Doc. Number: AD 36-A-06 Doc. Version date: 20 Mar. 08 SGS QUALIFOR (Associated Document) Page: 1 of 32 SGS South Africa (Qualifor Programme) 58 Melville Road, Booysens - PO Box 82582, Southdale 2185 - South Africa Systems and Services Certification Division t +27 11 681-2500 f +27 11 681-2543 www.sgs.com SGS South Africa (Qualifor Programme) 58 Melville Road, Booysens - PO Box 82582, Southdale 2185 - South Africa Systems and Services Certification Division t +27 11 681-2500 f +27 11 681-2543 www.sgs.com FOREST MANAGEMENT CERTIFICATION REPORT SECTION A: PUBLIC SUMMARY Project Nr: 1001-GB Client: The Wildlife Trust for Lancashire, Manchester & North Merseyside Web Page: www.wildlifetrust.org/lancashire Address: Headquarters Office, The Barn, Berkeley Drive, Bamber Bridge, Preston, Lancashire, PR5 6BY Country: England, UK Certificate Nr. SGS-FM/CoC-005065 Certificate Type: Forest Management – SLIMF category (Small & Low Intensity Managed Forest) Date of Issue 8 August 2008 Date of expiry: 7 August 2013 Forest Zone: Temperate Total Certified Area 306.44 ha Scope: Forest Management of the Wildlife Trust for Lancashire, Manchester & North Merseyside woodlands in northwest England including the production of softwood/hardwood timber. Company Contact Person: John Lamb Address: The Barn, Berkeley Drive, Bamber Bridge, Preston, Lancashire, PR5 6BY Tel: 01772 324129 Fax 01772 628849 Email: [email protected]Evaluation dates: Main Evaluation 9 tth April 2008 Surveillance 1 22 nd July 2009 Surveillance 2 Surveillance 3 Surveillance 4
Transcript
Doc. Number: AD 36-A-06 Doc. Version date: 20 Mar. 08
SGS QUALIFOR (Associated Document)
Page: 1 of 32
SGS South Africa (Qualifor Programme) 58 Melville Road, Booysens - PO Box 82582, Southdale 2185 - South AfricaSystems and Services Certification Division t +27 11 681-2500 f +27 11 681-2543 www.sgs.com SGS South Africa (Qualifor Programme) 58 Melville Road, Booysens - PO Box 82582, Southdale 2185 - South AfricaSystems and Services Certification Division t +27 11 681-2500 f +27 11 681-2543 www.sgs.com
FOREST MANAGEMENT CERTIFICATION REPORT
SSEECCTTIIOONN AA:: PPUUBBLLIICC SSUUMMMMAARRYY
Project Nr: 1001-GB
Client: The Wildlife Trust for Lancashire, Manchester & North Merseyside
Certificate Nr. SGS-FM/CoC-005065 Certificate Type: Forest Management – SLIMF category
(Small & Low Intensity Managed Forest)
Date of Issue 8 August 2008 Date of expiry: 7 August 2013
Forest Zone: Temperate
Total Certified Area 306.44 ha
Scope: Forest Management of the Wildlife Trust for Lancashire, Manchester & North Merseyside woodlands in northwest England including the production of softwood/hardwood timber.
1. SCOPE OF CERTIFICATE ..........................................................................................................................4 2. COMPANY BACKGROUND........................................................................................................................7
2.1 Ownership ........................................................................................................................................................... 7 2.2 Company Key Objectives .................................................................................................................................... 8 2.3 Organisation History............................................................................................................................................ 8 2.4 Organisational Structure...................................................................................................................................... 8 2.5 Ownership and Use Rights.................................................................................................................................. 8 2.6 Other Land Uses ................................................................................................................................................. 8 2.7 Non-certified Forests ........................................................................................................................................... 8
3. Group Management ....................................................................................................................................9 4. FOREST MANAGEMENT SYSTEM ............................................................................................................9
4.1 Bio-physical setting ............................................................................................................................................. 9 4.2 History of use ...................................................................................................................................................... 9 4.3 Planning process................................................................................................................................................. 9 4.4 Harvest and regeneration.................................................................................................................................... 9 4.5 Monitoring processes .......................................................................................................................................... 9
5. SOCIO-ECONOMIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONTEXT .........................................................................9 5.1 Social aspects ..................................................................................................................................................... 9 5.2 Environmental aspects ...................................................................................................................................... 10 5.3 Administration, Legislation and Guidelines........................................................................................................ 10
6. CHANGES IN MANAGEMENT, HARVESTING, SILVICULTURE AND MONITORING ..........................11 7. PREPARATION FOR THE EVALUATION ................................................................................................11
8. THE EVALUATION ....................................................................................................................................12 8.1 Opening meeting ............................................................................................................................................... 12 8.2 Document review............................................................................................................................................... 12 8.3 Sampling and Evaluation Approach................................................................................................................... 12 8.4 Field assessments............................................................................................................................................. 13 8.5 Stakeholder interviews ...................................................................................................................................... 13 8.6 Summing up and closing meeting ..................................................................................................................... 13
9. EVALUATION RESULTS...........................................................................................................................13 9.1 Findings related to the general QUALIFOR Programme ................................................................................... 14
PRINCIPLE 1: Compliance with law and FSC Principles .................................................................................... 14 PRINCIPLE 2: Tenure and use rights and responsibilities .................................................................................. 15 PRINCIPLE 3: Indigenous peoples’ rights........................................................................................................... 15
AD 36-A-06 Page 3 of 32
PRINCIPLE 4: Community relations and workers rights ..................................................................................... 16 PRINCIPLE 5: Benefits from the forest .............................................................................................................. 17 PRINCIPLE 6: Environmental impact................................................................................................................. 18 PRINCIPLE 7: Management plan ....................................................................................................................... 19 PRINCIPLE 8: Monitoring and evaluation ........................................................................................................... 20 PRINCIPLE 9: High Conservation Value Forests................................................................................................ 21 PRINCIPLE 10: Plantations .................................................................................................................................. 22
10. CERTIFICATION DECISION......................................................................................................................23 11. MAINTENANCE OF CERTIFICATION ......................................................................................................24 12. RECORD OF CORRECTIVE ACTION REQUESTS (CARs) ....................................................................26 13. RECORD OF OBSERVATIONS ................................................................................................................27 14. RECORD OF STAKEHOLDER COMMENTS AND INTERVIEWS ...........................................................30 15. RECORD OF COMPLAINTS .....................................................................................................................32
ASSOCIATED DOCUMENTS (not part of the Public Summary)
AD 20: Evaluation Itinerary
AD 21: Attendance Record
AD 26: Corrective Action Requests
AD 36-B: Evaluation - Observations and Information on Logistics
AD 36-C: Evaluation – Information on Group Members
AD 38: Peer Review Report
AD 40: Stakeholder Reports
Evaluation team CV’s
List of stakeholders contacted
Complaints and Disputes
Procedures for submitting complaints, appeals and disputes, and the SGS processing of such are published on www.sgs.com/forestry. This information is also available on request – refer contact details on the first page.
