Agriculture Minister Michelle O'Neill MLA meets with Woodland Trust

During the visit we discussed the need to both reverse the decline in tree planting and to provide meaningful protection for ancient and long-established woodland through the new felling licence regime. The Minister has made a welcome call for a ‘united effort’ in order to increase Northern Ireland’s limited woodland cover, which stands at 6.5% compared to the European average of 44%. Her Department will be working with the Trust and other forestry organisations to promote the benefits of woods and trees to landowners.

First Minister Peter Robinson MLA has also met with the Trust as he planted the first of 60 oaks at Stormont Estate. The new oak grove planted on the Stormont Estate is part of our Jubilee Woods project: an ambitious tree-planting campaign to mark the Queen’s historic 2012 Diamond Jubilee. 

Woodland Trust Director Patrick Cregg and First Minister Peter Robinson MLA

We are delighted that the First Minister has taken the time to plant a tree to mark the Jubilee.  Stormont’s new grove consists of 60 oaks, that’s one for each year of the Queen’s reign; and some of the saplings have been grown from acorns gathered from Sandringham Estate.

The Northern Ireland Executive’s is running a consultation on the draft Programme for Government and you can take part before February 22nd.

The Trust is calling for the Executive to revise the Programme for Government to include the following crucial commitments:

1. An ambitious tree planting target of 1740 hectares per annum to deliver on the Executive’s pledge to double woodland cover,
2. An increase in the incentives for tree planting,
3. The meaningful protection of ancient and long-established woodland,
4. Encouragement of the sensitive restoration of damaged ancient woodland sites, as this will help safeguard these valuable woods for future generations.

You can stay up-to-date on our work in Northern Ireland on our website.

The Government’s public health white paper ‘healthy lives, healthy people’ (published last year) recognised that trees are officially good for your health, and the importance of the quality of the environment within which people live to their physical and mental health. It also talks about the Government’s own Big Tree Plant campaign acknowledging that:

“increased tree cover would help to improve residents’ quality of life and reduce the negative effects of deprivation, including health inequalities”.

Add this to the evidence collected by nef, the New Economics Foundation, as part of the Happy Planet Index and Charter, which also discusses in its ‘Five Ways to Wellbeing’ the hypothesis that green space reduces mental fatigue. It’s so important that these findings are officially acted upon, and incorporate what is already known about the many benefits trees bring to our quality of life.

We’re currently in the process of preparing our own official response to the consultation on the Proposed Domains and Headline Indicators for Measuring National Well-being, led by the Office of National Statistics (ONS), and would urge you to respond yourself while you have the opportunity.

You can take part here.

The Trust feels that the ‘where we live’ section needs to more strongly reflect the emphasis on ‘access to green space’ which emerged from the initial consultation. Given the well-established evidence base that exists around trees and well being, we believe that a measure on ‘access to green spaces with trees’ would be the appropriate measure here.

Enhancing public health is one of the biggest challenges facing modern society. Easily accessible woods close to where people live provide measurable benefits in terms of:

• Encouraging people to take exercise
• Helping reduce the mental stresses of modern society
• Improving air quality
• Reducing respiratory diseases

Each of the above makes a positive contribution to people’s quality of life and therefore happiness. Action on this measure can also be guided by existing work on measuring woodland access in the form of the Woodland Trust’s Woodland Access Standard. The Standard, which is based on wide ranging research and surveys of public opinion aspires:

• That no person should live more than 500m from at least one area of accessible woodland of no less than 2ha in size.
• That there should be at least one area of accessible woodland of no less than 20ha within 4km (8km roundtrip) of people’s homes

Given that the consultation is about what makes members of the public happy, individual responses are particularly important. We need your help in calling for ‘access to green spaces with trees’ to be recognized as one of the key final measures adopted. Not only will this give a great boost to ensuring that everyone, wherever they live, benefits from trees through well targeted woodland creation. But by calling for ‘access to green space with trees’ to be a measure, you can also help move trees right up the political agenda. Woodland matters. It’s time to make official what we, our supporters and so many others already know – that woods and trees make a key contribution to the everyday quality of life for us all.

