1
The Making Woodland Work seminar was convened at Telford Campus of the
University of Wolverhampton on the 29 th October 2004 following the launch of the
Regional Forestry Framework (RFF). The RFF is an expression of the future of forestry for the West Midlands region, which includes social inclusion as a core activity (see Box 1, below).
The seminar was chaired by Bill Heslegrave of the Forestry Commission, West
Midlands Conservancy and Philip Dearden of the Centre for International
Development and Training, University of Wolverhampton (CIDT).
The seminar had three objectives as follows:
• to facilitate dissemination of best practice and establish a more pro-active stance for diffusing the benefits of woodland and forests for social inclusion;
• to exchange experience on social inclusion in woodland and forestry settings;
• to provide Delegates with a deeper awareness of the issues and opportunities associated with woodland and forestry.
Box 1: Regional Forestry Framework Vision & Aims associated with Social Inclusion
The vision for woodland and forestry in the West Midlands is to create a viable and inclusive woodland and forestry sector that maximises sustainable development through delivery of economic, environmental, cultural and social benefits to the people of the region
Section 8 of the RFF deals directly with Social Inclusion. The three aims associated with this overall goal are:
• To provide greater opportunity for West Midlands residents to appreciate and have access to trees, woodlands and forests close to where they live.
• To remove the barriers to access so that no groups in the population feel disenfranchised.
• To enable people to connect to the historic environment and natural world through the experience of trees, woodlands and their wildlife.
(Growing our Future, 2004)
The morning included presentations on national and regional policy development, regional examples of social inclusion projects in action and a session on qualitative
1 Report compiled by Mike Greenland of Interface NRM and Des Mahony of CIDT, UoW
Page 1 of 10

monitoring and evaluation. The afternoon included a presentation on change management and a series of break-out groups. These considered key themes in social inclusion projects and how to raise the profile of social inclusion amongst forest managers and forest management amongst social inclusion specialists. There were also opportunities for question and answer sessions and networking amongst
Delegates. (See Box 2 for the seminar schedule).
Box 2: Seminar Schedule
Presentations:
• National and Key Government Policy – Helen Townsend, Forestry Commission
England
• Regional Forestry Frameworks and Social Inclusion – Simon West, Forestry
Commission, West Midlands
• The Green Streets Programme: From Grey to Green – Pete Stringer, Red Rose Forest
• Wye Wood Project – Katie Eastaugh, Herefordshire Sustain
• Community Development projects – Steve Morris, Staffordshire County Council
• Monitoring & Evaluation: Emerging issues for Social Inclusion Projects – Paul
Tabbush, Forest Research
• Evaluating the Hainault Forest Community Involvement Project – Mike Greenland,
Interface NRM
• Change Management – Scott Jones, CIDT
Break out groups: To examine i) Establishing and running a social inclusion project – key concepts ii) How can the forest industry engage more effectively with social inclusion professionals and organisations?
Please see attached in the annexes the contact list of attendees, question and answer sessions, group work recommendations and the evaluation summary. For full transcripts of the presentations, please contact the individuals concerned.
• There is a wide scope and range of expertise in the West Midlands and plenty of examples of good practice. However, there is poor synthesis and pulling together of lessons and dissemination. There is a need for more emphasis on this aspect of the project cycle.
• There is a need to work with front line people OR middle managers and get them to filter up/down the message that forestry is trying to project.
• There was recognition that key stakeholders were not present at the seminar, for example social inclusion professionals, forest land owners, Black & Ethnic
Minority Groups (BME), Health workers etc.
Page 2 of 10

• Private forests represent ca 52% of woodland in the region, a key resource whose owners were not well represented at the seminar.
• It would have been useful to have heard from Regional funding bodies in addition to the Forestry Commission.
• Although the presentations were seen as the most useful activity overall networking is clearly an extremely important function of events like this. Hence the need to perhaps have a greater number of workshop sessions and to allow a full hour for lunch. Delegates particularly appreciated the afternoon workshop sessions and the opportunities for discussion, questions and answers.
• Respondents suggested that follow-up actions could include a summary of workshop findings, best practice examples, case studies, a social inclusion forum, stakeholder meetings. There was also a desire expressed amongst delegates to establish a network for sharing ideas and further workshops on issues like BME group inclusion.
• It was concluded that the seminar should be seen to represent a beginning, and that more meetings of this nature should be held.
The event was widely perceived as a useful initiative where practitioners and academics had the freedom and opportunity to exchange ideas. Possible activities to follow from the seminar include:
• Holding an annual stakeholder meeting at UoW Telford campus, or other appropriate venue, to analyse and monitor progress of the Regional Forestry
Framework.
• Arranging a workshop to develop priorities and detailed specific actions for the
RFF Delivery Plan
• Arrange a day where specifically private woodland landowners and social inclusion practitioners can debate issues around access to woodlands and woodland management.
• Arrange a day focussed on health, inclusion & woodlands.
The University of Wolverhampton CIDT-based ‘Forest for People Group’ would be pleased to facilitate further events of relevance to forestry practice for the West
Midlands Region.
Page 3 of 10

