All the best

Clare

I’m also thinking of recording Geltsdale’s ancient trees and am in the process of putting a bid into the HLF to do it, any chance of some match fund and/or help in kind such as help with actual recording or techniques? Best Christmas wishes and a happy new year to you too! Cheers, Iris

Re-inventing the Past for the Future

Some of you may have seen on Countryfile yesterday (18th November 2007) that the Forestry Commission are planning to build some new low cost housing combined with a smallholding for Commoners in the New Forest.

I thought this is brilliant and just the sort of thing they should be doing.

In the 1950’s every Forest had a resident Forester and Forest Workers Holdings were available to rent on some Forests. The workers could run their own smallholding and were guaranteed a certain number of days forestry work in the local forest.

I understand that something similar has been pioneered in mid Scotland – buying up farms and creating new Lowland Crofts.

It is not good enough to carry on with business as usual and expect a management regime that has evolved to undertake industrial scale forestry (without regard for the implications of climate change and ‘peak oil’) to be able to sensitively implement a new and more environmentally friendly forestry management. Intermediate technology and small scale labour intensive work is needed – some far sighted woodland owners have been practicing this sort of management for over 30 years.

Perhaps this is one of the ideas we need to consider in the North West to help achieve the new environmentally sensitive Forestry and to sensibly minimise transport and energy use!

Roger Cartwright

Dear all

I was pleased to receive Clare’s reply and it certainly answers some of the questions I raised.

I had already been told that after years of neglect the government had decided to concentrate on bringing SSSIs to this mythical “favourable” or “unfavourable recovering” condition but I am not convinced that this is the right approach for deciding grant aid priorities. It may have helped English Nature sort out its own views on the condition of SSSIs but I not sure that private owners will perceive it like that or that they will agree with what you want.

After years of lavishing great care and expense (sometimes on the advice of other government departments) owners do not like to hear that their wood or land is in “unfavourable condition”! Similarly and even worse - their woods may be considered in “favourable condition” and as result they appear to be denied the reward of access to further grant aid!

· But what does “favourable” really mean? It does not inspire confidence, as it appears a simplistic approach to the evaluation of widely different sites and complex situations that are in many cases constantly evolving.
· Did government allocate adequate additional resources to do this or just re-allocate the existing money?
· Will this support be continued after 2010?

I can understand that it may have helped sort out some priorities and that it has brought the debate more out into the open.

The landscape scale projects you describe are the sort of thing that has long been needed and there is scope for many more beneficial and imaginative restoration schemes along these lines (I have for many years advocated that afforestation in Britain should be treated as landscape restoration and not regarded as an investment that needed to show an economic return).

It is worth recalling that the most ambitious attempt at an integrated land restoration/development initiative, the Northern Pennines Rural Development Board had a very short existence in the 1960s. I don’t know the exact details but I certainly got the impression that it was run in an excessively bureaucratic manner and was abandoned as a result of local political pressure.

After many years of trial and error it was found that the establishment of relatively small scale independent special projects (outside the bureaucracies of central and local government) was the best way to implement this sort of work.

Hence we now have Cumbria Woodlands, the Arnside Silverdale AONB management unit, East Cumbria Countryside Project and for a while West Cumbria Groundwork Trust. I am sure you will know that they are based on partnerships and that the administration and maintaining the funding of these organisations as they mature has become increasingly difficult (some might say a nightmare!).

I was reminded of this at Cumbria Woodland Forum on Tuesday 6th November 2007 - when we had an informative presentation by Will Cleasby on the work of the Eden Rivers Trust. Afterwards we visited Dufton Ghyll, which provided a good demonstration of the crucial value of enlightened woodland management to the conservation of river catchment areas. Despite all the new policies it was clear that the success of this will depend on effective interdepartmental co-operation and ideally flexible operation of both forestry and land management Stewardship schemes to further the Rivers Trust objectives. For instance, imaginative and positive operation of these schemes seems essential if the diffuse pollution problems are to be overcome!

The broadleaved woodland at Dufton Ghyll was obviously benefiting the River Eden SSSI but since it is not actually designated as an SSSI (and even it was it would probably be in “favourable condition“) - it would not now be a priority for grant aid.

On the way home I passed the edge of Coney Garth Farm, which is just upstream of Dufton Ghyll. In the 1980s (at about the same time as Dufton Ghyll was planted) I helped obtain grants for planting belts of mixed new woodland along the eroding banks of the beck. This was an early example of creative use of both agricultural and forestry grants to restore a run down farm which had only relic tree cover.

