My boss, Mike Clarke, was part of the Independent Panel on Forestry which published its report yesterday. Here are his personal reflections of his time on the Panel and his thoughts on the way ahead.
I felt enormously privileged to be a member of the Independent Panel on Forestry, appointed last year in the aftermath of the Government’s decision to cancel its consultation on the future of our public forests.
I say “privileged” because the Panel has met many people who care passionately for our woodland heritage. It’s a passion I share. As a kid, my first encounters with wildlife were in local coppice woodland. These experiences later inspired me to embark upon a career in conservation, which began with a job at the New Forest.
We love forests for many reasons: For their spiritual tranquillity, for relaxation, fresh air and exercise away from the hustle and bustle of everyday life. Most especially, we love them because of their wildlife. In a recent public survey asking people why they valued woodlands, wildlife was the most popular response.
But, as the Panel’s report explains, our woodland wildlife is in crisis. A sixth of woodland flowers are threatened with extinction, we have lost half our woodland butterflies, and the index of woodland birds is at an all-time low.
When the Panel visited the Forest of Dean, I was staggered to find that it has minimal formal protection – less even than that of an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. This iconic national landscape urgently needs to be safeguarded. Meanwhile, important woodlands are threatened by development, including my old stamping ground at Lodge Hill in Kent, with its melodious population of nightingales.
The Panel has filled a vacuum in the national policy debate on forests, as it was the first time in several years that forestry has been taken out of its traditional ‘box’ and examined in terms of its wider relationship with society. In this respect, the Panel has been playing policy catch-up, and I admire the commitment of my fellow panellists and the Secretariat staff to building a common vision for the nation’s forests.
Our report calls for a re-evaluation of the worth of our woodlands. Draw up the balance sheet and the wider economic benefits of public access, clean water, carbon storage and wildlife far exceed those of timber production. In the New Forest alone, tourists enjoying the greens and golds of the woods and the purple carpet of heather deliver over £170M of VAT income to the Treasury. There is a massive economic case for investment in the Nation’s natural capital.
This needs to be a moment of awakening when Government recognises that future forestry policy should be based on public benefits. It needs to be a moment in our culture when local communities, landowners, voluntary organisations and government embrace woodlands and their relationship with the wider landscape.
So, what are the future implications of our report?
Firstly, we need to tackle the deterioration of our forests. Fixing this has to be the top priority, so that new woodland creation doesn’t simply increase the scale of the problem. This means putting the right trees in the right places, ensuring appropriate woodland management, and tackling inappropriate past planting on ancient open-country habitats.
The wider economic value of the Public Forest Estate is derived from its wildlife, people’s ability to access it and in the ‘ecosystem services’ it provides. The Panel recognised these benefits, which underpin the overwhelming case for continued public ownership. Our public forests also provide some 70% of our domestic softwood supply. In future, timber production should support the delivery of wider public benefits and management decisions will need to reflect this.
This doesn’t apply to forests in isolation. These are common principles for the management of land and natural resources. The Panel focused on the ends, in terms of the things that people want and need, that are also good for nature and for the economy, before considering the means of delivering it.
Institutions need to be designed, resourced and regulated in the interests of society as a whole. I would urge the Government to adopt this principle, as it starts to scope the forthcoming review of its other agencies, such as Natural England and the Environment Agency. It should be asking how best to deliver the laudable ambitions outlined in its Natural Environment White Paper last year.
The outcry over our forests reflected the passion that England feels for its wildlife. The Panel has shown that passion and common sense are rooted in ecological and economic reality. The Government can score some easy political points if it recognises this and responds in the right way.
Have you had time to reflect on the detail of the Panel's report? What did you think? Did Mike and his colleagues on the Panel get it right?
It would be great to hear your views.
A couple of points about what happens next.
First, it was very significant that when Lord Taylor met the local forest campaign groups on Monday he said that he wanted to make this a cross party consensus. That means two things: the Government have realised this is an electoral liability and want to de-politicise it. leading from this, Labour will hopefully be there to offset any dogmatic raids from the Conservative right.
