Is it time for the Forestry Commission to be stood down?

by Michael Smith (Veshengro)

Is it time for the Forestry Commission, maybe, to be stood down and that our woodlands (and our forests) be placed into cooperative – I did say cooperative not corporate – management? I certainly do think so and so does the cooperative movement. At least they do think so as far as cooperative management of our woodlands is concerned.

I am not saying that the British Forestry Commission is not fit for purpose; it has had its time and purpose and its original purpose, when founded just after World War One, has been fulfilled, and that already a long time ago. Thus the Commission is, to all intents and purposes, obsolete; both the purpose and the Commission.

The original brief of the Forestry Commission was to produce timer for the trenches for another possible way (in the end World War Two was different and did not require that much on timber for trench fortification) and for the pits, the mines, and that was the very reason for pine and spruce plantations. Today, however, our woods (and forests) require a different kind of direction and management and the Commission, in fact, seems to be almost incapable of providing that, and our industry is asking for more hardwood than softwood.

While we might need in Britain, a Ministry or Department, of Woods and Forests, that has an advisory role and a legislative one and one especially that ensures that our forest cover is increased rather than diminished and that the appropriate trees are planted and that woods are managed in the age-old ways that have served us and the woods so very well over previous millennia, and that also has a hand in research, and quasi-quango such as is the Forestry Commission is surplus to requirements.

Our country's woodlands especially, and here in particular those that are in “public” hands, for starters, should be handed over to be managed by interested community groups, but also by individuals and small cooperative enterprises, to be run for the good of the wood and the nation.

While the Commission talks much about the need of bringing all the woods in Britain back into production it does very little to actually facilitate this and often seems more of a hindrance.

The Forestry Commission, to a great degree, despite its many words, has become focused on the amenity use of its – actually the nation's – forests and far too many resources are pumped into the creation of “play grounds”, be those mountain bike trails, or whatever, and treat the forests more and more like a leisure enterprise and nature “reserves”. Wrong approach. Period!

The Commission keeps talking about the need of bringing more, ideally all, of our woods back into production but still does not seem to understand how this is too happen while at the same time pandering to leisure and recreation and creating trails for this and that.

The brief of the Forestry Commission from its founding was the production of timer for the War Department and the mines and not for furniture manufacturing and even building in Britain. The majority of the hardwood for furniture came from abroad, from the Empire, with but a little home-grown.

What is needed today is timber for British industry, including the building industry, from local sources, and the predominately conifer plantations of the Forestry Commission cannot supply that.

In years gone by our woods and forests had greater biodiversity and wildlife in spite little debris being left on the forest floor. Is our modern management to blame? I certainly do think so and so do others.

If we want state forestry, and national forests, in the United Kingdom it would be best to have a proper Ministry of Forests and a Forest Service but by far better would it be to have proper cooperative community-based management of our woodlands and forests – all of them.

The Forestry Commission is, basically, the law maker – or maker of the rules governing forestry (granting felling licenses, for instance) while it is also the biggest producer of timber. Thus it is almost like putting the fox in charge of the hen house. We need a Ministry of Forests or a Department of Forests that governs – where needed – operators and not a quango like the Forestry Commission.

© 2015

Ash dieback (Chalara fraxinea) in Britain

Already 100,000 Ash trees have been destroyed

by Michael Smith (Veshengro), RFA, Ecofor

After the devastation wrought by the New Dutch Elm Disease to the Elm trees of Britain, the Bleeding Canker in Horse Chestnut trees and the problems with Cameraria ohridella, the leaf miner moth in the same, and Sudden Oak Death, now the Ash trees of the British Isles are under threat by yet another – possible devastating – disease.

Ash trees make up almost one third of Britain's tree stock – there are 80 million of them – and they are under threat from a deadly disease which is sweeping the forests of continental Europe sand have now arrived in the forests of Britain.

After much clouding of the issue and pussyfooting from the side of the government, it now appears that a staggering 100,000 trees have already been destroyed in an effort to stop the spreading.¹

The Ash is the fourth most common tree in the countryside so this poses a terrible threat to the UK’s forests and to trees growing in parks and gardens. The first cases were discovered almost eight months ago. They came on trees imported from the Netherlands.