James Cooper, head of government affairs

I wonder what 2012 will bring…? The start of the year saw plans for a wholesale disposal of England’s public forests announced – and postponed after a huge outcry just 21 days later. We continue to test the Independent Panel on Forestry that was established as a result and are watching this issue very closely. At the same time as the sell-off plans were being debated, planning reforms were put forward which threatened to weaken environmental protections… and then the route for High Speed Two was revealed – alongside frustratingly few details for an in-depth analysis of the environmental risks. As winter turned to spring we were forced to challenge a planning application that threatened ancient woodland, and are now preparing our evidence for a public inquiry. By the summer we were engaging with brand new Ministers in Scotland and in Wales, and in Northern Ireland. Finally, in December the Treasury (not the Government department you’d traditionally expect to be concerned with environmental protection measures) through the Chancellor was deriding the vital Habitat Directives for imposing a “ridiculous cost on British businesses”. What will 2012 bring? Well, if the last 12 months are anything to go by we need to keep checking the left-field! 

I just wanted to say a personal ‘Thank you’ from the bottom of my heart for your time, energy and passion this year. Any success we have had in making woodland safer, bigger and better is down to having our members and supporters beside us. And thanks for challenging and pushing us too – we always value your ideas and constructive feedback has really helped our small team improve on what we do, which can only mean more positive changes for woodland.

Everyone benefits from woods and trees and everyone has a part to play. Whatever 2012 throws at them, I know we can handle it together!

Happy holidays,

Kaye

Select Committees are made up of MPs who work together to check and report on the work of government departments. The highly controversial National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) has been subject to inquiry since July by the Communities and Local Government (CLG) Select Committee, which considered evidence from the Woodland Trust amongst other individuals and groups.  The report is published today – will Government adopt the changes recommended?

The Trust has a long record of championing woodland protection and creation within the planning system and we submitted written evidence to this Committee during its inquiry. We welcome its report today, in particular the call for further detail to be included in the final NPPF. Whilst it is not alone in supporting the principle of shortening national planning guidance, the Committee remains concerned that this has happened at the expense of clarity. We agree. We believe adding in detail will help improve environmental safeguards within the system and this could go a long way in enhancing the environmental policies set out in the NPPF – of course we think the expansion and protection of woods and trees this should form part of that detail!

Crucially, the Committee’s report recognises that the draft NPPF confuses sustainable development with sustainable economic growth, thereby skewing planning in favour of economic considerations. We are deeply worried that the quest for economic growth is being allowed to threaten our natural environment and irreplaceable habitats, particularly the most vulnerable such as ancient woodland. This is exactly why, although protection for ancient woods and trees was retained in the draft, we are still calling for the loophole that allows ancient woodland to be destroyed where the “economic benefits outweigh” the environmental loss to be removed.  This loophole is a good example of how ambiguity in the planning system continues to place irreplaceable habitats at risk from development pressures – this wont change without a clear steer in the NPPF to both developers and the planning authority. More than 65% of the planning applications we have challenged in the last decade which threatened ancient woodland, were for developments which could have been sited elsewhere. 

A very positive element in the report is the call for the removal of the ’default yes’ to development -  a point on which the Trust has been campaigning for in partnership with other environmental groups.  Meanwhile, it was reassuring to read the Committee’s calls for clarification that the ‘presumption in favour of sustainable development’ only applies where the proposed development accords with the local plan.  Whilst that may have always been the intention, the Government does need to provide clarity on this, given how central this presumption could be in the new planning framework. Revising the draft would also provide an opportunity to make the new ‘local green space designation’ a workable tool, with more detail provided on what constitutes a suitable space and how local people can get these designated. 

Communities and Local Government will need to respond to the recommendations in the report. Greg Clark, the Minister in charge of planning, has welcomed it and we hope he takes on board the valuable recommendations the Committee has made when publishing the final NPPF, due in early spring 2012. Acting on ancient woodland protection and improvement of the local environment are two very simple things Government can do to show it has listened to the Committee as well as the concerns raised by us and many others during the recent consultation.

As ever we will keep you up to date, just watch this space! – and you can subscribe to our blog to be the first to hear the latest news.

Victoria Bankes Price, planning adviser

The Forestry Panel has published its progress report

The Panel was set up in March and began its work by listening to what the public wanted to say through a ‘call for views’. Over 40,000 responses, several site visits and a number of meetings later, it has just published its interim report.

It was clear from early on that the Panel’s deliberations were going to be subject to a degree of scrutiny. As well as the challenge set out by the Trust, a ‘ginger’ group consisting of seasoned environmental campaigners, academics and former Forestry Commission staff, pledged to ensure that vested interests did not mar the independence of the Panel’s work. ’Our Forests’ also used the Freedom of Information Act to ask about discussions between NGOs and the government in the run up to the abortive consultation around the Commission’s forests. 