The following is a record of the Delegate attendee contact list, record of the question and answer sessions, results of the group work discussion sessions and a summary of the overall evaluation of the day.
Adamu Garba UoW, MSc student, agarba@ddinigeria.org
Dr Alison McCrea UoW, School of Applied Sciences, a.r.mccrea@wlv.ac.uk
Angela Jones
Basil Enok
Northern Shropshire Countryside Manager
Angela.jones@shropshire-cc.gov.uk
UoW, MSc student
Bill Heslegrave
Dagmar Waller
Conservator, FC West Midlands
Bill.heslegrave@forestry.gsi.gov.uk
Strategic Review Officer, WM Regional Assembly d.waller@wmlga.gov.uk
Des Mahony
Diane Monether
Claire Halford
Gary Galpin
Gavin Jordan
George Kinnell
Helen Townsend
James Dunn
UoW, CIDT Forest for People Group, d.mahony@wlv.ac.uk
Wildspace, Shropshire County Council
Diane.monether@shropshire-cc.gov.uk
Groundwork BC,
Claire.halford@groundwork.org
Head Coordinator, Chase Trails, Chasetrailbuilda@aol.com
Interface NRM, gavin@interface-nrm.co.uk
UoW, CIDT Forest for People Group
Telford & Wrekin BC Social Inclusion Officer, george.kinnell@telford.gov.uk
Forestry Commission, England,
Helen.townsend@forestry.gsi.gov.uk
Tree Protection/Planning, jdunn@cityofworcester.gov.uk
James Power SGCT, jamespower@sgct.wanadoo.co.uk
Jane Gronow
Jo Burris
Jo Sayers
John Wedgwood
Pound
Jon Tetley
Joy Howells
Freelance Forester, Jane.gronow@virgin.net
Campaign Development Officer, Woodland Trust joburris@woodland-trust.org.uk
Mersey Forest, josayers@merseyforest.org.uk
Rural Affairs Team, GOWM
JPOUND.GOWM@go-regions.gsi.gov.uk
Heartwoods, jonathan@fscheartwoods.fsnet.co.uk
Resources for Change, joy@r4c.org.uk
Page 4 of 10

Joyce Taban
Judy Walker
Katie Eastaugh
Ken Grainger
UoW MSc student, y.y.taban@wlv.ac.uk
Green Wood Trust, director@greenwoodtrust.org.uk
Herefordshire Sustain, katie.eastaugh@smallwoods.org.uk
Senior Lecturer, Equality Development, ken.grainger@wlv.ac.uk
Mersey Forest, maccarding@merseyforest.org.uk
Mac Carding
Madhu Subedi
Martin Sutton
Mary Thornton
Mike Greenland
Pat Colgan
Paul Tabbush
Pete Stringer
Peter Scholes
School of Applied Sciences, m.subedi@wlv.ac.uk
Woodland Officer, Telford and Wrekin Authority martin.sutton@telford.gov.uk
Shrewsbury & Atcham BC
Mary.thornton@shrewsbury.gov.uk
Interface NRM, mike@interface-nrm.co.uk
Green Arc, greenarc@staffordshire.gov.uk
Forest Research, paul.tabbush@forestry.gsi.gov.uk
Red Rose Community Forest, pete@redroseforest.co.uk
Countryside Officer, Cannock Chase
PeterScholes@cannockchasedc.gov.uk
UoW, CIDT Head of Centre, p.n.dearden@wlv.ac.uk
Philip Dearden
Rachel Roland UoW, Citrus Project Manager, r.j.roland@wlv.ac.uk
Richard Robertson Forest Stewardship Council UK, richard@fsc-uk.demon.co.uk
Rupert Johnson
Russell Rowley
Safaa Osman
Scott Jones
Simon West
Steve Evison
Steve Morris
Steve Saunders
Walsall Borough Council, johnsonr@walsall.gov.uk
Small Woods Association, russellrowley@smallwoods.org.uk
Community Worker, Wolverhampton safagalal@hotmail.com
UoW, CIDT Forest for People Group, p.s.jones@wlv.ac.uk
FC West Midlands, Simon.west@forestry.gsi.gov.uk
Resources for Change, steve@r4c.org.uk
Forest of Mercia steve.morris@staffordshire.gov.uk
Susan McGavin
Terry Blyde
Tom Freeland
Zena Simms ssaunders@w-n-c.org
Head of Neighbourhood Mgt, Dudley
Susan.mcgavin@dudley.gov.uk
Head of Parks & Amenities, Walsall, blydet@walsall.gov.uk
NUFU, t.freeland@nufu.org.uk
GOWM, ZSIMMS.GOWM@go-regions.gsi.gov.uk
Page 5 of 10