AD 36-A-06 Page 4 of 32
INTRODUCTION
The purpose of the evaluation was to evaluate the operations of the Lancashire Wildlife Trust (LWT) against the requirements of the QUALIFOR Programme, the SGS Group’s forest certification programme accredited by the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC).
1. SCOPE OF CERTIFICATE The scope of the certificate falls within the Temperate Forest Zone and includes 21 Forest Management Units (FMUs) organised into five Areas’ as described below. Each of these FMUs has its own management plan.
Description of FMUs: Description Ownership Area (ha) Longitude E/W Latitude N/S
Long/Lat of HQ. All FMUs are within a 100 Km of HQ.
2’38” West 53’40” North
Astley Moss, Greater Manchester Area
LWT 5.50
Aughton Woods, Northern Area LWT 29.14
Boilton Woods, Central Area LWT / Preston City Council
8.09
Booths Plantation, Central Area LWT / National Grid
4.67
Cross Hill Quarry, Eastern Area LWT / Ribble Valley Borough Council
9.18
Dean Wood, Central Area LWT / United Utilities
7.12
Foxhill Bank, Eastern Area LWT / Hyndburn Borough Council
8.89
Freshfield Dune Heath, North Merseyside Area
LWT 2.90
Haskayne Cutting, Central Area LWT / United Utilities
5.50
Heysham Moss, Northern Area LWT 9.16
Howick Hall Wood, Central Area LWT / National Grid
0.53
Longworth Clough LWT 33.51
Lord’s Lot Bog, Northern Area LWT / Forestry Commission
1.20
Mere Sands Wood, Central Area LWT 42.04
Moor Piece, Eastern Area LWT / Bashall Eaves Estate
19.30
Pleasington, Central Area LWT / Blackburn with Darwen Borough Council
4.00
Red Scar/Tunbrook/Nab Woods, Central Area
LWT/ Church Commissioners
63.76
AD 36-A-06 Page 5 of 32
Description of FMUs: Description Ownership Area (ha) Longitude E/W Latitude N/S
Salthill Quarry, Eastern Area LWT / Ribble Valley Borough Council
8.87
Summerseat, Greater Manchester Area
LWT / United Utilities
6.72
Warton Crag, Northern Area LWT / Leighton Hall Estate
34.57
Willow Farm Wood, Central Area LWT 1.79
Total 306.44
Size of FMUs:
Nr of FMUs Area (ha)
Less than 100ha 21 306.44
100 to 1000 ha in area
1001 to 10000 ha in area
More than 10000 ha in area
Total 21 306.44
Total Area in the Scope of the Certificate that is:
Area (ha)
Privately managed 306.44
State Managed
Community Managed
Composition of the Certified Forest(s)
Area (ha)
Area of forest protected from commercial harvesting of timber and managed primarily for conservation objectives
306.44
Area of forest protected from commercial harvesting of timber and managed primarily for production of NTFPs or services
0
Area of forest classified as “high conservation value forest” 97.87
Total area of production forest (i.e. forest from which timber may be harvested) 0
Area of production forest classified as “plantation”
*(LWT is in the process of converting these areas from plantation to nature reserve.)
*33.8
Area of production forest regenerated primarily by replanting 0
Area of production forest regenerate primarily by natural regeneration 33.8
List of High Conservation Values Description Notes
AD 36-A-06 Page 6 of 32
List of High Conservation Values Description Notes
There are European (e.g. Special Area of Conservation – SAC) or UK (e.g. Site of Special Scientific Interest – SSSI) conservation designations in some of the forests under application for certification. There are also areas of Ancient Semi-Natural Woodland. ‘Ancient’ = established woodland in continuous existence since before 1600 in England.
These areas are included within the area of forest protected from commercial harvesting of timber and managed primarily for conservation objectives and the areas classified as HCVF.
List of Timber Product Categories Product Class Product Type Trade Name Category Species
Annual Timber Production Maximum Annual Sustainable Yield (m3) Species (botanical name) Species (common name) Area (ha)
Projected Actual
No timber or NTFPs have been or are currently produced.
Totals 0 0 0
List of Timber Product Categories Product Notes
None
Totals
Approximate Annual Commercial Production of Non-Timber-Forest-Products Species Product
Botanical Name Common Name)
Unit of measure Total units
No timber or NTFPs have been or are currently produced.
None 0
2. COMPANY BACKGROUND
2.1 Ownership
The Lancashire Wildlife Trust manages all of its reserves, but only own some of these (see Section 1 above). Long term security for woodland management & wildlife conservation for the non-LWT owned sites, which are owned by local authorities, private landowners and private companies, is provided by a variety of long term leases and licence agreements. LWT owns and manages other nature reserves
AD 36-A-06 Page 8 of 32
which are non-woodland and are not included in its forestry certification portfolio, but which it manages with a similar ethic of sustainability aimed at conserving wildlife.
2.2 Company Key Objectives
Objective Notes
Commercial None
Social To provide regulated access to its nature reserves, strengthen links with local communities and work in partnerships with landowners and other organisations.
Environmental To conserve wildlife species and habitats through the conservation management of its reserves and through the acquisition of further appropriate sites.
2.3 Organisation History
LWT was founded in 1962 and is now one of 47 local Wildlife Trusts in the British Isles. It is a company limited by guarantee and an independent charity that is responsible to its local membership.
2.4 Organisational Structure
LWT is headed by a Director and Deputy Director. There are 18 permanent technical staff and up to 90 total staff including many employed on a temporary basis and many volunteers. Variable numbers of contractors are employed to do reserve management works.
2.5 Ownership and Use Rights
The Lancashire Wildlife Trust manages all of its reserves, but only own some of these (see Section 1 above). Long term security for woodland management & wildlife conservation for the non-LWT owned sites, which are owned by local authorities, private landowners and private companies, is provided by a variety of long term leases and licence agreements. LWT owns and manages other nature reserves which are non-woodland and are not included in its forestry certification portfolio, but which it manages with a similar ethic of sustainability aimed at conserving wildlife
Public access is encouraged except for some situations where access needs to be limited (usually by issuing permits) to safeguard the ecology of a particular site.
The Trust has a policy to seek to acquire additional land that will support the conservation of priority habitats and species as set out in national and regional BAPs and HAPs and that will contribute to the development of accessible community or urban conservation green space, particularly where sites of local biodiversity importance are involved.
2.6 Other Land Uses
LWT owns or manages a total of 32 nature reserves. The 11 non-woodland nature reserves that are not included in its forestry certification portfolio are managed with a similar ethic of sustainability aimed at conserving wildlife.
2.7 Non-certified Forests
No forest areas managed by LWT are excluded from certification.
