evidence to this inquiry.
3. The CAP remains the largest factor in
agricultural land-use in the UK and therefore a key issue for
woodland conservation. Increased tree cover is recognised as a
means of mitigating climate change as well as having a number
of benefits for agriculture and agricultural adaptation to future
climate changes in addition to delivering a wide range of benefits
to society1,2.
4. Current delivery mechanisms for the CAP
work against the aim to increase tree cover: the eligible land
requirements under the Single Payment Scheme, the lower rates
of payment for those involved in agriculture as opposed to forestry
and the cultural separation that has occurred over the many years
of the CAP.
5. We wish to see a fundamental reform to
the role and place of trees within the agricultural landscape.
6. We welcome the potential flexibility
of Option 2 within the CAP reform proposals and the increased
use of more locally determined schemes.
7. Without more information on the size
and distribution of the budget it is difficult to predict how
these reforms will affect the UK landscape.
REFORM PROPOSALS
8. Aims for the reforms are given as viable
food production, sustainable management of natural resources and
climate change and balanced territorial development. Our concerns
remain with the balance between the first two aims and thus the
balance and details of the two separate pillars of the CAP.
9. We would wish to see a more integrated
land-use policy that views forests and trees as an integral part
of all landscapes and thus an integral part of policy and strategy
decision-making.
BACKGROUND
10. The UK is atypical in respect of forest cover
when compared with other Member States, having a limited and fragmented
resource with just 11.7% woodland cover compared to an average
of 37% for the EU.
11. Council regulation 1698/2005 clearly states:
"Forestry is an integral part of rural development and support
for sustainable land use should encompass the sustainable management
of forests and their multifunctional role." And yet the majority
of rural development funding is still used on agricultural lands;
continuing and exacerbating the artificial separation of land-uses,
and denying the potential benefit to the environment of a more
integrated land use policy.
12. Climate resilience models have suggested
planting rates of 20,000 ha a year or more may be necessary3,
however planting rates in the UK have fallen by more than half
in the last six years from 11,900 ha pa to 5,000 ha in 2010 and
are now lower than at any time since the mid-1970s. To reach the
desired targets for woodland creation will require a fundamental
shift in outlook about the role and place of forestry and other
wooded land within the landscape.
13. The UK and other poorly-wooded countries
are less well placed to take advantage of the many benefits that
woodland creation offers in terms of mitigation and adaptation
and will need considerable support in order to achieve a wooded
landscape that is climate resilient.
OPTIONS FOR
REFORM
14. The reform proposals are presented in strategic
terms rather than providing information for detailed analysis,
which is a concern when the Commission have already identified
that they will produce legislative proposals by June 2011.
PILLAR 1 DIRECT
PAYMENTS
15. Grazed woodland with fewer than 50 trees
per hectare within a Rural Development Plan scheme is classed
as agricultural land and therefore must meet the requirements
of cross-compliance and yet does not automatically receive money
under the Single Payment Scheme.
16. Even when grazed woodland does receive payment,
any in-field trees must be individually measured and the area
occupied by them removed from the claim4. This is counter-productive
to some of the agri-environment schemes offered and to good husbandry
practice for livestock and crops, where the addition of trees
can increase survival rates of young stock and increase available
days for spraying amongst other benefits1,2.
17. We would like to see any land with fewer
than 50 trees per hectare included within the Single Payment Scheme
and full payment paid without the requirement to exclude the area
occupied by trees.
18. This would simplify the scheme and remove
some of the barriers to tree planting on agricultural land
GREENING PILLAR
1
19. We welcome the option of an additional aid
for greening public goods. Simple measures which could also be
transferred to this section include the requirement to transfer
at least 50% of all non-roadside hedges to a cutting regime of
no more than once every two years, or the use of 2m buffer zones
around all existing semi-natural habitats.
20. Without further specific details it is difficult
to judge whether the balance on productivity versus sustainability
has been met.
PILLAR 2
21. Pillar 2 remains the junior partner within
CAP with less than 10% of the total budget, but aims to deliver
many of the key EU aims including biodiversity, climate change
mitigation and innovation. Explicit reference to EU-agreed Nagoya
biodiversity targets would more clearly indicate commitment to
environmental enhancement.
22. The reform options for rural development
suggest adjustment to better align with EU priorities, with climate
change as one of the key targets. It is difficult to see how the
UK can deliver on this aim without delivering more trees. Furthermore,
without fundamental reform of Pillar 1 payments, above, there
will be limited opportunities to tackle our climate change obligations.
Options for more locally-led rural development schemes,
in the style of Leader, could offer the UK a valuable opportunity
to address the different conditions within each country, eg England's
south-west uplands versus northern uplands.
December 2010
REFERENCES
1Sudmeyer, R, Hall, D and Jones, H, The
effect of tree windbreaks on grain yield in the medium and low
rainfall areas in Western Australia, Department of Agriculture
and Food, Western Australia, downloaded at: http://www.agric.wa.gov.au/PC_91078.html?s=1001.
2Bird, P R (1988)
Financial gains of trees on farms through shelter, the
international forestry conference for the Australian Bicentenary
1988. Proceedings of papers contributed Volume II of V. Albury-Wodonga
25 April-1 May 1988.
3Read, D J, Freer-Smith,
P H, Morison, J I L, Hanley, N, West, C C and Snowdon, P (eds)
(2009) Combating climate change—a role for UK Forests. An
assessment of the potential of the UK's trees and woodlands to
mitigate and adapt to climate change. The Stationery Office, Edinburgh.
4Rural Payments Agency
(2010) Single Payments Scheme Handbook for England 2010
http://www.rpa.gov.uk/rpa/index.nsf/0/d363bddf0e993cba802576e300436523/$FILE/ATTUW7IN/SPS%20Handbook%202010%20V2.0%20WEB%20Mar.pdf.
| 