As part of an overall landscape restoration plan for the farm we were able (with the enthusiastic help of the local ADAS officer) to create a restored pattern of fields with new fencing which excluded the proposed woodland areas, leaving them fenced and ready for planting. The forestry grant was then almost sufficient to cover the planting costs without the added burden of paying for new fencing.

This sort of thing can only be achieved with a flexible and readily available system of grant aid and the co-operative working of all interests. Despite all the consultation and deluge of glossy new literature it is if anything more difficult to achieve this sort of thing today.

I hope that this is something you (Natural England) can look at together with the Forestry Commission and the Environment Agency when you review HLS targeting.

Yours sincerely,

Roger N. Cartwright
Woodwell Cottage,
Lindeth Road,
Silverdale,
Carnforth
LA 5 0 TX Tel. 01524 701115

One thing to note of course straight away is that the national delivery plan for the new England’s Tree, Woods and Forests Strategy is being drafted at the moment. Regional Forestry Framework inputs will provide scope for regional interpretation of the national strategy, and its contribution to the delivery plan should be able to tackle many of the points you raise.

As you’ll know it is the Government’s target that 95% of all Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs) by area are in “favourable” or “unfavourable recovering” condition by 2010. This has necessarily meant that there is a strong focus on achieving this target. Natural England is the lead body for SSSIs within Government. Condition assessment monitoring and conservation objectives have been developed for all habitats and will be developeed for all sites. It is intended that they are tailored for each site (or part of site) to take account of local, site-specific needs. The objectives should enable all advisory staff in Natural England (and our partner organisations) to reach more informed and consistent views on the condition of SSSIs. Computer databases are used because they make the process of recording, analysing and disseminating the information more efficient and cost-effective.

The system is far from perfect but it has helped to direct attention and efforts in a number of different ways:
• landowners are clearer as to what we want – in some cases this has made it easier for them to bring in the funds to do the work;
• it has become easier to identify what are the widespread problems affecting sites, as opposed to site-specific ones;
• it has become easier to separate out issues that can be dealt with at a site level, eg getting the stock grazing right, from those that require action at a landscape or policy level, such as climate change.
• And it has brought debates as to what we want from different sites more out into the open, including the whole question of how much we need to manage the countryside, how much can be achieved through lower levels of intervention, but on a wider scale.

You are right that landscape-scale approaches are essential to complete the overall picture. We would like SSSIs to be the examplar biodiversity/ nature conservation sites that sit within this bigger picture, not just refuges but the source from which wildlife (including trees!) can spread. Natural England and others are developing and implementing landscape-scale projects to do this, for instance in Bassenthwaite, Ennerdale and Bowland. Such projects are complex, and tend to move slowly, because of multiple land ownerships, different priorities amongst the groups involved, etc. I would be interested in people’s thoughts about how the development of such projects could be improved.

Restoration of open habitats has been happening sucessfully on many sites in Cumbria. This has concentrated on clearing trees off the bog or grassland habitats. Looking at where trees should be planted or allowed to naturally regenerate to replace those lost, needs to be done at the landscape scale, again with the cooperation of all the land-owners. We try to target and encourage Higher Level Stewardship (HLS)/Woodland Grant Schemes to do this sort of thing. (Some thought has gone into this in the South Solway Peatlands Project, for instance. Mungrisedale Common has some fairly large upland woodland planting planned via HLS on SSSIs as of this summer. There is some good restoration of wood pasture at Glenamara Park, Ullswater Valley, through ESA with the National Trust and their tenant, using a low stocking rate of cattle. 50 hectares of Derwent Common SSSI has recently been fenced for livestock exclusion from Keskadale Oaks to allow this relict wood to expand and thrive.)

The review of HLS targeting, which is just commencing, aims to address the integration of a wide range of environmental objectives. The approach proposed will lead to target landscape-scale areas with a range of outcomes. Natural England will be working closely with regional partners to determine where these target areas are and what outcomes they will focus on.

In terms of considering trees as important in their own right, there is also a new initiative which may be of interest. There are no parkland SSSIs in Cumbria but my colleagues are hoping to start work soon on a new project, to look at “treescapes” in Bassenthwaite catchment, namely the importance of wood pasture / upland parkland and the important trees they contain, the condition that they are in, and what future management might be needed. If anyone wants to find out more about this project, let me know and I can put you in touch with relevant Natural England colleagues.