AD 36-A-06 Page 9 of 32
3. GROUP MANAGEMENT Not a Group Scheme
4. FOREST MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
4.1 Bio-physical setting
Not required for SLIMF
4.2 History of use
Not required for SLIMF
4.3 Planning process
• Woodland management falls within the Trust’s operational management and financial planning system. Strategic aims are largely focused on maintaining and enhancing biodiversity. Individual reserve requirements are assessed at Conservation Committee and Management meetings and agreed actions costed and budgeted in Reserve budgets. This involves forward planning and budgeting with cost control and budget reviews on a periodic basis.
• The Director and Deputy Director refer to guidance contained within the Trust’s Environmental & Social policies which include public access, social inclusion, health & safety and biodiversity. These in turn take account of national legislation and policy. Revised policies and operational procedures are communicated to operational staff via regular management meetings and training courses when appropriate and use of e-mail.
• The certification process has reinforced the need to monitor progress against objectives within woodland management plans. Financial monitoring is via internal cost control by Conservation Officers.
4.4 Harvest and regeneration
No timber has been or is currently harvested.
4.5 Monitoring processes
The certification process has reinforced the existing process for the monitoring of conservation operations plus environmental and social impact.
5. SOCIO-ECONOMIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONTEXT
5.1 Social aspects
Number of own workers 18
Number of contract workers variable
Minimum daily wage for agricultural/forestry workers >UK minimum wage
Infant mortality rates (under 5 years) Negligible in UK
Proportion of workers employed from the local population (%) Variable & low. Local people are employed, but few need to be
employed from the local population for the scale of work concerned. It
involves contractors & machinery as required. Local employment is
appropriate for scale and intensity of
AD 36-A-06 Page 10 of 32
operations.
The social conditions in the main commercially productive conifer forest areas of the UK are similar, involving mainly Scotland, Wales, parts of Northern England and Northern Ireland. The rural economy is fragile within them all. There is a wide diversity of nationalities and cultures in the north of England. Woodlands in the UK often support economic regeneration policies and their consequent amenity and recreational benefits to nearby urban populations (e.g. the urban areas of North West England, the English Midlands, Southern England and the Central Belt of Scotland).
The UK now has a minimum wage structure and health and education standards are relatively high and comparable with the rest of Western Europe. Infant mortality is very low and literacy rates are very high.
The UK timber production and processing industry is under economic pressure from the relatively high currency value of UK sterling and the impact of timber imports. The increase in UK landfill tax has meant that recycling of paper and card waste products has greatly increased, resulting in less demand for raw timber for these products. The overall effect has been serious reduction in timber prices to the disadvantage of timber growers in particular. This is another aspect of the pressures on the UK rural economy where farming is also under serious economic pressure.
Issues relating to amenity, specifically access and recreation are of major importance in the overall context of rural land management in the UK.
The legal access situation has recently changed in all three countries. The general thrust is to legally increase the public’s opportunities for access subject to following a formalised code of responsible behaviour.
In England and Wales the areas being opened up under the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 (CROW) are usually mountain, moor, heath, down and registered common land. The new rights cover most recreation activities carried out on foot, including walking, sightseeing, bird watching, climbing and running. Walking dogs must be on a lead in certain situations. The new right of open access does not include cycling, horse riding, driving a vehicle or camping unless already permitted. Gardens, parks and arable land are excluded together with closures and restrictions by farmers and landowners for up to 28 days for any reason or long term if necessary for land management, safety or fire prevention reasons. The “Countryside Code” launched in July 2004 is the official advice that supports the CROW Act.
The new legislation started to come into effect from September 19th 2004, applying to designated regions of England with completion at the end of 2005. Some landowners are dedicating areas for permanent open access, e.g. the Forestry Commission.
LWT encourages public access on the land that it manages but uses a permit system to limit impacts on some sensitive conservation sites. Formalised Public Rights of Way exist in some woodlands and are fully respected.
5.2 Environmental aspects
Not required for SLIMF.
5.3 Administration, Legislation and Guidelines
Not required for SLIMF projects but covered under the section of this report (does not form part of the public summary) which includes the UK Woodland Assurance Standard (UKWAS) checklist. The UKWAS checklist forms a key part of this report and refers to relevant administration, legislation and guidelines for forest management in the UK.
The following table lists the key national legislation, regulations, guidelines and codes of best practice that are relevant to forestry in the commercial, environmental and social sectors. This list does not purport to be comprehensive, but indicates information that is key to the forestry sector.
Legislation and regulation Notes
AD 36-A-06 Page 11 of 32
Not required for SLIMF.
Guidelines and Codes of Best Practice Notes
Not required for SLIMF.
6. CHANGES IN MANAGEMENT, HARVESTING, SILVICULTURE AND MONITORING The following table shows significant changes that took place in the management, monitoring, harvesting and regeneration practices of the certificate holder over the certificate period.
Description of Change Notes
SURVEILLANCE 1
No significant changes
SURVEILLANCE 2
SURVEILLANCE 3
SURVEILLANCE 4
7. PREPARATION FOR THE EVALUATION
7.1 Schedule
Given the SLIMF category status of the woodlands, a formal pre-evaluation by SGS QUALIFOR was not required. Nevertheless, a significant amount of pre-evaluation consultation between SGS and LWT took place via telephone discussion and e-mail correspondence. This briefly examined the management systems and sought to identify any significant gaps that might preclude certification. Information gathered was used to plan the main evaluation. Key stakeholders were identified via the SLIMF requirements for consultation.
7.2 Team
The table below shows the team that conducted the main evaluation and the independent specialist(s) that were selected to review the main evaluation report before certification is considered.
Evaluation Team Notes
Team Leader Qualifications and experience: Forester’s certificate, a 1st class honours degree in ecology and a PhD in wildlife management, with over 45 years experience of temperate forest ecology in the UK and overseas. Over 200 days FSC auditing inc. overseas.
Local Specialist
AD 36-A-06 Page 12 of 32
Local Specialist
Peer Reviewers Notes
Peer Reviewer 1 Not required for SLIMF
Peer Reviewer 2
Peer Reviewer 3
7.3 Checklist Preparation
A checklist was prepared that consisted of the documents listed below. This checklist was prepared using the FSC-endorsed national or regional standard.
A copy of this checklist is available on the SGS Qualifor website, www.sgs.com/forestry.
Standard Used in Evaluation Effective Date Version Nr Changes to Standard
FSC Accredited National Standard for United Kingdom- UKWAS
2006 2
7.4 Stakeholder notification
As per SLIMF procedure, a range of stakeholders were contacted 30 days before the planned evaluation by the certification candidate to inform them of the evaluation and ask for their views on relevant forest management issues, These included environmental interest groups, local government agencies and forestry authorities, forest user groups, and workers’ unions. Responses received and comments from interviews are recorded under paragraph 14 of this Public Summary.
8. THE EVALUATION The Main Evaluation was conducted in the steps outlined below.
8.1 Opening meeting
An opening meeting was held at LWT HQ, Bamber Bridge, Preston. The scope of the evaluation was explained and schedules were determined. Record was kept of all persons that attended this meeting.
