This is Caroline Spelman's statement on the future of forestry in England:
“I would first like to say that I take full responsibility for the situation that brings me before the House today.
“Let me make it clear that we have always placed the highest priority on preserving access and protecting our forests. But the forestry clauses in the Public Bodies Bill, published well before we launched the consultation, gave the wrong impression as to the Government’s intentions.
“That is why I am today announcing three steps which will allow for more measured and rational debate about the future direction of forestry policy.
“First, I have taken a decision to end the consultation on the future of the Public Forest Estate and I take full responsibility for that. I am doing so because it is quite clear from the early responses to the consultation that the public and many MPs are not happy with the proposals we set out.
“Second, the Government will support the removal of the forestry clauses from the Public Bodies Bill, currently at committee stage in the House of Lords.
“And thirdly I would like to announce that I am establishing an independent Panel to consider forestry policy in England. It will report to me with its findings this autumn. The Panel will advise me on the future direction of forestry and woodland policy in England, on the role of the Forestry Commission, and on the role of the Public Forest Estate. The Panel will include representatives of key environmental and access organisations alongside representatives of the forestry industry. I will shortly publish its membership and terms of reference.
“If there is one clear message from this experience, it is that people cherish their forests and woodlands and the benefits they bring. My first priority throughout this period of debate has been securing a sustainable future for our woodlands and forests. On many occasions in the House last autumn, Ministers gave assurances that our aim in all of this has been to do more to maintain and enhance the public benefits delivered by forestry – from recreational access to wildlife protection; from tackling climate change to sustaining a wide range of small businesses. That is why my ambition to provide a better future for our forests is undiminished.
“We have already heard positive suggestions about how we can do this – for heritage forests and all other woodlands. We have spoken to the RSPB, the National Trust, the Woodland Trust, the Wildlife Trusts, the Ramblers and other groups. The Forestry Commission has itself acknowledged that change is needed and will of course be fully engaged in this process going forward, as I know they have many ideas to contribute.
“We have also been listening to MPs on all sides of the House many of whom have set up their own initiatives with local groups. We want to support them in this.
“Finally, I am sorry, we got this one wrong, but we have listened to people’s concerns. I would like to thank colleagues for their support through what has been a difficult time. I now want to move forward in step with the public. I hope that the measures I have announced today, signalling a fresh approach, demonstrate my intention to do the right thing for our forests and woodlands.”
The debate goes on - that's good. A better future for our forests - that's good too.
In response to questions Ms Spelman mentioned the RSPB again in the context of heathland restoration being a suitable issue for discussion by this epxert panel which will be established.
I think that we do believe that the Secretary of State wants to do the right thing for our forests and woodlands - so there is plenty to play for.
And it's interesting that FC itself is said to acknowledge that change is needed.
At some time soon the discussion must move from ownership of forests to management of forests. Wildlife is blind to whose land they are on - they may even think they own the places! But it is how, or whether, land is managed that is very important in terms of delivering wildlife. I'll come back to that.
robertwol - have you stopped beating your wife yet? Simple question - but not one most people could answer with either a yes or no. The RSPB is not pushing itself forward to take on the management of all NNRs. We would be perfectly happy if the NNRs remained under state management provided the state did a good job. What's a good job? Lots of wildlife produced sustainably and representing good value for the taxpayer. The principles which have been agreed by a group of NGOs over taking any part in the management of such land are set out in a joint document which has been mentioned and referred to several times in this blog.
Mark - re your comment ' At some time soon the discussion must move from ownership of forests to management of forests.' Could you tell us if RSPB would prefer the state to lead by example and take responsibility for managing national nature reserves or if the RSPB would rather take them on. Simple question. Straight answer appreciated.
Mark - I think your last paragraph is absolutely the key. The last thing that's needed, now this is over, is a public perception that planting up more upland bogs and sensitive heathland with swathes of non native conifers is a good thing. It's not and never will be - the loss in the unique biodiversity is substantially greater than commercial plantations create.
Good news today. Lets hope the expert panel is conducted in public for 'Big Society' to see.
Lessons......
I would hope after this experience it has shown us that there is a need for change. For ministers and MPs to have a better understanding of rural issues and that the environmental NGO's realise they also need to change, so they are just as publicly accountable as government departments such as the Forestry Commission.
It has shown that despite having to balance the competing demands of so many people, groups organisations and politics, the FC's more dynamic and flexible approaches have defended our woodlands. They get things wrong but there are processes for addressing that. What happens when NGO's get find wrong?
It should be noted that the people did not just desire retention of their forests, they also desired the accountability and professionalism of the Forestry Commission to ensure there stewardship. There seems to have been a strong desire to retain the status quo, or possibly expansion (see the 2009 review of the Public Forest Estate for the public's clear mandate)?
No doubt you have noted that all the environmental NGO responses to the announcements, along with all the other comments and statements, have always been caveat with their desires. This is understandable, but this issue developed to be far bigger than all of them. May be it would have been better for all to have taken the step back and just said “no” and not set out their list of ransoms? Still it would be wrong of me not to thank them as their contribution did helped.
Now to Plan B.
So to heathlands (again!). Well Mark, you and I can agree on something. I wish to have better heathlands too!
But nature and I think that trees and woodlands will play a great role for them in the future. In fact we both productive species, including conifers, like our native Scots pine will be at the forefront of their salvation. Imagine it, no government funding needed because the timber offsets the cost of more expensive conservation works, less heathland fires (over 1,000 hectares this year in Surrey alone in SSSI's) due to mature trees breaking up the flammable heather, increased numbers of the three lucky birds to more food and shelter, and happy people walking their dogs not wanting to lose them in the pine and birch plantations. Win, win, win!
Given the huge financial hole that has now been created by this nonsense, it would seem a more economic focus is the sensible way out. If there's change that's needs its a better understanding that timber production is a good thing for biodiversity, native and exotic conifer and broadleaves have a strong role to play in our future and we have to look forward rather than back for our future landscapes.........this is the most responsible approach.
And I have not even begun to mention the benefits of Sitka Spruce!