Into the woods - some thoughts on reforestation

I was all ready to tear into the nonsense that is Oxfam's "Growing a Better Future" - how these organisations get to the point of presented half-truths, inaccurate analyses and daft solutions I'll never understand. However the point was made very clearly here:

This is much less a report about the iniquities of the international food system and the perils of climate change than it is a report about what happens to food prices as we abolish absolute poverty and destitution.

More people with more money means higher food prices - simple really!

So I'm going to talk about wood instead - after all wood is very important. Across most of the world it is the dominant source of fuel for heating and cooking - indeed this is one of the reasons why we've seen so much deforestation in Africa:

Developing countries rely heavily on wood fuel, the major energy source for cooking and heating. In Africa, the statistics are striking: an estimated 90 percent of the entire continent's population uses fuelwood for cooking, and in Sub-Saharan Africa, firewood and brush supply approximately 52 percent of all energy sources.

And you've guessed it - that fuelwood gathering doesn't rely on "sustainable" sources. Moreover, the clearance of forests is further accelerated by the persistence of low labour productivity farming - the very farming systems preferred by Oxfam and the ludicrous proponents of "fair trade".

England's woods of oak and birch were destroyed for much the same reason - to provide fuel, to build houses (and famously ships) and to make room for agriculture. System shocks like Dutch Elm disease added to the decline and the poisoned landscapes - like the face of the moon as the song goes - of mining destroyed still more old woodland. Strangely enough - although you'd not believe this to hear the NIMBYs cry sometimes - not much of our woodland was felled to make room for houses.

And woods recover - forest cover is now at its largest extent since 1750:

The amount of woodland in the UK now stands at 11,200 square miles, 11.8 per cent of the total land area. The growth, attributed in part to a boom in individuals branching out into forestry because of tax breaks, was greeted with cautious optimism by woodland historians. So much new forest is being planted that some areas could even reach the 15 per cent of woodland recorded in England by the Doomsday Book in 1086, the figures suggest. 

And much of the growth in woodland is private planting - nothing to do with all that public forest so many people fussed about recently:

The new Forestry Commission report, conducted for the UN’s food and agriculture department, disclosed that the amount of woodland owned by individuals now accounts for almost half of all our tree cover, having grown by 22 per cent in 15 years.

 

In an advanced society, free from the need to burn wood and no longer trapped in subsistence or semi-subsistence agriculture, woods are an asset that it treasured, managed and valued. Perhaps there's a lesson in this for the Oxfam's of this world - but don't hold you breath!

....

Friday Fungus: Don't worry about that climate change folks!

I know how you’re all losing sleep over climate change which I suppose is why there’s no outcry at Bradford Council maintaining an eighteen strong “Environment & Climate Change Unit” while closing libraries and swimming pools.

But you don’t have to worry – the mushrooms have it covered:

The fight against climate warming has an unexpected ally in mushrooms growing in dry spruce forests covering Alaska, Canada, Scandinavia and other northern regions, a new UC Irvine study finds.

When soil in these forests is warmed, fungi that feed on dead plant material dry out and produce significantly less climate-warming carbon dioxide than fungi in cooler, wetter soil. This came as a surprise to scientists, who expected warmer soil to emit larger amounts of carbon dioxide because extreme cold is believed to slow down the process by which fungi convert soil carbon into carbon dioxide.

....

Why "Save our Forests" rather disappoints...

A few days ago I wrote about the proposals to dispose of all or part of the Forestry Commission's English estate. I remain of the opinion that the Commission is not the best steward for these estates - either as commercial woodland (which is what most of it is) or as public amenity. The Government is consulting about the proposals - the document is here - and it would be rather more helpful if people thought for themselves rather than herding like sheep behind the cry of "save our forests". The purpose of the consultation is set out clearly:

This consultation is about the future ownership and management of the public forest estate in England – land managed by the Forestry Commission on behalf of the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.

It sets out the rationale for a move away from the Government owning and managing significant areas of woodlands in England and the principles which will guide the Government in deciding the way forward. The consultation proposes a mixed model approach to reforming the ownership and management of the public forest estate to create a far greater role for civil society, businesses and individuals.

So first of all, the proposals isn't for a quick sale of the estate (which would be best achieved through simply putting the lot on the market in one big lump) but a more nuanced proposal. Yet all we hear of the ever shriller cries of "save our forests" - including nonsense like this:

They (the forests) could be auctioned and fenced off, run down, logged or turned into golf courses and holiday villages.