8.2 Document review
A review of the main forest management documentation was conducted to evaluate the adequacy of coverage of the QUALIFOR Programme requirements. This involved examination of policies, management plans, systems, procedures, instructions and controls.
8.3 Sampling and Evaluation Approach
A detailed record of the following is available in section B of the evaluation report. This section does not form part of the public summary, but includes information on:
Sampling methodology and rationale;
FMUs included in the sample;
Sites visited during the field evaluation; and
Man-day allocation.
AD 36-A-06 Page 13 of 32
The evaluation took place over a single day. Policies, strategies and management planning documentation were examined and staff interviews held at HQ. Six sites in Northern, Eastern and Central Areas, were visited and interviews held with local managers.
8.4 Field assessments
Field assessments aimed to determine how closely activities in the field complied with documented management systems and QUALIFOR Programme requirements. Interviews with staff, operators and contractors were conducted to determine their familiarity with and their application of policies, procedures and practices that are relevant to their activities. A carefully selected sample of sites was visited to evaluate whether practices met the required performance levels.
8.5 Stakeholder interviews
Not required for SLIMF
Nr of Interviews with Nr of Stakeholders contacted
NGOs Government Other
MAIN EVALUATION
Not required with SLIMF 1 1 1
SURVEILLANCE 1
1 6 1
SURVEILLANCE 2
SURVEILLANCE 3
SURVEILLANCE 4
8.6 Summing up and closing meeting
At the conclusion of the field evaluation, findings were presented to company management at a closing meeting. Any areas of non-conformance with the QUALIFOR Programme were raised as one of two types of Corrective Action Request (CAR):
Major CARs - which must be addressed and re-assessed before certification can proceed
Minor CARs - which do not preclude certification, but must be addressed within an agreed time frame, and will be checked at the first surveillance visit
A record was kept of persons that attended this meeting.
9. EVALUATION RESULTS Detailed evaluation findings are included in Section B of the evaluation report. This does not form part of the public summary. For each QUALIFOR requirement, these show the related findings, and any observations or corrective actions raised. The main issues are discussed below.
AD 36-A-06 Page 14 of 32
9.1 Findings related to the general QUALIFOR Programme
Criterion 1.1 Respect for national and local laws and administrative requirements
Strengths
Weaknesses
Compliance During the audit evidence as described in this report was clearly available and indicative of compliant woodland management practices in all but a few examples (noted in this report). Wildlife legislation is listed in the Reserve Managers Handbook. Staff had a good understanding of legal requirements, including public access, health & safety and illegal use of the woodlands. There are no substantiated claims of non-compliance with the law.
Staff interviewed had a sound working knowledge of available health & safety, forest practice and biodiversity conservation guidance. Codes of Practice are held at HQ. There are written procedures available for reporting crimes to the police.
Criterion 1.2 Payment of legally prescribed fees, royalties, taxes and other charges
Strengths
Weaknesses
Compliance LWT comply with all financial charges in connection with their woodland management. This includes rental payments for their long term lease arrangements and Value Added Tax on the cost of materials and services.
Criterion 1.3 Respect for provisions of international agreements
Strengths There was a particularly strong interest and knowledge of European environmental legislation.
Weaknesses
Compliance Managers demonstrated a strong awareness of relevant international agreements and their impact on forest management in the UK.
Criterion 1.4 Conflicts between laws and regulations, and the FSC P&C
Strengths
Weaknesses
Compliance No identified conflicts. There is no evidence of substantiated outstanding claims of non-compliance related to woodland management. No legal disputes are current.
Criterion 1.5 Protection of forests from illegal activities
Strengths
Weaknesses
Compliance Managers are fully aware of the potential and real problems, which are acute at some urban sites. Extremely good involvement of local people and the appointment of volunteer reserve wardens and volunteer teams are very effective in combating illegal use.
Criterion 1.6 Demonstration of a long-term commitment to the FSC P&C
Strengths The LWT Headquarters building at Bamber Bridge is a ‘state-of-the-art’ example of sustainable development. It demonstrates a strong commitment to sustainable practices.
Weaknesses Observation 01 Although a commitment has been clearly made, there was no signed declaration of this by the Chief Executive available at audit. This has subsequently been made available.
Compliance Management Plans seen (Foxhill Bank, Dean Wood, Moor Piece, Red Scar) demonstrate a strong commitment to maintaining the ecological integrity of these sites. The Business Plan 2006-2010 includes many objectives aimed at fulfilling this commitment. There is a public statement available on the LWT website and an article is planned for a future edition of the
Criterion 2.1 Demonstration of land tenure and forest use rights
Strengths
Weaknesses Legal ownership or tenure is not clear for all parts of all properties. The database contained anomalies between total area and woodland area. The detail of tenure was not given in some cases. Minor CAR 01 was raised.
Compliance This information was provided soon after the audit and the CAR closed.
Title deeds are held at HQ with copies in Site Management files. There is a database (‘Sites for UKWAS certification, April 2008’) showing all properties proposed for certification along with their location, area and tenure.
Criterion 2.2 Local communities’ legal or customary tenure or use rights
Strengths
Weaknesses
Compliance No permissive or traditional uses, other than the provision of recreation, were encountered. LWT operates an open access policy to the public apart from restricted use in some areas to limit human impacts at sensitive sites.
Criterion 2.3 Disputes over tenure claims and use rights
Criterion 4.1 Employment, training, and other services for local communities
Strengths
Weaknesses
Compliance All required conditions and qualifications are subject to a Contract of Works. Trained staff and volunteers are required to hold appropriate certificates. LWT are involved with local industry bodies that promote training (e.g. Northern Rural Training (chainsaws). Millhouse Training Services and Morgan Training Services are corporate members of LWT. Staff records of training are maintained by LWT and there is a training budget. LWT sites are used for training purposes.
Criterion 4.2 Compliance with health and safety regulations
Strengths Observation The employment and management of volunteer workers, including the appointment of Volunteer Reserve Managers, is exemplary and demonstrates the effective use of human resources, public inclusion and a strong commitment to health & safety and training issues.
Weaknesses Observation 05 A footbridge over a watercourse at Aughton Woods had been closed off with tapes and a sign erected. However, as this bridge provided the only reasonable way to cross the gully, more definite means of closure should be employed.
Evidence for this action being taken has since been received and this observation is closed.
Compliance LWT have a dedicated officer responsible for Health & Safety issues. This involves reviewing all LWT operations and advising colleagues on compliance with H & S regulations, including updates on new legislation. The officer’s remit enables the stopping of any non-compliance and issuing an internal LWT corrective action. There is a series of LWT H&S Guidance Notes which amplify requirements by LWT managers and these assist with overall compliance .
Criterion 4.3 Workers’ rights to organise and negotiate with employers
Strengths
Weaknesses
Compliance Employees are encouraged to interact with LWT management and are not prevented from joining a trade union.
