Forest Panel Report – it’s out and it’s not bad!

The Independent Panel on Forestry’s report was published today and I have now had a chance absorb its contents. 

The headline is that, despite concerns to the contrary, the report clearly states that the forest estate should remain in public ownership.  This is not too much of a surprise.  I am a little remote from the panel itself but I did attend a couple of its events and the whole thrust of any discussion did support the continued role of a public forest estate.

However, just keeping the forests public is not enough by itself.  We asked for a strong Forestry Commission with a renewed remit.  So, if we check the report against the recommendations The Wildlife Trusts made, how does it measures up?

• The report does propose an enhanced remit for the Forestry Commission, as we recommended, focusing on delivering benefits for people, nature and the economy. 

• It also does fairly well in promoting forests as integral parts of a coherent and resilient ecological network.  I would have preferred the report to say more – a healthy forest ecosystem within a coherent ecological network is the essential first step to any of the benefits we get.

• It is less good in improving protection for woodland, especially ancient woodland – it does show a refreshed commitment to protection, which is important, but does not offer anything new. 

• It is, however, quite strong in promoting the use of forests to improve the connection between people and the environment.  There are many opportunities for FC to be at the centre of re-energised community involvement in woodlands, we know plenty of existing good examples, it just needs to happen more often.

• Although the report does propose an expansion of woodland, to extend, buffer and link woods it does not go far enough in promoting a “right tree in the right place” principle.  Hopefully the days of poorly designed plantations are over; however the report does promote a huge increase in tree cover.  This could be a good thing, but only if done sensitively. 

• In the same vein, the report could say more about the restoration of open habitat like heaths and meadows.  Open habitats tend to get forgotten, or even seen as countering forest productivity, but they are some of our most threatened habitats.  Perhaps promoting planting trees in one place to make up for trees lost when open habitats are restored in another may ease any potential tension.

• Lack of management in woods is a major cause of wildlife decline so it is good that the report is quite strong on restoration of woods.

Overall then, the report is pretty good.  And there are other messages in there that deserve emphasis.

In the body of the report it mentions that if we calculate financial value of all the public benefits that the public forest estate provides (including the easily calculated values like timber, but also the less easily valued benefits from healthy, functioning ecosystems) then we find the estate delivers £400M in public benefit a year.  The report also admits that this is an underestimate – the true value is probably much more.  The cost to the public is only £20M per year.

So – the Public Forest Estate provides a yearly 20:1 return on investment - in perpetuity!  And that’s an underestimate.  Every £1 we don’t spend on forests is £20 wasted.

I doubt that there is any other investment that could match this, indeed even some proposed road schemes struggle to reach a 1:1 return on investment.

This makes a general point.  If we actually calculate the benefits we get from healthy, functioning ecosystems then their value is huge (probably irreplaceable and probably should just be considered a poor approximation of infinity).  The past situation where the FC had to continually sell woods in order to balance its books was a failure in our economic system, not a failure of FC.

Of over-riding importance is the need for our society to gain a better understanding of the whole value of nature (in this case in forests).  This is a point made in the very first recommendation in the report – “We urge society as a whole to value woodlands for the full range of benefits they bring….”.  There is thus a very strong emphasis on really appreciating the ecosystem services provided by forest ecosystems.  The superficial, short-term financial valuing of a few of the most easily measured attributes (such as timber value), although important in themselves, are just one benefit from healthy functioning forests.  Add in the rest and our decisions will be different.

Looking back at the National Ecosystem Assessment last year - and lining it up with statements in this report, the optimist in me says that it will be in forest ecosystems where we at last start to value the natural capital on which we depend and make this value fundamental to our decision making.

Government will respond to the report by next January but already Caroline Spelman, Secretary of Sate for the Environment has committed by saying that “our forests will stay in public hands”.

This is not “job done”, however.  This is the panel’s report not a government report.  The report has a lot of good recommendations in it (plus a few short-falls) so it is important that government are persuaded to pick up the good points (and fill any gaps).  So, we now need to see how government will respond.

We await the report of the Independent Forest Panel, due to be published on 4th July

Earlier in 2011 the government announced its consultation to look into the disposal of the Public Forest Estate – the land managed by the Forestry Commission (FC).  This was an ill-considered move and it led to a predictable public outcry.  Disposal of the Public forest Estate has been considered at various times in the past, the environmental NGOs have opposed it each time, and each time the government has pulled back and the estate is safe for a bit longer.  (Except for the fact that FC have had to continue to sell individual forests in order to try to balance the books).

