Space for Nature: a review of England’s wildlife sites and ecological network response from the Confederation of Forest Industries (ConFor) March 2010
The Confederation of Forest Industries (ConFor) is the voice of the UK’s forest industries,
representing around 2,000 members from all parts of the timber supply chain, including growers,
woodland managers, suppliers, contractors, harvesters, primary and secondary processors and
students. Membership is open to anyone with an interest in trees, woodland, forestry or timber.
ConFor welcomes the opportunity to contribute to this review of England’s wildlife sites and ecological
network. It further welcomes an approach, based on clear evidence, that will enable policy-makers to
consider future long-term land uses that will support the delivery of a wide range of ecosystem services and
help to mitigate the effects of a changing climate.
ConFor’s response is not limited to the questions posed but follows loosely the working draft report
structure. This response is limited to woodland and forests from the perspective of private sector owners
and managers who manage this resource for timber production.
Introduction
Trees, woods and forests have provided a diversity of benefits throughout history and remain fundamental
to a sustainable future. ConFor believes there is a need for the right type of trees and woods, managed in
the most appropriate way, to maximise their value to the economy, environment and society. Planting
trees and managing woodland is a long-term activity, so they must be both resilient to change and
adaptable to meet the needs of future generations.
The economic viability of woods and forests is vital to ensuring the continued provision of public benefits.
Woods and forests with a secure financial underpinning based on marketable products, services and
benefits – which produce an income to defray costs – are likely to be more resilient and sustainable in the
future, “the wood that pays is the wood that stays”. Woodlands that provide a diversity of products,
services and other benefits to the environment, economy and society are more likely to be valued and
nurtured in an uncertain future. It is necessary to unlock the full potential and range of these services, all
of which are valuable but only some of which are directly paid for or traded. (Forestry Commission
England. England’s Trees, Woods and Forests. Delivery Plan 2008-2012.)
Why is having a coherent and resilient ecological network important?
ConFor recognises the need for a coherent and resilient ecological network, but ecology should not be
viewed in isolation. England has a rich heritage of woodlands that include ancient semi-natural, new
native, productive broadleaved and conifer plantations. Each is valuable in its own right as habitat,
important to local landscapes and contributes to our culture and heritage, but not necessarily to the
economy.
In England the majority of woodland sites important for nature conservation are small, isolated and
privately owned with a long history of management. Two approaches to protection have been adopted.
Firstly, about 80,000ha of English woods are within statutorily protected sites; the degree of protection for
these has increased through successive legislation from 1949. Secondly, since 1985, much wildlife
protection has been achieved on private ownerships outside the protected sites through general statutory
forestry policies. In addition, particularly since 1994, there has been an increasing tendency for active
promotion of voluntary nature conservation through forestry incentives and grants, and the setting of
targets as part of the government’s biodiversity action plan. The wide variety of different ways in which
woodland may be protected (to differing degrees) in England have between them enabled more effective
protection to be achieved over a greater area of woodland than would have been possible through nature
Confederation of Forest Industries (UK) Ltd 59 George Street Edinburgh EH2 2JG
Tel: 0131 240 1410 Fax: 0131 240 1411
www.confor.org.uk mail@confor.org.uk
Registered in Scotland No. SC34467
reserves alone. (Kirby, K J (2003) Woodland conservation in privately-owned cultural landscapes: the
English experience. Environmental Science and Policy, 6, 253-259.)
The nature and status of our current wildlife sites and ecological network – quality, strengths and
weaknesses, challenges and opportunities
It is reported that there are some 4,102 SSSI sites covering 1 million hectares, of which about 1000 sites
(80 – 100,000ha) are important for their woodland. Of the current SSSI woodland area about 54% is in
private ownership, with some 1,700 different owners or occupiers.
ConFor fears that the current ecological network may be too extensive, in terms of designations. The
protection of woodland habitats and wildlife must be set in the context of the real world.
Woods and forests are home to over 30 Red Data list species; the changes in the European Protected
Species regulations have highlighted how widespread valuable woodland habitats are; and recent studies
have shown that lack of woodland management may be partly responsible for the decline of some species.
Much of this woodland area is not designated, suggesting that good management practices produce
valuable habitat, without additional ecological constraints.
Sustainable woodland management leads to wildlife enhancement by widening the range of habitats
provided. For example, thinning improves light to the forest floor and thereby encourages a wider range of
both plant and animal species. Similarly, improved access by construction of extraction routes and
inspection rides has the added spin-off of more wildlife habitats than in an unmanaged woodland. Forestry
provides, in the words of a past Director General of the NCC (Dick Steel) "extensive conservation" i.e. a
complement to specialised wildlife sites
SSSIs are based on an historic environment, which is increasingly irrelevant. Earth is dynamic: there will
always be winners and losers in a constantly shifting equilibrium. Species move, diminish, adapt, evolve
and die out.
