England has a plan
Timber’s role is noted – it’s even on the cover
A five-year plan for England’s woodlands was launched on December 15 by the FC and Natural England. It has been drawn up in conjunction with over 100 organisations representing woodland owners, forestry businesses, conservation bodies and local communities. According to their joint statement, “The ultimate goal is that by around 2020 management of the both small, private woods and large commercial forestry will provide greater use of home-grown wood in construction and woodfuel, a healthier landscape for wildlife and an increase in people visiting woodlands for leisure and tourism.

The local environment and local communities will be improved with more, high-quality, wooded greenspace close to where people live and a revival of trees in our streets.” The first thing to say is that it is gratifying to note that timber production is mentioned throughout the plan. There is even an attempt to redress some popular misconceptions: “…disparate messages need unifying. In particular, the role of sustainable forest management, timber products and woodfuel in addressing climate change is poorly understood. For example, a common and fundamental misconception is that felling trees is always bad for the environment, failing to
acknowledge the role of sustainable woodland management and, specifically, the role of wood products and woodfuel in combating climate change.

Conversely, while we want to take advantage of the symbolic value of tree planting when communicating a climate change message, we also need to correct popular misconceptions that such simple acts can solve our emissions problems.” This is very welcome, especially
given that the misconceptions being dispelled here seem to have informed policy makers in the past. England is not famous for its timber production, and there seems to have been a sense of embarrassment when it comes to felling trees.

We don’t do that – instead we provide nice woods for people to walk round, and we look after birds, butterflies and furry animals. However, in the same section (‘Where we are in 2008’) there is the statement: “Woodfuel is being recognised as an important source of renewable energy. However, a shortage of knowledge, skills and poor matching of supply and
demand are limiting its potential uptake, and therefore its role in climate change mitigation. There is growing debate about the desirability, viability and environmental impacts of establishing fast-growing plantations for industrial woodfuel, particularly the use of eucalyptus species.”

Nice to see eucalyptus getting a mention here (the only one in the document), but surely we have had the debate already, and the way forward for plantations is clear. There is a welcome note of realism under ‘Business and Markets’: “The breadth of public benefits from trees, woods and forests cannot be delivered solely through public funding. An economically
viable forest business sector must exist for that to happen. This means sustainable economic returns to the whole supply chain, starting with woodland owners. Without revenue being generated along these supply chains there is none to flow back to the primary producer. Without this, many woodlands will remain unmanaged and will not realise their full potential.”

In this section, the first two objectives are: (i) To promote the use of wood and timber as renewable materials and help identify market opportunities in sustainable construction and product substitution, and (ii) to strengthen supply chains within the emerging woodfuel industry. Looking forward to outcomes for 2020 there are three points of note. Firstly, “More English-grown wood is being used and businesses based on wood and timber are recognised
as a significant part of many rural economies. Greater use of wood is recognised as an important component in addressing climate change through sustainable construction and product substitution.

Public procurement has contributed to developing this enhanced market for legal and sustainable timber over other construction products.” This is a refreshing and optimistic view that we would all like to see coming to fruition. The next point on 2020 reads: “The softwood sector continues to be vibrant, is still investing and is using more of the potential volume.
The hardwood sector, starting from a different point, is seeing renewed investment and more hardwood timber is being harvested.” It is nice to see the softwood sector being described as vibrant. Conifers seem to have been out of fashion in England for some time.

Will they be making a long overdue comeback? Thirdly, “A healthy and integrated woodfuel market and its supply chains have grown and strengthened, and at least two million tonnes of sustainably sourced wood are being used annually to generate renewable energy.” Two million tonnes? Just how far will that go? The Sembcorp biomass power station alone requires 300,000 tonnes. Lockerbie (admittedly just over the border in Scotland) takes more than that. What were we saying earlier about plantations?

The Delivery Plan and a long list of actions to be taken in implementing it are available to download from www.forestry.gov.uk/etwf.


The view from the UKFPA
Publication of the FC England Delivery Plan 2008-2012, which translates the government’s Strategy for England’s Trees, Woods and Forests, has been keenly awaited by industry. In the run-up to its publication there has been good engagement by industry associations such as UKFPA and its members in England.

It is acknowledged that many in industry have felt for some time that Government, through DEFRA and to some extent the Forestry Commission, had turned its back on forestry and especially anything to do with commercial forestry and the wood products sector. (“It’s all parks and gardens in England now”, many proclaimed in despair.) Such views have been fully understandable. Despite this, a few hardy souls have persevered and perhaps that tenacity may now pay some dividends.

