Yesterday Plantlife published a report on the future of British woodland. Rather than focus primarily on who owns ‘our’ woods Plantlife put a spotlight on woodland management.
‘More trees do not equal more wildlife‘ says Andy Byfield, Plantlife’s Landscape Conservation Manager. ‘From the point of view of our woodland wildlife, it is what we do with our woods that counts.‘
‘We need to put less emphasis on the quantity of woodland and focus instead on the quality of its management, so we can rescue our woodlands from a dark and dull future. Both public and private woodland owners need to take a more informed and active approach.‘
Plantlife’s message is that it is quality not quantity that matters – how would more grotty woods help our wildlife? Better managed woodlands would help to reverse the losses of woodland plants, insects and birds. More of the same would not help.
This seems to me to be a correct analysis, and one that needs to be taken on board more widely. Never mind the area covered, focus on the biodiversity!
‘Too many of our woods are neglected, mismanaged or under-managed‘ says the report.
Let us hope that Defra takes on board these messages.
[registration_form]
Broadly I agree Mark, but don’t forget Ancient Woodlands which, unless they have, for example, invasive species present should, I would have thought, be left essentially unmanaged and “left to do their own thing”, since that is what they have been doing for hundreds of years. So yes, manage those recent and commercial woodlands for much better biodiversity but be discerning, it should be “horses for courses” as far as woodland management is concerned and with ancient woodland no “horses” at all. I have seen reasonable qualtiy woodland more or less ruined by so called “better or more management”. Managing woodland for wildlife is a subject that requires good sound ecological skills and detailed knowledge of what is already present. Something most foresters sadly lack.
Alan – actually I think you aren’t quite right there. We need to protect ancient woodlands for sure, but that doesn’t mean leaving them all alone. They have a history of being managed and the right sort of management will maintain and enhance their biodiversity interest. The right sort of management – where it really is horses for courses – is important. That might be grazing by cattle, some thinning out and, yes, removal of invasives too. And I’m sure that some foresters will come back and take you up on your last point!
Ref to Alan Parfitt’s final sentence in his comment illustrates perfectly the chasm between NGOs and the industry, one which needs to be bridged to progress sustainable forest management in the UK. Go to any one of the Colleges or Universities in the UK teaching forestry at any point in time in this century and the latter half of the last century and you will discover ecology is one of the most important elements on the syllabus. Academic papers investigating the UK forestry industry nearly always point to the pushing and pulling at the edges of the forest industry by way of policy from central government and increasingly and scarily by NGOs now, which without the integrity and passion held by foresters in continuing to rpotect the forest and all of its inhabitants, would have led to a much worse scenario than we currently have in the UK.
The continued assualt by NGO embedded ecologists towards the practitioner is appalling and is surely why the government, (who are subject to the lobbying from the two extreme sides of any debate – not from the middle who have been silenced anyway) have decided that land industries can be largely ignored, fateful and costly ultimately at a time when pests and diseases romp through our trees.
Ecologists have to understand that forestry needs to be multifunctional and can not always take the lead of the ecologist (whose over dominance in land industry has as yet to be proved to be worthy of the huge funding it receives). The pressure since WGS mark III came in to provide for public access as meant that work in restoring PAWS sites and tackling non native invasive species have had to be put on the back burner unless you were lucky enough to win WIG competition funding. Part of the thinking behind this was due to large and increasing areas of woodland and forestry being owned by NGOs and thus regarded as safe, easily done with the finances paid into their PR departments.
As some of us desperately try to bridge chasms and seek an integrated approach for land management, those left whinging with a pre 1967 mind may end up being responsible for delaying a process which could have accelerated sustainable land management all round.
Pip – thank you. Very interesting. I’m not sure which NGOs you mean – they aren’t alll the same species so maybe it would be helpful if you are a bit more specific. Thank you for your feisty comment.
Why am I the only one shouting for mass planting? 1 million unemployed under 25s need to work now not later. No money should leave our shores in ‘carbon payments’. I see double dutch in ‘less emphasis on the quantity of woodland and focus instead on the quality of its management’. Quality of trees can produce far more food for birds and you need management to create that quality. I would like to see a bit more from our FC [not the football club!] Any one been up the M74 lately and seen the clear felling of conifer to be replaced by wind farms!! The government has offered money to replace these trees but I do not hear that FC has even bothered to buy more land with the money. May be the ‘Border Forest Trust’ [ http://www.bordersforesttrust.org/%5D should be allowed to take this money and carry on their good work bringing back life to these hills like at the Carrifran Wild Wood and the ‘Devil’s Beef Tub’. May be Plant Life should stick to small plants and let things with bark like trees be cared by those that know.