So what does the Woodland Trust make of the Panel’s interim report?

We very much welcome the Panel’s initial conclusion to retain a public forest estate which will adapt and evolve in the future. We’re also pleased about its desire to see a step-change in action to increase woodland cover and more access to woodland. Another welcome recognition is the need to restore damaged ancient woods.

But we are very disappointed that it has failed to make a commitment to review the strength of woodland protection. This was a strong theme in so many of the 4,000+ individual responses sent in by our supporters to the ‘call for views’. 

Just how topical this omission is, can be demonstrated by the recent Autumn Statement announcement to review the Habitats Regulations and the long debate over proposed streamlining of the planning system. These underline that existing levels of protection cannot be guaranteed into the future. We have such a low level of woodland cover with so many pressures on land, we cannot afford to be complacent about protection as an issue. All the more reason for the Panel to be ambitious about woodland expansion too and ensure we bring woods close to more and more people, allowing us all to experience why trees matter so much to our day to day lives.

When the Panel was launched the Trust devised three tests for it’s final report. Here’s our interim assessment against those tests:

Let’s hope the Panel flexes its independent muscle and challenges the government with some really thought-provoking final conclusions come next spring.

Hilary Allison, policy director

In yesterday’s autumn budget statement the Chancellor of the Exchequer, George Osborne, attacked the laws protecting important UK wildlife sites from destruction by major developments. The Chancellor described the Habitats Regulations as a ‘ridiculous cost on British business’, claiming they were just ‘gold plating’ on European legislation, and spoke of burdening businesses with ‘endless social and environmental goals – however worthy in their own right’.

His comments have not gone down well. The Habitats Regulations came into force in 1994 to implement two EU wildlife directives; the 1979 Birds Directive and the 1982 Habitats Directive. They help to protect some of our rare woodland bats, such as the Bechstein’s bat, amongst many other vulnerable and protected species. They link up other protective measures and regulations across Europe and the UK. Business lobbyists have long criticised the regulations, as the requirement of a full assessment of the impacts of any change can make it much more difficult for development to take place on valuable nature areas.  So far, so good then!

Defra is to carry out a review of the way the regulations are implemented between now and next March. They cannot be rewritten without the permission of the EU, however the Government appears to be aiming to relax the regulations. This aligns with a slackening of England’s planning regulations through the forthcoming National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), which many of our supporters challenged earlier this year. The NPPF has come under fire from the Trust along with a wide range of NGOs and organisations, for its ‘presumption in favour of development’ and its ambiguous use of the term ‘sustainability’.

The scientific evidence is clear: we can no longer place monetary gain before the needs of nature. The Government’s own review of England’s wildlife sites and ecological network, ’Making Space for Nature‘, states, ‘We will not achieve a step-change in nature conservation in England without society accepting it to be necessary, desirable, and achievable. This will require strong leadership from government’.

Comments like those made by the Chancellor yesterday, and draft documents like the NPPF, may be designed to send out solidarity signals with business – but there have been various environmental documents published by the Government this year which call for greater value and importance to be placed on the environment, such as Biodiversity 2020 and the Natural Environment White Paper. Time and again the Government’s actions go against the grain of its own words. The National Ecosystem Assessment, the Natural Capital Committee and the Ecosystem Markets Task Force recognise that our prosperity in the long term depends on a healthy natural environment. These activities are the real way forward for a Government that wants growth but also claims to aspire to be the ‘greenest government ever’. Environmental protection has never been so important.

The State of the UK’s Forests, Woods and Trees report, led by the Woodland Trust, was launched this week to the media. The report is a snapshot of the UK’s trees and woods in 2011, the International Year of Forests. It draws on recent evidence, and concludes with some broad issues for politicians to consider.

The Woodland Trust could have done this alone, and ended up with messages reflecting only our objectives.  Instead, we offered other forestry and woodland organisations a platform to give their perspective on specific issues affecting woodland trees alongside ours.  The aim was not that everyone should reach consensus on everything, but that the report should give scope for a range of views, and draw out common ground we all share.

The state of the UK's forests, woods and trees is a collaboration between 20 conservation groups.

This fresh and innovative approach has its challenges and risks. It’s much harder to come out with the kind of clear, black and white messages that make a good media story. And people need to be able to tolerate the views of others, even if they don’t agree!

