You must remember all that fuss about forests? We all fought to keep our forests didn’t we?
Here is an update from FC England on the implementation plan. It’s not a document to quicken the pulse.
When you eventually get to the bits about wildlife then Commitment 22 has an unhealthy obsession with pesky deer and squirrels – was this written by the Secretary of State himself? Oh, and woodland birds are in trouble.
The policies on Open Habitats and Ancient Woodland are worth committing to memory.
I was interested to see that there is a new strategy for delivering the existing policy on open habitats. Some of us have been holding our breath for about 20 years on this subject and it isn’t quite time to exhale yet. Looks promising to me but I’d welcome others’ views on whether this is good enough or not (if implemented with enthusiasm).
One year on – how does it feel to you?
[registration_form]
The situation over forest policy is boggling my mind – if you want to know more see the editorial in Forestry Journal for February, but, to summarise:
Hidden at para 36 of the document, as if they didn’t want anyone to find it, are 10 principles for the national forests. Not quite what was expected as we’d been led to expect draft legislation, but actually rather good – if they did it, the proposals would get widespread support – they are pretty much back with what the panel recommended , having been round the houses of a Defra appointed, all powerful Board (bad) and an overwhelming focus on making money (badder).
It seems, and this is where open habitats come in, there are also discussions around a hard contract between Government & Forest Enterprise to deliver public benefits for which its impossible to generate covering income – and open habitats is a prime example. really, this principle is potentially far more important than a set number of hectares of heathland because once its in place it is then a straight line to arguing to ‘buy’ more (or less) of a public good + FC managers will be a lot more relaxed about change that doesn’t leave a yawning hole in their budgets.
the big question is – will the Government seal the deal or does it just hope to cruise along to the next election fobbing people off in the hope they won’t notice ? If they genuinely go ahead with implementation of these key proposals they’ll have my full support – if they don’t then they shouldn’t expect an easy ride into 2015 – the message will be clear ‘Not safe in their hands’.
Roderick – thank you – that’s helpful to me. What do others think?
The FC update is very thin – but not surprising given the decline in their resources.
They withdrew the new planting grant and then a few weeks later, opened it up again and sent out the press release to say they will be investing in 4 million trees planted on 2,000 ha, costing £30 million. Hang on, that’s £15,000/ha, so the figures don’t really add up?
This is a politician’s dirty trick – someone’s being manipulated. In case you didn’t guess, I’m very cross about this. Its very naughty indeed that they issued this as if its news. There is much more demand for this investment which, given land prices, is surprising.
One year on – how does it feel to me? Well pretty s****y, if I’m honest. But then living surrounded by Forestry Commission (FC) woodland after the wettest January on record, things are bound to be a bit sticky–underfoot at least.
It’s quite hard to take a dispassionate view about the FC when you live so close to them, but when they, or at least when one of their partners, is about to make a huge mistake, perhaps passion is excusable.
There’s a private company called Forest Holidays that was established by the FC in 2006 “in response to a growing demand for holiday accommodation and associated recreation on its estate”. This is called a private-public partnership and is able to make money by building cabin sites solely on Forestry Commission land – yes, that’s right, the land that belongs to you and me – this is the national forest that we all fought so hard to preserve.
And build cabin sites they do, very quickly. There are currently eight sites up and running and a ninth opens in May. And they want to build another one very quickly here. (Ah! Nimbyism coming I hear you groan – well yes, you’re right in a sense––but please read on a little more.)
Forest Holidays are proud of their luxury cabins that blend beautifully into their surroundings. I am sure that they provide excellent family holidays, often in spectacular surroundings. Sometimes they have built their sites sensitively, for example, where there had been a previous FC camp site – “only” the campers objected to that one. But if there is no existing infrastructure of tracks (each cabin has vehicle access), water, drainage, electricity, etc., then putting all that in for 70 or 80 cabins must destroy or at least fragment the woodland habitat. And then there’s the central facilities (shop, bar, restaurant, laundry, reception area, staff accommodation).
Here, Forest Holidays have their eyes on a large undisturbed block (28 hectares) of mature semi-natural woodland – remember, it belongs to you and me. There are clear indications that there are fragments of Ancient Woodland within the block – there are ancient coppice stools, active badger setts, a nationally important population of Adders, Red Kites a-plenty, Willow Tits at the southern edge of their range, Red-listed Grasshopper Warblers, Dormice, ancient woodland indicators such as Yellow Star of Bethlehem. No wonder Forest Holidays hoped to get a fast-track planning application through and no wonder they are under pressure from all the conservation bodies to carry out a full Environmental Impact Assessment.