John – think that’s a bit harsh on Plantlife but it makes interesting reading, so thank you. Given that Plantlife is right to say that many woodland plants are declining in numbers, and we know that many woodland birds are too, and so are many woodland insects, it makes sense that doing something different in the places where forests remain but the wildlife has been lost probably makes sense (and the report has some cases studies to show that). Too many deer, too little cattle grazing, more timber harvesting to take value from woods and let light back – these are all things that will restore missing wildlife to our existing woodlands – or do you disagree? But I agree with you that there is a place for planting more trees too (looks to me as though the report ois on English woods by the way).
A lack of active management is a significant problem in many ancient woodlands. This can include failure to manage deer browsing, resulting in poor regeneration and abandonment of traditional management practices such as coppicing – amongst other problems.
The decline of coppicing is a big concern for woodland invertebrates including rare butterflies such as the Heath Fritillary. The economics of traditional coppicing mean that it is really only practiced as a conservation management technique nowadays but of course this is costly and Wildlife Trust’s and other bodies can only afford to do so much.
Jonathan – thank you, I thought so. Much of that management used to be for fuel and timber. Perhaps in future it could be for biomass for greener energy. It seems like a win-win-win possibility if management of woodlands resulted in jobs and income, more wildlife and reduced carbon emissions. How good would that be? Is it feasible?
There must be opportunities for this, Mark. Lots of local authorities are looking at installing biomass boilers in schools, elderly peoples homes and so on. These are often fed with chipped wood from a variety of sources including joinery wastes, arboricultural wastes and so on. The success of these projects depends on a secure wood supply and so if the managers of suitable local woodlands can link up with the teams running them it could help secure a wildlife friendly management scheme for the wood and help provide fuel security for the boiler. Its not going to be the whole answer by any means but could be a salvation for some individual woods.
Jonathan – yes, that’s how it feels to me too. Good to get your views.
Hello,
Just wanted to share a link to the Forestry Commissions ‘Woodfuel Strategy’, launched earlier this year, that the FC created as part of the governments Renewable Heat Incentive (RHI):
http://www.forestry.gov.uk/website/forestry.nsf/byunique/infd-7wmh6q
This article by Countryside Online is quite good and highlights the economics and job creation details:
http://www.countrysideonline.co.uk/Features/News/Plan-to-stoke-up-woodfuel-sector/
I can’t find it now but Pam Warhurst was saying at the launch of the strategy that she wants to bring small woodlands together to make it more cost effective to sell their wood for fuel. She was also saying that this could be what will bring neglected coppice back into cycle.
Hen
SaveOurWoods.co.uk
Hwn – thanks v much. Finished reading the excellent Birds and Forestry by M Avery and R Leslie yet?
Hen
From the above links it seems that the forestry industries ideas of under managed woodland is that they are not being fully exploited for timber extraction for woodfuels. The problem is that management means different things to different people. What is required is a “perfect” piece of model woodland that encompasses everybodies management requirements which can then be used as a template for the production of management plans. Foresters will want to maximise economic returns and conservationists will want to maximise biodiversity of wildlife.
What I am also concerned with is that hybrid willows are being widely planted for biofuels. I live near several of these plantations and they are virtually devoid of wildlife. What needs to happen is that these hybrids should be bred for both rapidity of growth and also for their ability to support wildlife.
Mark,
I haven’t finished the frankly, remarkable, Birds and Forestry by M Avery and R Leslie yet.. Very good so far though 🙂
David,
I didn’t pick up that there was a single focus on the maximisation of financial return from woodlands in the Woodfuel Strategy, (well, of course there was emphasis of the economic, but that’s the carrot some people need isn’t it?). More that we need fuel, we have neglected/poorly managed woodlands and coppice so lets create management plans and networks that solve those problems.
Suppose my perception of it may be because I’ve been reading the biodiversity stuff from the FC recently though. I would also LOVE to see that perfect woodland management plan, the one that pleases both woodland owners and conservationists (not sure I would say that foresters only want to maximise economic return!).
With the economic crisis as it is, I’m concerned about the heavy reliance of conservation (in general) on donations and grants. It’s not sustainable/doesn’t offer long term security of care for the habitats we want to conserve. It’s also not necessary with woodlands and coppices when they can, at the very least, pay for themselves! Why shouldn’t they?
I have the same worries as you with biofuels. Not just for the environmental impacts but also I worry about food security, with the loss of land to biofuels instead of growing food. I’ve looked into planting willow as a biofuel myself and dismissed it as yet another monoculture and inappropriate for the landscape here. Love your idea of breeding a willow hybrid that marries both wildlife and fast growth! Could the problem be fixed by using wider stool spacing of the current hybrid? Lose economically but gain biodiversit-ally (!? oh, you know what I mean!) Unfortunately I’m no expert when it comes to these things. I look to folks like Mark (and possibly you?) to help me unravel it!