Criterion 4.4 Social impact evaluations and consultation
Strengths Observation The use of eminent specialists on the Conservation Committee represents excellent use of a volunteer resource and demonstrates an open and transparent way of dealing with management issues.
Weaknesses Observation 03: Generic stakeholder lists are included in Management Plans, which omit some stakeholders. These should be amended to include all local individuals and organisations relevant to each plan eg Youth Group at Foxhill Bank.
Compliance Public consultation takes place via the EFGS process administered by the FC and also through LWT’s own efforts to make contact, e.g. with their own Wildlife Trust members and funding partners, local interest groups, neighbouring landowners and visiting members of the general public, Royal Society for the Protection of Birds etc. There is further scope to do so via the LWT website. Information derived from such consultation is then incorporated into management planning.
Criterion 4.5 Resolution of grievances and settlement of compensation claims
Strengths
Weaknesses
AD 36-A-06 Page 17 of 32
Compliance Complaints by local people about facilities at Foxhill Bank have been effectively dealt with by LWT.
Criterion 5.1 Economic viability taking full environmental, social, and operational costs into account
Strengths
Weaknesses
Compliance Suitable financial records showing budgets with income and expenditure were seen that related to management planning and proposed operations. LWT have an extensive track record over many years of successfully funding their organisation and its operations. Income is received via membership subscriptions, public donations, private sponsorship and government grants including the FC.
Production is not a primary aim of LWT and no timber sales are currently planned. There is a strong commitment to biodiversity conservation and the LWT Business Plan and individual site budgets (e.g. Foxhill Bank) demonstrate effective planning to meet objectives.
Criterion 5.2 Optimal use and local processing of forest products
Strengths
Weaknesses
Compliance No processing currently occurs. A major objective on all reserves is biodiversity conservation.
Criterion 5.3 Waste minimisation and avoidance of damage to forest resources
Strengths
Weaknesses
Compliance Good evidence of adherence to UK Guidelines at Moor Piece, Foxhill Bank and Aughton Wood. Staff interviewed had a good working knowledge of the requirements in guidelines. Recent conservation felling at Aughton Wood and Moor Piece has been done very sensitively.
Criterion 5.4 Forest management and the local economy
Strengths
Weaknesses Observation 02: The LWT ‘Procedure for Reporting Incidents’ does not include ‘fire’. An additional paragraph detailing fire precautions and actions to be taken in the event of fire should be added.
Compliance A revised version of the LWT ‘Procedure for Reporting Incidents’ has since been received. An additional paragraph detailing fire precautions and actions to be taken in the event of fire has been added. This observation is closed.
LWT are strongly committed to the use of local contractors and volunteers and are successful at generating considerable local support around their reserves.
Criterion 5.5 Maintenance of the value of forest services and resources
Strengths
Weaknesses
Compliance Management Plans seen (Foxhill Bank, Dean Wood, Moor Piece, Red Scar) demonstrate full compliance with this requirement. Management of all LWT areas is primarily aimed at biodiversity conservation and public recreation.
Weaknesses Observation 04: at Foxhill Bank, archaeological sites (stone walls, etc) are present that appear to require conservation measures. Consultation is required with the local archaeologist to assess the requirements.
Compliance This has been done and an archaeologist’s report has been passed to the Conservation Committee for appraisal.
No significant operations are planned. Management Plans and site visits (Aughton Wood, Foxhill Bank, Dean Wood, Moor Piece, Red Scar) indicate a highly sensitive approach to maintenance tasks. There is a very substantial knowledge of ecological components and species and management is aimed at conserving these. Management Prescriptions and Work Programmes provide details of work proposed. These include analyses of potential impacts, consultation with stakeholders, and the protection of special features and natural resources.
The shooting agreement at Moor Piece is an attachment to a 35 year lease and therefore LWT has limited control over it. The Trust has expressed its disagreement with the shooting of woodcock on the nature reserve but has achieved a compromise that a maximum of 6 can be shot each year in the short-medium term. This is unlikely to affect the viability of the local population.
Criterion 6.2 Protection of rare, threatened and endangered species
Strengths Observation The appointment of a full-time water vole officer demonstrates a recognition of, and commitment to, biodiversity conservation in general and to this important declining species in particular.
Weaknesses
Compliance Rare, threatened and endangered species and habitats are carefully protected by a committed staff of managers and volunteers. Management Plans and the ‘Nature Reserve Guide’ detail special features and the means of managing their conservation.
Criterion 6.3 Maintenance of ecological functions and values
Strengths Observation: At all sites visited there were large amounts of standing and lying dead wood. Even at sites used by the public, dead wood has been conserved in appropriate places so as not to jeopardise public safety. Officers interviewed were very knowledgeable and committed to the conservation of this resource. This represents exemplary compliance.
Weaknesses
Compliance All sites are managed with biodiversity conservation as a major objective. Natural regeneration is the primary means of regeneration. Group felling at Aughton Wood represents a bold and inspirational commitment to improving the structure of the wood and securing its regeneration.
Criterion 6.4 Protection of representative samples of existing ecosystems
Strengths
Weaknesses
Compliance The important natural resources are carefully protected by a committed staff of managers and volunteers. Management Plans and the ‘Nature Reserve Guide’ detail special features and the means of managing their conservation.
All designated sites are managed in close agreement with the statutory bodies. All sites are mapped and identified in Management Plans.
Criterion 6.5 Protection against damage to soils, residual forest and water resources during operations
Strengths
AD 36-A-06 Page 19 of 32
Weaknesses
Compliance Good evidence of adherence to national guidelines on soil and water conservation at Moor Piece, Foxhill Bank and Aughton Wood. Staff interviewed had a good working knowledge of the requirements in guidelines.
Criterion 6.6 Chemical pest management
Strengths
Weaknesses
Compliance LWT objectives are consistent with very low use of pesticides. Small quantities of Glyphosate are used to control Rhododendron ponticum on a few sites. Contractors are made aware of all legal and H&S requirements. Reserve Managers have received training in chemical use. Records of chemicals used are maintained.
Criterion 6.7 Use and disposal of chemicals, containers, liquid and solid non-organic wastes
Strengths
Weaknesses
Compliance LWT produce little waste from forestry activities. However, they are diligent at maintaining their properties free of litter and are registered as a professional collector and transporter of controlled waste (Waste Management Regulations, 1994, etc).
Criterion 6.8 Use of biological control agents and genetically modified organisms
Strengths
Weaknesses
Compliance No BCAs or GMOs are used by LWT.
Criterion 6.9 The use of exotic species
Strengths
Weaknesses
Compliance No exotic species are introduced by LWT on any of its reserves.
Criterion 6.10 Forest conversion to plantations or non-forest land uses
Strengths
Weaknesses
Compliance No conversion to plantations occurs on LWT managed land. LWT objectives are largely about conserving and enhancing biodiversity and any conversion would only occur if there was measurable gain in biodiversity, e.g. removal of trees from lowland raised bog or species rich grassland.
Strengths Management Plans are exceptional and well above the requirements for such woodlands.