But it has also been found on British ash trees and it is thought that it can also be carried by the wind or be lying dormant for years

Photo source: Forestry Commission

The disease, called Chalara fraxinea, is a fungus that causes leaf loss and crown dieback in affected trees, and it can lead to tree death.

First found in Poland 20 years ago, the fungus has gradually spread across Europe, reaching Denmark in 2002. There it led to estimated losses of between 60 and 90 per cent of Denmark’s ash trees.

The disease will devastate the landscape because if it spreads the trees will either die and rot or have to be destroyed, leaving huge gaps in forests and harming the wider eco-system, as they provide homes for birds, insects and mammals. It is second only to the oak tree in its popularity in the British countryside.

For now, effective from Monday, October 29, 2012, all imports of the Ash tree have been stopped and also no further planting of the trees in public forests will take place. A commission has been set up to examine the whole matter.

The Woodland Trust says: “Ash dieback is only one of numerous tree pests and diseases in the UK. With more than 15 separate pests and diseases listed on the Forestry Commission website as already present in the UK, it is crucial that the wider issue is tackled. The government must set up an emergency summit bringing together representatives from all areas of forestry, plant health and conservation – because today it's ash, but tomorrow yet another of our precious native trees could be at risk”.

Of great importance is also to introduce proper bio-security measures and to ensure that only trees raised from seeds in the UK, under monitored conditions, are grown for planting. And the same must go for all other trees.

We must, in fact, stop the importation of trees – all trees – and shrubs from abroad in order to ensure that diseases are kept at bay.

It would appear that New Dutch Elm Disease came into Britain with Elm lumber, imported as whole trees with bark on (lazy forestry practice), from the USA in the middle part of the last century after having first been exported with the same bad practice into the USA where the disease mutated in American Elms.

Sudden Oak Death also was brought into this country from abroad, and to all intents and purposes also from the USA, and in this instance via Rhododendrons.

It is, however, also true, as far as Ash dieback is concerned, the the spores of the fungus Chalara fraxinea are arriving in the UK on wind currents from the European mainland, such as from the Netherlands. Unfortunately there is little that we can do to protect against that kind of unwanted immigration.

Ash dieback is a reportable disease and anyone, especially woodland owners, managers of municipal parks, woodlands and open spaces, and in fact anyone else involved with trees, should immediately contact the appropriate authorities. The Forestry Commission research station at Alice Holt Lodge is the most central post of call in this case.

(C) 2012

1However, according to forestry sources in Germany felling and burning the trees will not prevent the disease nor lessen its impact as their efforts have shown. In fact, according to German forestry sources there is, basically, nothing that can be done.

Forestry Panel backs publicly-owned woods and forests

by Michael Smith (Veshengro)

There is a “continuing role” for a national publicly-owed forest estate in England, the Independent Panel on Forestry, an independent, so the name suggests, panel set up in the wake of the Government's sell-off U-turn, has concluded.

In a progress report, the Independent Panel on Forestry says it is developing recommendations that will “increase the benefits generated from all forests in England”.

The Government put on hold a sale of 15% of the forest estate in February amid fury about the wider forestry privatization plans.

Bishop of Liverpool the Right Reverend James Jones, who chairs the panel, said: “Although our panel was born out of fierce debate over the future of the public forest estate, what has become apparent through our work so far is that we must look at the future of all woods and forests, not just the one-fifth managed by the Forestry Commission.

“Through the 42,000 responses to our call for views, the public expressed their passion for forests as a place of recreation, to connect with nature and as a vital source of resources.

“These responses, along with the many people we have met on our visits, have helped inform our report. For now, all of our work, especially in relation to the woods and forests outside of the public forest estate, needs further development in the run up to making recommendations in our final report next year.

“But, as ever, the panel are dedicated to further exploring these emerging themes.”

Widespread opposition to the plans to transfer ownership of public forests, currently managed by the Forestry Commission, to businesses, communities and charities forced the Government into a u-turn on the policy. Instead, Environment Secretary Caroline Spelman set up the independent forestry panel to advise ministers on England's woodlands.