Hen
saveourwoods.co.uk
Mark – I have just given the report a quick scan and I have a couple of concerns which may need addressing by those that set rules/guidelines etc. Whilst sympathetic management of most woodlands is a desirable necessity to support a varied flora and fauna and a fully functioning sustainable ecosystem I didn’t notice any reference to dead wood either standing or fallen – maybe I scanned to fast and missed it – although there was reference to lichens mosses fungi etc. My point is that ‘management’ in many non-ecologists (ie most of the woodland owners) consists of tidying up and the first trees to be tidied would be the dead, dying or damaged.
Secondly the race to RHI could have a negative effect as short term profit could result in clear felling followed by inappropriate replanting of fasts growing non-natives. This would probably be a lot cheaper than a proper rotational sustainable management scheme.
Whilst on the subject of biomass – and it has the potential to become a very important source of renewable fuel – there would need to be further decentralisation of the electricity supply requiring the building of new small biomass power stations, then the nimbys come into play as seen in Manchester recently, not to mention the pylon debacle.
Then there is the deer problem – who is going to manage the deer management as it has to be done in concerted efforts over large areas rather than the somewhat piecemeal way it is currently done in many areas. Judging by the comments on the BBC Autumnwatch message board after last night’s show featuring a deer cull its likely that there would be opposition to this due to deer being to cuddly and ‘doe’ eyed to be a conservation problem…and who is going to eat all that venison…the majority of the British public would never eat ‘Bambi’ – can hardly get them to eat sustainable fish rather than cod haddock and salmon at the moment.
All in all the report tells us things those in the know have known for 20 – 30 years but it has to be upto DEFRA to push the right buttons to kick start the process. Maybe the NFU could lend a hand too as most(?) privately owned woodlands are on farmland.
We need a lot of well trained ecologically aware woodland managers quickly – from where?
David – thank you for some good points. I’m sure Plantlife would want some dead wood in forests – their remit includes fungi too! I’ll eat Bambi if it hasn’t been shot with lead ammunition. I think you are basically agreeing with the report and saying it’ll be difficult to do the necessary things. If so – you are right.
Although the importance of management has been appreciated by those in the know for a long time i would say that it has been underplayed by many. For example, the Woodland Trust has underplayed woodland management, in my opinion, for far too long. Plantlife is doing woodland wildlife a favour by redressing the balance. Would you agree? Any more foresters out there?
Forgot to mention that the FC could have a major role to play in this converting some of their ‘traditional’ conifer timber plantations to biomass hard woods as each tranche comes up for felling.
We need more native woodlands and this would seem to be an opportunity to increase the area under mixed deciduous. And we still need more new areas of woodland planting joining up existing woods in the landscape, once planted these need to be managed in a sympathetic but productive way if we are to get the best value from them, both aesthetically and financially.
David – thank you again.
I am sorry not be as specific as I would like to be and name individual NGOs, (my comment was written in haste after spilling my cup of coffee reading Alan Parfitt’s comment). But the comment itself illustrated a mindset that can be found in almost all NGOs, media and consequently government also. This continued belief that the FC and the private forest sector are a malfeasance in ecological terms dates back to the times before Rio 92 and further and ignores the fact that the industry has been able to turn itself around and introduce SFM with ease, the foresters being able to work as they wanted to and are trained to do for the first time in conjunction with popular and governmental thinking.
The independent forest panel members is a clear indication of this blinkered thinking and power held by the NGOs and a subsequent lack of trust for the industry itself with an over dominant NGO presence on the panel – Yes they should be on it, but there is overly heavy weight on the shoulders of those representing the industry on the panel. It is the omission of many from the panel which is a concern and generates a real fear that ecologists leading armies of volunteers will be charged with furthering good tree and forest management in the UK. We know and increasingly the public do also that we have to tackle and introduce management to guard against forest pests and diseases and help secure our woodlands against the threats poised by climate change before we can have any hope of looking into mitigation and planting for ecological and amenity purpose, let alone as a future sustainable energy resource. I realise that this is difficult for the NGOs and their constrained remits, but this is further proof of an absolute need to be talking across the spectrum of land management issues.
As illustrated by your rightful questioning of Peter Kendall’s bizarre spiel, being able to identify those that are talking nonsense, tell them why and move on is a great thing and is something the internet enables with ease.