Weaknesses
Compliance Management Plans seen (Foxhill Bank, Dean Wood, Moor Piece, Red Scar) demonstrate full compliance with this requirement. Management of all LWT areas is primarily aimed at biodiversity conservation and public recreation. There is no significant felling planned. There are no significant operations planned. Maintenance work seen is in close agreement with details in Management Plans (Aughton Wood, Foxhill Bank, Dean Wood, Moor Piece, Red Scar).
AD 36-A-06 Page 20 of 32
Criterion 7.2 Management plan revision
Strengths
Weaknesses
Compliance There is a commitment to review Management Plans every five years. The Dean Wood plan has been recently revised.
Criterion 7.3 Training and supervision of forest workers
Strengths
Weaknesses
Compliance All required conditions and qualifications are subject to a Contract of Works. Trained staff and volunteers are required to hold appropriate certificates.
Criterion 7.4 Public availability of the management plan elements
Strengths Observation. The use of eminent specialists on the Conservation Committee represents excellent use of a volunteer resource and demonstrates an open and transparent way of dealing with management issues.
Weaknesses Observation 03: Generic stakeholder lists are included in Management Plans, which omit some stakeholders. These should be amended to include all local individuals and organisations relevant to each plan, e.g. Youth Group at Foxhill Bank.
Details for East Lancashire were provided on 14 May 2008. Confirm position for Central, Northern, Greater Manchester and North Merseyside Areas at next surveillance.
Compliance There is very good consultation over management planning. Management plans are publicly available either via the FC public register during EFGS applications or from the LWT head office.
Public interpretation panels are used as appropriate.
Criterion 8.1 Frequency, intensity and consistency of monitoring
Strengths
Weaknesses Management Plans seen (Foxhill Bank, Dean Wood, Moor Piece, Red Scar) include prescriptions for monitoring. However, a documented plan for monitoring, consistent with management objectives is not available for all woodlands. SSSI sites depend upon Natural England Site Condition Monitoring information, which is not always available. LWT must ensure that there is a documented plan for monitoring for all sites. Minor Car 02 was raised.
Compliance Management Plans seen (Foxhill Bank, Dean Wood, Moor Piece, Red Scar) indicate a commitment to make use of monitoring data. Conservation Committee meetings agree required actions following monitoring.
A documented plan for monitoring all sites was provided on 14 May 2008. The plan considered specifically what information they need to collect and record in order to monitor progress towards their management objectives for each individual FMU, and that the information shall be collected, addressing both appropriate frequency and intensity, relevant to the scale and intensity of management.
Consequently CAR 02 is closed.
Criterion 8.2 Research and data collection for monitoring
Strengths
Weaknesses See 8.1 above.
Compliance Management Plans seen (Foxhill Bank, Dean Wood, Moor Piece, Red Scar) include prescriptions for monitoring and some monitoring has taken place, e.g. SSSI condition monitoring, records of flora and fauna, etc. Such monitoring is ongoing but will be reviewed as
AD 36-A-06 Page 21 of 32
it has not been systematic and clearly linked to management planning. See CAR 02 as per above under 8.1. .
Criterion 8.3 Chain of custody
Strengths
Weaknesses
Compliance No timber is currently produced but LWT staff are aware of principles and required procedure.
Criterion 8.4 Incorporation of monitoring results into the management plan
Strengths
Weaknesses
Compliance Management Plans seen (Foxhill Bank, Dean Wood, Moor Piece, Red Scar) indicate a commitment to make use of monitoring data and include prescriptions for monitoring. Some monitoring has taken place, e.g. SSSI condition monitoring, records of flora and fauna, etc. Such monitoring is ongoing but will be reviewed as it has not been systematic and clearly linked to management planning. See CAR 02 as per above under 8.1.
Criterion 8.5 Publicly available summary of monitoring
Strengths
Weaknesses
Compliance A summary of monitoring results will be available in Management Plans and in reports to the Conservation Team and Conservation Committee. Management plans are new and based on the FC’s new EFGS template. The plans make it clear that monitoring results are to be analysed and incorporated into future reviews of management planning.
Criterion 9.1 Evaluation to determine high conservation value attributes
Strengths In all areas of conservation and enhancement of biodiversity there is a very good pro-active approach to the identification of areas and features of significance for biodiversity, appropriate to likely biodiversity value, e.g. European and UK BAP species and habitats.
Weaknesses
Compliance There are European (e.g. Special Area of Conservation – SAC) or UK (e.g. Site of Special Scientific Interest – SSSI) conservation designations in some of the forests under application for certification. There are also areas of Ancient Semi-Natural Woodland. ‘Ancient’ = established woodland in continuous existence since before 1600 in England. These HCVF woodland habitats are designated by the government’s statutory body with responsibility for conservation – Natural England. Designation is confirmed with LWT via correspondence with NE and site constraints checking with the FC when making management plan / grant scheme applications.
These important natural resources are carefully protected by a committed staff of managers and volunteers. Management Plans and the ‘Nature Reserve Guide’ detail such special HCVF features and the means of managing their conservation.
Criterion 9.2 Consultation process
Strengths Observation: The use of eminent specialists on the Conservation Committee represents excellent use of a volunteer resource and demonstrates an open and transparent way of dealing with management issues.
Weaknesses Observation 03 Generic stakeholder lists are included in Management Plans, which omit some important stakeholders. These should be amended to include all local individuals and organisations relevant to each plan, e.g. Youth Group at Foxhill Bank.
Details for East Lancashire was provided on 14 May 2008. Confirm position for South Lancs, North Lancs, Greater Manchester and Merseyside at next surveillance.
Compliance There is also good evidence of communication and / or consultation with statutory bodies, local
AD 36-A-06 Page 22 of 32
authorities and other relevant organisations, e.g. FC, Natural England, RSPB.
There is very good consultation over management planning. Management plans are publicly available either via the FC public register during EFGS applications or from the LWT head office.
Criterion 9.3 Measures to maintain and enhance high conservation value attributes
Strengths
Weaknesses
Compliance As well as ongoing positive management of their Ancient Semi-Natural Woodland (ANSW) and SSSIs, of particular note is LWT’s contribution to conservation of certain UK BAP fauna & flora. Many species inc. those with European protected status, e.g. water vole, are being managed for their conservation and enhancement.
Criterion 9.4 Monitoring to assess effectiveness
Strengths Observation The use of eminent specialists on the Conservation Committee represents excellent use of a volunteer resource and demonstrates an open and transparent way of dealing with monitoring information.
Weaknesses Management Plans seen (Foxhill Bank, Dean Wood, Moor Piece, Red Scar) include prescriptions for monitoring. However, a documented plan for monitoring, consistent with management objectives is not available for all woodlands. SSSI sites depend upon Natural England Site Condition Monitoring information, which is not always available. LWT must ensure that there is a documented plan for monitoring for all sites. Minor Car 02 was raised.