It has to be said that early DEFRA and FC thinking left many in industry seriously disquieted, not to say despondent, but it seems that they have been in listening mode, at least in the later stages of the development process. It is pleasing to note that at least some of industry’s concerns have been acknowledged and addressed, and that a number of key messages are now contained in the plan, which is necessary to restore confidence in the sector.

Those of us in the industry know that trees, woodlands, forests and forest products have a good story to tell, but there have been serious concerns within industry about the direction that forestry policy in England appeared to be heading, with what seemed to many to be an over-emphasis on social and environmental issues, without adequate recognition of the role that the industry plays in contributing to sustainable development, climate change mitigation, rural employment etc.

Whilst some readers may be disappointed to see that ‘the industry bit’, entitled ‘Business and Markets’ is Aim Five, of five Aims, it is at least there, and contains some useful leads which can hopefully be developed. One of the key messages which have thankfully been incorporated in the plan is the recognition that the breadth of public benefits from trees,
woods and forests cannot be delivered solely through public funding. It is recognised that an economically viable forest business sector must exist for that to happen. This means sustainable economic returns for the whole supply chain. Without such returns it is also recognised that woodlands will remain unmanaged and will not therefore realise their full potential.

This is the message that the United Kingdom Forest Products Association (UKFPA), together with others, including EFIP and ConFor to name but a few, have been promoting for some time. Having said this, there is a dark cloud looming on the horizon. This is the issue of the potential impact on commercial timber production that the restoration of open habitats in England is likely to have. It seems to many that policy development is rushing ahead without adequate consideration being given to the impact on the forest products sector. It hardly seems credible that at a time when it is almost universally recognised that we need more trees and we need more UK wood and wood products to be used, that DEFRA and FC should be presiding over deforestation.

In view of this, it is essential that there is a compulsory requirement for compensatory planting, to make up for commercial woodland that is lost in the name of open habitat restoration. Businesses need confidence if they are to prosper and for the wood processing industry one of the key issues is continuity of wood supply – and not just any old wood either. It must be the right species and of the right quality. Users of wood and wood products always have a choice; either UK-sourced wood or imported wood products; after
all, the customer is king.

We should not overlook other industry concerns too; for example, the question of FC focus on native broadleaves; of course, there is a place for native broadleaves, but let’s be realistic in our expectations. As is always the case, there must be balance. Does anyone seriously believe that using public funds to create broadleaf scrub is preferable to encouraging well managed woodlands which will deliver a wide range of benefits for all?
Let’s have some sensible, balanced and long-term thinking. Our forests and our industry deserve no less.

UKFPA is keen to continue its engagement with FC England and hopes that all concerned will derive benefit from the process and that the industry in England will feel more encouraged for the longer term. Finally, could we encourage people in the industry to take time to have a look at the Delivery Plan as a whole. Whilst it’s hardly top of most people’s reading lists, it might just be worth their while – there are some good messages and, for a change, you don’t have to read between too many lines either. Let’s hope this will be a start to a more positive view of forestry and forest products in England. As ever, there is much to be done at all levels and the devil will be in the detail, but perhaps this may be a much needed spur to renewed activity.

ConFor’s cautious welcome
The England forestry strategy delivery plan prompts mixed emotions. ConFor’s chief executive, Stuart Goodall, said, “It is good to see that the first action listed in the plan is a review of regulation, though we should be cautious in our welcome as it has been made clear before that there is no hierarchy intended in the document. We must hope that this is true as the section on business and markets comes last, even though ‘stakeholders’ across the spectrum asked that it be listed first at the Forestry Commission’s own consultation event earlier this year. Clearly, order is not a priority as the first sentence in this section states ‘promoting economic growth while reducing our carbon footprint is at the top of the Government’s agenda’. Someone has perhaps accidentally turned the agenda upside down.

“The delivery plan contains a wide range of proposed actions and every interest group will find something in it that appeals to them. However, that in itself sets up the challenge, as a number of the objectives are potentially opposing or conflicting. For example, the continued
commitment to the ‘removal’ of woodlands and forests gives real concern, and will be difficult to reconcile against the aim of promoting forest businesses. We hope there is shared ground on the promotion of active, sustainable management of hardwoods and the businesses that
rely on them, but the apparent low value placed on softwood woodland in public policy generally is endlessly frustrating. Conifers appear to be considered a soft target for single-purpose campaigns. In taking forward the plan, we are looking for stronger recognition that all types of sustainably managed woodland and forests are important in England, and that we should all aim for an increase in woodland cover, including new productive softwoods.”

ConFor’s England manager, Caroline Harrison, added, “Local and regional delivery will be critical to the success of the strategy and the delivery plan includes some positive opportunities for the private sector.”