But what are they doing, this private-public partnership thinking that they can destroy our valuable forests for the sake of leisure pursuits and for financial gain?
You can see why, one year on, it all feels pretty s****y.
Fineshade man – welcome and thank you. You are not far from me and yet I knew nothing about this proposed development. Thank you for bringing it to my attention.
Edward, I think you need to make a clear distinction between what FC is doing and what Defra – and its Ministers are doing – the events around new planting are Defra & RDPE/CAP – and not FC.
Never thought I’d be placed in the same category as the secretary of state but your comment on an ‘unhealthy obsession with deer and grey squirrels’ is ridiculous. I work as a volunteer for a number of organisations in actually carrying out woodland management and I can assure you that the damage, by especially grey squirrels, is quite significant. To date little has been done to combat this. Surely taking care of all habitats in a sustainable manner is the foundation for supporting all wildlife, be it the humble bug to small mammals and obviously your specialism of birds. Although I concur with your stance on many of the issues with nature conservation I can’t help feeling your particular academic perspective indicates an out of touch understanding of what is actually happening at the coal face.
Alan – thank you. Yes, maybe you should ponder your position alongside the Sec of State. Thank you for putting me in an ivory tower and yourself at the coal face. Commitment 22 is in a very thin section entitled ‘Improving Our Valuable Woodland Assets to Benefit Wildlife
and the Natural Environment’. Deer are certainly a problem – does this document suggest that ‘we’ have a solution? And grey squirrels are a side issue for wildlife except for the fast-disappearing population of red squirrels. The span of this whole section of the implementation plan is poor.
I’m picking up similar concerns from Delamere and the Forest of Dean. Fc won popular support by stopping, listening and working with local communities, with some extraordinary results like the new Dalby visitor centre in Yorkshire, built in a national park with universal local support. Not knowing the circumstances, I wouldn’t comment on any specific case but it only takes one to go badly wrong for the much vaunted ‘increased commercial powers’ the Government are so keen on to be worthless – and when (as is quite possible) a minister or Defra civil servant replies to you ‘nothing to do with us, we’ve leased the land to Forest holidays, it’s their problem’ the whole privatisation issue will blow sky high – probably just in time to embarrass the Conservatives in the run up to the 2015 election.
Apparently there is an ‘extensive and ambitious’ programme of heathland restoration in Purbeck. Maybe, but FC have been fighting tooth and nail against this for years, and have already replanted (and thus re-destroyed) many hectares of heathland after conifer felling. I would be surprised if this new policy doesn’t still commit to replanting extensive heathland areas.
I won’t rehearse the arguments again ( I think we have now demolished ‘carbon sequestration’ as an argument for conifer planting now, have we not?) but want to point out something that I have only just worked out myself: that FC have a vested interest in keeping the wildlife value of their holdings low.
The reasoning is this: much heathland has economically valuable minerals underneath. As Planning Authorities come to look at their mineral plans, they are allowed to protect areas supporting valuable (ie rare or localised) wildlife. Open heathland these days is almost inevitably protected. Plantations are not. There is no protection for POTENTIALLY good wildlife sites (if the trees are removed).
So to have any hope of getting planning approval for mineral extraction, FC (and other landowners) have to maintain as much plantation as possible. Hence the vested interest in replanting and re-wrecking the heath that they have already done so much damage to.
Jamie – that’s a very interesting perspective. I hadn’t thought of that.
Heathland restoration has indeed been very slow despite the good efforts of some in FC. It’s a shame.
Jamie – that’s a very interesting perspective. I hadn’t thought of that.
Heathland restoration has indeed been very slow despite the good efforts of some in FC. It’s a shame.
Gosh, neither had I – and I use3d to run the organisation !
And, qualifying Mark’s comment, I’d point out that whilst FC undoubtedly has the greatest potential for more heathland it has also restored far more than any other organisation and probably (limited only by the fact that the conservation bodies still don’t have good figures for their land) more than everyone else put together – as well as managing by far the biggest and most complex heathland in the New Forest. had RSPB and others spent more time arguing for FC to be funded to re-create heathland rather than the easier task of just bullying FC rather more might have been achieved.