A documented plan for monitoring all sites was provided on 14 May 2008. Consequently this CAR is closed.
Compliance Management Plans seen (Foxhill Bank, Dean Wood, Moor Piece, Red Scar) indicate a commitment to make use of monitoring data and include prescriptions for monitoring. Some monitoring has taken place, e.g. SSSI condition monitoring, records of flora and fauna, etc. Such monitoring is ongoing but will be reviewed as it has not been systematic and clearly linked to management planning. Conservation Committee meetings agree required actions following monitoring but the effectiveness of this process is also being reviewed as part of the overall response to CAR 02.
Criterion 10.1 Statement of objectives in the management plan
Strengths
Weaknesses
Compliance LWT does not manage woodlands as plantations. A small area of former plantation at Moor Piece is being restructured.
Criterion 10.2 Plantation design and layout
Strengths
Weaknesses
Compliance LWT does not manage woodlands as plantations. A small area of former plantation at Moor Piece is being restructured.
Criterion 10.3 Diversity in composition
Strengths
Weaknesses
Compliance LWT does not manage woodlands as plantations. A small area of former plantation at Moor Piece is being restructured and diversified.
AD 36-A-06 Page 23 of 32
Criterion 10.4 Species selection
Strengths
Weaknesses
Compliance LWT does not manage woodlands as plantations. A small area of former plantation at Moor Piece is being restructured and diversified.
Criterion 10.5 Restoration of natural forest
Strengths
Weaknesses
Compliance LWT does not manage woodlands as plantations and there are no PAWS. A small area of former plantation at Moor Piece is being restructured.
Criterion 10.6 Impacts on soil and water
Strengths
Weaknesses
Compliance LWT does not manage woodlands as plantations. A small area of former plantation at Moor Piece is being restructured.
Criterion 10.7 Pests and diseases
Strengths
Weaknesses
Compliance LWT does not manage woodlands as plantations. A small area of former plantation at Moor Piece is being restructured.
Criterion 10.8 Monitoring of impacts, species testing and tenure rights
Strengths
Weaknesses
Compliance LWT does not manage woodlands as plantations. A small area of former plantation at Moor Piece is being restructured.
Criterion 10.9 Plantations established in areas converted from natural forests after November 1994
Strengths
Weaknesses
Compliance LWT does not manage woodlands as plantations. A small area of former plantation at Moor Piece is being restructured. No plantations have been established by LWT.
10. CERTIFICATION DECISION SGS considers that LWT’s forest management of its forests, in north west England can be certified as:
i. There are no outstanding Major Corrective Action Requests
ii. The outstanding Minor Corrective Action Requests do not preclude certification, but LWT is required to take the agreed actions before the next surveillance. These will be verified by SGS QUALIFOR at the first surveillance to be carried out about 6 months from the date of the issuance of the certificate. If satisfactory actions have been taken, the CARs will be ‘closed out’; otherwise, Minor CARs will be raised to Major CARs.
AD 36-A-06 Page 24 of 32
iii. The management system, if implemented as described, is capable of ensuring that all of the requirements of the applicable standard(s) are met over the whole forest area covered by the scope of the evaluation;
iv. The certificate holder has demonstrated, subject to the specified corrective actions, that the described system of management is being implemented consistently over the whole forest area covered by the scope of the certificate.
11. MAINTENANCE OF CERTIFICATION During the surveillance evaluation, it is assessed if there is continuing compliance with the requirements of the Qualifor Programme. Any areas of non-conformance with the QUALIFOR Programme are raised as one of two types of Corrective Action Request (CAR):
.01 Major CARs - which must be addressed and closed out urgently with an agreed short time frame since the organisation is already a QUALIFOR certified organisation. Failure to close out within the agreed time frame can lead to suspension of the certificate.
.02 Minor CARs - which must be addressed within an agreed time frame, and will normally be checked at the next surveillance visit
The full record of CARs raised over the certification period is listed under section 12 below.
The table below provides a progressive summary of findings for each surveillance. A complete record of observations demonstrating compliance or non-compliance with each criterion of the Forest Stewardship Standard is contained in a separate document that does not form part of the public summary.
SURVEILLANCE 1
Issues that were hard to assess
None
Number of CARs closed No outstanding CARs.
Nr of CARs remaining open No outstanding CARs.
New CARs raised 0 New Major CARs and 0 Minor CARs were raised.
Certification Decision The forest management of the forests of The Wildlife Trust for Lancashire, Manchester & North Merseyside remains certified as:
The management system is capable of ensuring that all of the requirements of the applicable standard(s) are met over the whole forest area covered by the scope of the evaluation; and
The certificate holder has demonstrated, subject to the specified corrective actions, that the described system of management is being implemented consistently over the whole forest area covered by the scope of the certificate.
SURVEILLANCE 2
Issues that were hard to assess
Number of CARs closed
Nr of CARs remaining open
Nr of New CARs raised
Certification Decision
SURVEILLANCE 3
Issues that were hard to assess
Number of CARs closed
Nr of CARs remaining open
AD 36-A-06 Page 25 of 32
Nr of New CARs raised
Certification Decision
SURVEILLANCE 4
Issues that were hard to assess
Number of CARs closed
Nr of CARs remaining open
Nr of New CARs raised
Certification Decision
AD 36-A-06 Page 26 of 32
12. RECORD OF CORRECTIVE ACTION REQUESTS (CARS)
CAR # Indicator CAR Detail
Date Recorded>
9 April 2008
Due Date>
Next surveillance
Date Closed>
14 May 2008
Non-Conformance:
Legal ownership or tenure is not clear for all parts of all properties.
Objective Evidence:
The table of ‘Sites for UKWAS certification, April 2008’ contains anomalies between total area and woodland area. The detail of tenure is not given in some cases.
Close-out evidence:
01 (MA) 1st Cert
UKWAS
1.1.3
A revised table of ‘Sites for UKWAS Certification’ has been provided (on 14 May 2008) which contains accurate information on tenure and areas.
CAR 01 closed.
Date Recorded>
9 April 2008
Due Date> Next surveillance Date Closed> 14 May 2008
Non-Conformance:
A documented plan for monitoring, consistent with management objectives is not available for all woodlands.
Objective Evidence:
SSSI sites depend upon Natural England Site Condition Monitoring information, which is not always available. LWT must ensure that there is a documented plan for monitoring for all sites.
Close-out evidence:
02 (MA) 1st Cert
UKWAS
2.3.2
A documented plan for monitoring all sites was provided on 14 May 2008.
CAR 02 closed.
Date Recorded> dd mmm yy Due Date> dd mmm yy Date Closed> dd mmm yy
Non-Conformance:
Objective Evidence:
Close-out evidence:
AD 36-A-06 Page 27 of 32
13. RECORD OF OBSERVATIONS OBS # Indicator Observation Detail
Date Recorded> 9 April 2008 Date Closed> 14 April 2008
Observation:
Although a commitment to conformance with the standard has been made there is no signed declaration of this by the Chief Executive.