Two things were different this time.  First was the level of public outcry – heartfelt and well-organised, coming as a welcome surprise to NGOs and as a shock to government.  See, for instance "Save Our Woods"

Second was the government response – to set up an independent panel to look at the future of the Forestry Commission and the Public Forest Estate.  My link to the panel is remote, and opinions vary as to whether this is either a put up job or a valuable independent review.  We will discover which next week when the report is published.

The response of some organisations is to set out criteria against which they will measure the panel report.  The Wildlife Trusts have produced their view here.

 The Public Forest Estate represents the single biggest opportunity to implement the commitments made in last year’s Natural Environment White Paper and the recommendations made in the independent “Making Space for Nature Review”.  It is critical that this opportunity is taken.  The Public Forest Estate (and the body managing it) must have a clear purpose that focuses on excellence in environmental management.  It should be given the responsibility and resources to work in partnership across all sectors, from local communities to wood-based industries to enhance England’s ecological network and deliver ecosystem services (including such key public benefits as access).

The Wildlife Trusts have been working with the Forestry Commission for decades.  About 30 years ago this was often from the perspective of conflict – we saw the Commission as largely damaging to nature.  The FC of today is a very different organisation to the FC of the past – I have been on their various meetings and committees for about 20 years (from the perspective of a critical ecologist – I do not come from the perspective of automatic support) and whilst we may have had some lively discussions, criticisms of the organisation has been extremely rare.

But – coming from the perspective of two decades of critical questioning of FC, from a perspective of not automatically supporting anyone and having no political ideal about land ownership – I feel that FC has an excellent history of delivery and now has a very strong role to play in delivering environmental and other public benefits in an outstandingly cost effective way.  It could do more with an improved remit and in order to do more it must have the resources and responsibility to deliver.

I hope that the panel report will recommend a new remit for the FC, focussing on nature and the delivery of public benefit and acting as an exemplar of sustainable management:  

• It should promote forestry as part of a coherent strategy for the natural environment with woods being one part of a diverse and resilient ecological network.
• Woods, especially ancient woods should be better protected and better managed.
• It should promote a reconnection of people with nature through good access to forests.
• It should encourage a “right tree in the right place” principle reconnecting woods through appropriate woodland expansion at a landscape scale.
• It should restore existing woodlands, continuing an already active programme of woodland restructuring in order to better deliver public benefit.
• Furthermore it should look after all habitats in its care, not just the wooded areas – areas of lowland heathland, meadows and other open habitats, currently planted with conifers should be restored with urgency.

To fulfil this remit the FC will have to be bigger and be better resourced.  Is this likely at a time of austerity?  Well maybe.  If you count the benefits of a public forest estate, not just the cost, then investment in the FC is possibly one of the greatest returns on investment you can make!

Destruction in Sumava National Park

There has been quite a movement in recent years to find some level of protection for near-wilderness areas in Europe.  Actual wilderness probably does not exist anywhere in this part of the world, but there are pockets where natural processes and the range of wildlife are still extensive enough for us to consider it near enough to being wild.  I doubt there is anywhere in England that we could consider in this category – our nature reserve at “The Mens” is perhaps close, but it is still nothing like wilderness.

In some places elements of the “wild” are being recreated, such as Oostvaardersplassen in Holland, and in others, such as the Bialowieza in Poland, you can get pretty close to wild forest.  But anything near wilderness in Europe is a rare and precious thing.

One such rare and precious thing is the Sumava National Park in the Czech Republic, but this is now under threat.  A small but influential element in the new Czech administration is proposing imminent legislation that will restructure Sumava, enabling large-scale felling of forest in what is currently its core non-intervention area, and development of a ski lift with other infrastructure in close proximity.

Widely known as the “Wild Heart of Europe” this area is iconic among scientists, and in the tourism sector, for the intact state of its ecology governed by natural processes, and for the unspoiled beauty of its landscape.  It is seen as a symbol of the care which the Czech Republic extends towards its natural heritage.

Yet the actions currently planned will cause damage to this ecology that will take many decades to repair, as well as changing the character of the wider area forever.

Above all, this is a clear signal that even the best known National Parks are not protected.   Beyond being a tragedy for the iconic ‘Wild Heart of Europe’, this action poses a challenge to the protective status of National Parks everywhere.