Question and Answer Session held after the first 3 presentations
Helen Townsend, Forestry Commission England
Simon West, Forestry Commission, West Midlands
Pete Stringer, Red Rose Community Forest
Q. How did the green streets programme begin?
A. Essentially a demand led programme, started by Groundwork but then developed its own momentum
Q. How does the Forestry Commission actively promote social exclusion?
A. Through Forest Enterprise and ranger outreach, grants for projects and community forests
Q. What evidence is there that projects influence policy?
A. Anecdotal, trying to evaluate to measure impact of projects, difficult to measure, lots of intangibles. Forest Research are evaluating projects.
Q. Not convinced that policy linkages are strong enough
A. Health linkages we know are strong, there is a need to evaluate practice and outcomes and then work to mainstream it.
A. Regional Forest Framework (RFF) has a role to play in evaluation and mainstreaming
Q. Red Rose 3-D tool is excellent – words are not as good as interaction
A. 3-D spatial planning is excellent for all sorts of purposes but works particularly well as a participatory tool – kids love using the street tool
Q. How does the RFF address community involvement?
A. The Framework is strategic, aspirational. Delivery plans need to be developed on site and be project specific.
A. One idea is to have exemplar projects developed into case studies of community engagement
A. Forestry Commission staff do have training in community development
A. Community engagement remains a new idea for foresters – we should be working alongside experts like youth workers or social inclusion experts
Page 6 of 10

Question and Answer session held after the 4 th – 7 th presentations
Katie Eastaugh, Herefordshire Sustain Project
Steve Morris, Three Dales Project, Staffordshire County Council
Paul Tabbush, Forest Research
Mike Greenland, Interface NRM
Q Green Streets used forestry as a means to tackle fundamental issues of social exclusion. The other projects seemed much more about getting people in to woodlands and not about social exclusion. Is this a fair observation?
A. New Deal is about dealing with core issues in social exclusion.
A. Its about identifying excluded groups and working with them however that might be – we have an under utilised natural resource which can be exploited for social inclusion gains
Q. In reference to targets by Government, how far do they accept qualitative data?
A. There is a need to influence government departments as to the benefits of qualitative data. The recent Cabinet Office report ‘Quality in Qualitative Evaluation:
A framework for assessing research evidence’ is certainly a step in the right direction
Q. How do the results of qualitative research effect woodland grants?
A. There is growing flexibility – regional discretion in how grants are allocated
Final Open discussion held at end of day
• Better leaflets required to advertise the seminar - the title could have been more focused on social inclusion rather than woodlands
• There is a need to work with front line people OR middle managers and get them to filter up/down the message that forestry is trying to project
• Private forests represent ca 52% of woodland. This represents a key resource but it is not being represented here.
• The Black Environment Network (BEN), Regeneration through Environmental
Action (REACT) and the Countryside Agency’s ‘Diversity Review’ – resources which are looking at minority access as an issue and which should be availed.
• There is a wide scope and range of expertise in the West Midlands and plenty examples of best practice. However, there is poor dissemination, and pulling together of lessons.
Page 7 of 10