Compiling the report has been incredibly refreshing because everyone has contributed in just that spirit of collaboration. As a sector we too often find ourselves pitched against one another. Quite rightly, we each have our own objectives and our job is to push for our voice to be heard, for our priorities to be recognised, in a world of limited resources. This report demonstrates that these are not polarised views so much as differences of emphasis.

All of us have the future of the UK’s trees, woods and forests close to our hearts. All of us want to see a resource that is robust and resilient, able to deliver maximum benefits and withstand the challenges of the future.

It is no coincidence that two of the key themes that emerge in the report are the need to embrace diversity in form, function and use of our woods, and the need for joined-up thinking across policy areas. Both these themes apply to the sector itself. We need to embrace the diversity demonstrated in the wide range of organisations that contributed to this report, and those that did not, but at the same time continue to listen to one another, and remember that fundamentally we are on the same side – that of trees, woods and forests in the UK.

Thanks to the following who contributed to the State of the UK’s Forests, Woods and Trees report: Ancient Tree Forum; Bat Conservation Trust; Coed Cymru; Community Woodlands Association; Confor: promoting forestry and wood; Campaign for National Parks; Country Land and Business Association; Forest Policy Group; Forest Stewardship Council; Institute of Chartered Foresters; National Forest Company; Reforesting Scotland; Royal Forestry Society; Scottish Wildlife Trust; Small Woods Association ; Sylva Foundation; Trees and Design Action Group; UK Woodland Assurance Standard; The Wildlife Trusts.

Sian Atkinson,  Conservation Communications & Evidence Adviser

The Government says this ‘will trigger the biggest transfer of power in a generation’ as it attempts to shift power from central government to Local Authorities and neighbourhoods.

The Localism Bill worked its way through Parliament before receiving Royal Assent on November 15th and we have been working hard over the last year to ensure the Trust’s messages around woods and trees were listened to during the Act’s preparation. Unlike the draft NPPF – which reduced over 1,000 pages of planning guidance into just under 60 – the Localism Act has no claims to brevity, covering approximately 40 different policy areas throughout its 497 pages. 

The Localism Act will of course bring about many changes; as ever our focus is on those which we think will be the most significant for woods and trees. But of course only time will tell!

Here are our edited highlights:

Abolition of the Regional Strategies

The Localism Act will allow the Government to fulfil a longstanding promise to revoke Regional Spatial Strategies (RSSs). However, following a legal challenge by the housebuilding company CALA Homes this cannot take place until a twelve week consultation on each of the eight Strategic Environmental Assessments (one for each RSS outside London) has been completed. The Woodland Trust will be responding to these consultations, as we’re concerned that the loss of the RSSs will erode protection for the environment through the loss of strategic policies and evidence.

Duty to Cooperate

The Act introduces a requirement for all Local Authorities and other public bodies to work together on planning sustainable development in lieu of regional planning policies and bodies. This duty ensures that ‘serious consideration’ will be given to working together on joint plans where there is a need for it. We would have liked to have seen something stronger than ‘serious consideration’ but this is a step in the right direction.

Enforcement Changes

The Act will strengthen a Local Planning Authority (LPA)’s abilities to deal with deliberately concealed unauthorised development. Of particular note is a new ‘Power to decline to determine retrospective application’. In the past some developers carried out unauthorised development safe in the knowledge that the LPA would be likely to grant them retrospective planning permission. This new power should make developers think twice about taking that chance – good news for woods and trees!

Predetermination Changes

Previously Councillors could not express their opinions about a development and then vote for or against it at the planning committee’s determination meeting. These rules have now been clarified, enabling Councillors to express their opinions on issues of local importance without the fear of legal challenge. This is very important, especially when it comes to such sensitive and emotive issues like development affecting ancient woodland.

Neighbourhood Planning

The Act introduces a right for Parish Councils and Neighbourhood Forums to draw up ‘Neighbourhood Plans’. Although the concept of a Parish Plan is nothing new, neighbourhood plans will be statutory documents and will form part of the Local Plan for an area. These can’t limit the amount of development in your neighbourhood. They can however provide guidance though on the location of development and its design and layout. 
We think neighbourhood plans are a really exciting opportunity for people to plan for more trees and woods locally, and to recognise the value of their existing trees and woodland.  We are putting together some guidance to help you ensure woods and trees can play a key part in your local neighbourhood plan – watch this space…

Victoria Bankes Price, Planning Adviser

What do we really want the CAP to do? Given that it is still the largest part of the EU budget, covers the largest land-use within Europe, and has been the subject of acrimonious discussions for as long as we have been members of the EU – surely we should all know by now what we think this behemoth should be achieving.  But the sheer size and complexity of the CAP makes many despair and the latest proposals, with over 1,000 pages of ‘Euro speak’ to wade through, have not necessarily clarified the issue.