Mary Creagh, shadow environment secretary, said: “Labour welcomes this thoughtful report from the Independent Panel on Forestry, which reflects the views of some 40,000 people and their heartfelt concern and affection for England's forests. Our forests are a precious reflection of our national heritage, and will play a pivotal role in the green economy and our low carbon future.”

Environment Secretary Caroline Spelman said: “I'd like to thank the Independent Panel for their ongoing hard work in shaping forestry policy in England and look forward to their full report next spring.”

Countryside champions, the Campaign to Protect Rural England, have welcomed the Forestry Panel’s progress report on their vision for the future of England’s forests but emphasize the need for stronger protection for trees in national planning policy.

Emma Marrington, Rural Policy Campaigner for CPRE, said: “We are pleased the Forestry Panel agrees that the benefits of woods and forests are greatly undervalued. The Government were wrong to see Forestry Commission land as just another asset to sell off. This report makes it crystal clear that the benefits provided by the public forest estate offer value for money.”

The final recommendations by the Independent Panel on Forestry, due in April 2012, will come at a vital time for the future of England’s countryside. The final National Planning Policy Framework is expected around the same time and if this is not greatly improved, it is likely to leave much of our countryside as an easy target for development.

Emma Marrington concluded: “The Government must listen to the Forestry Panel’s recommendations and ensure that a secure future if planned for the public forest estate. Our trees, woods and forests need to be more effectively protected, for the benefit of all, for generations to come.”

The way the campaign against the so-called sell-off presented the issue was that companies would buy the woods and forests, clear fell all the trees and then move one. That, however, would never have happened and, yes, I am speaking here with my hat a s professional and commercial forester firmly on my head.

No forestry company would ever even consider doing such a thing as the trees are the future of their business.

The Forestry Commission is not, necessarily, doing the greatest of job in managing (and protecting) the nation's woodlands and forests. Many privately owned and managed woods and forests are in a much healthier state and one that produces a much better return, including for the environment, than do many a Commission forest.

The Forestry Commission was not created, and this must be remembered, to be a custodian of our woods and forests, the majority which are and were then also privately owned and managed. It's task was to produce timber for the wars, especially building timber for a variety of uses including and especially the trenches.

However, what is urgently needed is to bring our woodlands and forests, private, and public, into proper use and production if the country is going to meet a number of targets.

The demand for carbon neutral fuel, in the form of wood, logs and pellets, is growing and traders are forced to source firewood from abroad, from as far away as Poland, Western Russia, the Ukraine, etc. This is not a sustainable way of going about it.

Our woodlands and forests, including the woodlands on Open Spaces and in Parks, could fulfill much if not indeed most of our needs, especially if managed properly by way of rotation coppice.

To get the fact that trees need to be cut down in order to be used as a resource and that it will actually benefit nature and wildlife if this is done in a proper way ever so often is something that seems to be very difficult to get into the heads of many self-proclaimed environmentalists and greenies.

Let's bring out woods and forests back to life and let's use the resource properly and, and this is very important, let's plant more community woods and forests for the purpose of using the wood.

© 2011

Con-Lib government selling off Britain's forests

by Michael Smith (Veshengro)

The British coalition government between Tories and Whigs is putting forward the framework for legislation to sell off much of the government-owned forests and despite much protests seems to be going ahead with it. Truth is they have to raise money somehow to bring the country back from bankruptcy.

While everyone in the green sector seems to be up in arms about this suggestion I wonder whether it may not actually be a good idea.

Claims and comments such as this one “The government is getting ready for a huge sell-off of our national forests to private firms. This could mean ancient woodlands are chopped down and destroyed. Walkers and endangered animals, like red squirrels and owls, would have to make way for Center Parcs-style holiday villages, golf courses, and logging companies” by 38 Degrees ( http://www.38degrees.org.uk) are not helpful as they more than likely are very misleading.

“We need to stop these plans”, 38 Degrees say, and continue “ancient forests like the Forest of Dean and Sherwood Forest are national treasures - once they’re gone, they are lost forever.”

I am well aware that to many my suggestion is tantamount to treason and betrayal of green principles but allow me to play the Devil's advocate, for a while at least.