The Czech Republic has an excellent record of caring for its national heritage, and the proposed legislation for Sumava is opposed across the Czech scientific establishment. In 2008, over 130 conservation organizations across Europe united to petition for improved protection of wilderness areas. The following year, the European Parliament passed a Resolution along similar lines, supported by a massive 538 votes.  This recent step would be a huge step backwards.

Conservation organizations are petitioning the Czech government to think again.  This petition is targeted on organizations rather than individuals but I think it is important that everyone should know of the threat to one of Europe’s last surviving near-wilderness areas.

Brighton & Hove and Lewes Downs Biosphere Reserve

The Biosphere is the world in which we live and share with other living things - the zone of life around our planet – for which UNESCO (the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization) is developing a global network of Biosphere Reserves which promote a balanced relationship between people and nature. These are real world-class natural environments.

The Brighton & Hove and Lewes Downs Biosphere Project  is a new partnership which aims to gain international recognition from the United Nations for the special nature of the local environment in and around Brighton and Hove. 

The Sussex Wildlife Trust is glad to support the project.   The aim is to become a “site of excellence” and part of UNESCO’s family.  Currently there are 580 sites spanning 114 countries including areas as diverse as the Amazon rain forest, Canary islands, to the city surrounds of Paris, Cape Town and Rio de Janeiro.  In the UK there are 7 Biosphere Reserves, including projects at North Devon and on the North Norfolk Coast.

By gaining international recognition the Biosphere bid hopes to enable the partnership to attract funding to improve our environment and to join up current work and activities.  The international accreditation will also help with tourism (economy), education and research as well as the more obvious health and environmental benefits.

The vision of the Biosphere project is to develop a unified approach to better care for, manage and enjoy our local environment. This includes the city itself, surrounding countryside of the South Downs and the sea, so we can help to bring people and nature closer together.  At present the only large conurbation within the project area is Brighton & Hove, but the bid is equally relevant to surrounding towns and villages such as Steyning, Upper Beeding, Shoreham, Lewes, Newhaven, Peacehaven, East Saltdean, Ditchling, Hassocks, Hurstpierpoint, etc.

It is about increasing understanding about how our lives, whether rural or urban, are hugely dependent on the quality of natural environment.  For example, most of the area’s water supply comes from the chalk aquifer, the quality of which is dependent, in part, on how the Downs are farmed and the quality of the biodiversity on the Downs.  The Downs also provides food, including South Downs Lamb, cereals and other crops.  The sea provides locally sourced fish.  Both land and sea are also important for recreational opportunities, but the potential is again related to the quality of that resource.  For example, clean seas and beaches attract visitors, surfers and other recreational users, helping boost the local economy.

Three events are to be held in different parts of the Biosphere to launch the bid.  These will be on Tuesday 22 May 2012, the International Day of Biodiversity.

• 10:00 - Madeira  Drive, Brighton - Opposite the Brighton Wheel on the mid level promenade.  A flock of starlings has been jet-washed on a Brighton seafront wall as part of a bid to put the international spotlight on the natural attractions of the area. 
• 15:00 – Devil’s Dyke – National Trust with National Trust members
• 16:30 – Lewes Downs – Lewes District Council and Sussex Wildlife Trust. 

In addition, between 12:00 and 13:30 there will be a debate:  ‘Food for Thought, what role should the South Downs play in our lives?’  at The Old Courthouse, Church St, Brighton BN1 1UD.  It will be chaired by Professor Martin Price of UNESCO, speakers will include representatives from the National Farmers Union, the Environment Agency, the South Downs Society, the South Downs National Park Authority and myself from the Sussex Wildlife Trust. Tickets are £5, which includes a light lunch of locally sources and organic food. They are available from Brighton Fringe on 01273 917272 or at www.brightonfringe.org.

Prosperity and Environmental Protection go hand in hand

I very much welcome the Deputy Prime Minister’s recognition that prosperity and environmental protection can go hand in hand.

In a speech made on 11th April Nick Clegg stated that: ‘the environment contributes to our economy in a range of ways, many we don't always appreciate’ and that ‘lean times can be green times’.