Follow-up evidence:
01 UKWAS 1.1.5
This has since been received and this observation is closed.
Date Recorded> 9 April 2008 Date Closed> 14 May 2008
Observation:
The LWT ‘Procedure for Reporting Incidents’ does not include ‘fire’. An additional paragraph detailing fire precautions and actions to be taken in the event of fire should be added.
Follow-up evidence:
02 UKWAS 5.1.5
This has since been received and this observation is closed.
Date Recorded> 9 April 2008 Date Closed> 22 July 2009
Observation:
Generic stakeholder lists in Management Plans do not include local individuals and organisations relevant to each plan, e.g. Youth Group at Foxhill Bank.
Details for Eastern Area was provided on 14 May 2008. Confirm position for Central, Northern, Greater Manchester and North Merseyside Areas at next surveillance.
Follow-up evidence:
03 UKWAS 7.1.1
Stakeholder lists are available and now include both regional and local representatives and individuals. The lists for Central and Greater Manchester were checked in some detail and those for Northern and North Merseyside were sampled. This check confirmed compliance. LWT have also confirmed during interview that further phone numbers and E-mail addresses will be added when they become available.
Date Recorded> 9 April 2008 Date Closed> 24 April 2008
Observation:
At Foxhill Bank, archaeological sites (stone walls, etc) are present that appear to require conservation measures. Consultation is required with the local archaeologist to assess the requirements.
Follow-up evidence:
04 UKWAS 7.4.1
This has been done and an archaeologist’s report has been passed to the Conservation Committee for appraisal.
Date Recorded> 9 April 2008 Date Closed> 14 May 2008
Observation:
A footbridge over a watercourse at Aughton Woods had been closed off with tapes and a sign erected. However, as this bridge provided the only reasonable way to cross the gully, more definite means of closure should be employed.
Follow-up evidence:
05 UKWAS 7.4.2
Evidence for this action being taken has since been received and this observation is closed.
Date Recorded> 22 July 2009 Date Closed> open 06 UKWAS 2.1.1
Observation:
AD 36-A-06 Page 28 of 32
OBS # Indicator Observation Detail
A robust system of management planning is in place and moving to the new CMS 7 package will enable plans to be updated on a regular basis without having to wait for 5 year revisions. However, when the plans are printed out in hard copy they become very difficult to follow, especially by people not used to the system. A summary package is available from the manufacturers and should be implemented. There is also a problem with printing out maps, which needs to be addressed. The plans all have the generic LWT vision which should be replaced by a vision specific to each site.
Follow-up evidence:
Date Recorded> 22 July 2009 Date Closed> open
Observation:
A plan for monitoring all sites has been produced and 5 out of 22 UKWAS sites have been surveyed in detail. To date this information has not been analysed, summarised and made available to the public in a form they can understand. However, this task is in progress and it is the role of the recently appointed Reserves Manager to bring this information together for all of the sites. This will be revisited at the next surveillance.
A number of species and habitats are monitored at Mere Sands- birds (inc. waterfowl), moths, dragonflies, damselflies & butterflies, amphibians & reptiles, ground flora, woodland structure and meadow. However, the results aren’t yet clearly analysed and summarised.
Follow-up evidence:
07 UKWAS 2.3.2 – 2.3.6
Date Recorded> 22 July 2009 Date Closed> open
Observation:
The clearance of trees from wetland reserves is commendable but must be fully justified and carried out with care. Each site should have a Transition Plan which includes monitoring of the habitat before and after the clearance has taken place.
Follow-up evidence:
08 UKWAS 3.5.1
Date Recorded> 22 July 2009 Date Closed> open
Observation:
With the move to the CMS 7 package, there is a reduced need for revision of Management Plans every 5 years. There is, therefore, a need for a fixed date to trigger stakeholder consultation. Stakeholder lists are available and include both regional and local representatives and individuals. Further phone numbers and E-mail addresses need to be added when they become available.
Community consultation over site plans and proposals relies heavily upon the Friends and similar groups and key interested individuals. Currently, this small but key sub-section of the community is listened to, the plan is written and the group is informed of the conclusions. Instead, a wider group could be consulted and the report back could be at an earlier draft stage so that modifications could be made before the final version is produced.
Follow-up evidence:
09 UKWAS 7.1.1
Date Recorded> 22 July 2009 Date Closed> open
Observation:
Whilst there is a good example of a site visit to Foxhill Bank with the Council’s Special Advisor (Archaeology), in many cases maps are produced of cultural sites without interpretation of the cultural features shown on them.
10 UKWAS 7.4.1
Follow-up evidence:
AD 36-A-06 Page 29 of 32
OBS # Indicator Observation Detail
Date Recorded> Date Closed>
Observation:
Follow-up evidence:
Date Recorded> Date Closed>
Observation:
Follow-up evidence:
Date Recorded> Date Closed>
Observation:
Follow-up evidence:
AD 36-A-06 Page 30 of 32
14. RECORD OF STAKEHOLDER COMMENTS AND INTERVIEWS Nr Comment Response
Main Evaluation
1 Government – Re.woodland management. On site meetings occur at the outset during which planning, operations, maintenance and conservation are discussed and a mutually beneficial solution is gained. During my experience of interacting with LWT, I have always found them to be co-operative, helpful and above all professional in their approach to woodland management and customer service.
Noted.
2 ENGO – Some disagreement over the management of one reserve in the past but now resolved and a good working relationship is in place.
Noted.
3 Other (private company) – Some faltering communication when a change of manager but now much improved. Overall, a very good working relationship.
Noted.
Surveillance 1
4 Local Government- I am pleased to confirm that the Lancashire Wildlife Trust manages the Foxhill Bank Local Nature Reserve in a pro-active and professional way. The management arrangements are done in conjunction with a management group of local volunteers and this well balanced arrangement has been working successfully now for 21 years.
In relation to the woodland management aspects, I believe that good practice methodologies are used to review the condition of individual trees and the management requirements overall, in balance with other habitat considerations, community use and activities.
Noted and forwarded to LWT.
5 Private company- As a Company we have worked closely with Lancashire Wildlife on a number of projects within the Ribble Valley and have a continuing relationship working on two environmental projects on the edge of our Ribbesdale Works in Clitheroe Lancashire. At all times the people from the trust have been excellent, their knowledge and work ethic and enthusiasm are exemplary.
Noted and forwarded to LWT.
AD 36-A-06 Page 31 of 32
Nr Comment Response
Main Evaluation
6 Government- It is with the greatest of pleasure to be able to comment upon the fact that the Lancashire Wildlife Trust are carrying out sterling work to manage their woodlands in a sustainable way. Natural England is most impressed with some major woodland works that have already been carried out in restoring natural woodland cover with a number of SSSIs notably Redscar and Tunbrook Woods near Preston and also Burton Wood near Lancaster in the north of the county. I hope that my comments will convince you that their accreditation remains valid as regards the UK’s Woodland Assurance Scheme.
