Written evidence submitted by the Institute of Chartered Foresters (Forest 04)
(a) The Effect of the Spending Review on Forest Research
1. While the Institute is not privy to the details of impacts on staff and resources from the Spending Review, there are several points we wish to draw to the Select Committee’s attention by way of scene-setting. Necessarily this submission is largely qualitative.
2. The Forestry Commission’s Forest Research agency carries out research for the whole forest sector in Great Britain not just for the Commission’s own woodlands ie for the whole forest estate of 2.8 M ha which occupies 12% of the land surface.
3. Trees and forests by their size and their long life frequently require both ecosystem level and long-term low intensity research investigation. These features—long and thin—make them less amenable to fixed term project-led research typical of the university model. Similarly customer:contractor research commissioning can tend to short-termism. There are many examples where earlier research that petered out or trials that got forgotten come back into their own with the potential to answer new questions eg impacts of climate change, ecological processes, annual forest and tree health surveys etc. Trees and forests out-last fashions in research and it is too easy to cut unfashionable low level monitoring only to find years later that the neglected or uncollected data are precisely what are now wanted to establish trends. But who can fund such critical work apart from the state with its capacity to take the longer view?
4. A common feature of productive research communities is critical mass. Scientists spark one another within and across disciplines. For example, there have been lamentable declines in trained forest soil scientists, pathologists and entomologists and similar forest related expertise. Numbers are often in single figures which falls below critical mass, with individuals working in isolation, and consequent loss of reputation nationally and internationally.
5. The encouraging diversifying of roles expected of trees and forests—timber production, wildlife and biodiversity, environmental, social and amenity imperatives—risk spreading ever more thinly the already limited research spend. Multiple objectives for our forests and woodlands are laudable, and they can deliver and be a win:win, but research cannot address every priority. Further dilution exacerbates critical mass (4. above) and impact the ability to address the priorities highlighted in c) below.
(b) Priority Setting in Forest Research and Allocation of Resources
6. Priorities are inevitably set by the nature of UK’s forest resources which are predominantly planted and consist, very roughly, of one-third native and two-thirds introduced tree species. Within this simplified analysis is the fact that few woods are ancient and semi-natural and therefore of the kind likely to deliver highest biodiversity and, of these, many are neglected and unmanaged, features which mostly harm not help biodiversity. The recent upturn in demand for biomass will give opportunities to thin, regenerate and/or coppice such woods. The planted forest estate is mostly productive (see para.13) and needs to be to support recent investment in industrial processing capacity.
7. Within the broad context of 6. threats to forests and woodland must be addressed both as a potential loss of timber production eg Phytophthora diseases ravaging larch and other species and red-band needle blight severely limiting Corsican pine, and also harm to quality and well-being of native species such as the worrying ascendancy of acute oak decline and the continuing depredations to oak and beech by grey squirrels. In addition, Dutch elm disease demonstrates that a whole cohort of trees, once so much a part of our traditional countryside, can be eliminated. Alders and horse chestnut trees are also suffering diseases not hitherto present in UK. Many threats remain: there are several pests and diseases in Europe and beyond which will be devastating should they gain a foothold.
8. Trees and forests are seen as both one of the solutions to and at risk from climate change. This generates its own high priority to enhance the one and diminish the other. Because of the long time span trees and forests occupy a site, they are incapable of rapid response to change. Research strategies emphasise adaptability and plasticity. A farmer can change his crop each year, a forester perhaps once in a lifetime.
9. Plainly taxpayers’ expectations loom large in the issue of priorities. Quite rightly they place emphasis on access and enjoyment, experiencing wildlife and beauty, and on an indefinable well-being of the countryside. Trees, woodlands and forests are able to deliver these alongside timber production, but this recalls the point made (5) about research resources spread thinly.
10. Industry expectations are different. The forest industry is relatively fragmented, small, and tree-growing is at best barely profitable. There are no large private, commercial concerns able to fund significant research. This, combined with the long-term nature of forestry, behoves the state to support industry through research as an adjunct to direct grant-aid for planting and grant-targeted support (and as is also acknowledged by the taxation treatment of forestry) as one means of delivering government policy.