His comments, made at the KPMG headquarters, come following a Government review of the EU Habitats Regulations, which concluded they are not a burden on development. The final National Planning Policy Framework, which it was feared would put the needs of development ahead of the natural environment, also showed more of a balance between the economy and the environment. I mentioned the thawing of both of these concerns back in my blog of 30th March, but the Deputy Prime Minister has gone further by clearly destroying the myth that the environment has to be put to one side while we dabble with economic concerns.

The Deputy Prime Minister’s speech is a welcome sign that the Government is moving away from the damaging rhetoric that preceded the budget, which suggested that protecting the environment is at odds with economic growth. Protection of the natural environment is not only compatible with increasing prosperity, but the services healthy ecosystems provide are vital to underpinning a healthy economy.

Indeed I would go further than the Deputy Prime Minister has – the world is moving on quickly and politicians are having trouble keeping up. It is not so much recognising that growth can be green; more that growth must be green. If not then it is not growth at all – the choice is between green growth or no growth. Bearing this in mind, there are signs that we are moving in the right direction – Nick Clegg mentions energy efficiency and low carbon industry for instance. Very good, but these are perhaps the areas where we should already be far more advanced. Far more difficult problems to address will be how to truly reflect the value of nature in all our decision making. The value of pollinating insects, for instance, was mentioned by Nick Clegg – perhaps worth about £1.8bn as the value of pollinating crops. But this is only the tiny tip of the ice berg in terms of all the services that nature provides for us for free. £1.8bn may sound a lot but is a poor approximation of infinity against the cost of ecosystem collapse if we really were to loose our pollinating insects.

I look forward to the Deputy Prime Minister’s promised statements on Natural Capital in the coming months. I urge him to grapple fully with the key messages that came out of the National Ecosystem Assessment and to drive forward the ambitions in the Natural Environment White Paper. The Government must put the recovery of the natural environment at the heart of any plans for economic recovery.

Water water - anywhere?

So, the much-publicised hosepipe ban is upon us.

This should not be a surprise. It’s been talked about for weeks and everyone should have realised by now that we are living in one of the driest periods since records began. Indeed I heard one commentator say that the water resource situation now is worse than it was at the height of the famous 1976 drought.

People might complain about how somebody should have done something – more pipes, more reservoirs, desalination plants or whatever. But the point is that water is a finite resource. It does naturally replenish but if we use it at a faster rate than it is replenished then we are inevitably in trouble. Dreams of technological fixes, complaints about Water Companies, political niggling or whatever do not overcome a basic ecological resource issue.

Dry periods happen. Whether made worse by climate change or not, there is a great deal of natural variation in the weather so periods of drought are inevitable. Yet we are very vulnerable to this and our actions are making us still more vulnerable.

I heard someone on the radio this morning say that the Victorians would have sorted this out. And perhaps this is the problem – we are still thinking like Victorians. We believe we can build our way out of any problem and when this doesn’t work then we blame the people who failed to build our way out of the problem.

Technology is important, but alone it is not the solution. Furthermore by focusing on techno-fixes we are overlooking the ways that we are making things worse for ourselves. Below I will mention just two of these:

The first relates to how we come by our water.

75% of our water comes from underground aquifers, not rivers or reservoirs. Rainwater falls onto our countryside then slowly percolates into the ground where if forms the bulk of our water resources. What happens to our countryside to encourage water to seep underground is therefore fundamentally important to our water resources. If it falls on the South Downs for instance, is captured by stable, long-established vegetation then it can seep into the aquifer. If it lands on hard surfaces or bare soil then it is more likely to wash quickly into rivers and out to sea rather than going into the aquifer, perhaps causing erosion and flooding as it does so. Having rich and diverse vegetation, such as flower-rich chalk grassland, on our Downs is therefore helping our water resources (and perhaps reducing soil erosion and flooding at the same time). So nature conservation is protecting a vital service, as well as protecting plants and butterflies.

Therefore we should be conserving, expanding and interlinking these rich Downland habitats.

In the distant past about 20% of Sussex would probably have been “wetland” - areas where water naturally collected forming marshes, reed beds and floodplain woodland. Now less than 2% is wetland and much of what remains is highly constrained. In the past these natural wetlands would themselves have encouraged the accumulation of water in aquifers underground. Centuries of drainage might have provided more agricultural and housing land but we have reduced the ability of our land to absorb water underground. As nature conservationists, this loss of wetlands makes us concerned about the loss of wetland wildlife – the reduction of toads and newts, fewer wetland birds like snipe and lapwing, the threat to water voles and otter and the damage to fish populations. Important though these are they are but an indicator of deeper trouble regarding a hydrological system on which we are totally dependant.