Clare

Thanks again for your thoughts.

However, waste wood did make a couple of references in the Waste Strategy for England 2007 http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/waste/strategy/strategy07/pdf/waste07-strategy.pdf.

There is an issue around the waste hierarchy with reduce, reuse and recycle clearly coming before the use of wood as a fuel. This is picked up in paragraph 30 below.

The following excerpts are from the Waste Strategy and may give an indication on the direction of travel on the topic. The developments of markets and the supply chain are key to the success of waste wood as a biomass resource.

Waste Strategy for England 2007

Chapter 4 – Increasing resource efficiency: targeting materials, products and sectors.

19. Wood. Wood has relatively low embodied energy (energy consumed in extraction) but high calorific value. Though for some kinds of wood waste re-use or recycling are better options, use as a fuel generally conveys a greater greenhouse gas benefit than recovering the material as a resource (and
avoiding primary production).

Actions include:
• taking forward a programme of work to develop energy markets for waste wood by addressing informational and practical barriers to expansion (see below Chapter 5, para. 31);
• non-statutory guidance to accompany construction Site Waste Management Plans (see para. 77 below) will highlight key waste materials, such as wood, that are predominantly consigned to landfill and identify beneficial alternatives to land filling and encourage separate collection of materials at construction and demolition sites.

Chapter 5- Stimulating investment in waste collection and treatment

Waste wood
30. In its response to the report of Sir Ben Gill’s Taskforce on Biomass Energy, the Government acknowledged the case for extracting more energy from waste wood and said that Waste Improvement Programme (WIP) would take forward a programme of work including suitable safeguards to ensure that wood was not burned which could otherwise have been recycled.

31. The merits of recovering energy from waste wood were highlighted in recent research53. Of the estimated 7.5 million tonnes of waste wood arisings in the UK, the vast majority (6 million tonnes –80%) is landfilled, 1.2 million tonnes (16%) re-used and recycled, with energy being recovered from just 0.3 million tonnes (4%). The key to realising the carbon benefits for wood waste that cannot be readily re-used or recycled lies in the availability of markets for waste wood (in the form of suitable combustion facilities for clean and/or contaminated wood that satisfy Waste Incineration Directive standards) and development of supply chains. Defra’s Waste Implementation Programme is taking forward a programme of work to develop energy markets for waste wood by addressing informational and practical barriers to expansion.

General Support but Need to Maintain Scepticism

On Monday 1st October 2007 I attended the Northwest Forestry Framework forum and although we had ample opportunity to comment on the Action Areas in the Framework I did not feel able (because of the way the forum was organised) to make known my personal reservations about both this and the latest Strategy for Englands Trees Woods and Forests.

I have therefore prepared the following supplementary comments. I think that for me the problem is that although I agree with the general thrust of all the new policies and the need to prioritise resources somewhat along the lines described by Keith Jones. The actual results that I see on the ground and the way that the new English Woodland Grant Scheme is administered do not give me confidence that these new policies are being altogether sensibly implemented. I think that there is a lack of respect for previous work by foresters and for the real situation in individual woods and forests. Too much emphasis is placed upon designations and crude theoretical assessments and scoring systems.

Obviously these views are coloured by own background as both a forester and a landscape architect. Working in the Planning Departments in Lancashire, Northumberland and then Cumbria, I spent much of my time in the 1960’s up until about 1980 trying to prevent the worst excesses of conifer afforestation. As well as obtaining landscape design in large-scale developments in the countryside, such as quarries, opencast coal mines, new roads and reservoirs. We worked with archaeologists, ecologists and many committed individuals to successfully prevent unsuitable development and to achieve sensible modifications and improved design for the schemes that went ahead.

In Northumberland the most contentious issue was large-scale conifer afforestation, particularly in the National Park. Despite having no real powers, we managed by persuasion and local political pressure to prevent the planting of many areas of visually prominent open country, heather moor and bog. Even for planting that was acceptable in the landscape, it was still a struggle to obtain agreement on minimal design standards. Such as the inclusion where possible, of a good proportion of Larch to break up the prevailing Spruce; clumps of Scots pine to define the rocky knolls and a token sprinkling of broadleaves along the burns and on better soils. Much of this was eventually incorporated into informal agreements and embryo forestry strategies.