The claim of “ancient forests” which always, in the minds of the public conjures up forests never touched by the hand of man and never managed for forest products, etc. are entirely wrong. There are no “ancient” or “untouched” forests and woodlands in Britain or elsewhere in Europe bar one or two in the East of the continent that were so inaccessible that timber extraction was not possible. All other forests and woodlands have been used and managed.

The great forests mentioned by the 38 Degrees group were, once upon a time and that not all that long ago, privately owned or owned by the crown and administered by Agisters and other forest officers and the usage rites were “owned” by the so-called “foresters”, much like “commoners” that had rites to the common of a village.

Originally British forests were the hunting reserves of the crown and thus had special protection. Other forests and woods were owned by the landowners, the Lords and the Lords of the Manor and the Lairds in Scotland. The state has not been the owner of our forests for long.

The Centre Parcs-style holiday villages – oh mt G-D what eyesores – are not necessarily on the horizon and that simply because there is no money for building those and there are no customers either. So let's stop with silly claims and scaremongering.

The management of our forests – the state-owned ones – via the Forestry Commission (most of the British woods and forests are in fact privately owned though most people tend to forget that) – leaves much to be desired, as does that of the majority of our privately owned woodlands and especially of those owned by local authorities and local governments.

The Forestry Commission was not, in fact, established to protect our forests. It was a commercial government operation to ensure that enough wood was available for the use by the military and especially “vital” industry such as props for the coal mines. That was its primary task. The rest just sort of developed later when amenity had greater value than the pit props. You don't need pit props when you haven't got any pits left.

Afforestation was the main reason for the creation of the commission in 1919. Britain had then only 5% of its original forest cover left and the government at that time wanted to create a strategic resource of timber. Since then forest area has more than doubled and the remit of the commission is now much more focused on sustainable forest management and on maximizing public benefits. Establishment of new forests and woodlands has gone out of the window, unfortunately.

The Forestry Commission claims also to be the government body responsible for the regulation of private forestry and claims that felling is generally illegal without first obtaining a license from the Commission. Having worked in forestry, private forestry, for many years this is something rather new to me.

Apparently the Commission claims also to be responsible encouraging new planting and while it is true that the Commission used to provide grants in support of private forests and woodlands, new planting is something that any forestry estate and forest owner who manages his or her forests and woodlands properly would do without the interference of the FC. In the current climate I am sure we shall see this support of grants fall drastically. Not that, to all intents and purposes, it should ever be needed.

So, let's not loose too many tears and sleepless nights over the FC losing a couple of its forests.

As long as the woods are not just clear felled by the buyers for a quick buck – and legislation could prevent that from happening – and are properly managed for future timber and other forest products, which everyone on his or her right mind buying such assets would do, then privatizing many of those forests and woodlands might just be a good idea.

People could band together and buy their own local forests and then manage them and thus much better use could, maybe, made of them than are currently be made by the FC and local authorities.

Thus many proper community woodlands and forests could be created and the forests products could be marketed primarily for local use, which could encourage local industry regeneration.

Personally, I wonder whether the FC itself, which is not a ministerial department but, to all intents and purposes is a Quango, should not be gotten rid off itself.

While, and I am the first to admit that, its research arm is a most valuable one as far as tree diseases and such go the rest of the operations may not be as useful as claimed.

I told you I was going to play the Devil's advocate here...

What we really must get down to is to get the management of our local authority owned woodlands and forests to be put under proper commercial management – somehow managed by the councils – to (1) clean them up and (2) bring in some revenue from the forests products that could be created and (3) by the same way also encouraging the creation of local industries making use of those products. It can be done and must be done, if only to keep the woods and forests in good shape.

Britain's forests and woodlands are in a mess and we need to, urgently, revitalize their uses. In the West Country there are coppice woodlands that, due to pressure from misguided greenies, have not been managed for decades now because those greenies made claims that those woods were ancient woods and must return to their original state.

Unfortunately none of them has a clue about forestry operations and those coppice woodlands are in danger of breaking apart, literally, with the thousand or more years old coppice stools simply falling over and that is the end of it. No more woods at all. Shame there are so many in the green movement who do not want to understand that.

You want woodlands and forests? Make sure you own them and not the state even. If the community and people feel strongly enough there should be ways and means that could make real community woodlands and forests possible. But they then also need to be managed properly.

© 2010