I really don't know where to start with this but it's clear written by someone who has never been anywhere near managing a forest - and I really can see why anyone would buy something just to have it "run down".

Logging? Yes dears, that's what the Forestry Commission do now with the woodlands it owns - it's a commercial forest operator. It's also a regulator which really isn't a good idea and explains why 90% of the Commission's woods are conifer monoculture of little landscape benefit, limited in its contribution to biodiversity and rather lacking in amenity or leisure value.

Golf courses? Good grief - a new game of 'golf in the wood', now that's an idea! Why would a developer go to all the expense - not to mention the planning problems - of clearing a whole forest so as to build a golf course when there's plenty of good open land near towns where they can be developed? Makes no sense - a bit like the suggestion!

Holiday villages! A what exactly is the problem with holiday villages? Don't we already have holiday facilities so people can stay in the woods and enjoy them? Isn't this something to be encouraged? In fact what's this - a business called "Forest Holidays" that 'operates entirely within the Forestry Commission Estate'! Wow! Holiday villages!

This entire campaign is unhelpful - not because the forests should necessarily be sold but because it is founded on misinformation and ignorance rather than presenting any rational discussion about the future of the Forestry Commission's English Estates. There are a few such as Julian Dobson who try to get beyond the slogans to suggest possible ways forward:

It doesn’t necessarily follow that the Forestry Commission or the government are the only people who should own woodlands. Indeed, the idea that some of our best-loved forests should be owned in perpetuity by the National Trust is attractive because it reduces the risk of future sales. But - as I argued in a paper for The Mersey Forest published this month - we can’t expect local communities to take over stewardship of our woodlands without help and investment. The need is for a greater emphasis on the community forests programme alongside a clear recognition by government that our woodlands are a resource to be looked after for generations to come.

Julian's focus is on the amenity value of woodland and especially the development of woodland in and near urban areas. But there is a further discussion to be had - that of balancing the different options and opportunities presented by the variety of wood and forest. I see no reason why the upland commercial woodland can't be sold - so long as access rights are guaranteed (and this should, for these forests, extend to include cycles and horses). For the less commercial forests, we need a debate about management, leisure, amenity and different potential uses set alongside an examination of options for future ownership.

It seems to me that the government is consulting with a three-year-old - the opponents simply scream "save our forests" rather than taking the opportunity to ask whether the proposed 'sell-off' actually presents opportunities for trusts, co-operatives and others to secure the woodland for public use and enjoyment.

I find this rather disappointing.

....

Selling off the forests - or not? Is there a road through the woods?

They shut the road through the woods
Seventy years ago.
Weather and rain have undone it again,
And now you would never know
There was once a road through the woods
Before they planted the trees.
It is underneath the coppice and heath,
And the thin anemones.
Only the keeper sees
That, where the ring-dove broods,
And the badgers roll at ease,
There was once a road through the woods.

I must admit to not being especially bothered one way or the other about the future ownership of around 15% of England’s woodland. It seems to me that this is, in truth, a matter of little consequence in the reduction of debt or the elimination of deficit. And, while I understand the motives behind realising the woodland’s value and also see no good reason for the state owning large swathes of upland conifer forest, the proposal to consider disposal has turned into a cause célèbre. A letter from 100 celebrities and paid up members of the great and good sums up this cause:

“We, who love and use the English forests, believe that such a sale would be misjudged and shortsighted. It is our national heritage. We are an island nation yet more people escape to the forest than to the seaside.

“Our forests nurture countless species of native plants and wildlife. We have relied on them since time immemorial yet we are only a heartbeat in their history. We who know the value of the forests fear that over time, the public’s access to them will be limited and their protection, eroded.

“We, the undersigned, believe it unconscionable that future generations will not be able to enjoy the guarantee of a public forest estate.”

And the Telegraph, delighted that these famous folk have selected it rather than The Times or The Guardian has leapt enthusiastically onto the ‘Save our Forests’ bandwagon with an emotive piece about woodland as a ‘precious asset’ and appeals to David Cameron’s greenery. Indeed the whole debate is wrapped about with misinformation, misrepresentation and appeals to emotion rather than any rational or objective assessment of the issues involved.

