Call me an Ent, but I want better protection for trees!

Now we have the government’s response to the Forests Report, I thought I’d add a policy perspective to my colleague Nikki’s thought-provoking blog and share why I’d hoped it would go further than the IPF’s recommendations on protection of ancient woodland.

Treebeard the Ent, Tolkien's famous forest guardian

Treebeard the Ent, Tolkien’s famous forest guardian

What ancient woodland have we got left?

The Lawton Review suggests there are 27,724 ancient woodland sites greater than 2 hectares (ha) in England, covering 354,583ha (2.7% of England’s land area). Most of the ancient woodland left is fragmented; eight out of 10 ancient woods are less than 20ha, and nearly 50% of ancient woods are less than 5ha (hence the importance of woodland expansion to connect and buffer these remaining fragments).

What are we losing (officially)?

The area of confirmed woodland loss (of all types, from the National Forest Inventory) to development for England in the past decade is 275ha.  This is derived from individual cases of loss exceeding 5ha; individual losses under 5ha are not included.  Other communication from the Forestry Commission (FC) indicates the overall losses of woodland (including the smaller bits) will be about 3,000ha (600ha ancient).  The Trust’s Woods under Threat database reports a loss of 213ha of ancient woodland alone for England (540 ha for the UK as a whole).  The FC has also indicated that approximately 1,500 ha of deforestation has occurred annually over the past decade, some of which has been for open habitat restoration.

Is it worse??

The Weald and Downs ancient woodland survey (2006-11) of the Wealden District  shows a real loss of 250ha of ancient woodland in the last 20 years in this small area alone.  75% was to agriculture, and 25% to development.  It doesn’t show how much of this is recent loss, or whether this is typical of other parts of England too, but it indicates the official figures for loss of ancient woodland are clearly underestimates.  But it’s not just the habitat we’re losing – in the last 100 years, 46 species associated with broadleaved woodland have become extinct in the UK.

What the Independent Panel on Forestry (IPF) said:

These lines are taken directly from their report: “We are losing ancient woodland in England… The majority is not protected by statute for its biodiversity value… SSSI protection only applies to 15% of our ancient woodlands, and as a habitat it is under represented compared to others… The current internal review of SSSI designations by Natural England may improve this, but in the meantime some of our most precious woodlands remain vulnerable.”  The Panel recommendations on protection are as follows:

Planning: “Reflect the value of ancient woodlands, trees of special interest, for example veteran trees, and other priority habitats in Local Plans, and refuse planning permission for developments that would have an adverse impact on them”.

Local Nature Partnerships (LNPs), Local Enterprise Partnerships (LEPs) and Forest Services “should identify: woodland habitats that warrant greater protection, and work with Natural England to secure these as Sites of Special Scientific Interest”.

The NFI should “complement annual woodland planting statistics by recording actual progress towards net increase in woodland cover, and: include a report on extent of woodland habitats, including  specifically ancient woodland, which should inform reviews of policy, such as SSSI designation”.

What the government response lacks:

The Government response talks about threats to ancient woodland, but skirts around any discussion on the threats from development through the planning system, or historic fragmentation, let alone proposing a national agenda to tackle that.  The response has missed an opportunity for a national drive to increase the protection of ancient woodland, which is a useful hook on which to hang the local policies suggested. LNPs are still setting themselves up and awaiting leadership (and funding for delivery!) from Defra, and the LEPs are supposed to be curing the country’s economic ills and so far have taken little interest in involving LNPs (exceptions in Somerset and East Anglia).

The repetition of the qualified protection in the NPPF does not move us on.  In the short term the government should produce guidance for local authorities about the circumstances under which they should refuse planning applications, in lieu of Local Plans being refreshed after the NPPF, let alone after this government response nearly a year later.

The response also repeats the new Local Green Space designation in the NPPF, and the neighbourhood planning and new community rights introduced by the Localism Act 2011, noting “These could include woodlands”. The implementation of this new right is still very unclear and is likely only to be used by the most proactive communities – we have not yet heard of it being used (please tell us if you have!), so are pushing for guidance to make it more user-friendly.

The government should explicitly restate the target of no loss of ancient woodland – it’s part of the vision in Keepers of Time, but it needs to be drawn out and used to spearhead some simple but viable initiatives:

1. Create a national system to capture annual forest losses from: Applications approved by planning authorities; FC felling licences granted; felling licence breaches; Plant Health Orders to address sanitation felling; open habitat restoration; windfarms.

2. Report figures for forest loss at the same time as those for woodland creation to provide a figure for net forest gain/loss on an annual basis.

3. The Forestry Commission should be a statutory consultee on all planning applications affecting ancient woodland and should have powers to object as well as comment on them.

4. Natural England should have a target to significantly increase (double to 30%?) the percentage of ancient woodland under SSSI designation, in a set timescale.

These suggestions are affordable within the existing organisations, though it would take some re-prioritisation of work, and no further cuts.  However, it would give a vital national reporting and action framework for the Local Plan and LNP work suggested by the IPF and welcomed by the government.

If we can’t demonstrably protect ancient woodland, the drive for a new woodland culture has no chance.

*Keep the debate alive and catch up with more posts in our ‘Forests Report’ series:


About Richard Barnes

Conservation Adviser, Woodland Trust
This entry was posted in Forests Report, Government Affairs, Planning, Protection and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

7 Responses to Call me an Ent, but I want better protection for trees!

  1. Pingback: Ancient woodland – to designate or not to designate? | Woodland Matters

  2. Pingback: WILDLIFE : Row over £1bn development plan on nightingale habitat site in Kent | LEARN FROM NATURE

  3. treehunter says:

    what about ex-parkkand and its old trees that are currently classed as agricultural land? Upton upon severn has a site just like that. It is clearly a parkland landscape but wiill be built over v. Soon

  4. Joan Fairhurst says:

    Just new to this network so excuse my ignorance. I have been heartened by the progress achieved through PAWS both in England and in Scotland. What is the current future for PAWS?

    • Richard Barnes says:

      Hello Joan, welcome to Woodland Matters. PAWS is a topic close to our heart – we’re pleased that the government has re-affirmed Keepers of Time (which includes PAWS policy), but were hoping they’d commit to a new PAWS Strategy to go alongside the Open Habitats Strategy they’ve promised.
      The Woodland Trust is expanding its PAWS work and recently submitted a funding bid to the Heritage Lottery Fund (HLF) to set up 10 outreach projects across the UK with the aim of bringing PAWS into management. The overarching aim is to engage with private owners, occupiers and managers of PAWS to promote and encourage their restoration within identified geographic concentrations. The projects will work to conserve and enhance the surviving ancient woodland remnant features using, as far as possible, gradual forestry management interventions. We hope to hear the outcome from the HLF application in May…

  5. Peter Gruffydd says:

    The analysis is faultless; the conclusions could be taken as gloomy but what needs to be done, and done urgently, is abundantly clear.

    • Richard Barnes says:

      Thanks Peter, welcome to our blog, sorry if I inferred gloom, I just want the government to take the opportunity to go further than the panel report!

Sorry, comments are closed as we have moved to a new site:

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s