In times of economic uncertainty prioritising the environment can be challenging, but the environment is not a luxury affordable only in times of plenty. These latest proposals seem only to be tinkering at the edges of change - they still contain major contradictions in the way they address environmental challenges and gives mixed messages to both farmers and the public.

There are still major problems with the way farming is carried out across Europe, with resulting environmental damage: soils are depleted and degraded, water over-extracted and polluted and wildlife struggles to survive across landscapes that have lost many of the features that provide character and distinctiveness. These challenges are not insurmountable and many farmers have demonstrated that farming productively and profitably can go hand in hand with environmental protection and good animal welfare.

Only 25% of the CAP budget goes to rural development; targeted schemes to support wildlife or stop soil erosion, woodland grant schemes for new planting or management of the existing woodland, training or marketing support to support rural communities. A more equitable balance between the two parts of the CAP would be at least a start and a recognition that payment should be for delivery of public benefits in terms of biodiversity, water quality etc.

Wildlife and Countryside Link - an umbrella body for environmental NGOs in the UK which has been campaigning on CAP and its impacts for many years – has just produced its own version of ideas for reform of the CAP with the Woodland Trust contributing to the woodland section.

This reform is supposed to cover agriculture between 2014 and 2020 but is already 6 months behind schedule. There’s still a long way to go yet before anything actually becomes law.  In fact there is an expectation that the rules will not be in place by the start of 2014. The proposals have to be discussed by the European parliament and an agreement reached between the parliament and the European agricultural ministers, so there are still loads of opportunities for things to wrong (as well as right!).  As I said at the beginning, times moves slowly in CAP land…

Frances Winder, Conservation Policy Officer

Farthings Wood is one of at least 21 ancient woods under threat from HS2

The Transport Select Committee’s Tenth report skims over much of our fears around the substantial negative effects we believe High Speed Two (HS2) will have on irreplaceable habitats such as ancient woodland.  The Trust strongly supports moves towards greener transport - in our view climate change represents the greatest threat to our woodland heritage and applications for new or extended roads make up a huge part of Woods under Threat team’s caseload.  But green transport should be efficient, of benefit to the majority and not represent a threat to the nation’s most valuable wildlife habitats. We’re not the only ones to believe that, as it stands, HS2 can’t be classed as ‘green transport’, and we don’t agree that proposals to plant up to two million trees will make up for the loss of at least 21 ancient woods along the route.

We remain sceptical too about Government claims around the possibilities of habitat translocation, a term used to describe a mitigation strategy which involves the physical removal of habitats from one location to another in an attempt to offset the impact of development on the wildlife interest of a site. The reality is that the conditions found in ancient woodland are unique - centuries worth of undisturbed soils and tree cover make this our richest terrestrial habitat,  one which is completely irreplaceable. Soils and vegetation are the product of geology, climate and biotic influences which in combination are unique to a single place and they cannot function in the same way in isolation from that place. The beauty, structure and full biodiversity of an ancient woodland can’t be moved from place to place by a bulldozer.

It is encouraging though to see that the Select Committee report highlights concerns over the Government’s intention to decide on whether to proceed with Phase I of HS2 before information on Phase 2 is published, and before environmental impacts of either phase are clear. The report also notes the recommendation that the revised business plan for HS2 should take account of the Government’s new approach to economic appraisal, which places a monetary value on natural capital, and encourages the Government to ‘place greater emphasis on following existing transport corridors’.

You can read our reaction to the Report and our colleagues at the Right Lines Charter have also made comments, found in their latest newsletter. In the meantime, we’re all still watching the progress of the HS2 Hybrid Bill and keeping an eye on the new Secretary of State for Transport, Justine Greening MP, who said recently that “high-performing transport systems.. matter to our economy, our society and our environment. They matter to our collective well-being and our individual quality of life. And they matter because they make a difference not just today, but for generations to come.”

Christina Byrne, National Case Officer – Woods under Threat