With regards the Plantlife publication, which is much better than most particularly in its recognition of the diversity of woodlands in the UK, but from my own personal experience having visited an awful lot of ASNW, a generalised opinion that no management is good is nonsense and dangerous and this is what many, (including policy makers) will be taking away from this report, although I fully appreciate that that is not the intention of Plantlife. We have a responsibility to look at each woodland in turn, the knowledge of the ecologist being as important as that of a woodland historian, the forester or woodlander and the forest user equally. An absolutely site specific management plan is essential, and no amount of glossy pdf’s, conference blether etc., can replace this but it is something the internet can help achieve by using the huge range of impressive tools now available on it and not least the chance to communicate beyond the boundaries of our own self interests.
I’m with Pip Howard on this, some of the comments above are truly dreadful and lack the insight that the authors should have in before commenting at all. If the FC were allowed to speak I am sure they could quickly correct this daft assumption that foresters are lacking ecological knowledge. Most, if not all modern forestry has to take ecology as a major consideration, in the private sector as much as the public. It is a little bit sickening that the NGOs have chosen to ‘tackle’ or more appropriately ‘interfere’ in forestry when we foresters, including myself as a contractor are warned off from participating in online debate or even talking down the pub.
The Woodland Trust have been caught manipulating the PFE disposal and subsequent debate whilst as Mark says underplaying management with this dangerous believe that volunteers can do the work and if it all becomes too much they can just sell the woods and move on to the next campaign. I am personally exceedingly grateful that some campaigners have decided to really tackle forestry and translate the good as well as the bad for the public, it is very interesting that these people are not NGO related but grass roots as the Save Our Woods website illustrates. The NGOs were maybe quite right in staying silent when the consultation with PFE estate started they should have remained silent until the conclusion rather than trying mop up what they can to feather their nests. To me they now all seem like a gang of Hyenas gathered round a sleeping wilderbeest. The wilderbeest will hopefully be allowed to wake up soon and take charge once more of what it knows better than anyone else how to manage.
Gareth – welcome to this blog and thank you for your comment. You too are tending to lump all NGOs together – not quite right in my view. But thank you for your comment.
Its easier to lump the NGOs together as an industry in itself, perhaps wrongly, as your commentators wrongly lump foresters all together. Forestry has a huge range of remits and one thing that panics me is the dishing of the FC as a whole which undermines the vital and important work that overrides all other issues relevant to the management or lack of to trees and the biodiversity they support by the Forest Research department
Gareth – yes I can see that. I do wonder whether you think that all NGOs behaved the same over forestry at the beginning of the year or whether you know that they didn’t. Plantlife the same as the Woodland Trust? RSPB the same as Wildlife Trusts? National Trust the same as Friends of the Earth?
I cannot comment with regards the whole fleet of NGOs I was only really watching those that at the time had a stake directly in forestry affairs. Of which the RFS, ICF and others were reporting and commenting correctly. The Woodland Trust changed their stand to match public mood and to chase the pennies and in doing so lost much of their already flagging reputation. I read one comment somewhere that – if they were not in collusion with Defra then there was ambulance chasing going on- and this to me sums up what many of my colleagues and others felt. The public forest disposal plans was for many of us the first time when the political situation could not be followed through traditional routes and that this was our introduction into the NGO scene and the behaviour of the Woodland Trust left an unsavoury taste that leaves many of us looking at NGOs in general with suspicion. This is compounded when criticism as above states we are not ecologically aware, which is not true. I want to say also just how difficult it is for any of us to speak, we risk losing contracts and the uncertainty of knowing just how much power the Woodland Trust will end up with means we cannot really open up, which means that the Woodland Trust perhaps feel that what they have done has been fine? a problem for them in the future when the forestry panel finally release their decisions and everyone starts talking again. As you have given me a platform to talk on I would also say that the longer the panel take is bad news and we need to see some progression soon. The fact that the FC and FR continue without much comment, no strikes or bad mouthing, concentrating on the phytophora outbreaks and protecting our trees despite having the most demoralising of attacks on them not least from our PM himself is a credit to them. I also want to add that the idea of simply removing monoculture spruce to make way for hardwood biomass plantation as suggested above is not a great idea. Biomass is something that is being laid out too quickly and without regard for multifunctional forestry. If we cannot as Pip Howard suggests look at each woodland and proposed new planting site for its individual merits and possibilities then we will lose the lot.
Gareth – very interesting and valuable comment. Thank you very much. I’d like to hear from others in forestry and outside it on this subject.
I apologise if I have offended any foresters, that was not my intention. I am sure there are very many foresters who are first class woodland ecologists, in fact I know some. It is good to hear that woodland ecology is being taught as a key subject at forestry colleges and I fullty agree good communications are vital between the NGOs and those managing woodlands. Here is to improved understandings betwen all.
Alan – thanks very much but I think some of the reaction was a bit harsh. I think you touched a raw nerve which allowed people to spill out some very interesting comments but you hadn’t made the nerve raw in the first place.