Second, I expect we'll see some foot dragging in true Defra style now - BUT the Government are now under intense pressure to deliver on ownership - right up to legal completion - before the next election. In 1992, just before the election, John Major's Government wrote to the forestry trade unions stating quite clearly they would not privatise the Forestry Commission. Having unexpectedly won the election, within the year they announced plans to sell off the whole forest estate. Once bitten, twice shy - Government has the chance to sort this out quickly and now and kill this electoral liability stone dead - if they don't it will come back to bite them in 2015 because, having had the chance, noone will accept promises of good intentions and will rightly (in several senses !) assume sales proposals will be back if the Conservatives win.
Mike, Good job well done but I do share Doggie's slight concern about some of the wording in the Minister's response. It is certainly less committal than the original DEFRA one liner.
I also understand PeterCrispin's concern about NGOs on this one although I suspect it was more a misreading rather than lack of concern about the issue. I also fully understand Peter's overwhelming support for the Dean. He does talk about customary rights respected by the FC for over a hundred years but it wasn't much before that when local people were deported for standing up for access rights in the Forest. The locals have long memories.
I should have read the report Martin before I got on my soap box ! It is very good; I am relieved that there is an independent structure; its good, better than I expected and I think I am a fan of Bishop James ! I am absolutely "over the moon" that, hopefully, this battle will not have to be fought again. Twice in my lifetime is enough !
With regard to the EA and NE ! One is loathe to inflict any change on these poor benighted organisations ! having said that it was my view at the time of the abolishment of EN that if one was to view the distinct "voice of nature conservation" that it were best amalgamated with EA in a form of Environmental Protection Agency rather than MAFF with nobs on ! It occurred to me this morning that perhaps were they both to report to the House of Commons Environment Committee rather than the Minister, would this be better ? Would this bolster them without yet another re-organisation ?
Redkite - you offer some good challenges which will need to be worked on through the autumn.
Doggie, the reason the minister offers a non-committal response is that Defra does now need to take the time to look at the report and consider what it's going to do. Conversations with HMT and the Cabinet Office will obviously be important. My guess is that it will wait until the outcome of the triennial review of the EA/NE before making judgements about the whole architecture of environmental governance.
And Peter - we live and learn! I remain delighted that people are still prepared to stand up for protection of nature. We need more of this not least to fight inappopriate developments, like Boris Island airport and the nightingale site Mike's refers to in his piece.
Hi Mike,
I am glad that you visited the Forest of Dean. As you have now discovered the ancient rights of graziers, foresters and free miners are "customary" and have been respected by the FC for over a century. It was the "privatisation" of these ancient rights that led a 1000 of us to the Speech House in the cold and snow 4 Jan 2011 to be addressed by Porritt and Labour's Leader in the Lords Baroness Royall. Feelings were high; these are local peoples rights. The RSPB's Nag's Head reserve is a few miles away. I saw no sign of any National NGO for some months.
I tracked this debate; National Trust and Wildlife Trusts were parcelling off the best recreational forests and discussing the financial terms of the handover; Mark Avery was "running on the tide" and talking of "state forest farms"; FoE in London said not a word (despite my direct internal appeals to the top), Woodland Trust was saying there is No Plan B, the day before the PMQ's ( I have the email) then Cameron announced a "U" turn. Environmental NGO's were "turned midway" by a broadside from Porritt in The Times that led to the National Trust turning its middle management negotiations on its head. That was at my alert. The 38 Degrees petition won it , inaccurate and emotionally framed as it was; and absolutely ideal for the job !
I will never allow the professional career NGO people to forget this.
The significance of this battle was that the National Nature Reserves "Sell Off" was shelved immediately after; retaining some integrity to Natural England.
Having said that "critique" I am deeply delighted and profoundly relieved that the RSPB is now fully endorsing the public ownership of our woods; I would urge you to acknowledge that it is the economies of scale that allows the Forestry Commission to be such an efficient public body (yes there are patches of problematic practice) but we also need timber for "brick free" housing construction. There is a "Balance of Payments" issue.
I have been a member of RSPB now for 47 years and say "Hooray Hooray" but I do not want this battle ever to be fought again; "How can I be sure" ? This touches a public nerve like no other issue I have ever known; which makes it easier for you.