Therefore we should be restoring wetlands, expanding them and re-naturalising valleys, financially encouraging farmers to farm in ways consistent with wetland habitats rather than requiring their drainage.

The second relates to our demand for water.

We use enormous amounts of water. Each one of us, on average uses 150 litres per day. That’s over a tonne a week each. With 1.4 million people in Sussex that means we use over 200 million litres a day - from a water resource that is not currently being replenished. Even this is only the tip of the iceberg. Many of the things we use or buy have a “water footprint” – they use water in manufacture and transport. For instance one cup of coffee needs about 140 litres of water to be grown, processed and transported. But even ignoring this, there are too many of us in the South East and each of us is putting too much demand on water. So we need to reduce our demand. There are plenty of water saving devices and water efficient appliances, and plenty of alternative ways of living in order to use less water. We just need the will – a general rethink about a resource that we must really understand is finite.

However, whilst leafing through Wealden District Council’s development strategy (most districts have them, I just happened too see this one) I see a list of house building allocations – 9600 homes to be built in the next 25 years, that’s about 25,000 people. This would increase our water demand by about 3.7 million litres a day, just for Wealden District. If you add in all the other house building plans for the rest of Sussex then you really get the picture of a planning system that is not paying any regard at all to environmental limits. We may need house building, to upgrade or replace existing housing stock, but at the moment our plans are based on a presumption of ever increasing expansion. In a finite world with finite resources and particularly with finite water – this is madness.

Planning reforms and habitat regulations

Back in December last year I expressed major concerns about the direction the Chancellor of the Exchequer seemed to be taking with the environment. Basically he saw it as a block on the economy – “gold plating of EU rules…. placing ridiculous costs on business”.

At the same time we saw a draft National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) that again threatened the simplistic stripping away of environmental protection in the mistaken belief that, against all the evidence, it was this that was holding back the British economy.

Fortunately more sensible voices seem now to have been heard, I suspect perhaps including some words from our own Sussex MPs.

The NPPF has now been published and it is an improvement over the draft. The Government has now recognised the importance of planning positively for the natural environment and of including Local Wildlife Sites and Nature Improvement Areas. It is also good to see the ambition to achieve net gains for nature, specifically referencing the Natural Environment White Paper. Local Authorities now have the clear steer needed to help secure nature’s recovery by embedding policies to create vital ecological networks and protect important wildlife sites and species in local and neighbourhood plans.

The emphasis on economic growth still remains but at least the definition of sustainable development is a little better and the artificial polarity of environment versus economy, implied in the draft, seems to have gone.

Government makes great sway of reducing 1000 pages of planning guidance down to just 50. It remains to be seen if this is a good thing. Those 1000 pages were there for a reason and had been built up to provide clarity. Stripping that away could be a recipe for chaos, as development after development fights their case through Public Inquiries. Or maybe it will set a trajectory, perhaps supported by technical notes to provide the needed clarity.

So it is not quite as bad as I thought it was going to be. But “not quite as bad as I thought it was going to be” is hardly great praise. Maybe the proof of the pudding will be in the way that some of the localisation principles come into play. Will this be true local decision-making (what development goes where…) or will it actually reduce local say (government sets the development and locals are free to decide on what colour the gates should be painted!).

Part of this apparent assault on the environment was a review of the Habitat regulations – regulations used to protect our most important environmental assets. However, this has been a constructive process and the Wildlife Trusts have been able to engage fully. Unsurprisingly, the review found no evidence of “gold plating” of the regulations and even delays to development were only found in a tiny fraction of cases. I am relieved that Caroline Spelman was able to defend the principles and purposes of these Directives. Perhaps it is worrying that there was so little evidence of development being adversely effected by the regulations – maybe the only way to keep government happy has been to show how ineffective the regulations actually are! In practice, however, it probably shows how good negotiation can achieve good outcomes for both the economy and the environment when people make the effort.

Nevertheless, I remain concerned about some of the rhetoric still coming from the Chancellor. We still hear tales of global business being diverted from the UK, loosing hundreds of jobs to Germany and the Netherlands (who, incidentally, have environmental regulations as good as or better than ours), of restrictions holding back the economy and so on. Yet this is at variance with the evidence (places with strong environmental protection tend to have stronger economies) – a point almost never picked up by the media.