Just look at the excerpt from the letter that I quoted above. I get all misty-eyed just reading it – it plays to my love of England, it talks of heritage and alludes to ancientness, to the mystery of the woods. And it’s a load of eyewash.

Nearly all of the Forestry Commissions woodland is recently planted upland commercial wood – which isn’t to say that it isn’t important and doesn’t contain lots of wildlife but is to say that it isn’t ‘ancient woodland’. Indeed, there is a public record of ancient woodland and, if you want, you can go and view it because Natural England has put all the maps on-line (a caveat here is that this excludes smaller woods – under 2ha). And the planning system in England also affords a degree of protection to such woodland:

Planning Policy Statement 9 (PPS9) states that local authorities should ‘identify any areas of ancient woodland in their areas that do not have statutory protection’ and normally ‘not grant planning permission for any development which would result in its loss or deterioration’.

Since this is a planning matter, the issue of ownership is not relevant – the planning authority can regulate and control activity within any ancient woodland. Plus of course access rights (on foot) to the woodland is also protected:

The CRoW Act also introduced the ability to voluntarily dedicate woodland for free public access in perpetuity. Since then, Forest Enterprise has dedicated the majority of the public forest estate in England. The total area of dedicated woodland in England is 137,000 Hectares.

So –regardless of future ownership – your and my rights to access the forest is guaranteed (unless a future government opts to repeal or reform the Countryside & Rights of Way Act).

To sum up then we are debating a change of ownership that will not change access rights, involves very little ancient woodland, doesn’t alter planning regulations and retains (even extends) regulatory oversight of woodland.  There may well be a strong case for retaining public ownership but it isn’t contained in the emotive arguments presented to counter the government’s proposals.

Instead of this emotional blackmail we could instead have a serious discussion that covers:

• Whether the government should own young growth commercial woodland – this is a straightforward business better in the private sector and issues around leisure uses for these forests (and especially uses such as cycling, wild food foraging and horse riding) can be protected and encouraged through regulatory oversight or prescriptive covenant
• How future management of ancient and old plantation woodland should be conducted – rather than being managed by a remote national body (that is really a logging business) would it not be better to transfer management to local authorities, create local trusts or transfer to the Woodland trust or similar?
• What changes to planning regulations, rights of way and other property considerations might enhance the public value of woodland outwith the issue of ownership and, as importantly, how can we continue to balance competing interests and objectives (for example, nature conservancy versus rights to roam)?

This would be a sensible debate – one that might allow us to better appreciate the issues relating to England’s woodland and its conservation. Emotive nonsense about “our forests” may get you public sympathy and might get the government to change its plans. But it won’t result in better managed, more accessible and valued woodland.

....

A Monday Mushroom: They're trying to stop us picking mushrooms.

There has been an almighty outcry at the prospect of the Government "selling off all the forests". Some of this has been knee jerk left-wing, 'we hate privatisation' response but others have been rightly concerned about access - especially for leisure. As the Forestry Commission trade union bloke told us:

Once we've sold it, it never comes back. Once it is sold, restrictions are placed on the land which means the public don't get the same access to the land and facilities that are provided by the public forest estate

So there you go - save the forests! The People's Forests! Unless of those people are mushroom pickers in which case, oh no, you can't get your pleasure in the forest. You are bad people. You are "destroying ecosystems". You must desist!

this new generation of foodies and foragers are beginning to trample the forests and fields that feed them – as well as many animals and insects, warn those who look after the UK's woodlands and nature reserves

Like cyclists, walkers, runners and wildlife photographers don't?

What really annoys the "conservation" groups of course is that some people are making money from mushroom picking. There are teams of commercial pickers who gather wild mushrooms for sale to posh restaurants and fancy delis. So why not do what Antonio Carluccio says then?

The chef, who does not use wild mushrooms in his cafes and delis, believes there should be licences for commercial collectors to ensure they behave responsibly, as there are in many other European countries. "There should be more discipline in collecting: not trampling everything, not destroying everything and to be limited to what you can consume. But don't deprive people of the wonders of going to the woods for the mushrooms,"

Now that's a great idea - just selling a limited number of 'rights' to collect mushrooms! Get some income (like you do from fishing rights, from pannage or from grazing) and ensure that the mushroom stock is sustained. And for hobby pickers - have a licensing system (back to fishing again) or a membership system.

Don't just stop us.

....