In the afternoon all workshop participants worked in groups of about 10 each to dialogue and come up with recommendations against two key questions. The record of these deliberations are given below.
GROUPS 1 & 2: Two groups focussed their discussion on the following question
WHAT ARE THE KEY CONCEPTS FOR ESTABLISHING & RUNNING A
SOCIAL INCLUSION PROJECT ?
After a session of discussion on the issue the breakout groups proposed the following list of guidelines to be considered in reference to the project cycle:
1. Awareness raising
2. Define social inclusion for the project team
3. Define project aims and objectives e.g. People empowerment Or Forestry specific/site etc
4. Identify stakeholders in planning stage – hopefully leads to a snowball effect, identifying more stakeholders as you go.
5. Involve primary stakeholders (socially excluded and woodland owners) from the onset to build ownership
6. Define a strategy for reaching the most socially excluded and be clear on why we are seeking to involve people: e.g. history, partnerships, current understanding of issues, mapping and linkages, objectives, levels of involvement, resources
7. Project designers/implementers should maintain a constant dialogue with donors and partners to maximise chances of gaining support and funds.
8. Use continuous participatory appraisal as a monitoring tool to adjust and keep project on track
9. Build sustainability measures (lasting impact beyond project duration) into project design. Be prepared for long time scales with community projects
10. Build in cross sectoral linkages
11. Disseminate lessons learnt from project (summary of essential key points) - this should be a project output with a budget and not an afterthought.
Key Thoughts
• It is difficult to come out with generic concepts – all communities and therefore projects, are different
• A key theme is meeting the needs of target groups
• The project should contain within it the idea of sustainability and should work towards a coherent exit strategy
• It is likely that good conflict resolution skills will be necessary at some stage
• There should not be too many preconceptions or assumptions with an emphasis on process learning
Page 8 of 10

GROUPS 3 & 4: Two groups focussed their discussion on the following question
HOW CAN THE FOREST INDUSTRY ENGAGE MORE EFFECTIVELY
WITH SOCIAL INCLUSION PROFESSIONALS & ORGANISATIONS?
After a session of discussion on the issue the breakout groups proposed the following list of ideas:
1. We need to introduce the relevance of the environment/forestry to social issues.
2. We need to speak the language of social inclusion and demonstrate our credibility with people working in the field.
3. Bottom-up approach, working with frontline officers, promoting ownership and benefits. Work in partnerships
4. Political influence (local) - Movers and shakers are in urban areas and need to be involved.
5. Advocacy – select the right people for discussion of wider benefits
6. Both urban and rural landscapes have relevant groups or targeting
7. Cultural exchange – linkages between culture and environment. Themed events relevant to the everyday
8. Publish articles and case studies in Social Inclusion journals and websites, and present at Social Inclusion workshops
9. Provision of financial incentives for woodland access to public/private woodlands
(including the National Trust and Woodland Trust) to open opportunities for excluded groups to enjoy green spaces.
1. How would you rate the day as a whole (please circle)?
Three quarters of those who completed evaluation sheets recognised the day as being valuable for them, whilst no respondents signalled that the day had been of no value.
2. What were the three most useful sessions?
The presentations were seen as the most useful sessions overall. Particular mention was made of Red Rose Forest, the Forest of Mercia, project monitoring and evaluation, and the Forestry Commission policy framework.
Delegates also particularly appreciated the afternoon workshop sessions and the general opportunities for discussion, questions and answers.
Page 9 of 10

3. What could have been included/excluded, or arranged in a different way, to have made the day more useful for you?
There were almost as many different responses as respondents! - However, some key points included:
(1) The afternoon group discussions could perhaps have:
• had a tighter remit (or alternatively been less prescriptive)
• been longer
• been more of them during the day
Networking is clearly an extremely important function of events like this and so the need to perhaps have a greater number of workshop sessions and a clear hour for lunch.
(2) Some respondents expressed disappointment that a broader range of Delegates were not present including land owners, BME groups, Health workers etc.
(3) It would also have been good to hear from Regional Funding bodies in addition to the Forestry Commission.
4. What follow-up would you like from today’s meeting?
Respondents suggested that follow-up could include a summary of workshop findings, best practice examples, case studies, a social inclusion forum and stakeholder meetings. There was also a desire expressed amongst delegates to establish a network for sharing ideas and further workshops on issues like BME group inclusion.
5. Any other comments?
• Would very much like to be contacted if there are seminars/workshops of this nature again within reachable location
• Found the discussions in the breaks the most useful, would like to have more space for discussion instead and the lighting was poor at start. But I’m really glad the event happened, we should have more!
• Longer breakout sessions
• Thank you for holding the day in Telford, and not in a larger place e.g. London. It is fantastic to be able to come to an event close to home for once.
• Best time keeping of any conference I have been to this year!
• Thank you!
• Nice venue & good visuals, thanks
• OK
• Not sure how event was publicised – we just found it on a website trawl!
• Too much concentration on BMEs and relevance to social exclusion rather than attention to more general and fundamental socio-economic class issues
• A rural setting for meetings as well!!
• Too long – lose one of the case studies
• In future – direct and critical feedback from participating communities.
• Information on social inclusion from sectors with more experience
Page 10 of 10