After about 1980, I thought that these battles were over as almost overnight the government halted further conifer afforestation in the uplands and asked the Forestry Commission to concentrate more on broadleaves. This ushered in an increasing concern for the environment that has eventually evolved into the new Forestry Strategies that on paper substantially exceed the most optimistic expectations of environmentalists (but see the attached comments by Mark Fisher).

Eventually the severe environmental damage being caused by intensive agriculture (encouraged by EU and government policy) also became more widely acknowledged.

ESA schemes were introduced in the Yorkshire and Cumbrian Dales and around 1990, these were extended to the Lake District and other significant landscape areas throughout the country. The Countryside Commission introduced their well thought out Countryside Stewardship Scheme.

It had been increasingly apparent that something like the ESA and the Countryside Stewardship Scheme was needed in National Parks and the wider countryside and both these schemes proved very useful pioneers in achieving conservation policies to complement the existing stewardship provided through the Forestry Policies and Strategies.

However, a worrying result of stronger government and public support for (the environment) has been the central government bureaucracy has given power to zealots with the attitude that scientific interest, organised public recreation and access, nature conservation, or in some cases archaeological interest should take precedence over wider landscape, aesthetic and practical land management and recreation interests. This has been compounded by over ambitious computer systems that have dictated how the scheme should operate, eroding spontaneity as well wasting scarce resources.

It is almost as if the same single minded approach that promoted Sitka planting as the main purpose of forestry in the 1950’s and 60’s is now being applied to restoring the (natural environment).

For instance in the southern Lake District and north Lancashire where I live, wetlands are being restored, young conifer forests are being prematurely clear felled and allegedly non-native trees (such as Beech) destroyed to re-create extensive limestone grassland and to restore Heathland and Mires. I generally welcome these interventions but find that because they are promoted under a Conservation banner (either in house or as partnerships by the existing single purpose agencies and non-government organisations), they tend to be narrowly focussed and receive less critical examination by local planners and government bureaucrats. As a result, opportunities for more imaginative landscape restoration and enhancement with full discussion of controversial issues are sometimes missed.

I feel sad for the generation of foresters and workers that created much of this new woodland. That which was created at considerable cost, fore-thought, sweat and tears should now be prematurely destroyed to satisfy the race to implement the latest policy initiative without proper consideration of the long term costs and benefits and a full public debate of the options and alternatives. The question of how this sort of value judgement should be decided is really just as important as the former controversy about conifer afforestation.

Just as in the early Sitka days, a full Environmental Study does not always seem to be required.

I was initially pleased to see that Lord Haskins in his Rural Delivery Review recognised that: The government should establish an integrated agency to promote sustainable use of land and the natural environment…………Its remit should embrace biodiversity, historical landscape, natural landscape, natural resources, access and recreation.

Up to now, I have seen little sign of Natural England taking on this wider role. When they look at the woodlands I am involved with I find them concentrating on SSSIs, and their crazy condition statements and disregarding these wider issues.

Things have moved on and future problems are resulting from the accelerating globalisation of the world economy and industry, climate change and the impact of this on everything. We need to be looking at things differently and this is beginning to be recognised in the new policies but in my experience, sadly not in the new practice!

This and the following comment from Mark Fisher (that were forwarded to me by email and with which I have considerable sympathy) are the sort of issues I really wanted to see discussed at the Forum

Yours sincerely,

Roger N. Cartwright
Woodwell Cottage,
Lindeth Road,
Silverdale,
Carnforth
LA 5 0 TX Tel. 01524 701115

From: vineproject@googlegroups.com [mailto:vineproject@googlegroups.com]On Behalf Of Mark Fisher
Sent: 25 June 2007 05:36
To: WN DISCUSSION; vineproject@googlegroups.com
Subject: ENGLAND WOODLAND STRATEGY
DEFRA - new Strategy for England Trees, Woods and Forests, 20 June 2007

Anyone else disappointed with this vacuous strategy, albeit that it hits all the current policy buttons? An action plan is supposed to follow on from the strategy, written by Natural England and the Forestry Commision, but the strategy itself so lacks leadership, or any big idea. Even if we accept that the Regional Forestry Frameworks and the Regional Spatial Strategies will be where the battle for the reality of woodland will take place, why could there not have been some clearer national goals? Where is the encouragement for Continuous Forest Cover management of commercial woodland, recognised in a Parliamentary Office for Science and Technology briefing note as being undeveloped in this country? What happened to the potential for landscape scale linkages through Forest Habitat Networks? Where is the widespread education to re-integrate woodland into the common psyche? Why is it so rare in England to be able to observe the longterm dynamics of natural woodland? (Well, we know why, don’t we!)