Approximately 86% of the area of woodland and wood pasture in SSSIs is now in “favourable or recovering”
condition. The main causes of unfavourable condition are lack of management; impacts of pests such as
squirrels and deer; and, diseases such as Phytopthora ramorum. But climate change is clearly a dynamic
and uncertain influence.
Excessively strict demands and costly constraints placed on private woodland owners, by regulating
authorities, have in some cases resulted in inertia and disengagement from active management. This
inevitably results in a woodland resource, with diminishing ecological value, with poor resistance to pests
and diseases, as well as, a loss of other public benefits, including wood production.
There is no comparable assessment of the ecological condition of rural woodland not designated. ConFor
would welcome this further research, on the understanding that the value is recognised, but no additional
constraints be imposed.
ConFor would like to see future land use policy development recognise the establishment of trees, woods
and forests that can contribute to habitat networks, ecosystem services and enhance climate change
resilience, with a wider native woodland resource improving in condition and the wildlife associated with
non-native woodland and forests increasing as a response to active management.
Adequacy of Levers
In countries with a long-history of settlement much woodland requires management as part of the cultural
landscape to maintain its nature conservation interest. It is frequently more economic to promote this via
Page 2 of 4
the private owners than for the state to purchase the land and take on the costs of management itself.
Regulations and guidelines, in effect, place the costs of conservation on to the private owner. In England,
both on protected sites and in woodland throughout the countryside there has been a gradual rise in the
level of conservation effort expected of all woodland owners over the last 50 years if they are to comply
with basic forestry standards. While incentives and grants for positive conservation work have increased
these tend to be for work over and above that required to meet the basic standards set at a given time.
These interventions add costs to management that are only partially compensated for in the short-term.
Grants should be re-oriented to support activities that help make woodland management more selfsustaining in the longer term, enhancing biodiversity through active management.
The voluntary approach to nature conservation has only been partially successful as a complement to
statutory controls. Long periods of discussions and communication between nature conservation and
private ownership interests have seen grants for managing woodland to take account of biodiversity but
they have also resulted in a “stand-off” between the two interests. Additionally, there are distinct policy
conflicts between government agencies. For example, Forestry Commission (with fewer staff on the
ground) is promoting woodland expansion, while Natural England, in some cases, is proactively encouraging
deforestation, especially conifer removal. An uncertain future surely calls for joined up thinking.
There must be recognition and reward for the significant contribution that responsible woodland owners
make to the sustainable management and maintenance of trees, woods and forests. Private owners have
skills and resources in land management that would not necessarily be readily available to the manager of a
state-owned woodland.
It is now more widely recognised that trees, woods and forests provide a wide range of high-quality
ecosystem services, but the scientific evidence supporting this is still developing. ConFor welcomes results
from the National Ecosystem Assessment, particularly ideas that will allow landowners to be paid for their
delivery.
Finally, landowners must be provided with good quality information relevant to management for
biodiversity objectives and wider ecosystem services. If they are to be treated with any respect, authorities
advising woodland owners must provide staff with sound forestry knowledge, ideally with a relevant
qualification.
Further observations on over-zealous regulation
Recently, there has been acknowledgement that guidelines for woodland management where badgers are
present, were unnecessarily severe – landowners know that badgers are not easily disturbed by traffic,
trains and human activity. While the relaxation has been welcomed, it was late in coming. Similarly, in
Scotland, the white-tailed eagle is revered and protected by exclusion zones, but one harvesting contractor
watched an eagle land on his forwarder that was still warm from use. The red squirrel survived for decades
in the large coniferous Thetford Forest. Pine martens have recovered in England, Wales and Scotland,
probably because of the extensive conifer afforestation. The current proposal by the FC (under pressure)
to clear and revert to sand-dunes a large part of Newborough Forest on Anglesey where the red squirrel
has made a major come-back should be deplored. These examples suggest that the conservation bodies
should be much more sensitive to their impacts on woodland management and less inclined to regulate.
In addition, ConFor is seeking a presumption in favour of woodland creation, of all kinds, with the
supplementary identification of any necessary constraints. This requires a cultural shift in various agencies,
which assume a priority status that is not always valid. In general, woodland creation enhances ecological
values, while at the same time delivering a diverse range of other benefits. There is a long list of reasons
why woodland creation on a grand scale should be welcomed – some joined-up positive thinking and
facilitation from government agencies could help to achieve this.
Page 3 of 4
ConFor is aware of a gradual shift from the “stick” approach to the “carrot”, which is commendable. But
this needs to be extended. For example, currently a woodland owner is penalised if an osprey or honey
buzzard nests in his trees. Initially, he is probably delighted, then he realises that this brings a host of
unwelcome visitors on to his land, often with mutual distrust, exclusion zones and other constraints. This
makes him reluctant to make known his treasure (or worse) and discourages him from doing more to make
his woodland attractive to rare species. If, on the other hand, he were rewarded for his good fortune, the
opposite would result in many cases.
Page 4 of 4