My point is not that FC are failing to restore heathland; they are actually going out of their way to re-wreck it all over again by replanting, when they should know better. Campaigning to stop this may be ‘bullying’, but I think it is well-deserved. FC up till now has not to my knowledge tried to justify doing this by lack of funding. Historically the justification for conifer planting on heathland has been economic. When that was shown to be evidently wrong, the argument has moved on to ‘amenity’ and more recently carbon sequestration, which even they seem to have now backed down from. Lack of funding as a reason for replanting is a new one on me, and I’d like to see how it is argued.
I can’t believe that it hasn’t dawned on the present FC management that potential income from minerals is hindered by the nature conservation value of a piece of land. They too will have seen on the maps how the borders of the areas where mineral extraction is to be allowed closely follow the edges of the plantations, and how the open heaths are excluded.
The One Year On report.
Doesn’t sound very promising or convincing, as far as protecting existing forests and native woodland is concerned and it starts off by politely advising us that it can *not* reassure us, that they will keep public forests ‘public’.
What it does tell me however, is that the government will merely “encourage” good forestry practices & ownership and not ensure it is done. It also tells me there is going to be a heavy and increased emphasis, on encouraging & ensuring that the majority of existing forests and the created future forests, will primarily be for the wood production market – deforestation/timber trade – “economic growth”, rather than an emphasis on actually greening the UK – creating more permanent forest cover, preserving & looking after the UK’s established woodlands and forests and thus bettering & improving a sustainable environment and also importantly – addressing urgent climate change issues and also, reducing national flood risk.
Of course, there is good that can come out of utilizing and setting aside land for the purpose of forestry in our own country- better than importing tropical hardwoods and causing species extinction and corruption in other countries. Also has to be better than setting it aside for open cast mining, quarries, landfill, fracking and Tescos. But there is a need for caution here. This is a government committed to carving through the middle of the UK by implementing the multi billion pound HS1 – HS2 rail project and now has a lust for shale fracking across the UK. We know, what is going to happen to thousands of hectares of greenbelt, woodland, ancient woodland, nature reserves, natural water courses and farmland etc, when these projects get started – If, we allow them to be started, that is. We also know how little they will do for long term – and local “economic growth”.
I envisage, lots and lots, of woodland & forest owners – including the UK water companies, being offered subsidies by the government bodies, for sacrificing preservation of woodland and forests for deforestation. Planting not only the non natives, but natives such as Oak – not because of any sentimental, preservation reason, but because they know they can make a lot of money out of such timber. All for the eventual purpose of pointless decking for patios. Also for wood burners, furniture industries, but also for large scale land development ie large scale house builds on greenbelt, and probably, several more Tescos.
You have probably gathered by now that I do Not trust this coalition government.
Defra – aka The Coalition Government – can name drop all it likes. It makes a bad job however, of hiding the fact that it does actually intend to take over *our* woodlands. What will be saved – and what will go regionally, will be down to them and so we do still need to be cautious and not shelve the fight to ‘save our woods’ because they are evidently not safe at all.
Jan – thank you very much. Great comment and very welcome.
And Thank you Mark, for alerting us to such important issues and also, allowing me to whinge freely on a massive scale.
Jan – my privilege – great whinge!
Alan – How many Goshawks have you got given that 2 nests monitored of this iconic bird brought 68% and 95% Grey Squirrel into the nest to feed young. They would also help remove diseased animals of both red and grey. We know it is the most murdered bird of prey in Britain and that FC have around 95% of the nests on their land. If protected this bird along with Pine Marten would take away the ‘Grey’ problem in Britain.
Only just seen this blog – but spot on analysis! You asked about FC’s new open habitats strategy, which I have now read. Well it is pretty rubbish really. It talks about 11,000 ha of open habitat planned, which sounds amazing. Yet on a closer look 75% of this area is not actually expected to produce a recognised Government priority open habitat (such as raised bog, lowland heathland etc) and they have counted forest rides and other slightly open parts of a forest towards this figure. In addition it appears that half of the small area they claim is going to eventually be lowland heathland is actually just a very large forest ride in thetford!! Not sure if we give them the benefit of the doubt or not, but some might say it is cooking the books on a grand scale. And the claim that FC restore more open habitats than any other wildlife charity is a little like saying BP clean up more oil spills than Greenpeace, so why are they complaining….