My response to the consultation was not registered last year, in spite of DEFRA officials apologising for the failing of their dedicated email address for responses, and assuring me that my response would be passed on. It would not have changed the outcome since the 220 odd responses they did receive did not knock them off the course for the strategy that was laid out in the consultation document. The mediocre safety of received opinion holds sway over anything exceptional or radical.

I take great exception that trees - as usual - are not truly regarded as wildlife. Things happen under them, around them, in them, and they are used as product (the yearly growth capacity must be used, we are told in the strategy), but there is no intrinsic natural value attached to them. No interest in that trees form dynamic communities and have lives longer than humans.

I also take great exception to the often-repeated assertion that woodlands in neglect of human management are thus “incapable …….of delivering the full benefits we want for people, places, wildlife and the environment”. The mantra as always is that human management enhances biodiversity and habitat quality and, as usual, there is no attempt to defend or even explain this assertion. Worse still, measures to monitor trends in characteristic woodland wildlife and habitats will rely on assessment of the “proportion of woodland Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs) in favourable condition”. The tight management criteria set for the SSSI - and thus in effect a measure of our intervention - will be the standard. Since few SSSI are wholly woodland, the woodland element of an SSSI is always under constraint lest it “jeopardise” the other, often artificial habitats for which the SSSI is also designated.

Secondly, the increasingly derided woodland bird indicator is offered in addition to assessment of SSSI. The use of birds as apex indicators is testimony to the lobbying power of the RSPB and is just a real bore for non-birdists. The blackbird was once a woodland bird - what lessons from its contemporary habitat should we draw about woodland? Only under “other possibilities” for monitoring does woodland flora get a mention, but it is qualified by the admission that the monitoring of ancient woodland indicator plants is currently undeveloped.

The other mantra is adaptation to climate change, except that the strategy offers us the gem that one woodland site in the south - Alice Holt in the New Forest (Hampshire) - is one of the seven terrestrial Environmental Change Network sites in England and five of the others have “some woodland or coppice.” That’s alright, then.

The strategy was released during the week that I was walking once more in the southern alps in Slovenia. While it may be unfair to make a comparison - there is 60% tree coverage nationally, the woodland flora is exceptionally more varied, the wild fauna more extensive (many chamois in the alpine area), the population much lower - I refuse not to translate the obvious lessons for English woodland. Pro Silva Europe - an organisation promoting natural woodland regeneration, extraction and management through continuous forest cover - originated in Slovenia in 1989. It is just such a rare sight for someone living in England to see such an extent of woodland, and where natural forces rather than human are so key in shaping the communities that it forms.

There are antecedents to Pro Silva everywhere there is tree coverage that makes woodland more than an incidental aspect of the landscape. Thus New Hampshire is also over 60%, and the US National Forest Service use mimicry of natural woodland disturbance for their extractive management in the White Mountain National Forest, but even then retain six substantial areas of the forest as fabulous, unmanaged wilderness.

Our National Forest is a regeneration project, located across a central band of the English Midlands that has low wildlife value, and which has the aim of racheting up woodland coverage to 33%, a level seen in few areas of England (one is Waverly in the SE). It started out ten years ago at a low base of 6%, has reached 17% and should make its target. At that coverage, the landscape acts ecologically as functional woodland, but are we preparing ourselves for our existence in this new landscape? Can we have the mindshift to give value to that woodland, not using it as a dumping ground or other illicit activity? Will we welcome rather than persecute the increase in woodland fauna that will find a home in it? Will we still harvest woodland as an industrial process for so many cords of timber, or will we redevelop, or develop new, natural and humanscale approaches to management and uses for woodland products? Will we leave some of that woodland alone, shaped only by natural phenomena and which is our gift to wild nature?

The new Strategy for England Trees, Woods and Forests goes nowhere near to the heart and soul of woodland. To adapt a phrase from Aldo Leopold, we needed to “think like a tree” for the vision for 2050 in the strategy to have had any worth.

Mark Fisher

–~–~———~–~—-~————~——-~–~—-~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “VINE” group.
To post to this group, send email to vineproject@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to vineproject-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/vineproject?hl=en-GB
-~———-~—-~—-~—-~——~—-~——~–~—