11. One of the great strengths of UK forestry is the interface and liaison between researchers, owners, managers, wood users and other stakeholders. Regular “field” meetings arranged by bodies like this Institute and the Royal Forestry Societies take place throughout the country providing information exchange and, importantly for priorities, early warning of issues and problems. These are in addition to the more structured forums of conferences or the “agricultural show” setting. Such liaison is a two-way process: dissemination by the researcher and feedback from the user, as well as informal surveillance and early warning of tree health and related issues.
(c) UK’s Capability in Forest Research Compared with other Countries
12. UK’s forest research compares well with other countries in terms of quality and achievements. However, its size is small reflecting the relatively small proportion of land under forest and the industry it serves. But, as stressed the UK’s forests are called upon to deliver far more than timber.
13. On aspect of UK’s forest research achievements bear reciting:
in the past a world leader in plantation development owing to research underpinning the remit of more than doubling our forest estate in the 20th century achieved through site preparation and suitable tree species, such as the very successful western North American species, Sitka spruce;
as a result the UK has one of the most productive forest estates for its size in the whole of Europe achieving an average Yield Class of 13, well above those of Scandinavia, France or Germany for example. This flows from creating and managing a planted forest resource;
our production forecast method known as the Yield Class system was a world first and still offers the finest way of managing production sustainably;
the importance of this stress on “unfashionable” planted forests is that the UN’s Food and Agriculture Organisation’s (FAO) 2005 world forest resources data show that, worldwide, an astonishing 70% of industrial wood production will soon come from planted forests. This “domesticating” of wood production—70% of world industrial wood production coming from only 7% of the world’s forests ie the planted forest component—means that pressures to exploit natural forest for timber is diminished with all the benefits that implies. As mentioned, the UK has been at the forefront of developing the planted forest model for efficient timber production; and
in the last 30 years research and trials of short-rotation biomass plantations of poplars and willows have demonstrated sustainable yields at worthwhile levels of production.
14. The above (13) production focus relates past, bankable achievements, but today UK forest research is now world leading in helping these very plantations, efficient as they are, also deliver biodiversity, environmental, and social benefits. Many existing plantations in UK are now being restructured for continuous cover, wetlands and heathlands are being restored, upland mires re-instated and plantations on ancient woodland sites (PAWS) returned to more native species all of which secure a better balance between production and other benefits. Most planted forests readily deliver both.
15. The UK has a long and enviable track record in publishing and engaging with stakeholders. A recent outstanding example by Forest Research is, “Managing Native Broadleaved Woodland” Forestry Commission 2010 (copy provided). It is one of a range of publications and supports to the forest sector as a whole. Publishing and communicating research findings has long been a priority—dissemination is as important as research paper ranking.
16. UK forest pathologists and entomologists have led the way internationally with initiatives in biological control of diseases (Heterobasidion) and damaging insect pests (Hylobius and Dendroctinus), and forest soil scientists on restoration to tree cover of industrial waste and brownfield sites.
17. Tree shelters—the plastic tubes that enclose and protect individual trees—were invented by Forest Research and are now used in many countries and also for many purpose outside the forest sector. It seems so simple now, but this one development has allowed small groups of native broadleaves to be established in corners of fields, in narrow strips, or as in-fill in ways which were once ruled out as prohibitively expensive. Nothing has done more to encourage the increased planting of broadleaves.
(d) Threats to Forest Research in the UK
17. Clearly cuts in expenditure undermine the picture painted of a small forest research community underpinning both industry and taxpayer expectations on the nation’s trees and forests.
18. Research most at risk is long-term monitoring and related experimental work requiring low-level but sustained inputs.
19. Greatest single threat is ravages of pests and diseases both already present and new arrivals. The UK’s island status is a blessing in that many pests in Europe are not present here. They can easily become established if it were not for port inspections of imported wood and plant material looking for infections, decay and insect damage. This is not full-proof and pre-entry study of life-cycles and rapid response to reports of new insects and diseases is a crucial research role to devise responses, and manage problems to maintain forest and tree health.
20. Threats also increase through climate change adding additional stresses rendering trees and forests themselves more at risk. Stressed trees suffer more pest and disease damage.
21. Substantial reduction to the small investment in publicly funded research will, quite simply, risk undermining the future well-being of much of UK’s trees and forests and all that they offer.
Reference Cited as Example (and enclosed)
Harmer, R, Kerr, G, and Thompson, R (2010). Managing Native Broadleaved Woodland. The Stationery Office, Edinburgh. 509 pp. Forestry Commission.
7 June 2011